Revision as of 01:04, 8 November 2014 view sourceTaraInDC (talk | contribs)991 edits →On GG← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:41, 8 November 2014 view source The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 edits →On GGNext edit → |
Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull of shit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull of shit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
:Well, everything that you wrote doesn't belong on the article talk page, since it's ''all'' about the behavior of other editors - if not, then please point out the parts that ''don't'' talk about other editors. The posts by the other editors you mention had comments about others mixed in with valid editorial discussion, on an article talk page. As a side note, calling other editor "pov-pushers' is uncivil, and violates ]. I think the 'inaction' you're seeing on edits as you present above, is that they aren't actionable on their own. In the case of edits like that, a compilation of evidence that shows an ongoing and historical effort to bias the article would be the only way to lead to a sanction; but that can cut both ways. I'm sorry you're seeing this as an attack on you, that is certainly not my intent. ] <small>]</small> 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
:Well, everything that you wrote doesn't belong on the article talk page, since it's ''all'' about the behavior of other editors - if not, then please point out the parts that ''don't'' talk about other editors. The posts by the other editors you mention had comments about others mixed in with valid editorial discussion, on an article talk page. As a side note, calling other editor "pov-pushers' is uncivil, and violates ]. I think the 'inaction' you're seeing on edits as you present above, is that they aren't actionable on their own. In the case of edits like that, a compilation of evidence that shows an ongoing and historical effort to bias the article would be the only way to lead to a sanction; but that can cut both ways. I'm sorry you're seeing this as an attack on you, that is certainly not my intent. ] <small>]</small> 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is far from being all about their behavior, it is about their edits. Comments such as "Also, what do you call it when you edit a section to make it seem like the existence of female and minority GamerGate supporters is somehow questionable? There is nothing dubious about it" or "What they have tried to do with the notyourshield section is to attribute every statement about women and minorities being part of GamerGate so as to cast doubt on the veracity of the information and erase what they can't spin in such a manner seeing as the Washington Post acknowledges as fact that there are indeed women and minorities in GamerGate. Ryulong even takes this to the point of trimming the caption on the Sommers image to avoid mentioning her statement that the gamer generation is the least prejudiced generation. Nothing they have done is supported by policy or sourcing" may very will criticize their behavior, but there is no way you can honestly argue that this does not also concerns the changes being made to content on the article. You probably know this on some level, but simply do not give a shit because my comments go against your own opinion on the issue of GamerGate. There is not even a prohibition on mentioning or criticizing conduct of other editors of the talk page so the fact I criticized them for the edits they were making, even if you could somehow claim nothing I quoted here was criticizing the edits themselves, is not a basis for removing any part of my comments either. Not surprisingly they seem to be taking advantage of the continued enabling of partisan admins such as yourself to shove into the article. Just so you know, I am taking this to ArbCom as soon as I am able and you will be a party to that case. Obviously, no admin is going to do anything about this despite the general sanctions, just as I said when they were suggested, so it is a necessary step. The fact that editors such as Ryulong, Baranof, and Red, are able to continue this unimpeded as those opposing their flagrant disrespect for NPOV see their comments deleted and get blocked or topic-banned is an indictment of you and all other admins frequenting that topic area.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Another questionable behavior/not content post: and potentially the comment leading to it . --] (]) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
Another questionable behavior/not content post: and potentially the comment leading to it . --] (]) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull this kind of shit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)