| Revision as of 15:59, 29 July 2017 view sourceMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,236 edits →Bannon: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:13, 8 August 2017 view source MarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,220 edits →Topic banNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| . | . | ||
| == Topic ban == | |||
| Has ] been rescinded? | |||
| The scope is: | |||
| *''All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, '''(c) people associated with (a) or (b)''', all broadly construed'' ] | |||
| Your recent edits to ] fall into (c): | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Please let me know. ] (]) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Is this writer and controversialist a person associated with a gender related controversy? He's been outspoken in defense of homosexuality and in denouncing Islam, but neither seems pertinent to the above. He wrote a little about Gamergate a long time ago, but I'm not familiar with anything he has done or said on that topic for a some years. If I'm mistaken and have overlooked some recent writing, I'll be happy to comment on any future Misplaced Pages errors on the subject in the press rather than quietly urging them here. Let me know which would better improve the project.] (]) 13:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :As the person who imposed the topic ban, I've seen those diffs. While Milo's writing about Gamergate would ''technically'' make him "associated with" Gamergate, under the broadest possible definition, the edits themselves aren't concerned with GG and he's notable for far more so that currently, GG is a minor part of the Milo story. Therefore, I don't consider these three diffs to be a violation of the topic ban. However if anybody disagrees, they are free to bring it up for review in the usual manner. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps we should ask ARCA for a ruling. In the off-wiki forum where a banned editor has been agitating over this, he is also complaining that discussing Margaret Sanger’s racial beliefs is also a topic-ban violation; that could be a second ARCA query. ] (]) 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you want to obtain clarification of the boundaries of the topic area, that is of course your prerogative. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Is the test you're applying for (c) whether the individual is primarily known for Gamergate? Yiannopoulos came to prominence with Gamergate but I agree he is not now primarily known for it. Similarly if Wu runs for office she will not be primarily known for Gamergate. That's a reasonable test but it contradicts the current language: | |||
| ::::*people ''associated'' with ... ''broadly construed'' | |||
| :::: Should the language be amended? I have no opinion on Sanger but race is plainly outside the scope of the topic. ] (]) 17:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Brianna Wu, as it happens, is running for Congress (MA-7): https://briannawu2018.com https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/18/brianna-intends-run-against-stephen-lynch/agD3TnKAkRlzlUSMN2KN9O/story.html ] (]) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Broadly construed == | == Broadly construed == | ||
Revision as of 10:13, 8 August 2017
A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive. A project which promotes and fosters racism and anti-Semitism is a menace to society.
.
Broadly construed
"Broadly construed" is one of those phrases that is intentionally vague - but it gets the general idea across without saying "anything that could possibly be related in the real world or in anybody's imagination." I don't know which of these fits the above situation best.
But I did want to say, MB, it's good to run into you again, broadly construed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I no longer support the project, @Smallbones:; it remains a danger to its volunteers. I support Google’s recent efforts to diminish its footprint, and hope this will continue. Yet one still finds oneself here from time to time, and I keep half an eye on some pages that appear to be under regular attack from white-wing extremists, and also to correct egregious blunders I happen to see. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Afternoon
Glad you are still around Mark. Koncorde (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not around, actually, and no longer support the project; see above. But I might occasionally correct egregious errors and accidents, or express an opinion when, in my view, Misplaced Pages is about to commit yet another blunder. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever it is; multiple voices, ideas and opinions are needed. Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- You may think so, but that doesn't matter. Those who could do something prefer not to; if you want to do something about that, talk to them. Meanwhile, I've sent dozens of notices to Oversight, and of course use other platforms to correct the most shocking flaws. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Bannon
The issue with the Bannon thread was resolved at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PeterTheFourth. That is, it was resolved until your revert. Now the ANI thread has been reopened. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)