This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retartist (talk | contribs) at 05:25, 14 October 2014 (→Parties' agreement to mediation: fixing indentation?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:25, 14 October 2014 by Retartist (talk | contribs) (→Parties' agreement to mediation: fixing indentation?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)