GamerGate - Images
GamerGate
GamerGate
She said it folks.
GamerGate
GamerGate
Time for plan Z!
GamerGate
GamerGate
GamerGate
Shady business
GamerGate
Wikipedia - Arbitration case request from TDA(The Devil's Advocate)
![Statement by The Devil's Advocate This dispute has eluded resolution through other means ranging from raising concerns at conduct noticeboards and attempts at mediation regarding content. While editors with fewer contributions, as far as I know only those who are or are seen as favorable to the GamerGate side, have been routinely sanctioned or blocked, the established editors who are unfavorable to the GamerGate side and are the source of a lot of the conflict continue unimpeded. This is at least partly due to the fact that they have a sufficient number of sympathizers to prevent any consensus from being reached regarding their conduct. Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics. I can elaborate further on those details, though some of it is evidenced in the discussions linked above. Even though general sanctions have been imposed in the topic area and there are BLP discretionary sanctions covering some of these details, it has done nothing to stop this behavior from continuing and escalating as it has over the past week. A thorough review of all administrative conduct on this topic area, ranging from rev-deletions and suppressions to blocks and topic-bans, is requested in addition to reviewing the general conduct of editors.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note: I have trimmed my statement and removed my replies to comply with the restrictions on statements. An abbreviated version of my listing of admin concerns Dreadstar called Vivian James an attack cartoon in a dispute over the image, and has enforced the general sanctions, including this block for this comment Gamaliel has enforced the BLP discretionary sanctions and general sanctions , despite his involvement in the topic dispute itself and even after this arbitration request Future Perfect at Sunrise took several, actions against people in disputes with Ryulong , while ignoring Ryulong's own misconduct, even supervoting on a topic ban proposal seven hours after it was initiated. Future has a history of administrative and editorial misconduct See also: 1 2 Cuchullain is clearly involved regarding Anita Sarkeesian's article, but began repeatedly using the protection tools on GamerGate related articles after Sarkeesian was brought into the controversy, including making contentious edits through page protection based off 11 minutes of discussion Black Kite is involved in the dispute yet closed a discussion on Titanium Dragon in furtherance of Future's topic ban Bilby is heavily involved in the GamerGate articles and deleted the editthat prompted Titanium Dragon's first topic ban imposed by Gamaliel ]d) Other admins are named more due to questions of judgment regarding specific actions, especially when citing BLP. ArmyLine's topic ban is one such case, as is PhilKnight's use of oversight tools regarding a link to Medium blog post. Not every admin action is being questioned, nor is every admin who has taken action on this topic named as a party. This is about certain admins or certain admin actions.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb, 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/868/136/edc.png)
![Statement by The Devil's Advocate This dispute has eluded resolution through other means ranging from raising concerns at conduct noticeboards and attempts at mediation regarding content. While editors with fewer contributions, as far as I know only those who are or are seen as favorable to the GamerGate side, have been routinely sanctioned or blocked, the established editors who are unfavorable to the GamerGate side and are the source of a lot of the conflict continue unimpeded. This is at least partly due to the fact that they have a sufficient number of sympathizers to prevent any consensus from being reached regarding their conduct. Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics. I can elaborate further on those details, though some of it is evidenced in the discussions linked above. Even though general sanctions have been imposed in the topic area and there are BLP discretionary sanctions covering some of these details, it has done nothing to stop this behavior from continuing and escalating as it has over the past week. A thorough review of all administrative conduct on this topic area, ranging from rev-deletions and suppressions to blocks and topic-bans, is requested in addition to reviewing the general conduct of editors.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note: I have trimmed my statement and removed my replies to comply with the restrictions on statements. An abbreviated version of my listing of admin concerns Dreadstar called Vivian James an attack cartoon in a dispute over the image, and has enforced the general sanctions, including this block for this comment Gamaliel has enforced the BLP discretionary sanctions and general sanctions , despite his involvement in the topic dispute itself and even after this arbitration request Future Perfect at Sunrise took several, actions against people in disputes with Ryulong , while ignoring Ryulong's own misconduct, even supervoting on a topic ban proposal seven hours after it was initiated. Future has a history of administrative and editorial misconduct See also: 1 2 Cuchullain is clearly involved regarding Anita Sarkeesian's article, but began repeatedly using the protection tools on GamerGate related articles after Sarkeesian was brought into the controversy, including making contentious edits through page protection based off 11 minutes of discussion Black Kite is involved in the dispute yet closed a discussion on Titanium Dragon in furtherance of Future's topic ban Bilby is heavily involved in the GamerGate articles and deleted the editthat prompted Titanium Dragon's first topic ban imposed by Gamaliel ]d) Other admins are named more due to questions of judgment regarding specific actions, especially when citing BLP. ArmyLine's topic ban is one such case, as is PhilKnight's use of oversight tools regarding a link to Medium blog post. Not every admin action is being questioned, nor is every admin who has taken action on this topic named as a party. This is about certain admins or certain admin actions.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb, 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/868/136/edc.png)
GamerGate
Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales answers Ryulong's comments in Ryulong's AMA in r/GamerGhazi 02
![[-] wrecksomething 6 puntos 18 horas atrás Really felt Wales made a mistake stepping into this relatively minor issue. It's basically a one-word error (at most) that has since been rewritten Isquith writes The women bombarded with violence and abuse, the men hurling invective at anyone challenging their privilege; spurred by his unexamined need to find common ground, both, Auerbach writes, should share in the blame Pretty straightforward that Isquith is calling Auerbach out (rightly or wrongly) for victim blaming. Wikipedia originally summarized this as Isquith. criticizing his insistence that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become." Which is almost the same sentence through a thesaurus A different user changed "criticized his insistence" to "criticized him for saying" which I think was meant to make it seem more moderate, less insistent. But "saying" also reads as though the words came from Auerbach directly when they're Isquith's criticism. Which is Auerbach's complaint, that he didn't say those words Ryulong was wrong to take Auerbach's complaint as a threat (though it is strange that he singled out Ryulong). He apologized. From what I gather, Jimmy Wales was more upset at the article's error (and at a different user's behavior) enlace padre mmy Wales, Wiki Founder 10 puntos 8 horas atrás Actually, I'm not particularly "upset" about anything. I seek to defuse the situation by finding ways forward for good people (no matter what their opinions are of the underlying issues) who care about neutrality more than they care about gamergate This means that I am not recommending (and indeed actively recommend against) hordes of gamergaters who feel injured by the media, etc., coming to Wikipedia to "Right Great Wrongs" https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia: Tendentious, editing #Righting-Great-wrongs But I am also recommending that several editors who have been involved realize that they are not helping to defuse the situation and to simply step away and let others handle it. If you've become part of the wider Internet drama (for example, by starting an AMA about yourself) surrounding Gamergate, then you likely should step away from the article Too many people view these things in terms of crime and punishment. It shouldn't be like that. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in wider social conflicts enlace padre](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/868/117/086.png)
![[-] wrecksomething 6 puntos 18 horas atrás Really felt Wales made a mistake stepping into this relatively minor issue. It's basically a one-word error (at most) that has since been rewritten Isquith writes The women bombarded with violence and abuse, the men hurling invective at anyone challenging their privilege; spurred by his unexamined need to find common ground, both, Auerbach writes, should share in the blame Pretty straightforward that Isquith is calling Auerbach out (rightly or wrongly) for victim blaming. Wikipedia originally summarized this as Isquith. criticizing his insistence that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become." Which is almost the same sentence through a thesaurus A different user changed "criticized his insistence" to "criticized him for saying" which I think was meant to make it seem more moderate, less insistent. But "saying" also reads as though the words came from Auerbach directly when they're Isquith's criticism. Which is Auerbach's complaint, that he didn't say those words Ryulong was wrong to take Auerbach's complaint as a threat (though it is strange that he singled out Ryulong). He apologized. From what I gather, Jimmy Wales was more upset at the article's error (and at a different user's behavior) enlace padre mmy Wales, Wiki Founder 10 puntos 8 horas atrás Actually, I'm not particularly "upset" about anything. I seek to defuse the situation by finding ways forward for good people (no matter what their opinions are of the underlying issues) who care about neutrality more than they care about gamergate This means that I am not recommending (and indeed actively recommend against) hordes of gamergaters who feel injured by the media, etc., coming to Wikipedia to "Right Great Wrongs" https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia: Tendentious, editing #Righting-Great-wrongs But I am also recommending that several editors who have been involved realize that they are not helping to defuse the situation and to simply step away and let others handle it. If you've become part of the wider Internet drama (for example, by starting an AMA about yourself) surrounding Gamergate, then you likely should step away from the article Too many people view these things in terms of crime and punishment. It shouldn't be like that. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in wider social conflicts enlace padre](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/868/117/086.png)
GamerGate
GamerGate
GamerGate
Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales ask Ryulong to stop editing the GG wikipedia article due to his animosity tow...
GamerGate
Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales ask Ryulong to stop editing the GG wikipedia article due to his animosity tow...
GamerGate
Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales ask Tarc to stop editing the GG wikipedia article
![I think it worthwhile to summarize what one part of what happened here clearly so that other Wikipedians reading this talk page are better able to understand the situation. David Auerbach, who writes for Slate (magazine), expressed a concern on twitter that "ajimmy_wales 152: "women...should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become"-Isquith does not say I said this, and I didn't." [7] 9. This refers to the paragraph wisely removed by Drmies after the complaint. It is important that we be really clear - this is a BLP issue. Saying that a writer for a respectable publication was criticized for something as awful as saying that victims of harassment were responsible for that harassment is a serious claim, and it is a claim that was never in the source provided. Meanwhile, Tarc claims that his tweets were "without merit" and further, in Drmies words "Tarc is yelling at Auerbach via twitter." This is a disgrace. I am recommending that Tarc step away from this article permanently, and that if he does not do so voluntarily and continues with this kind of POV warrior behavior that he be topic- banned from this article. There are plenty of good Wikipedians here to look after the article - those who have been engaged in this as a battleground need to leave now Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I did not "yell" ant anyone via Twitter, I responded to someone who is in serious "doth protest too much" mode, that is all. What I do off-wiki is, quite frankly not your business. @Drmies:, yes, I am in favor of the entire passage being removed if it is this problematic. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/867/994/caa.png){kind=small}
![I think it worthwhile to summarize what one part of what happened here clearly so that other Wikipedians reading this talk page are better able to understand the situation. David Auerbach, who writes for Slate (magazine), expressed a concern on twitter that "ajimmy_wales 152: "women...should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become"-Isquith does not say I said this, and I didn't." [7] 9. This refers to the paragraph wisely removed by Drmies after the complaint. It is important that we be really clear - this is a BLP issue. Saying that a writer for a respectable publication was criticized for something as awful as saying that victims of harassment were responsible for that harassment is a serious claim, and it is a claim that was never in the source provided. Meanwhile, Tarc claims that his tweets were "without merit" and further, in Drmies words "Tarc is yelling at Auerbach via twitter." This is a disgrace. I am recommending that Tarc step away from this article permanently, and that if he does not do so voluntarily and continues with this kind of POV warrior behavior that he be topic- banned from this article. There are plenty of good Wikipedians here to look after the article - those who have been engaged in this as a battleground need to leave now Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I did not "yell" ant anyone via Twitter, I responded to someone who is in serious "doth protest too much" mode, that is all. What I do off-wiki is, quite frankly not your business. @Drmies:, yes, I am in favor of the entire passage being removed if it is this problematic. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/867/994/caa.png){kind=small}
GamerGate
WikiProject Feminism is really busy editing gamergate
GamerGate
Jimmy Wales sees collusion in gaming journalism because of GJP
GamerGate
That Dragon, Cancer - What really happened
GamerGate
No NPOV here.
GamerGate
Some points need a bit tweaking but...
GamerGate
