User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2014/December

Anita Talk Page
Please do not edit my comment again. Looking at your history I see you have been obsessed with anti-gamergate and other related pages. Your unwarranted edit of my comment discussing well known facts surrounding Anita's career is not only unethical in the sense of trying to cover up information but it's also harassing to me personally. I would ask that you please leave me, and my comments, alone in the future. Thank you. Xander756 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. Removing material which violates, or probably violates, the biographies of living persons policy is expressly provided for by policy, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with that policy. Such removals are not, in any sense of the word, "harassment." Rather, violations of the policy generally lead to rather speedy blocks, and that doesn't need to happen to you if you can engage in sensible discussion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.

Don't feel like making a new thread. I think this fits into your evidence rather than mine atm.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, I find the both of you in one section--very convenient. Ryūlóng, NorthBySouthbaranof, y'all's zeal and incisive commentary is of course greatly appreciated but at some point a flood of contributions becomes counterproductive. I can't ask you all to stop chatting and tweeting and blogging and whatnot (as  said elsewhere, how do you all find the time? who does the dishes in your house?), but if you both could refrain from responding to every single frigging comment on the ArbCom pages, that would be GREAT. You don't have to counter every single pro-GamerGate comment or whatever--really, the world is not going to end if you refrain every now and then. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord, believe me, I have absolutely no interest in chatting or tweeting or blogging about this debacle. I don't even have a Reddit account and I'm frankly rather bemused at the whole idea of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only responding to the ones that I think are bunk or intentionally out of context.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Length of Arbcom Evidence
The standard limits ArbCom evidence submissions are 1000 words. I count your evidence submission currently at 1776 words (not including Rebuttal). Just thought you might want to know so you can trim it down a bit (or you can request more room). --Obsidi (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence limits
Your evidence section is well over the limit of 1000 words. I am still checking to see whether the limit is inclusive of responses to others, but even if those are excepted, you are over 1300 words. You either need explicit permission from one of the drafting arbs, or you need to trim your evidence. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just learned that the drafting arbs are thinking through what to do about evidence limits. One possibility is an increase, so feel free to hold off making a change at this time. I hope to have more advice soon.For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although frankly as a party in this, I hope they don't expand it too significantly. 1,500 would be plenty and anything more just goes far into the realm of overkill. Reasonable limits are appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
 * Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
 * The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
 * Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about Gamergate talk page
With Willhesucceed's latest "source" now on the talk page, I'm thinking it might be a good time to combine that with Carrite's suggested "source" and Avono's suggested "source" and request a finding from ArbCom in the ongoing case that says editors who link sources that contain BLP violating material can be sanctioned. However I've never been party to an ArbCom case before and I'm not sure if it really belongs there or not. I would say it goes under the general sanctions for the Gamergate page, except that instead of it being a single user being disruptive, it's a pattern of disruptive behavior from several editors all doing the same inappropriate thing, so I'm not sure how to phrase a request there either. Can you point me in the right direction to figure out where and how to properly raise this issue? ReynTime (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

'The Effects of the Sexualization of Female Video Game Characters on Gender Stereotyping and Female Self-Concept'
hi NBSB,

You say "You need to read the study, because it's cited in there.". The deletion was the result of reading the study and finding no in it talking about the text in there.

But perhaps I overlooked it. Could you be so kind as to show me where it says in the study?

GameLegend (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Page 2 of the document, page 809 of the journal. In fact, some of it is a direct quote without the quote marks (hence, copyvio) and I'll take a crack at a paraphrase. The vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable, meaning that they cannot be played by the gamer - thus underscoring their secondary and exiguous status. When playable female characters do appear in video games, they are typically overtly sexualized and portrayed wearing promiscuous dress and engaging in seductive acts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah k. Thanks.
 * Though that quote is attributed to another study, so I'd suggest using the original study that it comes from as reference.
 * Miller, M. K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742.
 * GameLegend (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whoever originally inserted it didn't quite take the sourcing all the way that they could. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Miller-Summers 2007 in turn linked to Ivory 2006, which as it turns out have used online reviews as proxies, rather than looking at the video games (and referred only to top-rated games, not all video games); I've updated the article accordingly. The sentence "the vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable" was dubious to begin with; it's best to find the original paper and see what it says and how it conducted the study. Quotes by people citing the original paper tend to be opinions of the writer and not as reliable as the real thing. Id' say that "taking the sourcing all the way that they could" should be required when using academic papers as references. Diego (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

libellous
When a newspaper believes they have published false information they print a retraction that notes their error. There is a reason for that: Public figures, like Quinn, have to prove malice. Retractions eliminate malice. The Amherst writer repeated Quinns ex-boyfriends post as fact without attribution. There are plenty of sources that simply say alleged and then also go on to prove right/wrong. The choice Amherst had was republish with attribution or remove. Attribution exists for everything you called false (ex-BF and TFYC make the same claims as agrieved parties). The attributions are too weak to include in Wikipedia but Wikipedia's standards are no where close to libel standards. Think about it: yet no lawsuits for libel/defamation. Considering I can find the article in question, if she had a case a lawyer would file it if only to get that retraction. The lack of a retraction and the lack of a lawsuit flies in the face of "clearly actionable." --DHeyward (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we don't know that Quinn has done any such thing regarding YouTube. Your evidence to support that claim is what, exactly?
 * Claiming that "if the article had said something different than it actually said, it wouldn't be libel" is not a defense to anything. We can only hypothesize as to what Quinn may or may not know about the article's existence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor can we hypothesize about the reason they took it down. Claims that a living person (William Harvey) committed a crime (defamatory libel) is a BLP violation.  Stop saying it was libel and defamation when you have no idea.  True and not true is fine and not the same thing.  Forbes article comments on the takedown requests.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Libel is not a criminal offense in the United States, and it is not a BLP violation to reasonably suggest that a piece of writing may be libelous. You are the only person who has mentioned any names here.
 * The Forbes source does not support your factual claim, being only an unproven allegation of a single instance - a far cry from your absurd statement. I have accordingly redacted it. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, why?
Why go to all this effort when your edits will certainly be undone once you're topic banned?
 * I think you're going to be sadly disappointed if you expect me to be topic-banned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy
The mere presence of my name on the article or its talk page will cause a riot online, even if it's just making a minor correction, so could you fix the fact that there's nothing bolded in the article's lede?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I just found an extraneous apostrophe later in the article: "Alyssa Rosenberg of The Washington Post' said that some"— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And an extra space before the tag at the end of that same sentence.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Colbert Report" also isn't italicized.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ANd now with this edit a mention of "Depression Quest" is not italicized.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte's one article on the page is both citation 12 and 92 for some reason.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR Formal Warning
Per WP:EW you are notified that you are now at 3RR in under 24 hours on the Breitbart (website) article. It is urgent that you self-revert your last revert, and you are currently past the "bright line" standard for being blocked. Discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and cease edit warring. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I'm not. I made a substantial edit and you are the one who reverted it. The revert-war began with you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Um -- note that the edit you reverted was by me on 14 December -- so you did indeed "revert." Try again -- and self-revert and oben WP:CONSENSUS asking that you DISCUSS your reverts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not revert your edit, as the diffs clearly show. I simply worked from it to rewrite and expand our coverage of the issue. The claim was indeed false, as per the sources I added. It's not merely "confusion," it's active misidentification. Your edits, on the other hand, have been mere stale reverts which removed extensive additions of highly-reliable sourcing which notes the array of commentators who criticized Breitbart for the massively-incorrect story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When dealing with two people with the same name, the exact same problem hits all news outlets including NYT etc. You seem to wish to promote that this was deliberate misidentification by crazy political hatchet men - which is not supported by reliable sources.  Clue:  "Colbert Report" is reliable for nothing at all. Collect (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A "correction" which debunks and renders false the entire premise of the story is not a mere correction, it's an admission that you completely fucked up in every possible way — as even The Daily Caller was willing to admit. Stephen Colbert Salutes Breitbart For F&%ked Up Loretta Lynch Story. And no, The Colbert Report is a perfectly-usable source for citing Stephen Colbert's opinion, which on this issue has received significant secondary recognition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)As noted - it happens all the time - even to the NYT. That you feel that you must make an example of crazy political hatchet men who "fucked up" in your opinion is not how Wikipedia works. And we CANNOT USE THE COLBERT REPORT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE (shouting deliberate).  The claim is in regard to specific living persons (writer of the article) thus must be a strong reliable source for fact.  Your position would be if someone said "Breitbart is Hitler reincarnated" that you would support that quote in an article.   Clear enough? Collect (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is not a living person, it's a media corporation. I'll make sure the article is clear on that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly the term "craven political hatchet men" refers to the author of the original article -- who happens to be alive. Cheers -- WP:BLP applies to all identifiable specific individuals, and the fact that the article is about a website does not remove it from being subject to the policy WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."   Collect (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)
There's questionable and unreliable sources anywhere (including MuuMuse, guitarsweepstakes.com). Can you remove and keep an eye that who may doing the same pattern. 183.171.182.109 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed, that's a pretty bad source and effectively promotional, too. I'll take a look, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown
Shooting of Michael Brown is a NPOV and formerly BLP nightmare. I'm having an issue with the page that is beginning to seem like Gamergate because some editors with a gross misunderstanding of policy are seeking to "establish consensus" before removing even obviously false material from the article. Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown is just one case, but it is like pulling teeth. Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown and then the Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown RFC is an example of the extreme lengths to get something factually inaccurate and a BLP issue off a page. Over a dozen misrepresentations to outright personal attacks have been inserted and defended by editors for the sake of process because it is "verifiable to a source". Given that you had to remove a bunch of similar BLP issues for Gamergate under slightly difference circumstances, your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one clusterfuck of an off-wiki-POV-warrior-filled article is all I can take. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia IRC for Revisions
Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof. I know that we might have different opinions on things, but I wanted to at least mention something that at the least might be of some help in the future. I do admit that you might already know this, but I am not certain on that, hence this post. Wikipedia has multiple Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels available, with one in particular being dedicated toward making an urgent request for a revision deletion, #wikipedia-en-revdel. I hope that this post is of some help to you in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Email
I've replied to your email by email -- just in case you missed that in a spam filter or something. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

note WP:BLP
Per ArbCom decisions, note that any admin may block you or ban you for violations of WP:BLP. I suggest you self-revert your current violation at Breitbart (website) Collect (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that there is no BLP violation in stating that an article which is widely reported as false and untruthful, is in fact, false and untruthful. The article neither states nor implies that this falsehood was intentional, but the result is the same: the author wrote and published a verifiable falsehood. If you believe this is actually a BLP violation, I invite you to raise the issue on BLPN or ANI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you use wording which makes clear that no implications about the living person writing the article are made in any way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)