| Revision as of 06:20, 14 October 2014 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,223 edits →Parties' agreement to mediation← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:44, 14 October 2014 edit undoWillhesucceed (talk | contribs)1,771 edits →Parties' agreement to mediationNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| ::I'm filling this per the recommendation of the mediator in the last case ] (]) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | ::I'm filling this per the recommendation of the mediator in the last case ] (]) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| #'''Partial agree'''. The issues above of Reliability of sources, user civility, BLP issues, and weighting of opinion as fact are either things that cannot be resolved either because either they are readily and easily dealt with or outside the scope of mediation (eg civility). But I will say that I think there needs to be a third party with zero stake in the controversy to help judge if the article's balance is proper or not. To the point: while the amount of reliable sourcing we can use toward the pro-Gamergate side is minimal and lacking to the point that there's no way we can expect a 50/50 split coverage of this topic, the article is presently (in my opinion) overloaded with anti-Gamergate views to the point of being preachy and villifying the other side, a point I have had difficulty trying to show this light to to other editors that seem to have emotional investment in this topic (for good reason, but as editors we have to learn to drop that at times to cover a topic fairly). So the remaining points - the percieved bias, and the weighting of the article - are both fair game for mediation. --] (]) 06:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | #'''Partial agree'''. The issues above of Reliability of sources, user civility, BLP issues, and weighting of opinion as fact are either things that cannot be resolved either because either they are readily and easily dealt with or outside the scope of mediation (eg civility). But I will say that I think there needs to be a third party with zero stake in the controversy to help judge if the article's balance is proper or not. To the point: while the amount of reliable sourcing we can use toward the pro-Gamergate side is minimal and lacking to the point that there's no way we can expect a 50/50 split coverage of this topic, the article is presently (in my opinion) overloaded with anti-Gamergate views to the point of being preachy and villifying the other side, a point I have had difficulty trying to show this light to to other editors that seem to have emotional investment in this topic (for good reason, but as editors we have to learn to drop that at times to cover a topic fairly). So the remaining points - the percieved bias, and the weighting of the article - are both fair game for mediation. --] (]) 06:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| #'''Agree''': I have some serious concerns about several of the sources being used in the article, either because of the writer or because the articles go on the word of one person involved in the matter (Zoe Quinn), concerns which I don't believe have been given proper consideration by other editors. I'd like to discuss the inclusion of one or two unconventional but otherwise reliable sources, as well. I believe some editors, whether willfully or no, have been unable to distance themselves sufficiently from the matter to do their job properly; hopefully this mediation will be able to fix that and the general lack of civility evident on the talk page. ] (]) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Decision of the Mediation Committee==== | ====Decision of the Mediation Committee==== | ||
Revision as of 08:44, 14 October 2014
GamerGate (controversy)
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.- Editors involved in this dispute
- Retartist (talk · contribs) – filing party
- PseudoSomething (talk · contribs)
- Masem (talk · contribs)
- Ryulong (talk · contribs)
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
- The_Devil%27s_Advocate (talk · contribs)
- Ranze (talk · contribs)
- Willhesucceed (talk · contribs)
- Tarc (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
Issues to be mediated
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- The reliability and validity of a variety of sources as discussed on the talk page and DRN case
- The perceived biased against gamergate in the article
- User civility
- Blp Issues
- Weighting of the article
- the presentation of opinions as fact
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.- Agree. Retartist (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. There is nothing to discuss with single-purpose accounts who have done nothing but disrupt and violate WP:BLP, a core policy of the project; they simply need to be removed from the topic area and all will be fine. Especially when the filing party's 1st edit to the topic had to be rev-deleted, and who felt that misogyny and sexism has another "side" that is unfairly represented. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you actually read my filling reason it was that at the time i felt that the article needed to be nuked then rewritten as it read like an essay on how the whole gaming industry is sexist and bad. I now realise that that was the wrong way to go about it BUT please dont misrepresent my words and use ad-hominem as an argument Retartist (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. Not really necessary. The article talk page discussion is long and convoluted enough without opening up yet another discussion that will almost certainly rehash the same issues that have been debated time and again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree: Stop fucking forum shopping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm filling this per the recommendation of the mediator in the last case Retartist (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Partial agree. The issues above of Reliability of sources, user civility, BLP issues, and weighting of opinion as fact are either things that cannot be resolved either because either they are readily and easily dealt with or outside the scope of mediation (eg civility). But I will say that I think there needs to be a third party with zero stake in the controversy to help judge if the article's balance is proper or not. To the point: while the amount of reliable sourcing we can use toward the pro-Gamergate side is minimal and lacking to the point that there's no way we can expect a 50/50 split coverage of this topic, the article is presently (in my opinion) overloaded with anti-Gamergate views to the point of being preachy and villifying the other side, a point I have had difficulty trying to show this light to to other editors that seem to have emotional investment in this topic (for good reason, but as editors we have to learn to drop that at times to cover a topic fairly). So the remaining points - the percieved bias, and the weighting of the article - are both fair game for mediation. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree: I have some serious concerns about several of the sources being used in the article, either because of the writer or because the articles go on the word of one person involved in the matter (Zoe Quinn), concerns which I don't believe have been given proper consideration by other editors. I'd like to discuss the inclusion of one or two unconventional but otherwise reliable sources, as well. I believe some editors, whether willfully or no, have been unable to distance themselves sufficiently from the matter to do their job properly; hopefully this mediation will be able to fix that and the general lack of civility evident on the talk page. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)