Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

the doom stuff

I unaccepted the revision with the readdition of the doom material, not because I have any opinion about the content, but because the editsum was incorrect and accusing someone of vandalism when they have not committed WP:VANDALISM is often taken rather offensively. In general, please reach consensus re: material on this talk page, and if you redo your edit, please use a valid editsum. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Gorman, I agree with your reasoning, and even if the particular DOOM critique is worthy of inclusion, the second half mentioning comparisons to Jack Thompson is at best poorly phrased, at worst intentionally misleading. It seems odd that an article from January of 2015 would be remarking on comparisons provoked in June of 2015. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1) My understanding is that the 500/30 rule was to be extended to BLPs of Gamergate targets. If so, this edit should be summarily rejected.

2) The edit was originally proposed with a deceptive edit summary, and was not accepted. It was then re-proposed with a deceptive and aggressive edit summary. The editor in question is an SPA, arriving on the heels of Gamergate and seldom editing outside the area. A cursory inspection of previous edits to BLPs shows few substantive contributions -- most seem to be attempts to wedge borderline BLP violations into the article.

3) This should be rejected on its merits -- it's undue and irrelevant -- and on procedure: whatever the intent, it's clearly being inserted into the article under false pretenses. (I acknowledge that issues 1 and 2 address editor behavior, but do we really want to or need to trek to AN/I or AE to handle this trivia? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lots of wisdom in what the editors have said above. Since the discretionary sanctions were imposed this page has been comparatively stable. We're starting to get better mainstream sources and the subject has gotten a fair amount of coverage and acclaim. What do you think about beginning an overhaul and improvement collaboration? Maybe getting this up to B or GA level status? The subject deserves a more worthy page. I think this is the time to start. For my part, I was waiting for a time of stability like the present. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the 500/30 rule? (A simple link will suffice.) -- Irn (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's over at the Gamergate controversy talk page, to wit: "the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)" If Mr. Bernstein is right above that this applies beyond that discrete article, I'd hope it could be more clearly indicated for lowly editors like myself! Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To break down why its a terrible edit, one only needs to look at sources. The first source says nothing apart from republishing a couple tweets about the audience reaction to Doom. That's...of no merit and doesn't support what was said. The second one? From the opinion pages from an author with only two articles on the site and it says "there is no comparison between Anita and Jack". That's why I axed the first edit. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• In response to a ping from Ryk72 on my User Talk page, the 500/30 restriction is, at this time, applied only to the Gamergate controversy article itself, its Talk page and its subpages. In case there's confusion as to what a "subpage" is, see Subpage, which has the definition I'm talking about. Linked or related pages aren't included in the 500/30 restriction, as of yet, so it is not applied here at this time. But, if convincing evidence can be brought that shows that a related page is having chronic problems from a series of low-experience accounts, it can be applied to those pages too. Zad68 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)