PavePenny

Complimentary GamerGate Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, 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.

Avono (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A modest proposal

If you are a part time video game journalist who feels this article fails to capture the subtleties of GamerGate, my best suggestion to you would be to write an article on Gamergate for a reliable source, trying to better portray the complex nature of the controversy. See this page for a basic list of reliable video game sources. If you do so the views you express could be incorporated into this article. It will be far more productive than brawling with the rest of us plebs over miniscule article changes. Bosstopher (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources available for a neutral and informative article to be written, strange though how wikipedia policies are being twisted to fit the personal biases of editors PavePenny (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any sources in particular you think are being overly neglected? Bosstopher (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart in particular is a source that has been overlooked, despite having on staff one of the journalists (Milo Yiannopolous) who have been most diligent in covering this whole ordeal. PavePenny (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is usually not considered a reliable sources due to poor reputation for fact checking. Breitbart has pretty bad reputation when it comes to reliable reporting see Breitbart_(website)#Reception_and_influence and look down the list for a few examples.Bosstopher (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is to be determined on a case by case basis per wikipedia policy. Breitbart is also uninvolved in the controversy itself, unlike the frequently spurious Kotaku which is part of Gawker Media, a company that has suffered economic losses that amount to millions of dollars at the hands of #gamergate supporters. How Kotaku is allowed as a source on this article boggles the mind. PavePenny (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Common misconception actually, Kotaku is only used to showed sparingly in this article and only to explain what Kotaku's response to GamerGate was. It's only cited three times, once to show what Kotaku's response to the accusations was, and the other time as an example of a "Gamers are Dead" article, and the third time to show the changes to policy Kotaku made in response (surely you must agree this is fair enough). Also Breitbart is hardly uninvolved, or at the very least Milo is hardly uninvolved. He's a big figure in the controversy. [Also you still havent given a response to whether or not you'll write a reliable source of your own to remedy this] Bosstopher (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Then kindly explain why the list of "reliable sources" you propose I use includes Kotaku? PavePenny (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry that list is for Game related topics in general, not GamerGate specifically. Obviously if youd ecided to have a piece published in Kotaku we wouldnt use it in the Gamergate article. Bosstopher (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be cautious

Please read the formal advisory above very carefully. It may be useful to read it several times, so that that it really sinks in. Your editing shows signs of becoming tendentious, which could possibly lead to a block. If you are to have any hope of success in shaping this article, then your edits really need to comply with our policies and guidelines. Proposing Breitbart as a reliable source is really not acceptable, as they have a well-established reputation for making things up out of whole cloth. Do not bring forward utterly unreliable sources, when many other editors are watching, and who insist on reliable sources. If you have a fundamental, core difference with how Wikipedia defines reliable sources, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the website for you. There are countless websites where people can spout whatever pops into their heads with no opposition from anyone, and where very few pay any attention. If you want to contribute to the world's #6 website in web traffic, #1 in terms of original content, then you must comply with our well-established policies and guidelines. There is no other choice here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have conducted no edits to the gamergate controversy article. Is this a threat? PavePenny (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to give you my opinion about your recent edits to the talk page. I am not an administrator so have no power to block you or impose any other sanction. So, I am not threatening you but making an observation about your recent talk page comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a random bored person that likes to browse random pages on Wikipedia, but the entire wall of text before PavePenny's reply is actually rather attacking in appearance. "It may be useful to read it several times, so that it really sinks in," makes it look like you think this editor is stupid. "There are countless websites where people can spout whatever pops into their heads with no opposition from anyone, and where very few pay any attention," also makes it seem you think this editor is stupid. This is a fact so obvious even people with Down's know it. You also gave your opinion where it's neither needed nor, I assume, wanted. Finally, finishing it with "There is no other choice here," is obviously a thinly-veiled threat, even when assuming good faith. I've no affiliation with this editor on or off wiki. And frankly, I don't care much about what they think of this. I just felt it needed to be pointed out. 108.19.131.217 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources, Reliability, and a Suggestion

Hi PavePenny, I wanted to follow up briefly on my comment regarding your suggested sources (and your reply). I just wanted suggest you look over Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, and particularly self-published sources. The FAQ at the top of the talk page also includes some information on how these might apply to the Gamergate controversy article, in particular.

I also wanted to make a suggestion. If you have a source that you sincerely believe is reliable, you might consider submitting it to the Reliable Source noticeboard. That can be a good way to get a second (and third, and fourth) opinion on your source's reliability. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it cute you place so much weight in reliable sources when so many of the sources cited in the gamergate controversy article are patently unreliable in the statements they make on the topic, as any basic review of of fact will reveal. You also completely ignore that sources should be evaluated for reliability on a case by case basis and curously neglect to respond to specific examples I have given you of questionable citations. PavePenny (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my response to your specific suggestions in the now-closed discussion on the talk page. Either way, you now hopefully have access to the resources you need to go about trying to suggest new sources, or changes, in a more effective manner. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 02:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I initially came here to make sure that you weren't blocked on my way to file an AE request regarding this. What assurances can you give me that this kind of behavior will not recur? Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello, I'm VernoWhitney. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Robert Durst because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What was the point of globally replacing the string "app" with "program" in the Robert Durst article, creating nonsense words like "disprogrameared" (from "disappeared") and "programointed" (from "appointed")? Please don't do that again. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, had an errant wordfilter extension running that scrambled words on my end, took me a while to realize the problem was with my browser PavePenny (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and apparently it's still doing it. (It replaced "app" in my question above above with "program"; I've changed it back.) Really urge you to turn that thing off. ;-) Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

An Invitation

@PavePenny: Per my user page, I am the author of Matthew Hopkins News. The site has from time to time sourced national news stories, and my work has been retweeted even by some major celebrities like Richard Dawkins. I have recently written some articles critical of misconduct on Wikipedia, for example here.

I am currently considering follow-ups including deep concerns about Wikipedia:Wikibullying. Some users who have received several warnings have been allowed to continue in their misdeeds and may pose a threat of emotional harm to the vulnerable.

I am also a Wikipedia user and editor. I am keen to oppose ethical lapses and I agree with you that the GamerGate article, for example, could be less biased. I am setting up a private venue for like-minded to meet and discuss these issues and consider you suitable. If you are interested, please email me via the address on my blog, giving your Wikipedia and Reddit user names. Vordrak (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)