Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 5 June 2015

July 2014

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nick Young (basketball) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nick Young (basketball) was changed by Handpolk (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887304 on 2014-07-20T03:09:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Controversy Restrictions

Hi there! Editing the article and talk page of Gamergate controversy is limited to editors with 500+ contributions and accounts that are older than 30 days. The first requirement is an issue here, so I've removed your edit to the talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me here or ask them on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I assumed I had 500 edits. Can you copy what I said to the page? It was clearly constructive. The lede is non-neutral. I'd ask you to fix it if you have time. I also just noticed it's treated as a BLP. Many of those accusations should be removed as they are poorly sourced. Handpolk (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not willing to copy what you've said to the page, sorry- that would be against the spirit of the restriction. The best way forward is probably just continuing your normal editing of Misplaced Pages until you've reached 500 edits. You can see the number of edits you've made here. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Handpolk, I expect you're somewhat confused by this exchange. Let me clarify: Peter was one of the editors who helped craft the lede. He's fiercely resisted any change and denied any bias, despite a number of editors like yourself objecting. In fact, his account has few edits outside this topic area (as his signature indicates) and is likely an alternate account, created specifically to edit this and related articles. If you're genuinely interested in contributing I'd suggest contacting a different editor. A word of warning however - in addition to the above requirement the article is subject to 1RR and guarded by a number of editors similar to Peter. Editors who've attempted to bring it into compliance were repeatedly reverted, and either left in frustration or banned from participating. Good luck. 104.156.240.173 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear there is strong bias on the article, however in his actions here I don't see any problem. He is just enforcing the rules of the article. And he's probably right that it would be against the spirit of the restrictions for him to paste in what I said. Handpolk (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows principles rather than precise rules, and the principle is that there has been too much repetitive discussion of settled points at Talk:Gamergate controversy (38 pages of archives since September 2014). Zad68 clarified in this edit (archived here) that "The editing requirements for the subpage will be the same 500/30 requirements as for the article and the Talk page". That applied to the first subpage, but the same principle applies to any other "meta" discussion moved to a subpage, such as Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta. In your comment at User talk:Zad68#Gamergate you included a link to a reddit.com page which you described as showing 136 people speaking in unison—it is precisely that kind of off-site campaigning that led to WP:ARBGG and the need for the 500/30 procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand why it exists. That is not a reason to dismiss the feedback of those 136 people. One viewpoint is winning on this article. That is the opposite of neutrality. Handpolk (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Talk page and subpages

Hi Handpolk, the Gamergate Talk page and (now) its Meta subpages are all subject to the same 500/30 restriction. It wasn't clear before so no worries about your edits at the subpage up to this point, but now that the 500/30 restriction is clear, please abide by it. Thanks... Zad68 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't that restriction put in place via arbitration? I don't understand how you have the authority to unilaterally alter their decision. Handpolk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The 500/30 restriction was enacted as an Arbitration Enforcement action, under the authority of the WP:ARBGG decision. Zad68 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, and you just went against their decision. Unless it specifically mentions meta and sub pages. Handpolk (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your AE appeal is now reformatted, you may make your arguments there. Zad68 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your appeal request at Arbitration Enforcement

Hi Handpolk, you appear to want to appeal an Arbitration Enforcement action at WP:AE. AE is the correct noticeboard to do this, but you have to use the Appeal template (in the Editnotice you get when you create a new section at AE) to format your request properly. Please reformat your request or it may be closed without action. Thank you... Zad68 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to do that after reading through that wall of confusing text for over five minutes. So I just deleted it all and stated what I was asking for. I think I was very clear. Handpolk (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The AE page is unlike most other Misplaced Pages pages because AE does not host threaded discussions, but rather individual statements, and the formation of consensus happens among uninvolved administrators rather than the general community. The template supports those points, that's why we ask that AE requests use the template. Would you mind if I formatted it for you properly? Zad68 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all. I would appreciate it. So long as you don't alter my message. Handpolk (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Zad68 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If I understood that correctly, I could have appealed this to you. I was not aware either that you were the enforcing administrator nor that I could have appealed it to you. I just saw somewhere it could be appealed there, so I did it. Handpolk (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. For the record, had you appealed to me directly, I would have declined the appeal and encouraged you to keep editing productively in other areas (as you have been!) to build up to 500 edits. Zad68 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

context for the AE discussion

Before I comment at the AE, I am wondering if you would let me know what your response to my answer about policy would have been. Initial portion of the discussion removed as off topic for the meta page -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a valid argument. Media coverage has been very one sided so the article reflects that. However there must be some guideline or policy for dealing with situations where the media themselves are extremely biased. I can't imagine the Ron Paul article, for example, portrays him as a nutjob, as the media does. The difference of course being that Ron Paul sympathizers likely run that article, whereas it seems abundantly clear that anti-Gamergaters run this one. So in the end my response would be an appeal to objectivity. I would ask everybody to put their views, beliefs and biases aside and try to create the best encyclopedia that we can. Here that means telling both sides of the story. Neutrally. Handpolk (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No one "runs" an article. If you look through the talk page and its archives, you'll find editors with a wide variety of opinions on Gamergate, both editors who are critical, those who are sympathetic and those who are in-between. We do rely on reliable sources and if they don't exist to support some interpretations, those points of view won't be represented in the article. That doesn't mean that additional, different reliable sources won't appear in the future. Liz 20:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus runs an article and humans make up consensus. If consensus is one viewpoint, that viewpoint runs the article. That is happening on this article. As is asserted, with various wordings, by every GG supporter I have seen discuss this article on Misplaced Pages or off of it. They are not all lying or wrong. The anti-GG crowd all uses the same language you used. 'We are just using reliable sources and enforcing Misplaced Pages policy (to have the article written EXACTLY as we want it)". So, let me guess, you are anti-GG. Right? Handpolk (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits at Tamil films

Handpolk, regarding your edits here... Removing overlinking is helpful, of course, but can you explain why you're choosing to do it one link at a time, instead of all in one edit? Zad68 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)