Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. As of 10 Dec 2014, the limits for all evidence submissions for each editor in this case have been increased to: 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties, and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.

This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Comments by arbitrators

Not all parties yet mentioned in evidence

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. For ease of reference, the parties as of 8 Dec 2014 10 Dec 2014 are:

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ArmyLine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bilby (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cuchullain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Diego Moya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ramba Ral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Remorseless Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Retartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tabascoman77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added 10 Dec

Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated the list of parties,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting back the dates for closure of the /Evidence and /Workshop phases to allow time for editors to add and respond to fresh evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Retartist

Tarc Ignores the WP:CIVIL pillar

1 2 3 4 5

The above links are tarc removing warnings (which he is allowed to do) of people warning him for uncivil behaviour which implies that he knows he has been uncivil

The following diff is of tarc claiming that WP:CIVIL can be ignored. (tarc saying we can ignore civility if people hold a particular world view)

Reply to Poorly named user

I retracted my statements About TRPoD when it became clear that he wasn't vandalising, just inserting a weird quote Retartist (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Masem

Ownership and refusal for consensus development

There is no question that Gamergate is a troubling situation for WP, due to the fact that the "proGG" side have been trying to significantly influence the article, administration, and this case, though not always in a malicious manner, just clumsy and/or unworkable. It should be clear that the coverage of GG is predominately against proGG (there are few RSes that give a leaderless anonymous online effort any time of day particularly as the proGG efforts include criticizing and attacking those RSes, in addition to the fact that there is the harassment/threats of female figures attached to the situation - no one really is ready to give them any positive coverage). There's little we can do while staying within reliable sourcing policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP, so there is no way that the GG article can be (at the current time) very favorable of the proGG position, and hence the need to enforce some decorum on the behavior of WP:SPAs and unsigned editors who can't contribute towards that.

That said, these same facts have been used by a number of editors who have refused to engage in efforts to build consensus as mitigate the tone of the article and engaged in ownership-type behavior to maintain their version; these include (but not limited to) Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC. I believe they have very strong feelings against the proGG side of the story (aka sympathy for those who were harassed), which itself is not a problem until it gets in the way of constructive editing, as their edits and behavior to the article have clearly tainted the approach of the article and has made it difficult or impossible to work with. They early on established a persona non grata approach to the proGG SPAs trying to influence the article [1], and continue to claim that all that the article needs are methods to deal with SPAs (see associated case statements). This has been their excuse to refuse to participate in other dispute resolution methods, including dispute resolution via its noticeboard [2], [3] and formal mediation [4].

There's probably many other problems with the article from other contributions, but this group of editors have been the largest contributors to the article (outside myself), and while they are adding material w/ sources and the like that meets the base WP polices for V, NOR, and NPOV, they have used a structure and language that I and other editors believe is far from the impartial nature that WP:NPOV demands for an encyclopedia article. While this starts getting into content-related issues which I know ArbCom generally does not comment on, understanding what issues that I and others have seen is part of the behavior problems:

• Part of the issue is the nature of the press's role in Gamergate, in that they are involved parties, moreso at the video game and tech sources since proGG are trying to directly impact their ad funding. As such, the press has every reason to be negative of the movement, and many have flat out called the movement as a whole "misogynistic" due to the nature of the harassment. I want to stress this doesn't invalid these as sources, but we have to understand the difference between facts and opinions expressed in these These editors want to have WP's article call the movement out as misogynistic in WP's voice instead of stating it as the widestream press's opinion. This has been argued through many times, pointing that other articles for strongly-disliked groups by the public, like Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology put all such criticism in the approach non-WP statement instead of in WP's voice, but they shut down and refuse to accept this distinction, claiming that what the RSes state is absolute. [5], [6], [7]
• There are some neutral statements about the proGG's stance on their desire to change ethics from good reliable sources, as well as the nature of this being a "movement". But these editors focus too much on the press's stance that because of the harassment issues, that there can be no "movement" or their "ethics" cries are false fronts; as such they reject attempts to write sections of the article in a different structure or a more impartial manner to present these points without ridicule. Examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

A key part is, 90% of the article, in my opinion, is fine in light of what the sources give - there's good proper sourcing, and telling the story per WP:WEIGHT; it does need trimming, some smoothing of what are now minor points (it does suffer from WP:RECENTISM), some WP:QUOTEFARM edits, which most agree to, and could use a re-organization in light of these. But the impartialness, also a requirement of WP:NPOV can be fixed, in my opinion, simply by reworking some language order, word choices, and general article structure without loosing any of the key points or verving away from the net impression that the GG side has been broadly condemned by the VG industry and public at large, but I and other editors cannot convince this small group to go in this direction, because they seem unable to separate their strong feelings against proGG from editing the article, and reject these changes or refuse to accept that the article is written as an attack article towards the proGG side in WP's voice. (eg [14], [15], [16]) This has led to long-standard conflict over the article that needs arbitration, as to assure that we actually have processes to get better consensus, and if possible (as that is more content related) on what WP's stance should be on writing impartial articles in light of the issues Gamergate presents. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to NorthBySouthBaranof re: Proposing changes

I have proposed language changes to the article either as exact recommended wording or specific details on given sections (prior to the draft article) either in the article or on the talk page [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] that I believe are improvements in impartiality without influencing the weight, but these have been shot down by the OWNing group above (Diffs there), and, particularly in article space with the sanctions in place, would not be appropriate to edit war over. I've also provided thoughts on better organization in general [22] which would be a major reorganization of the article, and it would not make sense to actually make those changes until consensus was obtained to make them. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Without making this back and forth to what North has added, I strongly object to the claims I'm not working towards consensus (I'm trying to find a middle group) or that my suggestions are inactionable/unsupported (in specific, North's claim that the attacks/movement are factually misogynistic because the press has said so, when it is clear these are widely held opinions of the press and we need to make so WP does not refect opinion as fact regardless if every main RS makes that claim, though obviously saying what the press's stanc), in light of all aspects of NPOV policy but specifically impartiality, and how we write other articles on controversial topics. If there are specific issue ArbCom needs more info on I can reply to those facets. --19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to TheRedPenOfDoom re: pushing for non-reflective article

There are several facets of WP:NPOV. Balance per WEIGHT/UNDUE is one, and at this point, I'm not arguing that the predominate view of the press is the condemnation of GG, and the article is not going to end up making GG look good, as we can't overlook that view. But another facet of NPOV is the requirement of an impartial tone to the article, which is something we as WP editors have full control of regardless of the prevailing sources. We cannot take the press's stance (Which is all from the court of public opinion) as the stance to write WP's article for it, as it is trending towards now. Where there is factual information about GG from strong reliable sources, we cannot trivialize it away under the claim that GG doesn't deserve recognition; they call themselves a movement, and even though their actions are believed to be something far different, we as neutral editors cannot ignore that facet. This is not changing how GG is reflected in the sources, just how to keep WP neutral in the matter and neither judging or sympathetic to the group or those harassed. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment (Re: Masem and potential offsite issues)

I am very well my name comes up in offsite discussions regarding the GG article, as proGG people see me as neutral, and there have been claims in the past that I've been leading offsite groups to edit/swamp the GG article/talk page from that side (eg [23] by a since indef-blocked editor). I want to assure the committee and others I have purposely avoided communication with those groups (save for one private message exchange on the reliability of sources with one user), and, if necessary, will do whatever the committee requests to show this, if this is an issue. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof

Gamergate supporters have used Wikipedia as a platform to attack their opponents

There is a campaign by Gamergate supporters to use Wikipedia to further smear campaigns against Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu — in defiance of reliable sources, the Biographies of living persons policy and human decency. Below is a sampling.

Zoe Quinn

• [24] This history page for the article and its talk page are instructive — both Titanium Dragon and TheNewMinistry inserted an array of allegations, including a section entitled "Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct" with edit summaries that attack the subject.
• [25] — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon refers to Zoe Quinn as "a scandal attached to a person."
• [26] — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon makes poorly-sourced/unsourced negative statements about Zoe Quinn and reverts them back in after another editor removes them on BLP grounds.
• [27] — Bosstopher inserts poorly-sourced allegations that Quinn is responsible for DDoS attacks and bribery.
• [28] [29] — Titanium Dragon removes sourced statements by Zoe Quinn, stating that "Zoe Quinn's integrity is at the heart of the GamerGate nonsense" and "It is Zoe Quinn making statements in order to cast herself in a more sympathetic light, which is generally unacceptable."
• [30] [31] [32] — More rev-deleted harassment edits.
• [33] — Crisis proposes unsourced statements about Quinn's name, and when rejected, inserts them anyway.
• [34] [35] — More rev-deletions from Titanium Dragon.

Brianna Wu

• [36] — An IP editor inserts the weasel-worded and unsourced claim that Wu doxxed herself.
• [37] — Pepsiwithcoke removes cited material on threats against Wu while accusing Wu of doxxing herself, and later removes it again.
• [38] — QuantumMass inserts libelous allegations that Wu faked death threats. After being reverted, reinserts them.

Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

• [39] — Anonymous attacks.
• [40] — Akulkis inserts something so offensive that it has been rev-deleted.
• [41] — PizzaMan insinuates that Sarkeesian has lied and reinserts it with an edit summary accusing her of lying.
• [42] — Poroboros persistently inserts YouTube-sourced claims that Sarkeesian "lied" and attempts to discredit her.
• [43] — Bluefoxicy makes unsupported statements on the talk page to the effect that Sarkeesian has "known limited credibility."
• [44] — Tomous43 makes repeated BLP-violating edits to the talk page, all of which are revision-deleted.
• [45] — Xander756 makes defamatory claims on the talk page, purporting to link Sarkeesian with fraud and deceit.

Gamergate controversy

• [46] [47] [48] — Titanium Dragon inserts unsourced and poorly-sourced accusations.
• [49] —YellowSandals compares Zoe Quinn to a prostitute.
• [50] — Thronedrei accuses Brianna Wu of lying about death threats.
• [51] — Tutelary reverts a removal of BLP-violating material, claiming that such can be justified as "content choices."
• [52] — "previously-involved IP user" calls for "Putting forward evidence of an abusive relationship" in a thread discussing Zoe Quinn's purported sexual relationships.
• [53] — DownWIthSJWs calls Zoe Quinn a "professional victim."
• [54] — DHeyward compares Zoe Quinn to Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" and states that Quinn intentionally "pivoted to victim."

Repeated attempts to present false claims about living people as true or disputed

Mainstream reliable sources have unanimously dismissed Gamergate's allegations of unethical behavior involving Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson as false: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. It is provable that neither Grayson nor Kotaku ever reviewed Depression Quest and that Grayson wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning their relationship. We are well beyond the point where the claim that their relationship involved any ethical violations is a fringe allegation deserving of no credence.

Nevertheless, there have been repeated efforts to water down the article's depiction of the falsity of the claims or present them as the subject of legitimate debate. These endless, no-I-will-never-drop-the-stick-stop-asking arguments have wasted editors' time and verge on the tendentious. A sampling follows:

• 22 November — [64]: Avono argues that because "a friendship existed," we can't call the allegations false.
• 12 November — [65]: DHeyward suggests that we ignore the fact that there was no unethical behavior in favor of embracing the idea that because Quinn had a "relationship with a journalist," the allegations are meaningful.
• 2 November — [66]: Akesgeroth declares that the article has "an absolute lack of neutrality" — and proposes removing a reference to the falsity of the allegations about Quinn and Grayson from the sublede.
• 2 November — [67]: TJRaptis20 declares that there is "no proof" the claims are false and calls for the removal of well-sourced discussion of their falsity.
• 26 October — [68]: AgentChieftain states "Why are we saying that the allegations against Quinn were "proven" false...?"
• 24 October — [69] [70] [71] [72]: Diego Moya argues that describing the accusations as false is the opposite of what we need to cover the topic in a detached, formal tone and then, when confronted with the weight of the sources, argues that we should attribute the statement to "mainstream media" as if it is a contested opinion, because we just need to avoid asserting they're false, as they *are* part of a controversy.

Gamergate supporters have targeted long-term editors who attempted to deal with these issues

Gamergate supporters have targeted long-term editors, creating multiple pages which are "hit lists" including dozens of long-term Wikipedia editors who have opposed them. This has included implied and explicit threats, abusive vandalism, miscellaneous garbage and other personal attacks.

There has been no lack of discussion or failure to engage

There were no less than fourteen (14) archive pages created on Talk:Gamergate controversy in less than three months, representing the fact that all sides have extensively engaged in good-faith debate and discussion about the issue.

Community processes have not found the article to be biased

On 26 October, Masem opened a Request for Comment asking two questions, one hypothetical and one actual: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? and Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner? The RFC saw extensive participation. On 29 November, the RFC was closed by an uninvolved party, MDann52. The first question was closed with the comment that Overall, people seem to think there is a bias in the press and the usual pool of RS over this but that overall, the article is fairly neutral. The second question was closed with the comment that the overall tone is, while there are some issues, there is no overarching bias in the article.

Events of 30 November exemplify Gamergate editors' bad faith

The events of 30 November involving myself, Xander756 and Kevin Gorman are instructive as to the bad-faith manner in which any editor who acts against Gamergate is declared to be biased, treated as an enemy and subjected to attacks. On WP:ANI, Xander756 accused me of disruptive editing on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Gorman, an uninvolved administrator, responded and recognized that Xander756 was violating the biographies of living persons policy and my edits removed defamatory material. Gorman warned Xander756. In response, Xander756 declared that Gorman "appears to be a feminist" and that Gorman "is clearly not unbiased when it comes to Anita Sarkeesian." Xander756 then tweeted that "Wikipedia admin Kevin Gorman is currently (Redacted)" and posted on Gorman's user talk page that "I am currently talking to a news site that is working on a piece about your behavior tonight which may be sent to Jimmy Wales. Looking through your bio and edits, it seems that you are a feminist. Is this the case?"

Note: I removed a BLP violation from the quote above. This is not a comment on the evidence, and should not be seen as a reflection on NorthBySouthBaranof. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate has engaged in POV-pushing and imputes bad faith in decisions he disagrees with

• [73] [74] — Repeatedly removed attribution from pro-Gamergate claims sourced to op-eds, asserting that attribution is unnecessary and that we should present those opinions as fact, in violation of the precept that opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
• [75] [76] — Removes a quote from the article subject about the harassment she was subjected to, sourced to a reliable source, Kotaku, claiming that the source is unusable because it has been criticized by Gamergate supporters. The revert also removes an indisputable reliable source, The Boston Globe. His removals are reverted by multiple editors.

Levels accusations of bad faith, bias and conspiracy in many Gamergate-related decisions he disagrees with.

• Here, he attacks The Wordsmith for imposing a topic ban on a recidivist BLP-violating editor and EdJohnston for endorsing it, claiming that This is an outrage and that You both were apparently so concerned about finding an excuse to ding someone on one side of the dispute that you ignored what was staring you in the face.
• Here, he attacks Mdann52 for closing a request for comment related to Gamergate, claiming That closure was a contentious non-admin close by an editor who has taken similarly contentious non-admin actions on this topic. The closure was made on 29 November pursuant to a proper request and contrary to TDA's description of the closure as "contentious," there is no evidence anyone contested the closure.
• Here, he attacks Kevin Gorman for blocking and topic-banning a BLP-violating, abusive editor, adopting that editor's reasoning in declaring that Gorman is "involved" in a feminist's biography because he has previously edited articles related to feminism.

I have initiated good-faith efforts at consensus-building and argument-defusing

After an edit war on Gamergate controversy in mid-November resulted in long-term protection, I initiated the development of a draft page, now located at Draft:Gamergate controversy, to provide editors a place to make proposals for content changes, rather than hypothetical arguments. Similarly, after DHeyward raised what I thought was a valid point about the article's lede, I initiated a discussion and drafted a formal proposal to improve it based on those concerns. Additionally, as demonstrated in this talk page thread, there was significant and productive collaboration between myself, Tony Sidaway, Masem and other editors, using the draft page to develop a consensus-driven section on "Operation Disrespectful Nod."

Masem has not proposed actionable changes and has not been willing to compromise

As per Masem's evidence, he believes the article's tone is "not impartial." He has repeatedly made this known on the talk page, generally in the context of more or less vague statements about the movement's ethics claims. However, his activity on the draft page is limited to one series of edits to another editor's proposed submission and one addition of a brief statement. He has not drafted new sections or substantively proposed new language for existing sections. It is difficult to move forward in a content dispute when an editor who disputes the content declines to present more than general disagreement. This is not to say that Masem has not been active on the talk page in good faith, but I believe the lack of specificity in his arguments has been unhelpful. To that end, I have invited Masem to propose rewritten language for discussion.

Masem presents key examples as to why his unmodified prior proposals are not actionable and will not gain consensus — not because of any "OWNing group" but because of the weight of reliable sources. In this diff, he proposes removing any description of sexism, misogyny or harassment from the lead sentence, which is not a "neutral" or "impartial" way of describing a controversy making worldwide headlines around issues of sexism, misogyny and harassment. In this diff, he proposes removing the word "misogynistic" from the description of the harassment suffered by Zoe Quinn, claiming that stating it factually is heading into "weasel word" territory. However, it is verifiable and factual that the harassment was misogynistic, and there is nothing "neutral" or "impartial" about hiding that fact on the grounds that Gamergate supporters don't like it.

Masem has not weakened his stance or been willing to find middle ground. Masem provides an example here, where he BOLDly rewrites the section on ethics without discussion. Accepting Masem's rewrite as the new starting point, I made edits within the rewrite to address my concerns with his text. I did not revert Masem's edits. Within 3 minutes of my compromise edits, Masem reverted them wholesale, claiming that they were "not a neutral edit." That is not good-faith editing, particularly when one has just made an undiscussed large-scale rewrite. Were my edits perfectly neutral? Probably not. But neither were his, and I made an effort to work with Masem only to get flatly reverted for even trying. Later, I opened a talk page discussion of Masem's proposals, in which Masem refused to give ground or to acknowledge that describing "objective reviews" as an issue of journalism ethics is a fringe theory which must be presented as such.

Rebuttal to Tutelary

Hatting talk-page trolling relating to a living person is not only permitted, it is encouraged per WP:NOT. This explains why I hatted the edit request — it is a common Gamergate meme to refer to their targets as "Literally Who" and the edit request would have inserted text referencing the meme.

Rebuttal to Carrite

I encourage arbitrators to read the talk page discussion of Carrite's alleged "source," wherein it is clear that it is an anonymous self-published website presenting defamatory claims about living people, which WP:ELNO and WP:ELBLP categorically prohibit. No other editor has supported this material. Even Masem has agreed that it's inappropriate.

Rebuttal to The Devil's Advocate

The diffs that TDA uses to support his accusations of "POV-pushing" demonstrate that I have done the following: add material sourced from The Boston Globe, add The Boston Globe again, add a quote from a key figure in the Gamergate controversy sourced to The New Yorker, write about an international news story sourced to The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times, add attributed editorial discussion of an issue by The Salt Lake Tribune and add material sourced from The New York Times. I plead guilty to the charge of using high-quality reliable sources to create article content. TDA is also being disingenuous in his criticism of the Brianna Wu meme material — he attacks me for paraphrasing the source, and then when I replace that offending paraphrase with a direct quote, he complains that the direct quote is "inflammatory."

Rebuttal to anonymous IP editor

Using an expression of good humor in an edit summary is not disparaging or "BATTLEGROUND" behavior. Neither is engaging Masem in good-faith discussion intended to find points of common ground, discussion in which both myself and Masem have largely conducted ourselves professionally and respectfully. As demonstrable by my discussions with DHeyward (linked above), conversations on the Workshop page have previously proved fruitful in creating mutual understanding and compromise.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

Ryulong has repeatedly made egregiously POV and inflammatory edits

• Adds numerous unnecessary quotes of insults against GamerGate.
• Presents several inflammatory opinions about GamerGate as fact.
• Adds massive paragraph accusing GamerGate supporters of copyright violations based off a single source.
• Adds nearly a paragraph worth of material based off one source to attack the unofficial mascot of GamerGate.

Ryulong has engaged in POINTy behavior to push a POV

• Anil Dash material
  • Argues for excluding mention of alleged harassment of GamerGate supporters using a mocking heading.
  • Claims "poor sourcing" for above allegations warrants mention of allegations against named person. Asks about including several serious criminal accusations against named individual based off much weaker sourcing, including tweets from a critic.
  • Removes certain mentions of harassment, including reliably-sourced details about female and minority GamerGate supporters receiving rape and death threats or being fired for supporting GamerGate.
  • After the material was restored, Ryulong adds the allegations against a BLP subject to the article. Initially mild, he later expands the material to include allegations of a potentially criminal nature (bribery).
  • When I remove the paragraph, he restores it and moves it to a section on "support for charitable efforts" apparently on the basis that the "bribe" claim concerned a charity donation.
  • After I remove it, noting the BLP concern, and it is restored again, Ryulong adds an image to the section with a caption containing the potentially criminal accusation.
• GamerGate diversity material
  • Removes reliably-sourced material about women and minorities supporting GamerGate with the rest attributed as opinion, claiming it is to hold "pro-GG" content to the same standard as "anti-GG" content.
  • Subsequently edit-wars to remove from an image caption mention of Christina Sommers stating the gaming generation is much less prejudiced than previous generations.
  • Acknowledges in two comments his attributing mention of the existence of female and minority supporters as though it were opinion, despite acknowledging it as fact, was due to the alleged misogyny of GamerGate not being treated as fact based off similar sourcing.

Ryulong has violated BLP

• Adam Baldwin
  • Repeatedly adds unsupported negative claims ([77][78] [79] ) despite issue being pointed out by another editor. [80]
• Eron Gjoni
  • Changes lede to make unsupported negative characterizations of his actions.
  • Presents potentially defamatory claim as fact and removes attribution of negative opinion.
  • Situation between Gjoni and Quinn is subject of ongoing legal proceedings.
• Milo Yiannopoulos
  • Adds material making inflammatory claims about him citing a piece in an unreliable source from someone in a personal dispute with Yiannopoulos.
  • Ryulong, Red Pen, and others, engaged in derisive off-topic discussion of Yiannapolous.
• David Auerbach
  • Added a paragraph claiming Auerbach "insisted" women who were threatened should be "held responsible" for "what Gamergate had become" as well as the men threatening them. As I explained, this completely misrepresented the source and presented the misrepresentation as fact. Anthonyhcole, who Ryulong cites as having originally agreed with him, concurred.
• Zoe Quinn
  • Ryulong inserted material from an interview in a non-reliable source to insert contentious claims about Quinn, a third party.
  • See first incidence of edit-warring mentioned above where he made three reverts to restore the material, breaching 3RR in the process. The claims were removed and after being restored the next revert noted the BLP issue, but Ryulong still made two more reverts.

Ryulong has repeatedly and flagrantly breached 3RR

• 9RR (seven listed are significant) - [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]

NorthbySouthBaranof has engaged in POV-pushing

GamerGate article

• Adds demeaning quote from Quinn that makes a veiled reference to GamerGate.

Anita Sarkeesian bio

• Creates section for shooting threats with "terrorist" label in the heading. I remove the term noting only one source uses it out of those present, Baranof restores the term with several additional sources to keep the label.
• Adds quote from Sarkeesian stating supporting GamerGate is implicitly supporting harassment of women.
• Removes material about there being no "imminent danger" from shooting threat. Edit-wars to keep detail out ([88] [89]). Supports Red Pen's claim of it being coatrack material. Edit wars and breaches 3RR to keep material then adds more material about gun control.

Brianna Wu bio

• Adds inflammatory material not supported by sources.
• Uses piece unrelated to Wu to support more inflammatory material about GamerGate. Changes material and misrepresents sources to make it even more inflammatory.
• Adds highly negative material unsupported by sourcing and quote from Wu along with additional wording to associate GamerGate with death threats. Restores material adding sentence to state threats were widely attributed to GamerGate supporters. Adds another source, but still does not support statement about the meme. Edit-wars to keep material ([90] [91]). Replaces material about meme with lengthy and inflammatory direct quote from source.

Zoe Quinn bio

• [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

(work in progress)

TheRedPenofDoom has engaged in POV-pushing

GamerGate article

• Restores version of lede making false BLP claims.
• [97] [98] [99]
• [100]

(work in progress)

Anita Sarkeesian bio

• Edit-wars to remove statement about Utah threats posing no imminent danger claiming it is irrelevant then claims "BLP" without explanation ([101][102] [103].
• Initiates talk page discussion claiming University statement is a WP:COATRACK issue and anyone restoring is just trying to attack Sarkeesian ( [104]). Breaches 3RR to restore material from editorial arguing for stricter gun control and claiming Sarkeesian is right about violence in video games.
• States as fact that Utah shooting threat was from someone affiliated with GamerGate despite source characterizing it as a claim. Edit-wars to keep statement ([105] [106] [107]).

Dreadstar has shown competency issues and engaged in conduct unbecoming of an admin

• Edit-wars using rollback to redact a comment arguing WP:NOTAFORUM ([108] [109] [110] [111]). Blocks Tutelary for reverting the exact same minute he warns Tutelary of a "BLP" violation ([112] [113] [114]). Reverses and self-reverts then engages in lengthy discussion only occasionally citing BLP ([115] [116] [117]). Responds with incivility towards various editors involved ([118] [119] [120]).
• Deletes Vivian James image citing invalid speedy deletion critera. In discussion claims there was only a caption discussing the character when there was a whole paragraph and cites another invalid criteria. Takes it to Non-free content review and argues vociferously for deletion claiming, without clear substantiation, that the image is a BLP attack ([121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]).

Dreadstar has shown clear favoritism

• Dreadstar blocked Willhesucceed for a day for a mild comment about Ryulong. I criticized him for a double-standard regarding Ryulong and he left a warning on my page minutes later about edit-warring over the Dash paragraph. Ryulong made extremely condescending remarks on my talk page only for Dreadstar to politely advise him to act better for appearances. Despite me clearly detailing a BLP concern and not having reverted for over an hour, Dreadstar tried to block me for 48 hours, only reversing it on procedural grounds.
• Redacted entire comments I made about how certain edits were pushing a POV, claiming the comments had nothing to do with content ([129] [130] [131]).
• Imposed a 90-day topic ban on Torga for a 4RR near the end of a 48-hour block.
• Contrast these incidents with the 12RR case against Ryulong closed by Dreadstar.

Dreadstar misconduct elsewhere

• [132] [133] [134]

(work in progress)

Gamaliel is INVOLVED

• A year ago, when I objected to giving undue weight to online comments from some gamers about a Microsoft executive, Gamaliel pushed to keep it to emphasize "widespread gamer misogyny" in the article ([135] [136] [137] [138] [139]).
• I detailed evidence of Gamaliel being involved in the GamerGate articles during an ANI discussion. One important example is this remark calling for topic bans of Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, and "Puedo", which I believe was referencing PseudoSomething, an editor he had argued with on the talk page about sources. Made opinionated remarks regarding GamerGate and argued with editors over it ([140] [141] [142] [143]).

Gamaliel has misused his admin privileges while INVOLVED

• Imposed an indefinite topic ban on Titanium Dragon under the BLP discretionary sanctions a week after calling for a topic ban on ANI. The topic ban was reversed due to a procedural issue.
• Gamaliel argued against action on Tarc for edit-warring to include inflammatory phrasing on the basis that even if he was editing against consensus his interpretation of the sources was correct. Closed the discussion with no action.
• Soon after this case was opened Gamaliel imposed an indefinite topic ban against Tutelary, another editor he previously voted to topic ban. Gamaliel states this decision ruled out "involved" editors, but only six are uninvolved regarding Tutelary or GamerGate and are split evenly. Gamaliel imposed an indefinite topic ban on MarkBernstein soon after, but logged it to imply the reverse. Gamaliel showed serious reluctance regarding any sanction on Mark even in the face of two other admins supporting it and repeatedly expressed sympathy regarding Mark's disruptive attitude ([144] [145] warned him with a very sympathetic statement).

Black Kite is INVOLVED and has used his tools

• Has actively taken part in content disputes on the related articles, talk pages, and projectspace discussions ([146] [147] [148] [149] [150]*[151] [152] [153] [154]).
• Has performed various revision deletions on related articles ([155] [156] [157]).
• Closes ANI case where TD was subject to a second topic-ban four hours after the case opened despite minimal discussion and at least one objection to the sanction.
• States that he still sees himself as uninvolved.

Cuchullain is involved and has used the tools

• Cuchullain is a major contributor to the articles on Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games ([158] [159] [160] [161]), including being involved in a discussion over a death threat that many media associated with GamerGate. Soon afterwards Cuchullain full-protected Quinn's page and full-protected the GamerGate page in lieu of action from a report on Baranof blatantly breaching 3RR, another active editor on Sarkeesian-related pages ([162] [163] [164]).
• Makes a contentious edit through another admin's page protection based off 11 minutes of discussion involving Ryulong, Red Pen, and Tarc, who all had edit-warred on the lede, two of them over the very same issue ([165] [166] [167]).
• Used protection tools again.

Bilby is involved and has used the tools

• Involved on Quinn and GamerGate articles ([168] [169] [170]). Has performed various revision deletions,([171] [172] [173]) including the edit for which Titanium Dragon received his first topic ban).

GameJournoPros

• Baranof removes reliably-sourced material about GameJournoPros due to it originating with Breitbart, despite other sources being used for it ([174]).
• Red Pen removes same material with derisive comment about Yiannopoulos.
• Tarc removes same material calling it "nuttery".
• Ryulong removes same material due to "no consensus".

ArmyLine's topic ban was unwarranted and excessive

• ArmyLine was topic-banned for a year by Acroterion for stating Quinn cheated on Gjoni with Grayson. I noted in a later case regarding the topic ban that such claims were reasonable given reliably-sourced coverage and that sanctioning an editor for stating this was absurd ([175] [176]).

Tabascoman's indefinite block was unwarranted and suppression was misused on his edit

• Tabascoman made some combative remarks about the subject and Gamaliel on ANI and TD's talk page, stating he was going to write an article about the situation ([177] [178] [179]). Gamaliel responded in a condescending manner ([180] [181]). Another editor, with a history that leaves a lot to be desired, called for an indefinite site ban over those two remarks. Gamaliel made more combative comments ([182] [183]). Gamaliel blocked Tabascoman for 24 hours a bit later citing BLP on two comments. Afterwards, Tabascoman posted a link to the talk page that was redacted by Baranof as a BLP violation and revdelled by Dreadstar under WP:RD3. It was also suppressed by PhilKnight who then blocked Tabascoman indefinitely citing WP:NOTHERE. See this discussion summing up the situation.

As it concerns squabbling over sourcing for abuse allegations

You two may find these sources illuminating.

Regarding Drmies

• For the record, while I think the block imposed by Drmies was wrong, I do not believe he is or was "involved" regarding the topic area and I left him out of the list of parties for this case for a reason. His actions since then vindicate my omitting his name.

Evidence presented by LoganMac

Ryulong recieved $370 by a known anti-GamerGate subreddit

Ryulong recieved $370 by a known anti-GamerGate subreddit after having made an AMA (ask me anything) that same day. He admits that any further edit would be a conflict of interest [184]

Said Reddit thread [185]

Ryulong is asked by anti-GamerGate subreddit to add the string "2mj5ds" to his profile [186]

He does so here [187] confirming it's his account

The user who donated most of his goal is a known anti-GamerGate person [188] [189] Ryulong tried implying that "anyone could donate", and that the GoFundMe would be posted "on a another pro-GamerGate subreddit". No such thing happened.

His fully founded GoFundMe page [190]

He confirms on his public Twitter page that the GoFundMe was made by him [191] (this is not doxxing, he has admitted that account it's his, I came to learn of his account when HE himself asked me to "learn to fucking read" on that account) On this same account, he further admits of a conflict of interest, hence "quitting" [192] yet he came back less than a week later

He breaks his self-imposed topic ban by editing the article draft on multiple ocassions [193] [194] [195] He even says "I'm going to regret doing this later" in his edit summary

He continues to do so in the 8chan article, adding a POV and notability tag [196], and after gettnig deleted, adding a POV tag again [197] As well as multiple suggestions on its talk page about the article being biased [198] [199] [200] [201]

He was even asked by Jimbo to step down of the article [202] but he refused

Ryulong shows an extreme case of WP:OWN, has time and time again violated WP:CIVIL, has demonstraded a heavy bias, not only on-site but off-site as well. He seems to take pride in angering userbases and fandoms. Constantly reverts people instead of making suggestions to change an user edit.

This only further damages the image of Wikipedia, like Auerbach of Slate own encounter with Ryulong, or notable scholar and multi-published feminist Christina Sommers criticism . The article should be dealt by completely new uninvolved editors. And as Masem noted, should be written in a disinterested voice.

Update 12-08: Ryulong continues to be involved in GamerGate related stuff and showing his bias, he argued for the deletion nomination of the article Fredrick Brennan, the founder of 8chan, who has been covered for completely unrelated matters regarding his disability by Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and getting mentions from Le Monde, getting extensive interviews by The David Pakman Show, the Huffington Post and a documentary on the Al Jazeera network, the nomination was placed by another user shortly after [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209]

He deleted an IP user comment deeming it "trolling", who "is blatanly lying". Lying apparently is grounds for deleting someone else's comment, if he judges it as a lie. Loganmac (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Surprising noone, he has voted to redirect Fredrick Brennan's article [210] Loganmac (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

PresN's evidence

I had written a rebuttal but PresN politely deleted his evidence since there's no relevance to users' off-wiki accounts. Loganmac (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ryulong

TDA intentionally misinterpreting policy

The Devil's Advocate (TDA) frequently claims violations of WP:BLP for unintentional and honest mistakes and ignores actual malicious intent for the purpose of attempting to ban people from the topic area. His evidence here against myself and other editors critical of Gamergate solely consists of such edits. He has never brought up any intentionally malicious edits by other editors as he does not see them as opposition. The Anil Dash paragraph, for example, is heavily represented, despite the community at large dismissing his claims and my only violation is not having a local consensus to add it because of him and Tutelary.

The "edit warring" claim is frivolous as I was responding to a request on the talk page to trim the image captions [211] that got caught in a blanket revert by Tutelary; I was the original author of the image captions anyway. [212].

TDA has constantly edited the article and talk page in a way to ensure that any negative material is demoted to being an opinion of a writer while actively pushing that anything supportive of Gamergate gets treated as a fact. (See NorthBySouthBaranof's evidence)

TDA's claims regarding David Auerbach are also frivolous as the community as a whole has supported me, including not finding any real fault in my paraphrasing of an article critical of his writing.

TDA has also intentionally misinterpreted policy in order to protect a user who had openly disclosed his identity on his user page and had been discovered to have a conflict of interest by redacting the blocking admin's statements under the claim of WP:OUTING.[213]

Reddit & edits

A disclosure regarding what happened on Reddit has been forwarded to the arbitration committee mailing list.

I have participated in discussions on Talk:8chan and Talk:Fredrick Brennan that people find fault with, despite there being no restrictions to forbid me from doing so. Similarly, edits to Draft:Gamergate controversy have also been contested despite it being an unofficial sandbox.

The community at large has rejected claims I have a conflict of interest or violated one. [214] [215]

Loganmac rebuttal

The incident concerning Auerbach was resolved on-site with the community backing me rather than saying I should be censured.

Off-site canvassing and harassment

Evidence regarding the actions of Wikipedia editors on other websites in regards to enabling and fomenting harassment of myself and oher editors onsite has been forwarded to the arbitration committee.

BLP violations by TDA

This edit by TDA intentionally toes the line of a BLP violation where he uses the article's talk page to make statements about the subject's past that are not reliably sourced, are generally irrelevant, and regard the subject's private life.

Harassment by Tutelary

Tutelary has focused their attention on eliminating me from the article several times. Tutelary has repeatedly attempted to report my behavior on the article on WP:AN and other related boards, which ultimately resulted in no action taken.

• [216]
• [217]
• [218]
• [219]

Examples against NorthBySouthBaranof as well

• [220]
• [221]

Edit warring by Tutelary

Tutelary has edit warred with administrators and others over closures of threads that had been made to seek bans or over the page itself.

• [222]
• [223]
• [224]
• [225]
• [226]
• [227]
• [228]
• [229]

General issue of links to my Twitter account

My behavior on my personal Twitter account where I was harassed by Gamergate advocates is not evidence of anything, as I've made no attempt to influence what was happening on Wikipedia through those channels. Archived links exist solely to harass me.

Starship.paint rebuttal

It is impossible for anyone to be completely unbiased, and it is only when biases affect WP:NPOV should they be examined. The complaints about neutrality at Gamergate controversy are attempts to contravene WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS when reliable sources do not adequately cover what Gamergate advocates want them to.

Much of the evidence involves either websites of ill repute or no reliability character assassinating me and others. General evidence of Gamergate advocates attempting to silence Wikipedia editors through the "press" has been forwarded to the arbitration committee. The claimed COI issues is discussed above.

The evidence also features ad hominem attacks on a person uninvolved in Wikipedia concerning this other issue as well.

The claims that my presence on Wikipedia is problematic because I've made comments off-site that were questionable (since deleted/retracted but that doesn't stop people from constantly bringing them up it seems) and because I've made the most edits to the article (a common complaint) are contra to the request an arbitrator made on the evidence talk page as this does not constitute what evidence should be in this case.

@Starship.paint: Stop bringing up my Twitter account—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts and "zombie" accounts

The Gamergate article and its talk page have been heavily edited by users who either are newly registered accounts that only edit the Gamergate article and related topics and can be considered as representative of WP:SPA or they are users who have had long stretches (sometimes years) of inactivity on Wikipedia, but have seemingly all returned to edit Wikipedia's Gamergate topic area (which were termed as "zombie" accounts by EvergreenFir here). I initially attempted to raise this issue for discussion at WP:AN in the poorly executed "Nip Gamergate in the bud" thread. Regardless of my errors then, the issue still plagues the topic area. I will only be listing the most prolific and still present editors here.

• Loganmac has edits going back to 2008. However, he seemingly stopped editing Wikipedia in 2011 only to make his first edit in over 3 years to the Gamergate article's talkpage and for the past 3 months barely make any substantiative edits to any other article or talk page.
• YellowSandals' first edit ever was regarding the talk page and has only ever made edits to the talk page (some are to the article itself and others are on user pages or project pages regarding the subject).
• Pepsiwithcoke, while having a somewhat varied editing history, jumped into the fray with this "false flag" remark and since then hasn't done much regarding any other subject on Wikipedia.
• Halfhat, while having registered in April of this year, did not perform that many edits after registering. However, he did begin editing the Gamergate topic area in October and since then the majority of his edits have been regarding Gamergate in some way. Simply because he can present a dozen or so edits out of the several hundred he has made that are not about Gamergate does not mean he does not fit here.
• Racuce's first edit is about Gamergate and there's no edits of his that aren't about Gamergate.
• Jgm74 originally registered in 2007 and had 2 edits but after making enough edits to be autoconfirmed, he began editing the Gamergate topic area only
• Zakkarum, whose edits on the draft page raised my concerns and general drama in the area these past few days made his first edit to Masem's RFC and has done nothing since.
• Torga, who was banned with the community sanctions while the case was still being considered, made one edit in 2008, made 9 more to get autoconfirmed in September this year, and then jumped straight into Gamergate.
• Weedwacker has recently re-appeared after a year of absence to edit Gamergate and related pages extensively. This has included harassing me.
• Tabascoman77, while having made some minimal edits across the project throughout the period of 2010 to mid-2014, was last extensively involved in Wikipedia in 2009. He returned to Wikipedia to support Titanium Dragon following his initial topic ban. He was ultimately indefinitely blocked as as a result of violating the BLP discretionary sanctions within the Gamergate topic area. The edits he made to Talk:Gamergate controversy have since been revdelled over their content but the resultant thread was archived here.
• DungeonSiegeAddict510 is an editor at Uncyclopedia. His editing history locally is fairly short up until Gamergate became a thing in September of this year. He began editting in earnest after linking to my ancient personal website (diff since revdelled) which went the way of the dinosaur with Geocities. He also repeatedly restored a thread on Talk:Gamergate controversy (and then to his user talk) that I had removed out of BLP concerns. These edits were never revdelled ([230], [231], [232], [233]).
• Casimirin registered 1 week ago after editing as an IP and has entrenched himself at a Gamergate-based dispute at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers.
• Dwavenhobble was registered last month and made a few edits then has solely advocated

Tutelary refutations

Incivility to peoples offsite is irrelevant. Cobbsaladin's actions spoke for themselves, and that is why he is blocked.

Community sanctions & admin shopping

Hasteur proposed a set of general sanctions in order to deal with editors disrupting Gamergate controversy. After approximately 24 hours of discussion, Jehochman closed the discussion to allow the general sanctions to be confirmed by the community here. This went live on 24 October 2014. The sanction enforcement page went live on 12 November 2014 after a request that was answered by RGloucester here.

Since the instatement of the page, several editors were banned for various lengths under these sanctions, mostly against those advocating for Gamergate (including several parties to this case). Complaints have been made about a claim of unfair implimentation of these rules, despite no attempt by editors on one side of the dispute to even attempt to use the enforcement page to seek out sanctions against editors they consistently complain about on noticeboards. [234]

Two prior attempts at arbitration were sought prior to this third accepted request. Both had been declined [235] [236]. At the time of the second request, the Gamergate sanctions were only in place for 4 days. The third accepted request was made under a week after the second request was declined, and no attempts at solving issues at the enforcement page were made by the filing party TDA, or any prior filing parties of the requests, to use the enforcement page to solve problems, and only pile onto existing threads to avoid having their allies be censured.

Out of all of the threads started at WP:GS/GG/E, none have been started by TDA or Tutelary and only two (this one against Tarc and the live one against myself opened by a single purpose account) have been opened by other editors advocating for Gamergate, despite their complaints that no one critical of Gamergate has been censured under the sanctions.

East718 refutation/rebuttal/whatever

Several pieces of East718's evidence also meet the same "out of context honest mistake rather than actual malicious intent" description as in TDA's evidence. It also relies on off-site behavior, which is not in the purview of Wikipedia (necessarily) as per the argument against Mr. Random's evidence. Aside from that, the "witch hunt" was poorly executed, and nothing came out of it other than the sanctions page. Edit warring was never acted on per Tutelary's evidence, and none of that past behavior (such as my actions as an administrator) are not relevant in this present case as those happened 5 years ago.

Carrite rebuttal

Carrite is trying to use arbitration to solve a content dispute as his request on the talk page has been met with denial. The website features may problematic statements concerning living persons.

IP editor rebuttal

The IP editor claims that arguments with him count as harassment and he takes things out of context. All of his edits have been to advocate for Gamergate across his 3 addresses:

• 70.24.5.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • [237]
  • [238]
  • [239]
  • [240]
  • [241]
  • [242]
  • [243]
  • [244]
• 74.12.93.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • All edits are about this case
• 76.64.35.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • Same as above
  • [245]

For his latest addition, the IP editor claims my asking "why do you want me to be banned" counts as incivility or biting when his goals are clear. [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253].

DHeyward rebuttal

This isn't a content dispute to rehash the arguments concerning that one website.

Evidence presented by Silver seren

Notice of possible meatpuppetry

I am still debating whether I want to get involved with presenting a full set of evidence in this case, as I really don't want to have to deal with SPAs harassing me and the like. But, for now, I just wanted to make a simple notification that anyone involved in this evidence page that uses Archive.today as a link, such as Mr. Random and LoganMac up above, likely have personal involvement with Gamergate as they are the only ones involved in using such links. Furthermore, the evidence presented just above by both has already been dismissed by the community as not an actual case of COI or a concern, as seen in this ANI discussion. And the exact evidence links given by them are also something that is currently, as I write this, being compiled in an 8chan thread and has been since this Evidence page was opened, so that is likely where the two above have been getting their sources. Again the use of Archive.today is a rather blatant showcase for that.

Also, the fact that the same 8chan thread is discussing having Wikipedia editor insiders who will ferry their wanted evidence along implies enough itself (and one of the commenters there implying they are a Wikipedia editor). And, yes, I have screenshots of this, which is necessary since they often delete or change comments in order to pretend certain things were not said. Silverseren^C 03:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I should note the removal here was done by the poster after collaboration with the users in the same 8chan thread I mentioned before. Also, apparently they are working together in an IRC chat in addition to the 8chan thread in order to facilitate the meatpuppetry. Silverseren^C 04:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also this acknowledgement.

"Again, If you guys can, just delete my entry and I'll leave it to the pro editors with the long-standing accts on the gamergate.me side edit / present evidence."

Diff. Silverseren^C 04:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TheRedPenOfDoom

User:Titanium_Dragon has an inherent conflict of interest

User:Titanium_Dragon self identifies as [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Titanium_Dragon&diff=next&oldid=235412804 " a independent game designer "] and therefore has an inherent conflict of interest in editing gamergate articles, since gamergate in general is ostensibly about wide-spread collusion between game designers and journalists when it is not about sending death threats to women, and articles/content about Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and Phil Fish in particular who as indie game developers are effectively competitors in the game design space and about whom he has on numerous occasions made comments so inappropriate that they have had to be rev del [254] . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal to TDA accusation of NPOV pushing

a) Per the source Quinn’s ex-boyfriend, programmer Eron Gjoni, wrote a blog post accusing Quinn of having an affair with a writer for a games Web site that had reported on “Depression Quest.” The site investigated the alleged ethics breach . Other reliable sources at the same time and after were similarly asserting that the blog tirade made the accusations Quinn was attacked online by an ex-boyfriend who alleged in lengthy blog posts that she cheated on him with a journalist from gaming-news site Kotaku to further her career.

b) [255] sources do directly link the terrorist threats to gamergate. BLP is not subject to 3RR. "Established" editors ESPECIALLY should not be pushing coatracks to insinuate that a living person is a coward for taking terrorist threats seriously, rather than merely dismissing as "internet trolls will be internet trolls". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

rebuttal re Carrite

As Carrite demonstrates brilliantly in their "evidence", the so called "House POV" team has had to face countless assertions along the lines that Wikipedia must take blog posts written by fictional characters from Dune as more equal than The Guardian, New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, PBS, BBC etc. Such assertions are emblematic of kinds of nonsense that would cause even the Kwisatz Haderach to sometimes snap.

Tinfoil hat claims about the media have no credence

The media is more than willing to cover issues of actual violations of journalistic ethics

• 2011 News Corporation scandals
• Jayson Blair

And more than capable of handling "emotional charged" issues and events

• 2014 ISIL beheading incidents
• Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
• Shooting of Michael Brown

Claims [256] [257] that all of the mainstream media are for some reason improperly colluding/ incapable of covering harassment by internet trolls over video games is more than ludicrous suggestion.

The Devil's Advocate continues to push illegitimate claims about a living person

TDA continues to assert that there is some sort of relevance of allegations about a living person, Zoe Quinn, that have not been proven false. In his "evidence" on this page he asserts that there is something "contentious" about this edit [258] which appropriately establishes what all of the reliable sources from day 1 have indicated, there is no professional misconduct. I questioned TDA about this and his responses are extremely troubling [259] effort to WP:COATRACK

Masem continues to push for article that does not reflect the overwhelming consensus of the reliable sources

Even here in his "evidence" [260]

• from his "evidence" "There's little we can do while staying within reliable sourcing policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP," - the very conception that we "should" be doing something to change the way we present GG other than follow the sources and policies? according to Masem, yes: " our article takes the extreme view that the press has presented,"
• from his "evidence" : " I believe they have very strong feelings against the proGG side of the story (aka sympathy for those who were harassed), which itself is not a problem until it gets in the way of constructive editing," Like holding the article and editors accountable for WP:BLP ? unlke Masem who suggests that we need to "understand" and play along with 4chans "rape joke" mentality our article should somehow make appeasement to 4chans "rape joke" mentality. who in an effort to stop an edit war,[261] lets everyone know that a static image cannot depict rape. [262] and then tries "to objectively identify the issue of the joke in light of the sources given" by explaining that that 4chan "rape jokes" are somehow different, because, 4chan
• from his "evidence": " As such, the press has every reason to be negative of the movement, and many have flat out called the movement as a whole "misogynistic" due to the nature of the harassment. " we should be editing under the tinfoil hat premise that the press somehow is not willing to cover instances of journalistic lapses by other members of the press? (see above evidence if such is needed) Since at least sep 9 [263] he has been portraying the media, not as reliable sources but as "anti -gg"; his RfC [264] framing GG as having "2 sides" - GG and everyone else, including the media - that we somehow need to put both our policies and the overwhelming sources at arms length to give the "little guy" pro-GG a fair shake (sorry, his selected cadre of "pro gamer gaters"- those that are "pro ethics" but have not been formally connected to the harassment yet) .

and in the Workshop page [265]

Several arbs have noted a concern about WP:SHOPPING

several arbs themselves have made the observation of this case being forum shopped:

• [266] " At the same time, I don't want to give the impression that by failing to drop a stick, someone can force us to take a case"
• [267] "I do not like the "keep asking till you get you want" feeling I get from these repeated requests,"
• [268] "wary of accepting a case so soon after we declined the previous request to give time for community sanctions to work or not."

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Torga has used sockpuppets abusively and violated topic ban

• [269] while under a GG topic ban, Torga violated the topic ban by participating in a GG related AFD.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torga

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Starship.paint's accusation of offsite " aggressive and insulting" comments towards gamergaters

Even if offsite activity to third parties were relevant here, calling people "fags" who have selected to call themselves "Unbearable Faggot" as the pseudonymous name tag for all posts on their 8chan board targeting Wikipedia editors [see evidence already submitted privately to arb come email] can hardly be considered an " aggressive and insulting" act, especially considering the other names the gamergate Unbearable Faggots directed at the Wikipedians and at each other [also in the evidence previously e-mailed]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

response to Tutelary

Of the links posted by Tutelary that are not outright ridiculous vis a vis "evidence" of anything:

• this was in response to the inane question of the section heading "Why is this article so heavily edited by WikiProject Feminism?" hmmm ... Why is an article about harassment of women being edited by people from WikiProject Feminism?
• Tutelary claims this edit is "Arguing for including Eron's name implicating because he made 'Zoe's life hell," When it is quite explicitly arguing THE EXACT OPPOSITE: While it might feel good to burden someone who has made other people's lives a hell with their "tirade" of "dirty double load of laundry" , that is not Wikipedia's job and certainly not an acceptable rationale. (emph added)
• and re [270] given the fact that NO OTHER SOURCES have looked at Milo's "evidence" and come up with Milo's interpretation that it is signifying of a mass journalistic conspiracy, calling such a proposal a "fringe conspiracy theory" is not a BLP issue, its a plain declaration of fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Starship.paint

Comments and actions bringing Wikipedia into disrepute

Some actions of Ryulong and Tarc, while off-wiki, has brought Wikipedia into disrepute. Even when Ryulong and Tarc are off-wiki, they still use virtually the same user names or handles, for example their Twitter accounts, which are called Ryulong and Tarc Meridian respectively. The Twitter acounts have publicly acknowledged that they are Wikipedia editors. [271] (Tarc's admission is quoted below) The Wikipedia accounts have also admitted to using the Twitter accounts: Ryulong [272] and Tarc (Rebuttal, Avono). [273]

These were comments made when they were actively editing the article. I will demonstrate the bias below; I'm afraid I have to rely on an archive system as the damaging tweets were deleted at some point in time:

oh, you're a gamergate douche trying to get his way on Wiki by bitching that the page is biased as it doesn't show what you want [274]
I don't have time to deal with gamergate fags here [275] - Ryulong

FWIW I am a Wikipedia editor, and have done what I can to keep the BS out.
Hey, sorry you're getting crap from Gamergater neckbeards. These people need to and will be shouted down.
The narrative is being won, media's coming down hard against the trolls."
1 month later tho, looks like my p.o.v. is winning out.. - Tarc Meridian source

These aggressive and insulting comments have led to people questioning the integrity of the project if editors who have displayed such a bias and a anti-GG POV are still allowed to edit in this topic. Additionally, Ryulong on-wiki essentially admits he's not a neutral editor here. In the post above, he also claims being attacked on Twitter by the "mindless gamergate zombies". Honestly, I acknowledge not every editor approaching a subject will be neutral. However, when editors broadcast their biasness in a public manner, all it does it damage the reputation and reliability of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the case of Ryulong was complicated due to him opening a GoFundMe online asking for donations. When he opened the GoFundMe, Ryulong acknowledged on-wiki that "further edits I make to the article or its talk page may be construed as a conflict of interest", referring to GamerGate. [276] Ryulong's GoFundMe quota was met by a $350 donation from a certain FishFox Nuro, [277] a self-described "SJW Lunatic" [278] (social justice warrior, a label referring to someone with an anti-GamerGate POV). It seems to me that after accepting this donation from someone who is publicly anti-GG ("I sent off the bulk of my repayment to my friend tonight") - Ryulong now has a financial WP:COI regarding future edits on GamerGate. starship.paint ~ regal 09:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I found a discussion on the GamerGate article here on the Escapist Magazine forums which is not reddit, 4chan or 8chan. It's interesting how the posters view the article and Ryulong, just CTRL-F Ryulong. starship.paint ~ regal 02:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: In response to Cla68's question on whether Ryulong made "a homophobic slur on your Twitter feed when referring to your editing of the GG article on WP", Ryulong responded that "As a homosexual I can reclaim it for my own use. Not to mention said slur is often used as a meaningless suffix for some of the websites this topic originated on. [279]

• Overall I'm not sure whether Ryulong really understands the need for accountability of his actions and words. How many "unintentional and honest mistakes" should we tolerate? One must analyse this situation; firstly, GamerGate is very controversial and is an issue with two "sides"; secondly, Ryulong is extremely involved (at time of post 18.55% of the article's edits belong to Ryulong). As long as people could be led to believe that Ryulong endorses one "side" of GamerGate to the point of casting slurs on the other "side", then we have a problem. Ditto to Tarc describing GamerGaters as "neckbeards" above. We have to consider the explicit connections the Wikipedia accounts and Twitter accounts have made to each other - together, they constitute unacceptable behaviour for future editing of the topic. starship.paint ~ regal 08:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Update 3: In response to TRPoD, one of 8chan's name tags is "Unbearable Faggot". However, Ryulong said "gamergate fags". GamerGate does not equate to 8chan, nor the other way around. starship.paint ~ regal 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Accusations without proof by MarkBernstein

not needed for now

Since MarkBernstein was topic banned after I made this post, I've hidden this as it is no longer necessary at this point in time. There's some technical error, sorry, but if you absolutely need to read it, there's the edit tab. I may restore this accordingly if the situation changes. starship.paint ~ regal 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure of 12RR as Stale

I am not sure whether this closure was appropriate, given the severity of the supposed offending action. starship.paint ~ regal 09:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to EvergreenFir

@EvergreenFir: - regarding the doxxxing, I just want to clarify that it's not only Ryulong who was doxxxed. There's also editors whom I do not consider "anti-GG", like Tutelary and DungeonSiegeAddict510, who also suffered from such attacks. starship.paint ~ regal 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by HalfHat

Odd action by Dreadstar

I'd like to bring up a recent action by Dreadstar that I find rather odd, and I think is worth looking at. Basically he told me to stop making references to Hitler threatening me with sanctions. The thing is all I was doing is referring to the Wikipedia article on Adolph Hitler to make a point. The reason I (and I'd guess others) make references to the Hitler article is because it's a well written article on a very controversial topic where nonfringe sources have strong opinions, the argument requires it to be an article on someone or something hated by the RSs. I was simply making the argument that if all sources share an opinion we shouldn't agree in Wikipedia's voice. Please note I did not compare anyone or anything to Hitler, I didn't accuse anyone of being a Nazi or anything like that, I was simply making an argument about what is written in the RSs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHalfhat&diff=635482043&oldid=635152453 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=635481687&oldid=635481421

Response to Ryulong

I quickly compiled some difs here I think help show I'm not here to push an agenda. In fact that block of text was pointless, I'll add it to the diff page if someone wants to read it though but it's pointless. Ryulong has presented nothing to show advocacy.

Evidence presented by Thargor Orlando

Current Gamergate sanctions lack community support

The GamerGate sanctions were implemented via a community discussion at the administrators noticeboard here. The discussion went for less than 24 hours, with 19 in favor and 8 opposed, 7 opposes of which came after the 14th support. Further discussion might not have come to any real consensus on the matter or need to act. Concerns were raised about the number of involved admins, and involved admins have been implementing the sanctions. The rushed sanctions were probably put in place simply to install one point of view for good into the article, and have largely succeeded in that goal.

Current Gamergate sactions are not levied fairly or equitably

Please see this note in my plea to have User:MarkBernstein sanctioned for his activity. When some users act in similar ways who are also identified as "pro-GG" editors, they are topic banned or worse almost immediately. When an editor identified as "anti-GG" is noted, with proof, to do the same things, there is significant hand-wringing by similarly-minded editors regarding whether to levy sanctions, and often (such as with User:Ryulong), sanctions are simply not instituted at all.

User:MarkBernstein

As MarkBernstein had stated he had retired from editing, I didn't feel the need to highlight his actions. As he's continuing to be active, it's worth noting that there are dozens of diffs regarding his behavior that lead to his eventual topic ban (a topic ban, mind you that administrators showed little interest in putting in place). In a perfect world, I'd love to see ArbCom negate the community sanctions as lacking support and instituting their own, reinstating the topic ban on MarkBernstein from an ArbCom level.

Please also note that Bernstein has repeatedly canvassed off-wiki for help on the article, as noted in the diff in this section.

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

An example of the immediate, hostile, noncollaborative environment created by many of the chief players includes this unnecessary attack by TheRedPenOfDoom. The article is so locked down by certain points of view that even discussion about whether the language used is correct is dismissed as trolling or worse.

Content dispute

Disruptively hatted numerous times, this discussion in the archive shows a broader sense of the issue. In my attempts to try and see if some reasonable discussion could break the logjam, the issue became clear that the sides are far too entrenched. Interestingly, though, the discussion did result in a clarification that proves that our article is still not accurate: there is an allegation that is proven false (the relationship-for-review claim), and there are allegations that are unfounded, thus creating the continued confusion. How to handle that is no longer able to even be discussed at talk, and the improper use of the sanctions ensures that it's unlikely to ever be fixed given the ownership of the article by one side of the discussion.

User:Hasteur

Contrary to his multiple claims to the contrary ([280][281]), Hasteur crafted the Gamergate sanctions and is an involved editor in that regard.

Hasteur is also free to argue that he is uninvolved as he does here, and I've presented my evidence to support my own point of view as well. The claims he makes about me, including the need to attribute a point of view I have not expressed anywhere regarding the subject matter (beyond the fact that our article doesn't handle the topic well or properly) is part and parcel of how divided the project has become on the issue. I don't believe I've done anything to deserve the sort of invective I've gotten that I've detailed here, but clearly others disagree.

The sake of brevity

I do not see the need to repeat more evidence listed elsewhere. I fully endorse this information from Masem and all of The Devil's Advocate's evidence (especially concerning Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:TheRedPenOfDoom.

Evidence presented by Avono

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Regarding Battlefield Mentality

see this report submitted by User:Auerbachkeller [282] and this response from Tarc [283] Avono (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc's conduct is especially worrying because he has been repeatedly warnned of this [284], [285] Avono (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Auerbachkeller has also written about the incident here [286]

Rebutal Tarc

WP:BLP#Non-article_space allows posting links of BLP issue material in order to discuss If said source can be used. Therefore just linking to it is no violation (I never presented this material in article talk page space and never referred to it) Avono (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein has violated his Topic Ban

see his comment here [287] where he states the word GamerGate Avono (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC) and another comment here [288] Avono (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tutelary

Ryulong has repeatedly gotten away with edit warring even at 15RR by administrators primarily indulged with sanctions

People have reported Ryulong multiple times for edit warring, and both times, Ryulong was not taken action against, and the person who had absolved Ryulong of any block was the person primarily active in the sanctions page.

• [289] (By administrator Dreadstar, who declared it 'stale' 15 hours later. See my section on Dreadstar's conduct.)
• [290] (By Future Perfect, giving no reasoning on why Ryulong shouldn't be blocked per WP:3RR saying to go to WP:ANI if anything needs to happen further, even though Ryulong perfectly passed 5RR without an exception. He's also the one who absolved him of any topic ban when he proposed SPAs all be topic banned.)

Repeated refactoring and/or hatting of others' comments in violation of WP:REFACTOR and WP:TPO

Multiple users have hatted, refactored others' comments even withstanding those user's rejections and have gotten into edit wars regarding this fact. Note that WP:TPO states Indeed it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. and also states that involved users should not be hatting others' comments. The template for hat advises to follow WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR, which states that if anyone objects to refactoring, that it be reverted. Diffs: [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], Hatting with an insult, [306], [307], [308], [309], For a procedural error, they get their entire post removed, See former, [310], [311], Refactoring even withstanding the editors' rejection of such, [312], [313], [314], Removing another users' comment for procedural error, [315]

Conduct and comments unbecoming of a Wikipedia editors

RedPenOfDoom:

• Hatting a discussion related to content (without signing), a violation of WP:BLPTALK
• A violation of WP:TPO, editing another's comments
• Inappropriate Hyperbole: [316], [317], [318], Implicating editors are 'misogynists', [319], [320], [321], [322]
• Arguing for including Eron's name implicating because he made 'Zoe's life hell, Calling a BLP a 'conspiracy theorist'

Northbysouthbaronof:

• On 11/28/2014 Hatting another user's edit request with the edit summary 'Nope' and leaving said template unsigned to ensure one has to look at the edit history to see who hatted it
• Incivility: [323], [324], [325], [326]
• Double Standards: [327], [328] (Check edit summaries)
• Edit Warring: [329],[330], [331], [332], [333], [334]
• Inappropriate hyperbole: [335], [336], [337]
• Implicating that because Eron has published said allegations, we have every right to include his full name on said page
• Original research
• Arguing that NPOV policy doesn't mandate things be neutral (Check edit summary)

Ryulong:

• Telling another editor to 'eat shit'
• Says another editor is 'full of shit'
• Refusal to engage in the encylopedic process
• Making unsubstanciated claims about another editor
• Assuming bad faith with a Wikipedia editor
• Assuming bad faith, Language issue, Tells another editor to shut up, Accusing editors of pushing a POV, Incivility, Incivility, Incivility, Implying we need to ban Loganmac for his edits, Incivility, Anybody who complains that the article is biased needs to shut up (paraphrased), Incivility and ranting on talk page, Referring to editors as 'POV Pushers', Swearing, Incivility

Dreadstar: Promising to 'help out' as best he can in response to Tarc's comment about POV pushers, Using administrator rules to force someone to stop using a particular argument, See former

Tarc: Implicating insults to Wikipedia editors, See former, Violation of WP:NPA, claiming it's justified too, Insulting other editors, Victim blaming editors (Me and Titanium) for being doxed, Implying that if other editors do stuff that Tarc views as 'editing with an agenda', they deserve no civility, Incivility, Poking fun at a topic banned editor, Incivility, Inappropriate Hyperbole, Passive aggressive edit summary, Suggesting that SPAs are colluding together

Entirety of decision to impose discretionary sanctions discussion was closed after 23.5 hours

The decision on whether to issue discretionary sanctions for GamerGate was closed only after 23.5 hours of discussion, with no SNOW close but with "2:1" support as by closing administrator. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive265#Proposed_Gamergate_solution_by_Hasteur No matter on whether or not they should have been passed, it is a bit ridiculous that not less than 24 hours is enough to impose discretionary sanctions while dsicussion was still ongoing. I'd expect at least 7 days.

Future Perfect's Conduct

Future Perfect, the administrator closed Ryulong's boomerang topic ban as a result of him proposing that 35+ people, at least 70% of which were not SPAs the way he described them, citing 'no possibility of consensus' as reason for closing said discussion. In this, he also closed one of the 3RRN noticeboard complaints with no action against Ryulong. He's also rarely if ever active to the WP:3RRN, when searching through his Wikipedia namespace contributions, he's only ever reported commented on the noticeboard 6 times while the contributions span through April.

Dreadstar's conduct

Dreadstar used administrative tools multiple occasions in protecting the article, topic banning users, and the like on the article. However, one particularly instance which I can't find an exact reasoning for doing is this deleting of a page to remove revisions. Northbysouthbaranof was edit warring with another account over some edit. I later reported North to which no action happened but that's not the point. Dreadstar deleted the page to -remove- any evidence that this edit warring happened, and the actual content which was being edit warred over. Literally, once those revisions were gone, there was absolutely no evidence that North had edit warred at all, and my diffs for my 3RRN report became void. They were invalid links after that had happened. I questioned this on their talk page and Dreadstar reverted, but the fact that Dreadstar would delete a page to delete revisions so no one could prove that they existed is baffling. Even when an edit is oversighted or revision deleted, the username, the edit summary, and the content of the edit may be deleted. But not the edit itself. This was strange.

Full protection of the GamerGate article for 5 months

The article has been fully protected by administrator User:Nyttend for a period of 5 months. When this was contested on Jimbo's talk page, they asserted that quality sources for the article can only be found months or even years later after the controversy began. This reasoning conflicts with the five pillars (the one about being free to edit) and the fact that Wikipedia is always improving itself, and we only keep to the sources that are available. This only delays the editing process and keeping an article in a fully protected state for that long is not in the interest of Wikipedia. Jimbo affirmed that 5 months of full protection was too long of a period. Nyttend has not reverted this protection. The only article which warranted this level of protection (which had it indefinitely and that I'm aware of) is Yank Barry, who had pursued legal action against Wikipedians. That was an WP:IAR action by administrators to protect the users of the page to not become engaged in a legal dispute, and justified reasonable under WP:IAR. This is not. Tutelary (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My topic ban by Gamaliel is out of process and by an involved admin

My topic ban by Gamaliel is out of process and by an involved administrator. The Devil's Advocate demonstrated quite accurately on how Gamaliel is an involved administrator in this topic area and as a result, should not be imposing sanctions on others in this topic area. Not to mention that any type of 'uninvolved' nature of them due to becoming an involved party in this ArbCom; IE delivering general sanctions to others involved as parties should be absolutely unambiguous to their nature of being involved. The sanction itself is also out of process. Let me demonstrate how.

The sanctions were enacted on October 24, with the wording proposed by Hasteur being accepted (and is on the WP:GS page as) mandate the individual being warned, rather than notified of sanctions. This was the specific wording that was imposed.

1. I was never warned of any conduct relating to GamerGate by any administrator, only notified of general sanctions. That, per the official process guidelines for general sanctions only explicitly counts as a notification, and cannot be revoked. Hence, I was never warned of any type of disruption regarding the topic area which is mandated for sanctioning under the wording proposed by Hasteur and accepted by the community and never given any time to clarify any appearance of disruption.
2. Gamaliel took this community process of WP:ANI and twisted it into discretionary sanctions with exactly no need for it. The community does not lose their ability to propose sanctions just because discretionary sanctions are enacted.
3. Ryulong is not related to GamerGate. I proposed on WP:ANI for experienced users and administrators to look at Ryulong's conduct, decide if it was alright, and accordingly, sanction if it was not. I proposed a topic ban due to his pronounced WP:COI in the area. It even received some support within the ANI report. General sanctions do not cover specific editors, but topics, and I was sanctioned for in effect calling Ryulong out.
4. Even deferring to the community discussion which Gamaliel blatantly stated was an imposition of general sanctions, and not a community based one, his reasoning still does not hold up.
5. Gamaliel is not an uninvolved administrator to be sanctioning users, as demonstrated by The Devil's Advocate. For more clarification in diffs, he was distinctly active on Talk:GamerGate for September, which included hatting discussions, removing others statements, and what appears to be general arguing on the talk page for and against certain things...which appears that he directly contributed to the talk page in certain disputes, making him an involved administrator for the topic matter. It's also not a secret that Gamaliel seeked to topic ban me not 3 months ago from the same topic in which a proposal that failed. He wanted me gone from the topic and that's evident from his mustering of his 'uninvolved' stature.
6. It should also be noted that within the discussion, if we're counting my implicit oppose and the IP who I tagged as an SPA on Social Justice Warrior's afd, there was 10 support and 10 oppose for my topic ban. Gamaliel's act to topic ban me was a supervote by the purest sense of the word.

Re to Andy

You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. It's whether he can be related to GamerGate and people be sanctioned for dealing with him/talking about him. For example, is it a violation of GamerGate sanctions to talk about Ryulong? No, as discretionary sanctions deal with topics, not Wikipedia editors. That was the point. An ANI about Ryulong is not about GamerGate, it's about the editor Ryulong. Why I got topic banned from GamerGate for asking for action against Ryulong, A Wikipedia Editor I don't know. There's other reasons I feel the topic ban is out of process but that's one of the main ones. Tutelary (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DungeonSiegeAddict510

All links archived for security.

On-site conduct

There'll probably be reposted info/diffs here.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan#Tagging -this little thing happened. (https://archive.today/0Mkpa)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_15#4chan_Page -Ryulong has some sort of vendetta against Alex Wuori (apparently a GG supporter or something) (https://archive.today/HyW0j)

Evidence presented by Weedwacker

Admin behavior in the subject field

Titanium Dragon was topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise for raising the argument that death threats shouldn’t be attributed to a source until the source is known. [338]

When the subject of Ryulong’s WP:COI came up on the General Sanctions page, Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted a great deal of editor statements for being “mostly useless quabbling” [339], this hatting was later reversed [340] and commented on [341] by another admin.

Tutelary was recently topic banned by Gamaliel after a boomerang motion request. [342] Tutelary initially brought up a request concerning Ryulong’s WP:COI for receiving funds, something that even Jimbo Wales said should be looked into. Future Perfect at Sunrise closed it calling it “frivolous”. [343] The ban on Tutelary was imposed by Gamaliel despite a 10:10 support:oppose vote, stating that he discounted objections as they “are from involved editors or are largely procedural in nature”

Future Perfect at Sunrise was unhappy with how this arbitration case was handling WP:OUTING, so because he didn't like the rules, he changed them himself.

A thread in [WP:AN] brought up by Revent concerning bans Gamaliel has imposed since ArbCom began was closed in ~90 minutes by Dreadstar, citing the opinion of one arbitrator that previously uninvolved (my bold) admins would still be uninvolved after being named as party to the case.

Admin PresN submitted evidence claiming to be mostly uninvolved, which is mostly true for on-wiki, but off wiki he spends his time helping out ryulong and taunting gamergate supporters on reddit under an account he has confirmed on-wiki. [344] [345]

On the subject of SPAs and the “us vs. them” mentality

I’ve seen lots of accusations thrown around that editors are SPAs only here to disrupt Wikipedia. One notable incident outside of this page was Ryulong’s “Nip Gamergate in the bud” proposal [346] to topic ban 35 editor accounts [347] that he claimed were WP:SPA. On closer examination most of the accounts listed were found to not be SPAs, with some having years of contributions to Wikipedia. The proposal, and the responsive calls for a WP:BOOMERANG were closed by Future Perfect at Sunrise within a day of their opening saying there is “no chance of consensus”.

I do not discount the fact that there have been incidences of SPAs, but the term seems to be loosely thrown around as accusation against every editor who disagrees with or raises objections about a select number of editors involved in this topic. There are countless examples of these editors proclaiming other editors to be “obviously pro-gamer gate” just for disagreeing with them. Likewise, not everyone is engaged in WP:SOCK just because you say they are, though WP:MEAT accounts can be proven by their creation date and lack of edits, no evidence has been presented that editors here are encouraging it. Weedwacker (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is what an actual SPA looks like. Weedwacker (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ryulong

Despite your accusations that I have, I have never edited the Gamergate article. In regards to the comment I made on your talk page, I am sorry for making it as it wasn't very civil, and am glad you removed it. I only took to your talk page to begin with because Gamaliel hatted a discussion on 8chan and said concerns with individual editors should be brought to their talk pages. Also, a single edit is not WP:HARASSMENT.

Evidence presented by Tarc

Rebuttals

1. Retartist: I place no value on "warnings" from involved single-purpose accounts, hence the removal. You misinterpreted this comment in regards to Corbett. Also, I WANT the civility pillar to be enforced against so-called "vested editors", but am too jaded to believe it will ever happen.
2. Starship.paint: I will make no apologies for expressing empathy to victims of rape and murder threats, nor for assuring them that the Wikipedia has strict policies against scurrilous tabloid material, and that they wiki-bios will be written fairly and neutrally.
3. Avono: My entierly off-wiki comments directed at Mr. Auerbach were hasty and ill-advised. I retracted what I said and apologized personally ( here and a longer post on Drmies talk page.) Note that Mr. Auerbach accepted that apology. We have moved on from that unfortunate tiff, which was my fault entirely.

The necessity of oversighting and revision deletion

• Talk:Gamergate controversy - 17 actions
• Talk:Zoe Quinn - 19 actions

Avono posts a link to a college newspaper OpEd that contains serious BLP violations

On Dec 3rd, Avono posted this link to the GG talk page, in a tangent about the fringe nature of GG ethics proponents, but the link pointed to a student newspaper that contained egregious violations of WP:BLP policy. Upon being contacted by myself and apparently others, Amherst has removed the article from their website, which IMO validates the egregiousness of the linked text.

Akesgeroth is not hearing that

I have already explained this comment in the response to Retartist, so one can only assume that this Asgeroth person has traversed into WP:IDHT territory. I would like civility and the 5pillars to be enforced, but at we just saw, someone has been painting new rules on the barn-side again. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Obsidi

I don’t really care about the content issues. What I care about is that we have a good fair process. To that end, what I see as a problem is a lack of causation between some of the topic bans imposed and the actions from which they are based. Without causation everything becomes a subjective mess in which if there are biases tinting the vision of the admins it is impossible to tell.

What should happen is that the editor posts X, X violates policy Y in the opinion of the admin, the admin then evaluates the history of the editor and based on that history imposes remedy Z. We can then go back and examine, was X really a violation of policy Y? What does policy Y really mean? And with that we can have a uniform application of the policies to everyone.

Let’s take case in point the topic ban of Tutelary from this ANI thread. Normally in a case of a WP:Boomerang the actual post to ANI is objectionable, that or there are other specific actions taken by the user that is make the poster the one really responsible for what they are accusing someone of. That is not the case in this instance. The original reason for the ANI request was one in which an uninvolved admin said a 1 year topic ban was possibly appropriate [348], nor was Tutelary accused of likewise having a COI. Instead we have a long list of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHIS accusations of Tendentious Editing without any diffs (and not even majority support for a topic ban) followed by a topic ban due to the "wide latitude" or discretion given to the admin. This is abuse of discretion. A specific edit (with diff) should be given, and on the basis of that edit violating a WP policy then the topic ban should be imposed. (admins should continue to have wide discretion for the remedy, given they are not applying it unequally)

Now let’s take another situation Cobbsaladin topic ban. In this case the accusation was made that Cobbsaladin purposefully copied Ryulong’s userpage and replaced all of Ryulong’s details with his own. The first question is was this really done to mock Ryulong? I’m of the opinion that it wasn’t (Ryulong thinks it was), for the moment let’s assume that it was. There was NOTHING about this (other than that it was done to Ryulong) that in any way links this action to gamergate of which he was topic banned from because of it. No mention of gamergate or anything related to it was in the userpage (as far as I am aware). But instead of lifting the topic ban (maybe impose IBAN), it was EXTENDED based on this appeal (not a single person other than the closing admin asked it to be extended). I don’t doubt there was a copyvio problem going on here, but it wasn’t gamergate related.

A clear and fair system is one in which everyone can trust. --Obsidi (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Gamaliel

I have no idea what evidence to provide to defend myself against the allegations offered by The Devil's Advocate and others that I am an uninvolved party. I offer my entire edit history as evidence that I have little interest in games and gaming culture. The only time I can recall editing Wikipedia regarding video games in my ten years here was this 2011 Signpost article I wrote about a controversy that involved a gaming review website. It has been claimed that I have a "vested interest" but not a single complainer has identified what that supposed interested is. I believe that this is a deliberate campaign to influence administrative decisions (i.e., "work the refs"), and as evidence I offer the complete lack of real evidence of any involvement or interest on my part presented by any of the many parties who have made the claim of my involvement.

In this message, User:Pudeo chided me for not acting in the capacity of a "mediator", but the role of a neutral mediator is exactly what I was trying to accomplish with most of the comments cited as "evidence" of my alleged involvement, "vested interest", etc. Per WP:INVOLVED: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."

I believe all my comments and administrative actions have been in the best interests of Wikipedia policy and the community.

Evidence presented by previously involved IP user

BLP violations against Eron Gjoni

User:Ryulong rewrote the lede of the article, asserting that the controversy "...began with harassment of... Zoe Quinn by an ex-boyfriend".

In the context of an admin noticeboard discussion, User:TheRedPenOfDoom refers to the ranting blog post of an ex boyfriend (repeated ad nauseum by internet trolls), in a way that indirectly attributes the specific claim under discussion - i.e. "that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage" - to Gjoni.

In both of these cases, Gjoni is not responsible for what is alleged, and neither do the reliable sources claim he is.

For a long period of time, the Zoe Quinn article was sourced using an article from Cracked - written by Quinn herself - which includes several opinionated and defamatory statements about her unnamed "ex" (i.e. Gjoni). The offensive statements were not repeated in the article, but it was still linked from a main page, which I understand is problematic. On December 1, based off this discussion, User:NorthBySouthBaranof finally replaced the source with an interview from the BBC; but in doing so, he inserted one of the aforementioned defamatory comments (which she apparently repeated to the BBC interviewer).

At ANI, User:NorthBySouthBaranof makes claims about Gjoni's behaviour; his second assertion is not evidenced by the citation (of the Ars Technica article). He goes on to WP:SYNTH an opinion about Gjoni's actions.

Other BLP issues

User:Ryulong has violated BLP in the article, WRT Dale North, per User:Bilby's immediate reversion.

User:TaraInDC reverted an edit by User:ArmyLine on ANI, citing BLP. However, ArmyLine's claim is in my view adequately corroborated by the cited source from the main article, which explicitly states "in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship"; Quinn and Gjoni were still together at the time.

User:NorthBySouthBaranof does not seem to care about users repeating potentially BLP-violating allegations on the Talk page - when it's someone he agrees with. He also seems to equate accusations of infidelity with "slut-shaming", which I really can't comprehend. However, agreeing with a source that is believed in good faith to be reliable earns a request to either support your statement or redact it.

Violations of WP:CIVIL/WP:BITE by Ryulong

Ryulong has, throughout the entire affair, demonstrated repeated incivility, including frequent use of profanity, ad hominem, disrespect for Wikipedia policies and procedures such as DRN, intimidating, standoffish and WP:HOUNDING behaviour, and repeatedly misrepresenting the arguments of others in spite of explicit clarification. He has done this on the GG talk page [349] (more diffs to come), on AN/EW [350], and continuing during these proceedings. [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357]

On October 8, Ryulong was explicitly asked to stop using profanity on the GG Talk page, and he agreed to this, but did not comply (TODO: relevant diffs marked with an asterisk above).

Incivility by others

[358] [359]

NorthBySouthBaranof has rejected sources purely on the basis of political slant

[360] NBSB also seems, with bold statements like these, to assume authority on the reliability of sources.

Incident of October 18

On the GG Talk page, TheRedPenOfDoom referred to Gamergate supporters as "(sexually repressed) basement dwellers" [361] [362]. (Hypocritically, the next day, TRPoD suggested to Arbcom that the talk page could potentially benefit from adult oversight.)

On October 18, I called out the obvious bias demonstrated by these remarks, while also calling out hypocrisy in the assessment of the reliability of sources. Ryulong removed all but one of those comments at once with a disparaging edit remark - while I was in the middle of leaving comments - allowing TRPoD's comments to stand. He immediately replied to another comment with disparaging remarks about Milo Yiannopoulos. In the next few minutes I noticed I had an "only warning" on my Talk page from NorthBySouthBaranof for BLP violation, and that he had removed some other previous edits of mine, when I had only been trying to argue that he had been misrepresenting the nature of Gjoni's allegations (I still maintain this position). When I attempted to defend this (ten minutes after the previous diff), Ryulong immediately removed my appeal, and then immediately performed a "manual archive", effectively shutting down the discussion, without indicating where the supposedly "archived" content was placed. I was never notified of any official channel or procedure by which to attempt to defend myself or make my case. It was only about 17 minutes from the first removal to the "manual archive".

Battlefield mentality shown by NorthBySouthBaranof and TheRedPenOfDoom

This has been seen throughout these proceedings, particularly in interactions with Masem, but also via this disparaging edit summary, and via talk page discussion with TDA, for which TRPoD saw fit to award NBSB a barnstar with a snarky "but ethics" comment. Also seen via TRPoD collapsing my reply as a "content issue" on the Evidence Talk page, when it was directly in response to his allegations about Masem interfering with the addition of specific content.

Ryulong and COI

Per Ryulong's own account of events, after soliciting funds off Reddit, he apparently felt the need to take a break from the Gamergate topic, 'broadly construed' as seems to be the fashionable phrasing, so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. However, when a new article popped up and he was unsure whether he ought to participate, apparently Ryulong felt it was appropriate to ask, not any sort of Wikipedia official, but the relevant moderators on Reddit.

Rebuttal, Ryulong

The Anil Dash paragraph, for example, is heavily represented, despite the community at large dismissing his claims. Yet, in the linked discussion, Ryulong himself claims that No. The talk page discussion is split down the middle which is why it's being brought up here for discussion from uninvolved parties.. I also don't see anything like a consensus view expressed by "the community at large" there. If anything, the uninvolved people commenting at the end see a slight BLP concern and seem to be arguing that the existing content is/was WP:UNDUE.

Regarding the Xander756 case, per the timestamps on the provided diffs, it looks to me like TDA made a good-faith decision, then either had his mind changed or came to some sort of agreement-to-disagree.

Questioning the reliability of sources is not in any way actionable. More importantly, questioning the accurate representation of the sources' content in the article is definitely not actionable. That I have an opinion on the topic of Gamergate is also not relevant; it certainly has not caused me to make NPOV edits, as I have not edited the article.

Rebuttal, TheRedPenOfDoom

Absurd. If being a game developer represents a conflict of interest, then given the "misogynistic harassment" narrative, so does being a woman.

Evidence presented by east718

Ryulong's witch-hunting mentality

Ryulong started a thread on WP:AN asking for a list of around 40 supposed single-purpose accounts [363] which he had been compiling over several weeks [364] to be "blocked for violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE." [365] When it's found by the community that most of the list is false, with it including people having 5+ year long editing histories and administrators, Ryulong starts attacking accused editors, making bizarre claims such as one person's editing of Deadspin, NHK, Breitbart (website) and Time (magazine) making them a GamerGate SPA. [366] None of these articles have any content about GamerGate in them, and have never had any GamerGate-related discussion on their talkpages or talkpage archives.

When I posted my analysis of his list and noted this, Ryulong doubled down on his false claim that Breitbart is a related entity and that it was appropriate to witch-hunt a user because of their editing of it. He then attacked me for being a "zombie account that [became an] SPA," despite the facts that I'd started an unrelated article that day, have never edited a video game-related article, and have been an admin for ~8 years. [367] I was not the only person caught in Ryulong's crossfire simply for posting on that AN thread, further down Ryulong attacks another user ("editors such as myself have become exhausted in having to deal with editors like yourself who have come to the English Wikipedia push an agenda"), despite this person having a 9-year history and having never made any GamerGate-related edit. [368]

Ryulong has engaged in edit warring

• 15 reverts: [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383]; AN3 thread: [384].
• 9 reverts: [385] [386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393]; AN3 thread: [394].

Ryulong has violated BLP, antagonized journalists, and made defamatory claims about them on- and off-wiki

• Adds material to an article accusing Milo Yiannopoulos of making sexist remarks, this is attributed to a primary source on a website with no editorial staff. [395]
• "The Based Liar [Yiannopoulos] continues to care about me." [396]
• Adds material to an article falsely claiming that Dale North blacklisted a writer from industry. [397] The source he cites notes that this is only an allegation by a website called GameZone, and that attempting to blacklist someone from employment is illegal. GameZone has no editorial staff, and their article uses an imgur post as its source. [398]
• Adds material to an article falsely claiming David Auerbach "insist[ed] that women harassed and threatened [by GamerGate] should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become"; this material is not found in the source he cites. [399]
• Falsely accuses David Auerbach of threatening him [400], then tries to get an admin to revoke his autochecked permissions. [401] This is the post from Auerbach which beget Ryulong's response. [402]
• "David Auerbach is enabling my harassers." [403]
• "[Auerbach] is enabling a group of homophobes and anti-semites." [404]
• "Are you going to go running to Jimbo over something like this too? [405]" [406]
• "Georgina [Young] wants some more ad revenue." [407]
• "That would require ethical journalism [by Young]." [408]
• The ryulong67 Reddit account and @Ryulong Twitter account are admitted by Ryulong to be his. [409]

Ryulong has been a recidivist problem editor for years

Concerns about Ryulong's lack of decorum, hostility towards newcomers, edit warring, inappropriate off-wiki behavior, and failing to address community concerns have been voiced over a period of years. [410] [411] [412] Ryulong has been blocked for edit warring 15 times since 2009. [413]

Evidence presented by Carrite

There are two sides of warriors here

It is apparent to me that Gamergate controversy is not only under attack by an organized caucus of new editors (meatpuppets, in crude terms), but also is being tag-team "owned" in a tendentious manner by a group of emotionally involved Wikipedians which include Ryulong, Tarc, and NorthBySouthBaranof (probably among others). Arbs, please do read the following link as part of your due diligence trying to understand both sides of the issue:

• Gurney Halleck, A People's History of Gamergate. www.historyofgamergate.com/

The article is now locked down in favor of House POV, which portrays the ProGG side as more or less a caucus of cyber thugs systematically making terroristic threats against women. To some extent, this is part of it. However, any external link to this temperate source cited above explaining the Pro-GG "side" has been tossed aside on the clearly specious claim of being a blog [414] (Tarc) — as if all links to blogs are prohibited from external links! — or on bogus BLP gounds [415] (NorthBySouthBaranof).

There are two warrior sides on this issue, the Gamergaters are obvious, but do not fail to take a look at the House POV which is being systematically defended by a handful of Wikipedians who in their fury seem to have cast aside WP:NPOV. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by EvergreenFir

Off-wiki efforts to (1) dox users and influence the article and (2) SPAs and zombie accounts

As with the request to take the case, my only comments are that:

1. The ARBCOM should consider the off-wiki organization and attacks occurring. Searching "Ryulong gamergate", for example, shows the vast off-wiki effort to dox editors and to influence the article in a pro-gamergate light. I can find no such behavior from anti-gamergate editor.
2. This case and page is plagued by SPA and zombie accounts (those that were inactive for years that suddenly came to life for this one issue). See this archived ANI as an example of discussions of SPA and zombie accounts.

The drafters of this case have my sympathies. Best of luck. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: They are separate, but likely correlated, issues. I suspect that any Wikipedian editing would be a potential doxxing target. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by CIreland

Wikipedia's Gamergate article was recommended by BBC News to its readers

Regular readers of BBC News will know that BBC News is not in the habit of explicity directing its readers to partisan coverage, nor is it in the habit of describing non-neutral accounts as "factual":

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29642313

This BBC News article, whilst noting our internal disputes about "objectivity", describes the article as "what looks like a factual account", linking readers looking for comprehensive coverage to Wikipedia.

Evidence presented by ArmyLine

The current system has proven itself biased. Now it's just a question of how unfair it really is

The preferential treatment demonstrated by certain admins is in itself cause for concern. However, when I discovered involved admin PresN admitted he was "very much on one side of the issue" (he has also demonstrated this) and yet had not recused himself before being called out, it just all just snapped into place. How many other involved admins have undisclosed conflicts of interest?

For instance, in the process of a topic ban appeal/call for the review of an admin's actions, Future Perfect at Sunrise saw fit to give me a one week block and seemed to quietly brush a BLP transgression against Eron Gjoni (someone who several admins have demonstrated blind spots for) under the rug, namely "Exactly what BLP violation do you claim exists in re: the article's discussion of Eron Gjoni? He is currently mentioned in the article, as the author of the blogpost which sparked the firestorm. Given his publicity-seeking behavior in widely spreading his claims about Zoe Quinn, he can hardly be considered an unwilling participant in the controversy." (first written by NorthBySouthBaranof, which was then restored by Ryulong). While Future Perfect at Sunrise saw it suitable to hat the appeal for a "violation of topic ban", he did not see fit to enforce any BLP sanctions against NorthBySouthBaranof or Ryulong or even to warn them. As an aside, I did not include either editor on my appeal and both showed up and started making backhanded insults without provocation - another thing Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to have had issues seeing. This sort of selective enforcement and a hair-trigger for enforcing sanctions on behalf of only certain individuals has demonstrated that bias, cronyism, and the desire for approval by certain external groups are a deciding factor in the enforcement of sanctions by many of the involved admins.--ArmyLine (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal to PresN

"I have taken no admin actions in regards to this case, only submitted evidence that was later withdrawn after the arbs said they would not consider off-wiki posts."

PresN closed a discussion here. While the arbitrator later endorsed the closure, it was inappropriate for PresN to be the one to close the discussion, given his lack of objectivity in the matter. However, that even one admin failed to disclose his COI is very troubling given some of the statements and sympathies expressed as well as the selective enforcement of sanctions in this case. How many more admins are compromising their and Wikipedia's objectivity to push a certain narrative? I find it difficult to believe that these exclusionary beliefs form in a vacuum, and find it likely that this is indicative of a larger issue of cliquishness within certain segments of the administration.--ArmyLine (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

To specify, PresN was posting on a known anti-Gamergate subreddit and fraternizing there with Ryulong. While I understand off-site evidence will not be considered, I find it egregiously disingenuous of him to try to frame this as "having an opinion". Additionally, the fact that he has this power and this COI is, combined, very problematic. He has done what could be construed as a threat against Tutelary when he stated "Don't sit here wiki-lawyering about whether I can close an off-topic thread or not, especially since you're topic-banned from GamerGate on-wiki.". Everything he does is as an admin and that power is enough to intimidate many other parties out of reverting or contradicting him.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"ArmyLine is making, as other editors he agrees with have (supported by evidence by other submitters here), a series of tendentious arguments designed to drive away editors that they disagree with: to wit, that the mere act of not supporting the actions taken by GamerGate supporters inherently means that an editor should be forbidden both from editing the article and from expressing that opinion anywhere related to GamerGate on-wiki."

I find it odd that PresN, and many other involved admins and editors have reiterated this, is so concerned about "driving away editors" when only the anti-Gamergate side has demonstrated a systematic drive to harass dissenting users and game the system on wiki to drive away or to block/ban anyone who does not fit their narrative. Since we are now discussing coordinated efforts, however, here is the proportion of contributions made by editors to the Gamergate controversy article who have made statements against GamerGate or Eron Gjoni on-wiki for the last 2500 revisions: Ryulong(21.68%), NorthBySouthBaranof (15.36%), TheRedPenOfDoom (4.12%), Tarc (1.84%), and TaraInDC (1.08%). That is 44% of the contributions and reverts by a single coordinated and opinionated block of editors, upon a very cursory analysis. As seen by the current state of the article, there has been a coordinated effort to push a very narrow and targeted narrative, and it hasn't been by the "Gators".--ArmyLine (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal/RFC for Acroterion

Given the denigration all too frequently shown for people who are discussed in these articles, I make no apology for taking action to stop openly contemptuous attacks of the sort that ArmyLine was making [403] against Quinn at ANI, which The Devil's Advocate appears to think was no big deal, since he used the same diff to claim farther up this page that my action was "excessive and unwarranted."

[...]

In that discussion The Devil's Advocate's apparent casual endorsement and repetition of ArmyLine's use of "cheating" [408] to describe a biographical subject's behavior in this encyclopedia, and now in this arbitration, is startling.

I request Acroterion tell me precisely why he saw fit to ban me for stating a fact but not to ban TaraInDC for flatout calling Eron Gjoni a "bitter ex", which was an actual BLP transgression. Whether he likes it or not, cheating is what happens when a person who has a sexual relationship with another goes out and starts another behind that person's back - which RSes have supported. If Acroterion does not like the wording of "cheating" as it refers to conjugal relations, he is welcome to consult his local dictionary, psychiatrist, or fainting couch.

Moving on to Acroterion's moving goalposts, when he saw that his enforcement did not hold up to objective analysis, he nullified his original rationale and swapped it out for one that the ban was actually for "battleground behavior" which exceeded TaraInDC's. Acroterion had some difficulty finding that battleground behavior which exceeded TaraInDC's (or other editors, one of which rhymes with "so long"), which is a shame because that sort of thing might undermine his credibility as an impartial admin. A more cynical observer might glance at the evidence and assume he lied through his teeth about his true motivations, but I like to assume the best of people so I'll just chalk it up to poor reading comprehension. Either way, he has proven himself inept at his duties as an administrator and I advise he be given the boot as part of these proceedings.

--ArmyLine (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I note, however, that the rate of deletions has declined, which to me indicates that there has been some success.

I'll add that due in large part to biased admins like Acroterion, the first passage of the Gamergate_controversy page is:

The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

I'm curious how many other Wikipedia pages under such tender care see fit to mention that "the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that ____ is rooted in ____". Hats off to that wonderful, equitable enforcement of the sanctions and picking out the best of the best for this endeavor, Acroterion.--ArmyLine (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Black Kite

As I said previously, I don't consider myself a party to this in any way, but I suppose I must refute TDA's rather silly allegations.

• Canvassed Gender Gap Task Force to deal with "misogynistic" edits on the pages for Quinn and her game.

• Irrelevant to this case, this was a straightforward BLP issue with Quinn's article. At the time the GamerGate article was a minor stub.

• Proposes topic ban or site ban for Tutelary based off WO piece

• Irrelevant to this case, other that the fact Tutelary later became a major editor of the GamerGate article. And I don't think I was wrong, either.

• Removes material about a DDoS attack on The Escapist's GamerGate thread.

• ...correct, because it was UNDUE, original research and in no way sourced to be even relevant to the article. You'll note that at least three different editors reverted User:Bosstopher's attempt to edit-war it into the article.

• Claims said attack is not relevant to GamerGate article because there is no proof of responsibility.

• ...correct, it was original research.

• Removes the NPOV tag from the article disputing its basis.

• ...because you have to provide a good reason for a tag like that, not a vague rant.

• Reverts a change to the lede by ArmyLine due to "no consensus" from previous discussions.

• ...well, you've explained that one yourself.

• Has performed revision deletions on relevant articles ([416]).

• So, let me get this right - your claim I have used tools whilst involved comes down to the fact that I removed BLP-violating vandalism? The Quinn stuff was simply unpleasant vandalism, whilst the GamerGate revdel was yet another editor claiming that the incident referred to as "false accusations" in the fourth line of the article was true. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closed ANI case against TD four hours after the case opened after Future reimposed TD's topic ban despite minimal discussion and at least one objection to the sanction.

• Um, that's what you do with an ANI case when it's resolved (in this case by a topic ban being imposed).

• States in arbitration request that he "reserves" the "right" to take further admin action on the subject.

• Quite right, because I'm not involved. Actually though, I haven't touched it since, because I haven't been that active and I frankly got sick of reading the repeated nonsense from swathes of single purpose accounts. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PresN

Rebutals against Weedwacker et. al.

• Weedwacker claims that my possible off-wiki comments make me "involved", but even he admits that I have not worked on the article in question and have stayed out of the content dispute; having an opinion does not invalidate me from submitting evidence.
• ArmyLine says that due to my having an opinion on the issue, I should have "recused" myself. From what? I have taken no admin actions in regards to this case, only submitted evidence that was later withdrawn after the arbs said they would not consider off-wiki posts. Apparently, having an opinion that does not agree with the GamerGate position means that one should be banned from making any edits, admin-related or not. --PresN 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• ArmyLine further states that my closing a thread on this talk page when it went off topic was an admin action. It is not- any editor can be bold and close a thread; admins have mops, we are not given super-editor permissions. The Devil's Advocate closed a thread on the talk page a week before, and they are not an admin- no disagreement was (or should have been) be raised. ArmyLine's statement betrays a lack of understanding of what powers admins have compared to regular editors, as well as the difference between "having an opinion" and "conflict of interest". Admins are still editors, and are able to act in that capacity like everyone else as long as they follow the same rules. --PresN 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop responding after this comment, but for one last point- ArmyLine describes posting on Reddit threads and talking to other editors as "fraternizing there with Ryulong", causing a COI. I can only assume, however, that he does not consider posting on a pro-GamerGate offwiki forum or talking to pro-GamerGate editors off-wiki to be "fraternizing" or a "COI", since he has not accused any editors who agree with his position of the same. Admins are not forbidden to have opinions or talk to people, on or off-wiki, and while they may need to remain neutral while editing articles, they are not forbidden from providing evidence in an ArbCom case or from closing off-topic threads in an ArbCom talk page. ArmyLine is making, as other editors he agrees with have (supported by evidence by other submitters here), a series of tendentious arguments designed to drive away editors that they disagree with: to wit, that the mere act of not supporting the actions taken by GamerGate supporters inherently means that an editor should be forbidden both from editing the article and from expressing that opinion anywhere related to GamerGate on-wiki. --PresN 00:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DHeyward

I have been maligned above (and in other places) regarding GamerGate. I am not a "GamerGate supporter". I don't play them. I don't participate in off-wiki disputes nor care about them.

The first error that is often repeated is that Kotaku (Grayson's employer) never reviewed Depression Quest (and is the basis of an unfounded complaint above). That is false. Kotaku reviewed it here[417]. Kotaku investigated whether Grayson reviewed it after the disclosure of his relationship with Quinn[418]. Grayson did not review it. Kotaku has apparently updated their policies regarding disclosure as the original review did not have a relationship disclosure statement but one was subsequently added after GamerGater erupted and there apparently was a disclosable relationship between the Kotaku reviewer and Quinn. [419][420].

Related to GamerGate was another twitter hashtag campaign called #NotYourShield. This came about when the focus of GamerGate pivoted from an accusation directed at journalistic integrity to focusing on harassment and the personalities involved simply stopped addressing any concerns other than harassment. This is part of the history of gamergate and acknowledging it is not malicious or one-sided. --DHeyward (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To Ryulong

I presented only because my edit [421] was listed under a heading "Repeated attempts to present false claims about living people as true or disputed" and characterized as "DHeyward suggests that we ignore the documented fact that there was no unethical behavior in favor of embracing the idea that because Quinn had a "relationship with a journalist," the allegations are meaningful." There is no reading of my edits that can be construed as any attempt to present false claims about anyone. In fact, I say explicitly that there was no link between Grayson's reviews and Quinn. Nor did I suggest ignoring any facts. It's simply an untrue and strident misrepresentation of what I wrote on the talk page as I don't believe I've even edited the article contents at all, let alone "repeatedly attempted." It is quite obvious by the journals reaction (i.e. the addition of disclosures - even 11 months after the fact) that they considered it unseemly to not disclose and it is not irrational to investigate allegations about relationships. Kotaku certainly didn't just dismiss it as a personal relationship.

Whether you wish to call it a review or a plug is up to you but the gaming journalist put a disclosure on the bottom after GamerGate and 11 months after it appeared in Kotaku. August 2014 version pre-GamerGate (original was December 2013) : [422] New and Improved with disclosure (added October 2014): [423] --DHeyward (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AndyTheGrump

It should be noted that Tutelary has made entirely contradictory assertions regarding evidence in this case, in a manner which can only be seen as battleground behaviour and/or Wikilawyering with the clear objective of painting an opponent in as negative manner as possible.

For the specifics, see for example this statement made by Tutelary in evidence concerning Ryulong "Ryulong has repeatedly gotten away with edit warring even 15RR by administrators primarily indulged with sanctions"[424], and contrast it with this statement later in the same section: "Ryulong is not related to GamerGate. I proposed on WP:ANI for experienced users and administrators to look at Ryulong's conduct, decide if it was alright, and accordingly, sanction if it was not. I proposed a topic ban due to his pronounced WP:COI in the area. None of this is related to GamerGate edits, but a COI with the tangential topic of a GamerGate forum". [425]

This is blatant Wikilawyering - either Ryulong is involved in the Wikipedia Gamergate affair, or he isn't. Given the evidence so far presented, the former is evidently true - and Tutelary's attempt to argue the contrary when (and only when) Tutilary's behaviour in relation to Ryulong is in question almost beggars belief. I hope and expect that ArbCom will take this duplicitous behaviour during arbitration proceedings into account when considering sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that Tutelary has responded above by repeating the ridiculous assertion that asking for action to be taken against Ryulong concerning to a supposed COI in relation to our GamerGate article was "not about GamerGate". [426] I am sure ArbCom can decide for themselves the correct response to this - personally, I can't think of one that wouldn't breach WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cuchullain

Response to The Devil's Advocate

In response to The Devil's Advocate's statements, I haven't been involved as an administrator at GamerGate in over two months. Back in September, I performed some admin actions at Zoe Quinn (which was not then related to Anita Sarkeesian) and its forks. This included some actions at GamerGate, which started out as a spinoff of Quinn's article, as the movement initially focused on her. My actions there included obvious protections in cases of BLP-based edit warring, and responses to formal edit requests. As the article grew to include material on Sarkeesian, I ceased. No one voiced concern over the actions when they could have been revisted, or at any point before this Arbcom case. TDA himself downplays the connection between Sarkeesian and Gamergate when it suits him.[427][428] I don't know what more to do except reiterate that I haven't performed admin actions in months and don't intend to change that.
I'm surprised to see this presented as evidence. It was based on this edit request in an attempt to be responsive while the page was protected. The material is cited and appears accurate and uncontroversial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate has engaged in POV editing, BATTLEGROUND behavior, and incivility at Anita Sarkeesian

For months, virtually all of The Devil's Advocate's edits to Anita Sarkeesian and its talk page have followed a pattern: introducing questionable or unusable sources, using them to add or advocate for negative material into the BLP, and engaging in protracted and unproductive talk page disputes when challenged. His comments often veer away from content matters and devolve into personal comments and attacks against other editors, accusing them of POV-pushing and other serious behavior:

• [429]: TDA added personal information to the article, citing only PR releases listing “Anita Sarkeesian” or “Sarkesian” in an organization's contacts, and an archived version of a deleted personal website. (This material has been advocated before to disparage Sarkeesian,[430] and was evidently popularized in videos and Reddit threads devoted to doxxing her). The sources are unusable, and don't verify the material. TDA revert-warred over this,[431][432] leading to this lengthy discussion, where at least nine other editors challenged the material, and TDA responded with personal comments like this.
• [433]: TDA proposed adding negative material cited to a minor website connected to a sports blog network. In this discussion, various editors challenged the source's reliability and usability. TDA responded with increasingly combative and personal comments,[434][435], leading Dreadstar to close the discussion.
• When the above source found no consensus, TDA took the dispute to a second unrelated thread. Again, this descended into comments about other editors, accusing them of POV-pushing and bias.[436][437][438][439] Dreadstar cautioned TDA and closed the discussion.
• [440]: TDA brought the dispute to a third unrelated thread, again making serious charges against other editors.
• [441]: TDA proposed adding material on a critical YouTube video by Christina Hoff Sommers. This video got some coverage in reliable sources and alludes to Sarkeesian, but various editors questioned if it was significant enough to include in a BLP. It led to this very lengthy discussion, where TDA continued making personal attacks and serious accusations against other editors.[442][443][444]
  • The Hoff Sommers dispute eventually led to this RfC, which ultimately found no consensus to include the material. TDA's comments were again combative and included personal attacks and serious accusations against other editors.[445][446][447][448][449]
• [450]: TDA revived a discussion about a fan art dispute involving Sarkeesian that had briefly made the e-news in March. This topic had already been the subject of an RfC, where consensus was against including it. TDA's discussion was lengthy and argumentative and again found no consensus to include the material.
• [451]: TDA started this discussion on adding negative material that's been covered by secondary sources (which are largely critical of said negative material). This actually identified potentially usable material, but nevertheless, the discussion became combative and convoluted, with TDA making comments like these:[452][453][454]
• [455]: TDA entered a discussion over Sarkeesian's decision to cancel an appearance at Utah State University over death threats. He was now concerned over BLP matters - concerning university officials. He wrote that he would "not allow" the article to include material that might put the university's handling of the situation in a bad light[456] and threatened to revert war over it.[457]
  • He subsequently revert warred over cited material connecting the threats to GamerGate.[458][459][460][461] On talk he dismissed the threats as "non-existent".[462][463]
• [464]: TDA participated in an ANI discussion about Sarkeesian, making serious allegations against an admin who had handled a disruptive editor.
• [465]: TDA entered a discussion and reintroduced many of his previously discussed links, again making personal accusations against other editors.
• Despite advocating sources like the above, TDA has disparaged or removed much stronger sources containing positive viewpoints on Sarkeesian, including a review from the peer-reviewed academic journal Women & Language,[466][467][468] and an editorial from The Salt Lake Tribune.[469]

--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate has engaged in POV editing at Brianna Wu

The Devil's Advocate's changes to Brianna Wu consistently remove or alter cited connections between GamerGate and the harassment the subject has faced, in some cases edit-warring and making personal comments about other editors. Taken together, the edits show a pattern of downplaying the issue of harassment directed at this living person and excising material that puts GamerGate in a negative light.

• [470]: Downplays cited connection between GamerGate and harassment; calls harassment "alleged" in contradiction to the sources.
• [471]: Downplays cited connection between GamerGate, harassment, and 8Chan; excises Wu's quote making this connection; edit summary disparages Wu and other editors
• [472]: Revert-wars over the material; also removes a new citation to The Boston Globe that verifies material
• [473]: Reverts over the changes again; admits in the edit summary that Kotaku verifies part of the material but declares it "not reliable"
• [474]: Reverts again.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bilby

Response to The Devil's Advocate

My only interest in the Zoe Quinn and Gamergate articles has been to try to keep them within WP:BLP - we saw with Anita Sarkeesian the damage that could occur to both Wikipedia and the subject of the article if we fail to respond quickly. However, in doing so I was aware that I could be seen as involved, although whether or not I've acted beyond "warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches" is something open to discussion. Accordingly, I have followed WP:Involved and refrained from making any potentially controversial actions - I have not been involved in closing discussions, handing out blocks or topic bans, or in anything but a very small number of very clear cut actions that I believe fall under what is permitted through the policy. This has been almost entirely the revision deletion of significant libel and BLP violations from the articles, which (as with similar controversies) have unfortunately occurred far too often, in a very high profile article, and as part of a pattern could be viewed as furthering the harassment of the subjects. In all cases, if there was any doubt in my mind that the action was not absolutely appropriate and urgent enough to require immediate action, I left it to someone else to make the call. I note that except for a single misunderstanding that was cleared up, no one has raised any concerns about any of the few actions I have taken.

In regard to Titanium Dragon, I deliberately chose not to be involved in the topic ban discussion, and have continued that approach in regard to other editors. The edit which The Devil's Advocate raises was one in which Titanium Dragon made a number of accusations against the subject in order to attack her character. I was not aware that Titanium Dragon was to receive a topic ban shortly thereafter, and I had no input into that decision. I do feel that it was the right call, but I chose not to be involved in any discussion.

I can only say that I regard the removal of libel and serious attacks on living people as an extremely high priority for Wikipedia, especially with high profile articles where the subject is undergoing continual harassment. While we always need to make sure that we do not act incorrectly when involved, and be very aware of possible COI, we also have a high priority to protect living people. There is, however, a reasonable balance between the two, and policy reflects this. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Acroterion

Response to The Devil's Advocate

It appears that The Devil's Advocate feels that I'm "involved" because I took an administrative action with which he disagreed. The emphasis on creeping involvement-through-administrative-action in the arbitration request is troubling, as it has the effect of crippling discretionary sanctions. Editing restrictions are one of the mildest measures at our disposal. For discretionary sanctions to work, or for arbitration enforcement for that matter, there must be a limit to filibustering of sanctions decisions that doesn't obscure administrative accountability.

My actions have been taken out of concern for the extensive BLP violations associated with the Gamergate controversy. The deletion logs for Anita Sarkeesian [475], Zoe Quinn [476] and Talk:Gamergate controversy [477] are disgraceful. I note, however, that the rate of deletions has declined, which to me indicates that there has been some success.

Given the denigration all too frequently shown for people who are discussed in these articles, I make no apology for taking action to stop openly contemptuous attacks of the sort that ArmyLine was making [478] against Quinn at ANI, which The Devil's Advocate appears to think was no big deal, since he used the same diff to claim farther up this page that my action was "excessive and unwarranted." This is the same ANI thread in which ArmyLine interpreted Tarc's comments [479] to accuse Tarc of "condoning death threats" [480] [481]. ArmyLine clearly needed to stay away from the subject, and I took appropriate measures.

My actions concerning ArmyLine have since been exhaustively rehashed at ANI in a discussion [482] that devolved away from my actions (which were endorsed before the thread diverged) into yet more backbiting of the type that has swamped every Gamergate thread at ANI. In that discussion The Devil's Advocate's apparent casual endorsement and repetition of ArmyLine's use of "cheating" [483] to describe a biographical subject's behavior in this encyclopedia, and now in this arbitration, is startling. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jgm74

BLP Issues

There are WP:BLP, WP:OWN and WP:Systemic Bias problems that start in the GGC article and spill over into linked articles.

Christina H. Sommers

The WP:BLP concerns are raised on the Sommers:Talk page [484]. The response is to trivialise and deny the concern despite the protests of experienced editors; [485], [486], [487], [488].

Ms Sommers is briefly included in the main article and her page is internally linked. She is a notable participant in the controversy; her notability is due to her academic prominence. Sommers identifies as an "equity feminist" and a Democrat (the US political party), for example, in this interview [[489]]. This is the most egregious error of WP:BLP as the subject has written several books that outline her philosophy and engaged in many interviews. Source material is readily available. However her article has represented her as antifeminist, an opponent of feminism. More concern is not that she is criticised, but that multiple editors have disregarded her concerns.

Ms Sommers writes, "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always."[490], published source here[491].

These edits justified by user:TheRedPenOfDoom, "If her work is viewed as antifeminist, then it is viewed as anti feminist and that is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is not here to promote her personal perception, it is here to present the way it is viewed by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)". [492]

And by user:ImprovingWiki, "Prove it. This is a BLP after all, so it's your responsibility to show that what you're saying is correct. Rather a lot has been published about Sommers, so I'm surprised that you would know exactly what proportion of sources discussing her call her a feminist and what proportion do not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)"[493]

Ms Sommers raises the concerns that the article misrepresents her views; she is labelled an opponent of feminism rather than a critic[494]. If she self-identifies as a feminist then the onus is upon the editors to demonstrate otherwise (if they so wish).

A further concern raised by Ms Sommers, "Wiki editor deleted that The War Against Boys" was a NY Times "Notable Book of the Year" & replaced with critical quote. Agenda?" [[495]].

It is a problem that editors have violated WP:BLP under the cover of WP:RS. Editors must go the extra distance to demonstrate adherence to the principals of WP:BLP. If a living subject of an article says in public that "I am X", and yet the article says "They are Y (RS)", the article must be edited with greater sensitivity towards the subject. The dispute is not the content, but the response from the editors when the subject has publicly disputed the content.

David Auerbach

The WP:BLP issue and the resulting poor behaviour by many were explored on the AN/I noticeboard [496]. Whilst this specific issue has been closed by Gamaliel, the result was suboptimal. I argue that there is a general problem in the GGC articles and editors whereby WP:BLP issues are ignored and shouted down. The wronged individual, Auerbachkeller, summarises here [497].

Zoe Quinn

However potential WP:BLP issues are defended with great exuberance when they involve the so-called "Anti-GG" side. Refer to this lengthy GGC:Talk page discussion [498] and the comments by user:NorthBySouthBaranof (Diffs: [499], [500], [501], [502], [503], [504], [505], [506], [507]). In the last diff an editor presents their opinion as fact, "We frame Gamergate's accusations as false because they are false, and that's pretty much the end of it". That is troubling. WP:BLP is being used to suppress discussion of a prominent figure in the Controversy.

Anita Sarkessian

Considering this section of the Talk page [508], where we have user:Xander756 disagreeing with user:NorthBySouthBaranof with respect to material to include in the Anita Sarkeesian article (unfortunately multiple diffs from the 30th November 2014 have been redacted, but [509], [510]. It concerns me that NorthBySouthBaranof edits the entries of Xander756, redacting information that is in the public sphere. At some time following this interaction Xander756 is sanctioned with a GamerGate topic ban. I am concerned by the unequal application of WP:BLP; it is defended vehemently when articles discuss Ms Sarkeesian and Ms Quinn, so called "Anti-Gamergaters", but it appears that WP:BLP is applied much more haphazardly when it applies to Ms Sommers and Mr Auerbach. This gives the impression of Wiki bias. Furthermore the sanctions applied to Xander756 [511], indefinite topic ban, gives the impression that sanctions are being applied unequally between those who are labelled "pro-GG" and those who are labelled "anti-GG". It appears that "pro-GG" suffer harsher sanctions and I refer you to [512] where Ryulong suffers no sanction for what I believe is worse behaviour (an unfounded accusation of threatening behaviour).

WP:BLP is a major issue in this whole controversy and there is a common group of editors involved in several articles. I request that this policy is clarified and a clearer way to dispute with is outlined. Subjects do not know how to raise their concerns. Ms Sommers says recently that "Your critics can cite my Wikipedia profile as evidence. It was attacked by activists -and can't seem to get it corrected."[513]. The article should not be written by the subject, but I argue that the subject must be allowed to dispute the article when they believe that they are misrepresented. Editors may then criticise the subject using RS material after the subject has been allowed to identify their philosophy.

Bias and ownership of the articles

Reviewing the contributions to the Gamergate Controversy article [514] there are a small group of individuals who are actioning the majority of the edits, and reversing a large number of edits. They do, prima facie, appear to own the article. Is this a problem? Looking at the first sentence, "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture", this strikes me as a poor statement that contains intrinsic bias and, I would argue, is nonsensical. It does not describe the GG controversy, it is a judgement statement. This is the quality of text that this small group of contributors have produced - a tone of propaganda unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. I believe that if you peruse the edit log you will note that any changes to this narrative are resisted strongly by the same small group of editors. These NPOV [515] and WP:BLP [516] issues have been discussed at length; presenting every diff would be onerous and would erroneously focus upon individuals rather than focus upon the dysfunction of the group of editors as a whole. I would argue that there has been no progress made in these discussions, there is a deadlock, and the atmosphere is hostile to the entry of new editors. Even experienced editors are reinforcing the partisan nature of the Controversy and bring this partisan attitude onto WP, and even onto this ArbCom Evidence page [517]. It may be that this small group of high volume editors will have to stand aside to allow any progress to be made towards a neutrally voiced article. Unfortunately even people who have elected to stand aside from the topic, such as user user:ryulong are unable to stay away [518], [519], [520], and so on. Editors need to step aside to allow new minds to look at this topic and the current group of editors will not do this voluntarily.

Evidence presented by Akesgeroth

The Gamergate Controversy article isn't neutral and it would be possible to write it in a more neutral tone

As shown here:

• [521] This legitimate attempt to explain why the article's very heading lacks neutrality and to merely propose a new wording immediately led to veiled threats of administrative action on my talk page and an immediate dismissal of my contribution based not on its worth, but on the longevity of my account, which is in clear violation of WP: BITE.

Valid sources being rejected for no reason

Users claim that there are no valid sources claiming that Gamergate is not a hate movement. This says otherwise:

• [522] These sources were rejected on the basis that they are “blogs” and opinion pieces, regardless of the fact that the sources in the article itself also meet this condition.

Lack of good faith from certain users

Only a small sample of the actions committed by certain users: bad faith edits, collusion, etc.

• [523] Potential wikihounding by NorthBySouthBaranof
• [524] Editing someone else's comment in a discussion to remove good points and make it appear as though that user isn't contributing to a discussion.
• [525] Editing his own comment after people have replied to it in order to manipulate the opinion of admins he reports the issue to.
• [526] After repeatedly refusing "blogs" and "opinion pieces" as sources, adds a Cracked article written by Zoe Quinn as a "reliable source".
• [527] Engaged in edit warring.
• [528] Edited someone else's post to make it appear as his own.
• [529] Pages related to the issue being brigaded.
• [530] Forcing admin action yet again.
• [531] Removes notices when warned not to edit other people's comments.
• [532] Warned, removed again.
• [533] Warned, removed again.
• [534] Warned yet again, removed yet again.
• [535] Bad faith in accepting reliable sources.
• [536] Asked to stop attacking other users, simply removes it to claim TitaniumDragon never tried to discuss it with him off the article's talk page.
• [537] Again.
• [538] This time Tutelary.
• [539] More removing of people asking him to discuss the issue civilly.
• [540] More of the same.
• [541] More of the same.
• [542] Removes notices.
• [543] Mirsrepresentation by Tarc
• [544] Tarc claiming he doesn't have to be civil.
• [545] Edit on the article by Tarc after completely disregarding what anyone else had to say beyond attacking them.
• [546] Again.
• [547] Ryulong claiming there's a conspiracy against him when it's suggested that maybe the talk page shouldn't get archived once a day.
• [548] Ryulong trying to force his opinion on others.
• [549] Failure to resolve on the dispute resolution noticeboard.
• [550] Note how Ryulong, Tarc and TheRedPenOfDoom all disagree to have mediation, therefore showing their unwillingness to discuss the issue.

WP: GAME

One of the more egregious issues right now. WP: GAME can be seen on this very page, trying to legitimize the discussions on the article. As explained here, the processes supposed to protect Wikipedia's neutrality are being subverted by users trying to push a narrative. Could also be seen on the original ArbCom page when TheRedPenOfDoom invoked the word limit once he saw a case was building for an ArbCom request. Can also be seen when users break WP: Linking to external harassment, hiding behind it when evidence show off-site collusion, but breaking it such as can be seen done by several users on this very page right now when they claim there is some sort of conspiracy to drive a slant into the Gamergate Controversy article.

Threat to Wikipedia's integrity

Wikipedia depends on neutrality in order to retain its legitimacy. It is therefore my belief that not only must this specific controversy be dealt with, but the users responsible for it must be reprimanded, the admins they use as proxies must be demoted and Wikipedia policies must be reviewed to prevent further WP: GAME.

Evidence presented by Hasteur

I've kept my hands clean of this dispute, but I must explicitly rebut this statement by Thargor Orlando. If Thargor pursues this absurdly tortured argument that simply speaking instamatically makes a editor involved, then yes I'm involved, but so is every single admin who ever levies a sanction becomes involved (which multiple editors, admins, and arbitrators have indicated is a fallacious argument). If we were to continue Thargor's argument, then all the Arbitrators should have recused on this case because they expressed viewpoints

Thargor's own words (which they so kindly linked again in the 2nd diff) show an active plan to disqualify all opposition to a what appears to be their preferred viewpoint so that the holders of that viewpoint may run rampant in direct contravention of Wikipedia's Pillars/Rules/Policies/Practices/Guidelines/etc. See also these revisions in which they goes after specific editors in an attempt to destroy the credibility of the "opposition" so that their viewpoint can "win"

Furthermore the argument that Current Gamergate sanctions lack community support is either grossly misunderstood or willfully refusing to get the point. In might be a misunderstanding, but coupled with the behavorial evidence indicates a case of the later. The community was fed up with the disruption on the "favorite pages" of the movement, was fed up with the disruption on talk pages, was fed up with the recurrent threads at various noticeboards, and was (in general) fed up with the behavior of the very disruptive and externally motivated minority. The noticeboards, the articles, the article talkpages, and this ArbCom request have all benefited by the authorization of the community sanctions. Remembering always that we don't count votes, I suspect that Jehochman looked at the strength of the arguments and evaluated consensus that the support side had sufficently established consensus.

Having made this statment does not invalidate the previous action of hatting an off topic soapbox post which clearly had no business on an Arbitration talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Commentary presented by Drmies

I am quite unsure what this case is about. My sniffer tells me it's about abusive adminning since that is the evidence that TDA presented on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, though they recently informed me it's about "ethics in Wikipedia editing". Be that as it may, I wish to--briefly--respond to the allegations made by TDA on the case page. Many of my points echo comments by other editors on this and other pages.

• Dreadstar: Dreadstar indicated that they believed the cartoon to be created to impugn Zoe Quinn's character. That's not an unfair assessment and in no way makes Dreadstar involved or abusive. The block on Willhesucceed followed on a warning, it was justified, and it was short.
• Gamaliel: A discussion over sourcing and media involvement in the controversy does not make an admin INVOLVED in all-caps. Calling a discussion a "feud" is clearly a rhetorical move intended to cast aspersions on Gamaliel as an admin/editor ("feud" requires longterm battleground mentality). Gamaliel's comments on "corruption" in the media are based on reliable sourcing, and the edit supposedly challenging Gamaliel's commentary is nothing but an assertion without evidence. The supposed "Five Guys" slur--well, that does appear to be a slur and I see no problem with Gamaliel's action; at any rate, to enforce the BLP means to err on the side of caution.
• FPAS: I see no "supervote", nor do I see proof of FPAS "ignoring" Ryulong's supposed misbehavior. If TDA thinks FPAS has a lengthy history of admin abuse, let them start a desysop procedure or something like that.
• Cuchullain: this link is supposed to indicate Cuchullain is INVOLVED with the Sarkeesian article? All of Cuchullain's edits on that page are perfectly consistent with our guidelines: they are factual, policy-based (esp. the BLP comments), and objective; I'm quite impressed, actually.
• Black Kite: their saying that the Zoe Quinn article is "threatened with serious amounts of misogynistic content" is both true and relevant to the GGTF and in no way proves INVOLVEMENT or abuse. Presenting this as evidence of BK's abuse is ridiculous, laughable--the topic ban was enforced by another admin, and all BK did was close the discussion, which was over. Sorry TDA, but that's how ANI works--I know you don't like it, but that's how it is.
• Bilby's revdeletion--is that cited as admin abuse here? If anyone thinks it is they ought to receive a BLP topic ban. Any admin worth their paycheck should have performed the exact same action.

In all, what I see is (I think I'm paraphrasing Cuchullain, or maybe Dreadstar) an effort by TDA to discredit admins who have taken any kind of action related to Gamergate; I'm surprised I'm not on the shit list listed as a party. I see evidence enough to permanently topic ban TDA from Gamergate ("broadly construed").

This is not to say I think all is fine and dandy; it is not--but I have yet to see really questionable edits by really INVOLVED admins. Questionable edits, hotheadedness, a tendency to edit war, a serious number of atrocious BLP violations--all by regular editors--that's a dime a dozen, and I believe I'm on record as having scolded parties on both sides, or at least asked them to tone it down. I also think that general sanctions are a strong enough tool to keep the peace. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary's laundry list

That list is too long to be annotated in full. But many of the claims are prima facie ridiculous already. "Ryulong has repeatedly gotten away with edit warring even at 15RR by administrators primarily indulged with sanctions" is grammatically tortured, and the 15RR claim does not become more true by being repeated like a mantra. Poor old Dreadstar is accused of closing a 3R report because it's stale--well, when Dreadstar closed it, it was stale. Simple. Tutelary should have charged all the other admins with inaction, maybe. The other report turned out to be Ryulong duking it out in a somewhat silly edit war (and irrelevant as it may be, Ryulong was right) with an SPA, now righteously blocked as such: trolling.

In the "Repeated refactoring" section we find a lot of diffs, unqualified--I clicked on a couple and found admins removing forum posts and other nonsense. Again, Dreadstar was correct in their actions here, here, here, and here. This is one of the things admins need to do, and I thank Dreadstar for doing it, preventing talk pages from turning into chan-like forums.

"Conduct and comments unbecoming of a Wikipedia editors" is a nice mash-up. This is not a violation of anything; it's following the BLP, which is our duty. (No comment on whether it was a necessary edit.) I will grant there is a certain amount of hyperbole in TRPoD's diffs, including in this one--though the latter edit seems to be absolved at least somewhat by being truthful, given the many BLP violations and attacks on Quinn and Sarkeesian that have taken place in this and other articles; and note that the targeting mentioned in the edit summary occurs off-wiki also. And then Dreadstar again, promising "I'm trying to help as best I can within policy". Tutelary, that's Dreadstar doing their job, "within policy". Citing that diff already disqualifies you per CIR, as far as I'm concerned--but that's only if I assume good faith, which I find increasingly difficult to do. Oh, and Dreadstar is trying to stop a bunch of Nazi analogies? Oh my word! The nerve! And here they do it again! Sheesh.

The diffs and the commentary thereon by Tutelary fully justify the topic ban--at the very least. The low blows, the ridiculous charges, meant to discredit Gamaliel, Dreadstar, Fut.Perf. and other admins, they call for more than a confirmation of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cla68's comments

Cla68, it's been a while since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise, and that wasn't about admin abuse. It seems to me you should prepare the sequel, rather than increase the size of this page with diffs and allegations which, except for the very first one, have nothing to do with this case. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Some history on Future Perfect at Sunrise (FPaS)...just to be clear where I'm going with this...is that FPaS has a history of using his admin status to give himself supervote privileges in WP disputes and that includes the GamerGate dispute. Below are some examples:

• Related to this case...Titanium Dragon filed an AN3 report regarding edit war between Ryulong and another editor. Both editors had clearly violated 3RR, but about 20 minutes after the report was filed FPaS indefs the other editor, while doing nothing about Ryulong. When Baranof reported Titanium Dragon at ANI three hours later, FPaS reimposed the indefinite topic ban on TD within 20 minutes before any conversation could take place, even before TD could respond to the accusation. An attempt to get Ryulong topic-banned soon after that was receiving significant support, but FPaS closed the discussion within seven hours claiming consensus was "not possible".

• In the Macedonia 2 ArbCom case, FPaS was found to have violated multiple WP policies and guidelines, including edit warring. As a result, FPaS was (briefly) desysopped.

• 11 May 2012 3RR board
• 30 July 2012 ANI accusation of Wikistalking an editor with whom he was in a dispute with
• 10 August 2012 warning for edit warring
• 11 September 2012 3RR board (conclusion)
• 2 October 2012 AE request
• In looking through his editing history, I noticed some diffs where he appeared to be edit warring or attempting to impose his will on an article without attempting compromise and collaboration on the article's talk page: [551] [552] [553] [554] [555]
• FPaS is also still incivil in some of his his comments or edit summaries and engages in some battleground conduct with other editors with whom he disagrees: [556] [557] [558] [559] [560] [561] [562] [563] Most of these diffs are from 2012 but the last one is from about one year ago.

• The full post from 2012 from which the above is taken is here. That post also details some problematic behavior (IMO) by FPaS with regard to User:Mathsci, whose editing was suspended indefinitely for his behavior towards me. In the earlier incident, detailed in that post, FPaS took Mathsci's side in a dispute and blocked me so that I could not defend myself, for reasons I still cannot explain. This incident and the way FPaS and others treated me is one of the main reasons why I no longer contribute very heavily to Wikipedia.

• In 2012, FPaS was questioned on his involvement and behavior in the Afghanistan-India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions here (See collapsed FPaS section on that page)

• In early 2013, an ArbCom request concerned FPaS's using admin privileges to decide a content dispute. The content dispute appears to have been between only two editors and it was not clear cut at which one was correct.

• In 2013 FPaS's administrative actions were reviewed in a negative manner here on ANI. See the section titled "Unfair and biased topic ban imposed."

• Also in 2013 FPaS took unilateral action regarding and image file, then threatened objecting editors with a block if they undid it.

• An arbitration case on FPaS was requested in February 2014 over concerns that he was acting as an admin while INVOLVED.

• FWIW, I suggest that the Committee take a few minutes and look through the archives of the talk page for the GamerGate article. I think you will see that much of the discourse was unacceptably combative and confrontational. In fact, it's some of the worst I've ever seen, equivalent to the global warming, Israel-Palestine, and Intelligent Design talk pages. Wikipedia's administration should have stepped in and done something about it. But, as in most controversial socio-political topics, WP's admins for the most part implicitly chose a side then coyly supported that side, I guess thinking that that would help things out. I challenge you to come up with a plan that will stop this kind of thing from happening in WP's articles henceforward. Good luck!

Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bosstopher

Claims by GamerGate supporters that an editor is on their side should be treated with serious suspicion

I'm writing this section mostly on the assumption that some of the privately submitted evidence to ArbCom is trying to accuse editors of being Pro-GG based on comments made about them on 8chan. Supporters of GamerGate have a tendency to assume that people are on their side with the skimpiest of evidence. In a rather funny recent example, quite a few 8channers were convinced that the creators of South Park are on their side, because there was a purple and green ball in one scene. [564] Therefore ArbCom should approach any accusations of GG support and collaboration based on such forms of evidence with skepticism.

The GamerGate controversy article is dangerous to edit

Multiple editors have been threatened harassed and doxxed as a result of editing this article. These dangers have added to the atmosphere of distrust and fear surrounding this article. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Ryulong have both noted harassment they have received due to editing, in their evidence sections. Ryulong has also noted being doxxed on the talk page. User:DungeonSiegeAddict510 has been doxxed and threatened due to his editing, and has noted that this has at times made him significantly more suspicious of other wiki editors.[565] Similarly, it is hard not to assume that the fear User:MarkBernstein felt for his life after discovering discussions about him on 8chan[566], had significant influence on his behavior preceding his topic ban.

Preceding all this was the Wikipediocracy doxxing of User:Tutelary and User:Titanium Dragon, which the community reacted to with very little sympathy.[567][568][569][570][571][572]

I dont know if this is run of the mill for your average Arbcom case, but the fact that at least 4 of the parties in this case have been doxxed as a result of their editing seems incredibly worrying.

Evidence presented by Poorly Named User

Topical vandalism and POV-pushing has been occurring on the largely irrelevant gamergate ant article

Gamergate, an article about unfortunately named ants, has been vandalized several times over the past few months with material related to the Gamergate controversy. The main burst was in October (examples: [573], [574], [575], [576], [577]), but the vandalism has continued into December ([578], [579]). The vandalism is from both sides, but mostly anti-GG.

In addition, the template:about hatnote's wording was a target of POV-pushers throughout September and October:

• Pro-GG: [580], [581], [582], [583],
• Anti-GG: [584], [585], [586]
• I don't even know, but probably pro-GG: [587]

As a response to this mess, the article has been protected twice ([588]).

Troubling actions by Retartist

• Falsely accused TheRedPenOfDoom of vandalizing Draft:Gamergate controversy, based on TRPoD's reversion of the removal of half a quote. While the quote's value is debatable, there is little reason to call the return of half of it "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (WP:VAN).

• To contextualize Retartist's response, here are relevant diffs:

• Retartist's placement of TRPoD's reversion in evidence immediately after the vandalism accusation: [589]. Retartist identified the quote as an "attack quote."
• When TRPoD returned the full quote again, Retartist removed the quote, saying its only purpose was to attack: [590].
• Retartist noticed a talk page bit about the quote, and stated that he didn't realize it was sarcasm, though he is doubtful of that: [591].
• Retartist's retraction of the evidence: [592]. Reason given: "stupid quote was a 'JOKE'"

• Overall, there is some evidence to support his reply.

• As mentioned in his statement, he initially planned/attempted to act on behalf of 8channers/recruit 8channers as investigators in this case. The work was initially on-wiki, but was moved away on Nov. 10th after complaints: [593]. To his credit, he has clearly not ended up acting as a proxy for or heavily using 8channers, and evidence is evidence no matter who brings it.
• Fearmongering about Gamergate target Silverstring Media: [594]. Retartist had no basis for the fearmongering: [595].
• This.

As a side note: I am aware that there have been concerns given about Retartist's attempts to start dispute resolution processes. While I see no problem with them (trying to calm matters down is good), I think it is best to clearly put them on record. Retartist started a request for mediation and a dispute resolution noticeboard section (now located here).

Evidence presented by Dreadstar

• Rebuttal to TDA'a accusations,

• I admit I definitely could have better handled the NOTFORUM/BLP issue with Tutelary, I’d accept a trout for that one
• The Vivian James cartoon, On the surface, the cartoon seems harmless; but investigation finds that the drawing was created as an attack on Zoe Quinn. The image has visual elements that are degrading, including colors and patterns referencing rape (Quinn has been subjects to numerous threats of rape). I deleted then supported deletion because it was a BLP violation. This aligns with an administrator’s responsibility to follow WP:BLP and is not a ‘content dispute’. There was a minor mistake when I accidentally chose the wrong drop-down box selection (F9 instead of F7).
• Rulong EW report, the edit war had stopped, the last revert was 15 hours old by the time I saw it.
• As for the charge of ‘favoritism’, this is obvious vindictiveness on the part of TDA for my having the nerve to make admin actions that don't suit TDA's agenda
• The Willhesucceed block had nothing to do with TDA’s “criticism”, I hadn’t even seen that when I noticed the ongoing edit warring between 4 editors, including TDA, I warned them all. I misread a timestamp and thought TDA was continuing to revert war even after the warning, so I blocked TDA, but then immediately reversed it when I realized the mistake.

• Rebuttal to Tutelary: Tutelary neglects to mention that they first reported an IP for edit warring,[596] I was not even aware of the later EW report on NorthbySouthBaranof [597] (an odd way to report edit warring between two editors, two separate reports), since there were BLP concerns in the IP’s reversions, [598] rev-deleting was called for, but I chose to use old, now depreciated page deletion method; this in no way ‘hid’ the reverts from admins responding to the EW report as claimed by Tutelary; which I clearly explained to them on my talk page.
• Rebuttal to HalfHat regarding their Hitler comparison, it doesn’t matter if the reference is supposedly an “innocent” one just to compare articles, it is still inflammatory and unnecessary; it clearly took the conversation off-track and conflates talk about BLP’s with Hitler. Referencing Hitler in close association with an unrelated BLP like this is disruptive.

Evidence against The Devil's Advocate

• TDA consistently attacks and casts false aspersions on virtually every single admin who acts against editors who share TDA’s POV.

• I haven't had much time due to RL, and there are a lot more diffs I would like to go through, but not sure if I have the time; so posting what I have.

TDA attacking admins:

• Calling an admin 'haughty' and accusing the admin of using "a position of trust to serve your own POV"
• harassing a trusted admin with oversight rights
• false accusations against multiple admins, defending an editor who continually made egregious BLP violations
• Attack on another admin, claiming the block was on false pretenses
• Attack on yet another administrator
• attack on another admin
• falsely accuses admin of misrepresenting policy
• accuses admin of casting aspersions
• accuses admin of unjustified block
• attack on another admin
• Another harassing attack on an admin
• continued harassment of an admin
• attacking another admin’s judgement
• makes a thinly veiled threat against an admin
• yet another attempt to falsely charge an admin with being 'involved'

Attacking others

• "blatant POV-pushing and wikilawyering that is locking out criticism you people simply do not like"
• accuses others of purposely misrepresenting sources
• accuses others of using 'shrill cries' to pursue their personal POVs
• more accusations of users crying 'bloody murder' and bobbing and weaving' to press their 'personal POV"
• strange attack on an editor who pointed out problems with TDA's comments in the section (trilling)
• accusing an editor of ignoring reliable sources to push their 'personal pov'
• long, uncivil rant littered with personal attacks and uncivil comments
• justifies continued personal comments about others
• when criticized for the gross incivility and personal attcks in the rant, TDA replies with seeming pride and sarcasm

Pushing negative POV on BLP

• promotes additional criticisms of BLP
• pushing for more criticism, accusing others of falsely citing WP:UNDUE
• attempt to minimize or remove key elements of the lead (misogyny, etc
• advocating for more criticism, using a questionable source per the second response in this post and this one
• pushing for more criticism
• more pushing for criticism
• and more pushing

There are a lot more of these kinds of edits, I'll try to add to this list if I have time.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person