User:Masem/GGGS

Supplimentary material for General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement.

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please tell me how discussing - not edit warring - what I see are problems with the page within WP policy are a violation of general sanctions. --M ASEM (t) 02:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that several others have pointed out the same problems with this article and the refusal of some editors to even agree to work in a consensus manner or to dispute resolution (per my ArbCom statement), it cannot be tenacious editing (Were I the only one, and all dispute resolution routes tried and failed, then yes, I would agree, but we are not at that point yet). --M ASEM  (t) 07:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And to that, I will continue to flat out call out that claim as false without any evidence, and can work to show evidence however possible that I am not engaging anyone, outside of what you readily see as my activities on WP, in regards to this article (whether that's SPI, etc.) I am aware my name's out there, but I have purposely stayed away from any external discussions to begin with and even more so to avoid any issues like that. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different line of logic. Note that I opened an RFC to inquire on the balance aspect, and have not at all argued that any further on the strict balance/weight issue when there was no clear consensus for it. But on the other hand, when RSes say multiple things, determining which version to go with is completely fine, so there's absolutely not contradiction here.--M ASEM (t) 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: That diff of mine is absolutely not a violation of RS. My statement, in context, is where there are editors trying to deny that any RS calls GG a "movement" despite many high quality sources saying "gamergate movement" in addition to "gamergate hashtag". Thus when I said "regardless of what the RS say", it was addressing those editors' points that there is no such thing as a "gamergate movement", not that I was diverging from the RS, as the title I suggested fell right in line with RSes. --M ASEM (t) 22:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Protonk: See my statement to RedPen (above) as to why rearguing NPOV in the lack of clearly established consensus is not any actionable complaint. --M ASEM (t) 00:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)