Misplaced Pages

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Response To McGeddon

Please do not correct information I've added to articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be apathetic and have been assumed racist. If you believe the information you deleted was incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making assumptions again. If you would like to experiment, use any convenient gloryhole for anonymity.

I created MINOR edits as they should not be in review nor disputed before public knowledge. I added her family members. Her sisters to be specific. Susan Silverman (oldest sister) and Jodyne L Speyer (youngest sister "step-sister" specifically). All information is correct. I added info to her partners although not all of them. Joe Franklin raped her as a child - it specifies that in the Misplaced Pages entry. I simply added the dates. Dave Attell & Colin Quinn both banged Sarah early in her career - is correct. Jimmy Kimmel was posted twice for differing timelines - is correct. Donald Sterling Owner of the LA Clippers was added because that's hilarious - is correct. Michael Sheen and Sarah MAY be dating. They are friends and they MAY be promoting her appearance on the Masters Of Sex SHOWTIME series. It may be a media prank that you've allowed to remain. LASTLY: Your definition of vandalism is very different from my own; as mine should be corrected as performance art literature. Thank you. j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (GMT)

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding 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, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorized for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi there! The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page is restricted to being edited by editors who have had an account for at least 30 days (not a problem in your case) and have at least 500 edits. Per this restriction, I have removed your comment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's in your best interest to note the restriction. --NeilN 04:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For clarification; A 500 edit minimum I can work through, but this entry in (TALK) < /br>

Women Of Action Media is a website that works closely in relation with Twitter & other social mediums to push immediate action against online harassment. WAM & Twitter's Abuse Problem. In a detailed report released May 13, 2015 on PDF WAM indicated that only 43% of victims actually report harassment. Whereas 57% of the reports were provided by the "Twitter Followers" of the alleged victim. A collection of said reports mention #gamergate specifically; Although WAM's investigation states "death threats", "rape threats", "doxxing", "bullying", "harassment", etc ... had very little to do with the #GamerGate hashtag at all.

It was also removed because it's a "primary source"? The very organization that works with Twitter to address abuse & harassment can not be a source without a completely separate source to back it up? --j0eg0d (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi j0eg0d. The WAM Report can be used, but we can't interpret it. We can make a clear statement, such as "According to WAM, 12% of accounts that were allegedly used to send harassment were identified as Gamergate supporters". However, we can't judge the importance of the report, as we judge the importance by looking at how people use it and refer to it, which means it is hard to know how much to emphasise the findings. We also can't interpret the report in any way, because that is something we aren't allowed to do. Misplaced Pages's role is that of a tertiary source, reporting on what primary and (most importantly) secondary sources say, rather than engaging in research ourselves. - Bilby (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bilby ... I understand. But there's still some question to what "source materials" can & can not be "viable".

For example an article by Fast Company by Sarah Kessler extends the narrative of the 12% findings;

Gamergate made up only a small percentage of reports of online harassment. Though the Gamergate controversy has been one the most visible stories about online harassment in the mainstream media over the past year or two, only about 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts reported to WAM could be linked to it.

Kessler also noted that Twitter only deleted one account in response to the 161 reports of harassments, which lends to the same narrative that the findings presented by Women Of Action Media had determined either no really threats had occurred or Twitter was biased in removing the accounts.

Additionally an article from September 2014 in Game Politics carried a POLL asking "What Is #GamerGate About?"

Around 1,855 votes were cast (our second largest poll ever), with the majority of them going to the option, rooting out malfeasance in game journalism. Around 70% of the votes (1,298 votes) said that the Twitter hashtag #gamergate represents finding and eliminating alleged corruption in journalism. Around 13% (242 votes) said that it really depended on the person using the hashtag. While six% (119 votes) said it was about silencing those who talk about gender issues in video games. And around 5% (91 votes) said that the hashtag was meant to show that "not all gamers" are bad people. Finally, 4% (77 votes) said that they didn't know what #gamergate is & 2% (28 votes) said the #gamergate hashtag is about eliminating discussions on cultural differences in video games. Poll Image

The current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI is lacking news articles that credit any retort to the main controversy; That #gamergate is simply a hashtag and it is used by several diversities. Another website similar to WAM, known as Deep Freeze independently researches the alleged corruption of gaming journalists. Some, I might point out, have written the very articles provided in the current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI. Let alone these same journalist confer with one another through a mailing list on their Google Group Community. It was first reported by BreitBart. It included the contents of those emails along with the original email addresses. Needless to say WIKI demands viable news coverages, and the articles provided have credibility issues with the people writing them.--j0eg0d (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As a quick answer, I think the FastCompany source you provided is a good one. I need to run off to a class, but I'll see what we can use from it when I get back. Off the top of my head, though, I think it may be a better source for talking about harassment on Twitter in general, rather than GamerGate in particular, but hopefully there is something we can use. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted as there are restrictions on the article and talk page that only allow edits from editors whose accounts are at least a month old and who have at least 500 edits. You only have 499 edits so at this point, you can not contribute to the discussion on the talk page or edit the article. Liz Talk 01:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a 500 edit minimum for the TALK page? I could guess why the main article would have this restriction, but for what possible purpose could anyone need to limit a TALK page?
--j0eg0d (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an issue under discussion. It is an unusual level of protection, but GamerGate is an unusual situation to try and manage, as the off-site coordination causes issues. It is intended as a temporary measure, but it is one that we currently need to work within. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

there's some discussion on the topic over here. Your voice would be appreciated (at least by me) Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi J0eg0d, Please accept my apologies for the rudeness in collapsing some of your post at this page. I'm afraid it's likely to be considered off topic or WP:FORUM, and get you into more trouble that it's worth. Other editors can still read the information by clicking on the "show" link. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed two individuals Jorm & Alsee ignoring (discounting) the collapsed thread all together. I couldn't tell if this was from short-sightedness or if a thread being collapsed is so readily dismissed? I'm trying not to repeat myself in this page but languid observations were unforeseen. Must I entertain deficient remarks, or will I experience a greater number? --j0eg0d (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi J0eg0d, To give you the best advice, I'll need to have a look at that thread & a wee think. My personal thoughts are that the "page level restriction" that's preventing you from commenting at the Article Talk page disproportionate; but that is still the right place for the comment that I collapsed. From my observations here, if you post somewhere where it's off topic, you'll likely face a ban or block.

If I can offer some advice without having seen the latest in that thread, and therefore without passing any comment on other editors... sometimes the best thing to do on Misplaced Pages is just "scroll down". We don't need to respond to everything. - Ryk72 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Understandably. My previous post in here was closed for being "off topic" - There was nothing off-topic about this. I kept it focused on the root problem; Unfair Limits on the very TALK section where communication is most needed. Is it the commonality to be silenced on a topic? How are we supposed to have an open dialogue about said limitations when my stance is both feared and opposed? This separate perspective is literally disallowed and openly targeted for not continuing the "popular opinion". I'm trying to be objectively balanced here, but this reeks of bias. --j0eg0d (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC).