Bramble window
Welcome edit
|
Logged in to help try fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles, and other Wikipedia areas afflicted with extreme imbalance. By broken, I mean the link between that article and the known reality, rather than the article's strict adherence to the letter of the law.
My personal feeling is that since self-published sources have begun to dominate popular culture Wikipedia's restriction on coverage of such sources belongs to a bygone era. Nevertheless, while that restriction remains part of the rules, I'll follow it.
We have a massive public debate going on, with one side of the debate publishing exclusively through self-published sources, and the Wikipedia-approved sources (who have anything to say on the matter) exclusively on the other side, and in no mood to provide any kind of balance.
As a result, Wikipedia's coverage of the debate is useless, and directly contrary to the known facts. Only one side's view can be given under Wikipedia's restriction on coverage of self-published sources. The notion of a single category called "self-published source" that ignores whether the self-published source is read by one person or 5 billion says to me that a radical re-think of the near-blanket ban needs to be started.
Brightsideofnews edit
Quoting another editor here about a source:
"Finally, www.brightsideofnews.com doesn't give me any confidence at all. The author claims no particular credentials,[40] and is not listed in their professional staff.[41] TL;DR version: VentureBeat yes, Asian Age maybe, Inquistr maybe, and brightsideofnews.com no."
My response: I don't see how your confidence should matter. The site is a news source with editorial staff. It's non-reliable status is not demonstrated. I have read the relevant policy documents and there's nothing in there that could disqualify it, or even raise a question.
The writer, Derek Strickland, is indeed a simple working journalist reporting the facts. What "credentials" are needed to report facts in an article submitted to an edited publication?
The facts in question are all public domain. The ban on reporting on self-published sources does not apply to brightsideofnews.com, that is a Wikipedia house rule, not an international law. Other publications are free to use their judgement to decide which self-published sources merit reportage.
I'd prefer to have added these observations to the article's talk page, but it's apparently locked down.
October 2014 edit
Please stop using talk pages such as Anita Sarkeesian for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey edit
I just wanted to say that I sympathize with you...a lot. You remind me of one of the memorable things that I did when I first started editing Wikipedia is that I started an RfC for the fair use thing with Anita. You probably know what I've been talking about. I can't even read the archive of what I said (because I remember it was embarrassing--I'll have to see what exactly I said--I remember that it was rough though.) I thought all of these editors had a cabal of secret IRC channels, constantly making and directing people to the article, and I wanted a RfC to stop it. Well I got one, it was argued for maybe 10 days, discussion stagnated and after about 50+ editors gave their response, it was closed after the sufficient time as to deny the incident any coverage, per community consensus. I also incessantly argued against about 10 editors in that time, claiming that they were blatantly wrong and that they were trying to stifle the content. I think that my approach was wrong and should've 'listened' and researched more in the initial argument, not just ignore all criticism or arguments and exclaim I'm right. All that I ask is that you take it easy, take a breath, and look at what they're saying. They could be right. They could also be wrong. Read the actual policies, read the whole policy, read other guidelines and policies. If you need any help or want any of my thoughts on stuff, feel free to ask. I know how you feel because I felt like that before, and due to WP:BLP policy, you have to be especially important about directly saying any of the allegations about living persons. Overzealous moderation has occurred and people have been blocked because of it, myself included. Good luck. Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
December 2014 edit
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy, such as Talk:Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Concern trolling is no more welcome here than anywhere else. edit
Please refrain from it on this page. Anyone have a disagreement with anything I have posted? Start off with that, and end with it too. I'll read it and consider the criticism on its merits alone. There's a good chance that we have a principled disagreement about what kind of thing should be in an encyclopedia. Let's start off from that basis.
Actual Ethics Issues... In Game Journalism edit
It's very sad to see a Talk page discussion locked away from all but long-time accounts, but could you please answer something for me in my place? In regards to this edit, this user's willful ignorance of the topic area is unbelievable. I would really appreciate it if you or someone else could direct them on the Talk page itself to this document, section 2.3, even more specifically "Early Review Exclusivity Deals and Shopping Around for Favorable Reviews", where multiple issues concerning this topic are addressed openly by concerned gamers. Masem has linked to it in talk page discussion before without any issue so there shouldn't be any BLP concern. TRPD was certainly involved in the Talk page back when that discussion was brought up so they damn well have seen this before too. If they try to lynch you over it make sure to bring that up.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
General sanctions enforcement request edit
I have filed a request for enforcement of the general sanctions applicable to Gamergate-related topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked edit
As you have failed to heed the advice given to you by Tony Sidaway and myself, and it appears that you are approaching editing with a battleground mentality and that you have no interest in contributing to a neutral encyclopaedia, I have blocked you indefinitely. For the first 12 months, the provisions of the GamerGate community sanctions apply, and this block may not be reversed except as the result of a consensus at a noticeboard. To appeal, use {{unblock}} or {{helpme}} to ask another editor to copy the text of your appeal to WP:AN, where it will be discussed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Bramble window (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Owing to the unexpected death of a person close to me, I've barely paid any attention to wikipedia of late. But I think it's time to address this mistaken block.
"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. "
I know for a fact that there was no intentional disruption on my part, meaning that I at no stage wanted or was indifferent to the disruption of wikipedia. I never made any edits without first putting them up for discussion on the board, which I thought was the way it was meant to work. I consider that there wasn't anything in my output that rises to the level of "significant" given the context of the article.
Statement by Thargor Orlando This is effectively a tone complaint, as Bramble Window does not appear to have any edits to the article space. As discussion is the way we reach conclusions in this project, there's no reason to sanction. If it's that his language is harsh, we have a lot of people to line up in front of this user.
I did unhat a discussion, not knowing that was not permitted. I will not do so again.
The accuser states: "I submit that existing for virtually no other purpose than to negatively depict a living person is an improper use of a single-purpose account".
This is a massively untrue depiction of my motives. I have no wish, and never had, to paint a negative picture of Ms Sarkeesian. Also, I have no "single purpose" with this account as intended by my accuser. I had intended to be involved in a very varied set of literary and historical subjects. I have been quoted out of context to an offensive extent in the accusations laid against my account.
Statement by Masem The editor raises valid points that are not immediately signs of BLP issues (asking if WP should including information on a group that is critical of a person is not directly a BLP violation),
Statement by DHeyward Topic banning for merely disagreeing doesn't appear productive nor do any edits appear to be BLP violations in and of themselves.
The sentence imposed is in fact vastly beyond what the accuser demanded: they only wanted a topic ban. I do not believe that the allegations of my having "disrupted" wikipedia holds up to scrutiny, viewed in the context my posts were made in. The blocking editor makes no meaningful explanation for the block imposed, or its extreme severity.
I remind impartial administrators of this block of the following line from the Guide to appealing blocks: A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.
Naturally I do not pretend that I behaved flawlessly. I saw ill-tempered attacks and slurs being thrown around, I knew that such misbehaviour shouldn't affect the words I chose, but at times they did. I never made an attack or slur, but my accusers have obviously shown examples where the tone I used should have been more neutral and conciliatory. I will certainly not in future allow a controversial article to alter my tone. Bramble window (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and judging by your contributions, 153 edits with precisely two to the encyclopedia, the block seems correct. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- That doesn't seem fair. I've proposed various changes to articles in talk rather than making direct edits because I didn't wish to be accused of disruption, and because they were what I felt were improvements to the article. I don't think such a terse comment is a worthy defence of such an extreme ban. Bramble window (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)