May 18th, 2015
(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Chrisrus continues to raise legalistic objections to those editors who are trying to be reasonable:
@Gamaliel: What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein calls out the lunacy he is witnessing:
Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that “the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense.” They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel unfortunately attempts to deal with Chrisrus as a reasonable human being:
I’m curious. Under what conditions do you think it would be appropriate to hat a discussion on this particular talk page? Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Chrisrus is like the defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, so the best strategy is to evade and obfuscate:
You ask me this about “this particular talk page”, but I thought it was clear that the request was for threads to be treated here no differently than any other talk page. It is especially important for this particular talk page, because it’s so widely watched, that it should stand as a positive example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Chrisrus (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz points out that a conversation can be hatted for many reasons:
That is not necessarily true. I’ve seen discussions that stray from the topic of improving editing of the article and wander into forum-style chit chat be hatted although, personally, I’d prefer that they not be collapsed. But discussion threads are hatted for reasons other than BLP violations. Of course, the hatting can be challenged by any editor but if the consensus is to hat the discussion, then it should be hatted. Liz Read! Talk! 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel adds to what Liz says:
@Liz:The fact that discussions which have gone off topic are sometimes closed does not contradict off-topic discussions being a good example of they type of thread that is sometimes closed.
Offering BLP-type violations as an example of the type of thread which is not only closed but also hidden is not the same as saying that only threads with BLP-type violations are hidden.
This cannot be treated like “any other talk page” because of the many months of conflict, the Arbitration case, the discretionary sanctions, and the specific restrictions placed on this article and talk page. Hatting threads is not “hiding things”. Those threads and archives that are hatted and removed from this page are not deleted, they are permanently preserved for all to see. But this page is a work space and it must address the needs of the editors actively working on this article and should be used for discussions about proposed edits to the article, not the thousandth iteration of a drive-by complaint or long manifestos about principles of openness. I have yet to see how any of your comments relate to how this space should function in the former way, and unless you are willing to address how your demands would facilitate editing on this particular article and in these particular circumstances, future remarks from you should remain off this page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Chrisrus continues to throw a tantrum:
What did you mean by “drive by complaints”?
What is the connection between “drive by complaints” and that case?
Reader: “I think this article is not as good as it could be. Please improve it somehow.”
Established Editor: “Can you give us something more specific? You’re not really giving us much to work with here.”
Reader: (says no more, because it’s a “drive-by complaint”.)
On this talk page, will you close, not just close but also collapse, or allow this type of thread to age into the archives?
Also, how might you word the statement that accompanies a close or a close and collapse? Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ylevental is so pathetic that they want to still pretend GamerGate is about ethics in journalism:
I would like to suggest adding next to “Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics….”, located under the section “Debate over Ethics Allegations” this counterpoint from David Auerbach.
David Auerbach: “None of the big-data analyses of Gamergate showed much of anything about harassment despite attempts on both sides to spin the results. Newsweek’s Taylor Wofford claimed that a Brandwatch study of Gamergate tweets showed that Gamergate was mostly about harassment, except that Brandwatch’s classifier wasn’t able to determine whether 90 percent of the tweets were positive or negative. The study showed nothing, but Newsweek wrote it up anyway.”
Ylevental (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Jorm tries to remind people what the actual meaning of “assume good faith” is:
Not for nothing, but this editor appears to have been involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia in the very recent past (they created an article for Dixon D. White and then bragged about how stupid Wikipedia was for accepting it on reddit (). They’re following the standard pattern of “make enough edits for autoconfirmed and then dive right in”. Accordingly, I’m reverting their changes in order for a greater discussion.–Jorm (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
In case this isn’t clear to other people, when someone creates a page specifically to fuck with the movement (‘I tricked SJWikipedia into creating an article for “Dixon White”‘) and is proud of it and claims the falsehood (‘I know that Wikipedia is really leftist so I wanted to see if Wikipedia editors would fall for the hoax. Anything makes it on Wikipedia if you use “approved” sources, which means if those sources lie, then that lie is going on Wikipedia. They almost 100% did (but found out his name was a pseudonym).’), then I don’t think it’s possible for us to trust that any edit they make in the future is “good faith”.–Jorm (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein sums up the sheer lunacy of the conversation:
Actually, @Liz:, I have to disagree with you about this: sex is very important because it is so very useful. Every time we get dragged into discussing the details of the sex lives of female software developers, that’s another warning that helps keep women out of the field. Develop games while you’re female, and they’ll write about your sex life here and send the clippings to your aged mother, or your kids’ classmates. It’s interesting, too, how we’re so scrupulous about redacting a mistake that credited a male journalist with a B.A. rather than a B.S., but when we start talking about the right way to discuss Zoe Quinn’s sex life, well, that’s fine and dandy. (I’m wondering whether the “investigation” was some kids sending emails between rounds of Call Of Duty, or something substantive but unreported…) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You see, @Liz:, I was right. Not only did we need to discuss Quinn’s sex life, but now we’re edit-warring an additional long paragraph that argues in detail that we’ve got to discuss it — but in a completely different way. Not the way our sources discuss it, because they’re sexist! Nasty New Yorker! Bad Boston Magazine~! In fact, we need to go through the whole article, apparently, and examine every little bit of sex again from multiple angles, because …. tanks tops and short shorts, or something. Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)