User talk:PersnicketyGareth
RE: Semi-protection + AGF
[edit]AGF is not a suicide pact - in other words, practicality has to take precedence over it. In this case, there are at least four confirmed off-wiki boards' worth of people without active WP accounts who have repeatedly posted some form of BLP violation or another (typically against Quinn, Sarkeesian, or Gjoni) to the article and/or talk page, in complete ignorance (or, often, defiance) of WP:VNT, WP:NOR, and/or WP:RGW. At this point, it's not really the best topic area for new editors (or anyone, really, IMO), but, if you edit some other articles, take the time to learn our policies, and then insist on participating, I won't stop you. Good luck, in any case. Random (?) 06:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. Whilst I don't expect the floodgates to be left open, I still consider the situation to be in need of a solution.
Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus.
- What worth is consensus when it is of only a select few? In most cases, WP:V, and other procedures, can keep the article balanced and accurate. These procedures are undermined however, during a scenario wherein the WP:SOURCES are the very things that the subject of the article is in conflict with.
- You're right if you think I'm not very familiar with the rules of WP, but perhaps my perspective as a newcomer is valuable. This seems like a gaping loophole to me. -- PersnicketyGareth (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding consensus: in theory, anyone is allowed to present an argument in line with our policies and have it considered, but in practice, you're pretty much on the money. Still, the GG page isn't the place to bring that up - at least one other editor has already tried.
- Regarding WP:V: that's been discussed to death on the talk page. Some editors insisted that treating the sources as biased just by being targets of GG is no better than doing the same for targets of the Church of Scientology or "9/11 truthers." The current consensus, though, seems to be that sources with a direct stake in GG-related events (mostly Gawker Media) should only be used as sources for their own statements/opinions, whereas those that are simply reporting on it (e.g. Washington Post) are fair game. Random (?) 18:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.Random (?) 06:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
