TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) |
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) →Redaction revert requested: ontinued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named. |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
== Redaction revert requested == |
== Redaction revert requested == |
||
{{collapse top|Continued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=668570561 This edit] was a redaction of claimed BLP. However, it has been established in RSes by the parties affect that there is actually a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, a reporter at Kotaku, so in no way is a BLP violation. (I would AFG that Anarchyte misspoke as to Grayson's position as "chief editor", given the rest of the statement). Understanding that the relationship is established is core to the rest of the statement (a fair question on how to use Kotaku as a source given this relationship). I request that this be undone - outside of perhaps correcting the "chief editor" statement. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=668570561 This edit] was a redaction of claimed BLP. However, it has been established in RSes by the parties affect that there is actually a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, a reporter at Kotaku, so in no way is a BLP violation. (I would AFG that Anarchyte misspoke as to Grayson's position as "chief editor", given the rest of the statement). Understanding that the relationship is established is core to the rest of the statement (a fair question on how to use Kotaku as a source given this relationship). I request that this be undone - outside of perhaps correcting the "chief editor" statement. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
:::The COI that was raised is that because Kotaku was criticized over the acknowledged existence of a personal relationship, would that make them involved in the topic of GG and thus a question on the usability of the source. That's completely appropriate to ask and not a BLP issue at all. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::The COI that was raised is that because Kotaku was criticized over the acknowledged existence of a personal relationship, would that make them involved in the topic of GG and thus a question on the usability of the source. That's completely appropriate to ask and not a BLP issue at all. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::The only person named in the initial post has never been and could never have any agency in any "conflict of interest" . Attempts to continually muddy her name through repeated exposures of "but ethics" actions that never happened and have been always covered as never having happen is unacceptable and vile. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 14:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
::::The only person named in the initial post has never been and could never have any agency in any "conflict of interest" . Attempts to continually muddy her name through repeated exposures of "but ethics" actions that never happened and have been always covered as never having happen is unacceptable and vile. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 14:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 14:22, 25 June 2015
The purpose of this subpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Talk:Gamergate controversy page itself, and any meta-discussion of discussions regarding that, etc. This page is not for discussing the Gamergate controversy article itself; use the Talk page for that. The content was split off and copied here from the Talk page on 3 June 2015, and its creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. For attribution of edits prior to the move of this discussion, consult the contribution history of the Talk:Gamergate controversy page.
Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
GGC meta-discussion sanction info
- original decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive272#Removal.2FModification_of_restrictions_on_editing_on_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#ARBGG_DS_page_restriction
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#Page_level_restrictions
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#500_edit_requirement_for_editing_Gamergate_controversy_and_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
- appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk
Rather than create a new page for each move
Per precedent and AE by Zad68 and Gamaliel create this page to move a meta-discussion off the main GGC talk page. However, rather than create a new page for each move, I'm creating a Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta page and putting the move here and treating each move as a new section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Moved: Harsh language in the lede?
You will need to look at the main talk page history to see the proper edit history prior to this move. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Harsh language in the lede?
At frequent intervals, a new or zombie account has arrived to claim the lede is biased and to insist that calling threats of rape and murder exactly that is somehow not neutral. Reposting the question on behalf of the ineligible editor, moreover, violates the spirit of the 30/500 rule. (edited by request, though I stand by every word of the original--MB) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I object to closing and hiding this thread on these grounds and plan to undo it after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Engaging in what amounts to a war of attrition by repeatedly reopening and re-arguing well-covered points (without a significant change in the parameters like sourcing or content policy) until others are simply exhausted, is indeed a form of disruptive editing recognized as tendentious editing. However, for tendentious editing to be actionable, it has to be tied to an individual account over time. The history of this Talk page shows that there have been attempts to exploit a weakness in the Wikipedia open editing model by engaging in tendentious editing without having it tied to a single account. The purpose of the AE page-level minimum qualification is to curtail disruption by making doing this more difficult. So, there is no restriction on established editors from picking up on points made by ineligible editors, but they need to do so under their own responsibility with their established accounts. If every time an ineligible account posts a general, inactionable complaint ("I feel the article is biased!" with no grounding in Wikipedia content policy) an eligible editor reposts it, that may establish a pattern of tendentious editing that can be actionable at WP:AE. Zad68
16:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here you seem to be in clear violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, a principle without which everything can fall apart, as you've provided no evidence that anyone in this thread is guilty of belonging to such a disruption campaign.
- There seems to be another danger here, that we overreact to on-topic reader feedback and violate core principles that we hold most dear, such as The prime values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This danger makes the "danger" of repetitive, less-than-helpful talk page threads pale by comparison, because we have normal remedies such as directing readers who provide such feedback to the FAQs, providing stock replies, or just ignore them and let them age off into the archives, until such time they will make it less likely that others will open similar threads again. Closing and hiding this thread in this way make it more, not less likely that another such harmless, if annoying to some, threads will be opened tomorrow. Chrisrus (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Our social policies are not a suicide pact. And " Violation of policies, such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on, may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not. In this case the procedure for dealing with it was the ArbCom's imposition of discretionary sanctions allowing Administrators to take actions they believed would improve the situation. The discretionary sanctions taken by administrators has been to extend restrictions on participants to minimize the effects of the continual socking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Could we at least revisit the banning criterion? Handpolk has been around here longer than PeterTheFourth, yet the former is restricted and the latter is not, merely for being more prolific. That doesn't feel right. Diego (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please take this up at Zad68's talk or at AE. sigh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Chrisrus (active since 2007, over 12000 edits). If my calculations are correct, in the two or three weeks so far that the ban has been enabled, there have been no more than five comments removed because of it. None of which seemed particularly disruptive, and at least two have triggered civil conversations between established editors.
This seems fairly manageable, so the problem doesn't look as severe as those supporting the feature make it appear. In fact the ban seems to have produced more discussion and disagreements about how it should be applied than the amount of problems it has prevented. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would request that editors refrained from hatting the thread, trying to stop it every coment of two. Some of the discussion being held here is about how we collaborate to improve the article, you know. I've replied here because here is where Zad68 has posted his clarification. If you want to move the conversation elsewhere, at least first put a note that you're going to do so and wait until we all notice it. Sigh, indeed. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- No more than 5 comments...and this is a problem how? Your argument demonstrates how little the actual policy is enacted. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I propose that we follow the recent practice and move this meta discussion to its own subpage for those who wish to discuss for the sake of discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm OK with moving the discussion to a subpage as was done with other previous threads, please just don't do it without previous warning while the conversation is ongoing. First create the target page and post a link to it, then hide the original thread when people has migrated to the new place. That's common sense. Diego (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Koncorde: If the 500/30 rule gets little use, why it is needed? And why creating a record of its effects is such a huge problem ? Diego (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Diego Moya: Pssst, you spelled Koncorde wrong. FYI. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I propose that we follow the recent practice and move this meta discussion to its own subpage for those who wish to discuss for the sake of discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Split this section?
Fellow Wikipedians, The information in this section covers both an initial discussion on article content, which is on topic for the "main" Talk page, but off topic for here; and a second discussion on Talk page management, which is on topic for this "Meta" Talk page, but off topic for the "main" Talk page.
This suggests that the section should be split, with the initial discussion kept on the "main" Talk page; and the later discussion kept here. Thoughts?
Note: The section was copied from the original, which was "double hatted", so this may be a matter of removing the off topic components from each Talk page, and removing the external "hat"; which only hides discussion which would be moved here. (The internal "hat" of the original article content discussion to be removed based on the discussion here.) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support splitting this section, returning the initial article content discussion to the "main" Talk page; discussions should be kept where they are on topic. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Let sleeping dogs sleep. Not mention the original discussion shouldn't have been opened. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Other than us does anyone even care, Ryk72? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Consolidate other subpages to this one?
Fellow Wikipedians, Should we move the other subpage containing "meta" discussions to this one, providing a centralised point for such discussions? Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support consolidation - with some reservations about the double move of the discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support from this point forward. The other discussion page should be archived after it's expiry date. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
archive bot?
Summon the bot? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Should archives of this page be to the "main" Talk page archive or to a separate archive? If to a separate archive, should the "other" "Meta" Talk page archives be split from the "main" Talk page archive into this "Meta" Talkpage archive? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- The other move got put back in the main archive. I wonder if we should ask Zad68. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- This page hasn't yet gotten all that big, is archiving urgent? If an when this page really fills up to the point where archiving is needed, we can move archive-able discussions to the main archive.
Zad68
18:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)- I wasn't sure since they came from the main talk page. And those are archived regularly. And I think one or both of the other moves got archived back to the main archive. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- This page hasn't yet gotten all that big, is archiving urgent? If an when this page really fills up to the point where archiving is needed, we can move archive-able discussions to the main archive.
This is at AE BTW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk Rather than assume you all noticed: There's related discussion at AE again. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"Main" Talk page - include link to this page & notice on purposes/restrictions
Fellow Wikipedians, I just noticed (no pun intended) that while we have an excellent notice at the top of this page about its purpose; we do not have anything on the "Main" page which directs editors here for "meta" discussions.
I believe we should include something there which describes the purposes, and restricted topics, of each Talk page. Doing so would assist with preventing "off topic" discussions at that page.
I have included a proposed draft notice below.
Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- On the basis that there have been no objections, I will add this to the main Talk page; in a similar position to the notice on this page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't object, but perhaps clearing this with Zad is good idea? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi ForbiddenRocky, I had already left a message on their Talk page to let them know. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- And have left the same on Gamaliel's Talk page as well. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't object, but perhaps clearing this with Zad is good idea? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed draft:
Based on the notice on this page, I propose the following for addition to the "Main" page:
The purpose of this Talkpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate controversy article itself. This page is not for discussing this Talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action.
NB: Both templates Template:ivmbox & Template:tmbox do not seem to cope with a slash (/) in the wikilink.
GGC meta-discussion sanction info
- original decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive272#Removal.2FModification_of_restrictions_on_editing_on_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#ARBGG_DS_page_restriction
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#Page_level_restrictions
- discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_49#500_edit_requirement_for_editing_Gamergate_controversy_and_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
- an appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk
Putting this here on the Meta page for posterity. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
the 500/30 filter
The filter: Special:AbuseFilter/698
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Redaction revert requested
Continued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
This edit was a redaction of claimed BLP. However, it has been established in RSes by the parties affect that there is actually a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, a reporter at Kotaku, so in no way is a BLP violation. (I would AFG that Anarchyte misspoke as to Grayson's position as "chief editor", given the rest of the statement). Understanding that the relationship is established is core to the rest of the statement (a fair question on how to use Kotaku as a source given this relationship). I request that this be undone - outside of perhaps correcting the "chief editor" statement. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
|