User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2014/November

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Edit warring violates General sanctions/Gamergate, if continued, you risk general sanctions. Dreadstar ☥   03:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's only two reverts I've made in the last 24 hours and both on separate issues. I made a significant rewrite to address TDA's concerns about criminal connotations, by rewriting to exclude the word "bribe". I'm trying to avoid the classic revert war, and neither of my reverts have been untouched reverts — both have involved efforts to rewrite the content to achieve a consensus version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EW, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Please also review WP:3RRNO for edit warring exemptions.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but I don't see this as an edit war... *yet* — if TDA reverts it back out and I reverted it back in, then I agree I'd be edit-warring. I made an effort to put forward a version that addresses TDA's concerns... if TDA isn't satisfied and takes it out again, I'll leave it be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also please note this: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". Dreadstar  ☥   03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made one legitimate effort at addressing the issue and if TDA wants to reject it, c'est la vie, I wasn't planning to engage in a stale revert-war over it. Thanks for the heads-up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to claim WP:BRD, then I suggest you and the other reverting editors claim it in the edit summary. Actually, on those articles - I wouldn't recommend even using BRD, the Gamergate General Sanctions are very strict. Dreadstar ☥   03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the source for this?
I'd like to see if you know the source for this is. The unorganized, leaderless movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment. I'd rather ask you than go to the talk because it'll just be another needless section clogging up the page. Tutelary (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already discussion of it on the talk page — see "Last paragraph of the lede." It's a concise paraphrase of a point that any number of sources have made about the fact that the movement's complete lack of anything resembling identifiable leadership or organization prevents it from doing anything meaningful to stop the harassment carried out under its name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined
An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

JournoList
It is rather remarkable that two accounts show up that only have edited years ago and they speak for mr. Editwarrior. Less remarkable is the revert by an IP. This is clear block evasion and reported as such. Unless you are quicker, I will throw in an sockpuppet investigation later today. The Banner talk 11:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, a SPI-case seems a dance on rather thin ice. I am not doing it after all. But it is strange what is happening. The Banner talk 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate talk page
Get in there now so we can discuss why you don't like my edit, lets reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brianna Wu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 8chan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wu article
I actually have looked over the sources several times. Only Kotaku calls 8chan a "pro-GamerGate message board", because it is a rather absurd characterization as 8chan predates GamerGate by nearly a year. The quote from Wu is only in the Kotaku article. None of the other sources mention the quote. The "for, among other things, making illogical claims and misogynistic threats" material does not appear to be backed by any actual source. Nowhere in the Boston Globe piece is anything of that nature stated. When unnecessary material that supports a specific POV can either not be backed by a source or can only be backed by a non-independent source, then it clearly does not belong in the article. You inserted these extraneous details to push your POV and nothing more.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Kotaku is not the only site saying so and it's trivial to demonstrate otherwise.    etc. etc. The fact that 8chan predates GamerGate does not prohibit us from describing it as a pro-GamerGate messageboard, which it obviously is and has become. If you would prefer NYMag's "unofficial headquarters of the online Gamergate movement" or "the site most responsible for the online Gamergate movement" or "the main staging ground for supporters of the Gamergate movement" wording, we can use that.
 * Kotaku is a perfectly usable source for this matter and you have no consensus for your ludicrous claim that it isn't.
 * The Boston Globe states that Wu "mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, ridiculing them for, among other things, “fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent.” If you'd prefer, rather than a paraphrase, I'll just use the direct quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to enjoy source-bombing and quote-bombing to push your POV, no matter how extraneous the material. Unsurprisingly, the only two sources, both of questionable reliability, that you cite above calling 8chan "pro-GamerGate" cited Kotaku. Reality is, stating it was in a GamerGate-related discussion suffices. Nothing you added about 8chan supposedly being pro-GamerGate, nor the quote of Wu's opinion on culpability, actually adds information of value. It also all comes from Kotaku, who undeniably have a horse in this race, more than any outlet. You and other POV-pushers refusing to understand that a controversy primarily concerning a specific media outlet means that media outlet should not be regarded as a third-party source on the matter is irrelevant. WP:RS is clear that third-party sources are required. If it is not a third-party source then it is basically a primary source and primary sources should not be used for contentious material. Lastly, your surmising of The Boston Globe is one more thing colored by your desire to push your POV. Providing a quote from one of the satirical image macros is not the same as quoting GamerGate supporters, which should be obvious. It also makes no mention of them being mocked "for making misogynistic threats", which still does not resolve the problem of you wording the material so as to present the "illogical statements and misogynistic threats" claim as fact when it is opinion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All of it demonstrably adds information of value. Noting that 8chan is pro-GamerGate establishes the connection between the site, the harassment and the movement. The statement It was a paraphrase of "threatening movement" based upon that and the umpteen squillion other sources which discuss that aspect of the movement; but you knew that already, didn't you.
 * As for "POV-pusher," well, the pot would certainly know what color the kettle is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, there is no indication given in the sources that the image macro was mocking them for that, nor do the sources generally treat it as fact that somehow these threats are all from GamerGate supporters. You can cry POV-pusher all you like, but I find people to be regularly torn between whether my edits are favorable or unfavorable to a given side. Many on both sides have considered my work on the content to be neutral. Of course, it can be very hard for a POV-pusher to recognize neutrality, so it is not surprising that you mistake my editing for POV-pushing rather than as an attempt to prevent you from making non-neutral edits.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm sure a ton of people find you to be making neutral edits on this subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Did not mean that
On GamerGate page, the most recent edit. I just remember Red had inserted all of that 'some' before supporters so I searched for that and changed it accordingly--This was ignorance not malice. I have no intention of deliberately making things more eschewed than they really are. Apologies for such. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured it was just a find-and-replace issue, just wanted to be sure. There's a lot of things I disagree with GG about but I'm pretty sure that false-flag crowd is a discredited fringe even within GG, which is to their credit that they've largely rejected that nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Were we reading the same thread?
They were searching for misconduct on Wikipedia and weren't trying to dox anyone. The Patreon thing was posted by a single user and was just into the fray--around 500 other people's posts. Sure, maybe they were a bit hysterical and everything like it, posting old screenshots taken out of context (the one where Ryulong and you mentioned to let him 'hang himself' a guise to WP:ROPE) but trying to say that they're investigating anyone or doxxing anyone involved in the ArbCom Case is a bit disingenuous to what they were actually doing; trying to help Pro GG on the ArbCom case with their numbers by providing links and what not. Or does one person represent the entire group? Tutelary (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because "SCOUR TWITTER, TUMBLR, WORDPRESS, ANYTHING FOR RYULONG, TARAINDC, THEREDPENOFDOOM, OR NORTHBYHEADUPASS" is good-faith discussion of Wikipedia policy issues, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

on Digra
Just fyi, I was in the process of adding more on digra, and used a different quote from mia that I think was a bit more relevant/direct but paraphrased the other one you added. Not trying to step on toes, just working to same end on that section. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop it.
Stop edit warring on Arbcom pages. If you believe this information needs to be seen, send it by email. Worm TT( talk ) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stopped quite awhile ago — once I realized that DHeyward was hell-bent on revert-warring it out, I dropped the stick and let it go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Video game journalism
When removing the recent vandalism from this article, your change may have been removed as well:
 * "However, Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest and had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship"

Dreadstar ☥   02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate request
Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:
 * Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 1026 words, so is well over the limit. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A classic example of what's wrong with BLP
I noted your edit summary here. I should think that if the source were not RS, the Guardian would not be be risking its reputation by using it in a report. Neither would the Washington Post be referring to this "incident report published by the Free Thought Project". Do you seriously believe the police report scans were faked? If you are going to believe this is a fraud, what DO you believe? I think RS policy is being misused if people are not citing it with a good faith belief that the material at issue is truly of questionable factual accuracy.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not, then, just use the reliable sources that picked it up? I am opposed to using any questionable sources to support negative allegations or assertions about living people. This goes as much for this source which presents negative claims about Darren Wilson as it does for the numerous fringe sources which present negative claims about Michael Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the particular facts indicate that it's already RS in this particular case (no matter how one might generalize), especially if other RS are treating it as RS, and we should be transparent to the reader about where material originates. Both the Guardian and the Washington Post are careful to indicate to readers where they got this from.  We can and should take similar care.  For my part, I don't support the laundering sources through other sources doctrine which instead of seeing the additional coverage as adding incrementally to the argument for inclusion, sees it as effectively turning water into wine.  The story is ultimately just as dubious as the original source if there is only one source.  If laundering actually works, then we as Wikipedians ought to be trying to develop the same sorts of reliability assessment skills the launderers have so we can make the same sort of skilled assessment should a launderer not be immediately available.  Show me someone who cites a primary source for whom it's usually just a matter of time until secondary sources cite in turn and I'd call that someone a presumptively astute judge of both reliability and notability.  Instead of developing and respecting those skills I see editors not bothering to consider the plausibility of what's claimed and instead making blanket judgments about what is or is not RS without concern for whether the judgment is shown to be sound over time or not.  I for one, am opposed to using questionable sources PERIOD when what makes the source questionable is hidden from the reader.  Letting questionable sourcing go if it flatters someone is a double violation of both RS and NPOV in my books.  I note that you contradicted yourself by saying you are opposed to "...assertions about living people" and then saying "this goes as much for" someone who is dead.  If it TRULY "goes as much" for the dead guy as for the guy who shot him then we wouldn't have a BLP policy and I wouldn't be complaining!~--Brian Dell (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Brewing edit war on Shirtstorm
I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war with you. I've made a section on the talk page specifically for discussing who initiated the controversy. Listing those two people is also well-sourced and verifiable, to use the terms from your edit summary. Come discuss why you think you think "commentators" is right on the talk page. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, not everything a writer for The Washington Post writes is in The Washington Post. Did you read my edit summary explaining why I removed the quote? Come discuss on the article talk page. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry for lashing out at you the other day. It was a huge mistake of me to do that and I sincerely apologize. I ask forgiveness from you. --DSA510   Pls No H8 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FactualError in your Arbcom Report
Scroll up to "A Kitten for you" on your talk page. Diego accidentally pressed the revert button. I'm to only one to blame there not him.Bosstopher (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)