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 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. 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.

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)

Evidence presented by Tstormcandy

For my rationale as to why I chose to become involved in the case please see User:Tstormcandy/Gamergate ArbCom Discussion.

To preface, I would like to point the Committee to precedent set at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list which states that ArbCom can and will consider certain off-Wiki activity as part of final decision principles and findings of fact. I will be linking to less traditional sources, but only because there is no other way to display evidence.

Involved editors have been targets of deliberate harassment

Some of the users listed as involved parties in this case have been specifically targeted by external forces for additional scrutiny and potential harassment. Though this does not excuse user actions it may help explain some of the stresses and behaviors displayed in other evidence and should be taken into account as state of mind of the editors. One very recent example is seen here[1]. This is a thread on a forum sympathetic to the goals of other parties listed as involved in this case[2][3] and countless others.

Found as another extension of an off-Wiki forum is this[4] Pastebin file, detailing how persons should complete an "operation" to "dig through" post histories of particular users for the sake of gathering obstructionist evidence for collection and reproduction. In this one case, users Ryulong, NorthBySouthBraanof, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and TaraInDC are singled out as "The five horsemen of Wikipedia".

Off-wiki collaborating is disrupting the Encyclopedia

This direct quote states some named parties specifically. It discusses a matter that should be occurring within this case. "Best result includes NorthBySouthBaranof desysopped, FuturePerfectAtSunrise desysopped, Ryulong banned from wikipedia [...] and general sanctions against WP:Feminism for brigading articles to promote their viewpoint." Users MarkBernstein and Ryulong are singled out quite frequently, with screen captures of some of their discussion edits posted. I would welcome the behavior of these users be examined the same as any others.

The task of collaboration and research resulted in many edits at incident boards and even on the talk page of User:Jimbo Wales (as the text file instructs) many times; [5][6][7][8] among others. A short list of AN, ANI and other incident reports can be found in the case examples of previous resolution methods attempted.

By extension of the suggested collaboration and cases of users following through with it we get a large amount of meatpuppetry happening within this topic. Such bullying must not be permitted on Wikipedia and editors should feel safe in the process of following standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines without being threatened. I implore the committee to not "let the bullies win" in this case via their collaborations off-site disrupting normal activities. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 23:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another offsite thread[9] that was created merely to warn people that I had used the first link to as evidence of offsite collusion. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edited: ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Masem

Ownership and refusal for consensus development

(I will be proving diffs to support this in next few days) 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, 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 formal mediation [10].

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.
• 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.

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. 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)

Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof

Gamergate supporters have attempted to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack their opponents

There has been a long-term campaign by Gamergate supporters to use Wikipedia's articles related to the controversy as a platform to further their movement's harassment and smear campaign against, among others, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu — in defiance of reliable sources, the Biographies of living persons policy and human decency. This has involved the insertion of unfounded, illegitimate and false allegations about those people, vulgar and vile slurs, insensitive treatment, etc. and has resulted in dozens, if not hundreds, of revision deletions and Oversight requests from both articles and talkspace. (As a result, many of these edits are now inaccessible to non-administrators.) This has required a major response from previously-uninvolved editors to prevent unsourced and poorly-sourced claims about living people from appearing in the encyclopedia. Almost all of these articles and talk pages have had to be placed under long-term semi-protection due to libelous attacks from unregistered and new editors. In particular, User:Titanium Dragon showed an utter compulsion to find any way possible to depict Zoe Quinn in a negative light, making their topic ban from the issue incredibly well-deserved.

Zoe Quinn

• [11] This history page for the article and its talk page are instructive — both Titanium Dragon and TheNewMinistry inserted a wide array of allegations, claims and attacks which have since been revision-deleted, including an entire section entitled "Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct" and using edit summaries such as "removed biased wording painting Quinn as a victim and masking what she did."
• [12] — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon refers to Zoe Quinn, the subject of the biography, as "a scandal attached to a person."
• [13] — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon makes an array of poorly-sourced or unsourced gossipy, salacious, negative and irrelevant statements about Zoe Quinn. The user proceeds to revert the material back in after another editor removes them on BLP grounds.
• [14] — Bosstopher inserts poorly-sourced allegations that Quinn is responsible for DDoS attacks and bribery.
• [15] [16] — Titanium Dragon removes sourced statements by Zoe Quinn about her own experiences, with edit summaries 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."
• [17] [18] [19] — Three more rev-deleted harassment edits. I don't even know what they say, but they're bad enough that an admin removed them from public view.
• [20] — Crisis attempts to bring into the article entirely-unsourced statements about Quinn's name, and when their proposal is rejected, tries to put it in the article anyway.
• [21] [22] — More rev-deleted unsourced/poorly-sourced smearing on the talk page from Titanium Dragon. Is the theme evident yet?

Brianna Wu

• [23] — An IP editor inserts into Wu's biography the weasel-worded and entirely-unsourced claim that Wu doxxed herself.
• [24] — Pepsiwithcoke removes cited material on threats against Wu with an edit summary accusing Wu of doxxing herself, and later removes that cited material again.
• [25] — QuantumMass inserts the patently-libelous allegation that Wu faked death threats against herself, sourced only to a Gamergate message board. After being reverted, reinserts the same libelous allegations with the addition of a blog.

Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

• [26] — An anonymous user vandalizes her biography with unsourced attacks, accusations of untruthfulness, etc.
• [27] — Akulkis inserts something so offensive that it has been rev-deleted.
• [28] — PizzaMan inserts the unsourced insinuation that Sarkeesian has been untruthful about reporting death threats against her, and reinserts it after it was objected to, with an edit summary accusing her of lying: "It's debated whether her tweets are truthful."
• [29] — Poroboros persistently inserts YouTube-sourced claims that Sarkeesian "lied" and generally attempts to discredit her.
• [30] — Bluefoxicy makes unsupported statements on the talk page to the effect that Sarkeesian has "known limited credibility due to multiple earlier false statements."
• [31] — Tomous43 makes repeated BLP-violating edits to the talk page, all of which are revision-deleted.

Gamergate controversy

• [32] [33] [34] — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon persistently inserts unsourced and poorly-sourced accusations against Zoe Quinn and other living people.
• [35] — On the talk page, YellowSandals compares Zoe Quinn to a prostitute.
• [36] — On the talk page, Thronedrei makes unsupported accusations that Brianna Wu has lied about death threats.

Gamergate supporters have attempted to present false allegations as true or debatable

Gamergate supporters have repeatedly attempted to shift the tone of the article's coverage of the movement's core claims about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. It is provable that neither Nathan Grayson nor Kotaku ever reviewed Depression Quest and that Grayson wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship. Thus, mainstream reliable sources have widely and effectively unanimously dismissed these allegations of unethical behavior as unfounded, debunked or false: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] and plenty more. Despite this fact, there have been repeated efforts by Gamergate supporters to water down our description of these false allegations and present them as the subject of legitimate debate or even as true.

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

As noted elsewhere, Gamergate supporters immediately began attacking long-term editors such as myself who became involved due to the onslaught of BLP, NPOV and UNDUE issues brought about on related articles, and who were working to prevent Wikipedia from being used as an attack platform. They have created multiple pages which are essentially "hit lists" including dozens of long-term Wikipedia editors who have substantively opposed them. Their apparent goal was to identify such editors, drive them out of the subject area and intimidate anyone who dared oppose them. This has included implied and explicit threats, abusive vandalism, miscellaneous garbage and other personal attacks — the latter of which was helpfully rev-deleted before I even had a chance to see it.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

Ryulong has repeatedly made egregiously POV and inflammatory edits

• Adds numerous unnecessary quotes of insults made by a single person towards GamerGate to reinforce narrative about a gender bias in harassment.
• Uses "noting" when referring to several inflammatory opinions about GamerGate, thus presenting them 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 in-depth source suggesting the unofficial mascot of GamerGate references what the source suggests is a depiction of rape.

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 inserted BLP violations

• Adds material listing several prominent supporters, including Adam Baldwin, who the material states "have had nothing to do with video games", despite the source not stating this about him. Even after Halfhat removes Baldwin noting he has been heavily involved in video games previously (numerous voice-acting roles), Ryulong restores Baldwin's name. Subsequently, he amends it to say article author "pointed out" statements "by the various people . . . derisive of gamers" prior to GamerGate implying Baldwin had made such statements despite this not being said in the source.

Ryulong has repeatedly and flagrantly breached 3RR

• 9RR (seven listed are significant) - [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]
• 9RR - Case notes five reverts within a 24-hour period. Additional instances not mentioned in report: [52] [53] [54] [55]. Attempts to close a discussion over lede wording. Eight of these reverts occurred after this suggested compromise by Titanium Dragon. Ryulong rejects discussing it, stating this is because TD "should still be banned from editing the page."
• 12RR - AN3 report. At least seven were significant POV reverts: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Evidence presented by Mr. Random

Ryulong has been edit-warring in a controversial article despite an acknowledged COI

(This has already been presented at WP:ANI, but it was closed as a "frivolous, baseless and misplaced/forum-shopped request" - by an involved administrator, no less - despite the evidence I am about to provide. I will leave commentary on that, if any, to other users.)

A user on Reddit named "ryulong67" ran an AMA ("Ask Me Anything") titled "I'm Ryulong" on r/GamerGhazi, a subreddit for those opposed to the GamerGate revolt. To do this, the user had to confirm that he was User:Ryulong, which he did by adding a "code" from the Reddit thread to an edit summary on his user page. The subreddit later "shamelessly bumped" a GoFundMe donation drive under the name "Ryulong" - connecting it to ryulong67 - prompting User:Ryulong to stop editing the page due to a COI. (I can provide more substantial proof that the donation drive is his, but I fear it may violate WP:OUTING, as it involves a connection between off-wiki accounts; however, I will post it if requested to do so by an arbitrator. Never mind - confirmed by Ryulong below.) He has since engaged in an edit war on the draft page, despite having received money from a group with a known anti-Gamergate agenda.

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 [63]

Said Reddit thread [64]

Ryulong is asked by anti-GamerGate subreddit to add the string "2mj5ds" to his profile [65]

He does so here [66] confirming it's his account

The user who donated most of his goal is a known anti-GamerGate person [67] [68] 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 [69]

He confirms on his public Twitter page that the GoFundMe was made by him [70] (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" [71] yet he came back less than a week later

He breaks his self-imposed topic ban by editing the article draft on multiple ocassions [72] [73] [74] 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 [75], and after gettnig deleted, adding a POV tag again [76] As well as multiple suggestions on its talk page about the article being biased [77] [78] [79] [80]

He was even asked by Jimbo to step down of the article [81] 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.

On PresN's tendetious accusations

Including linking me to mocking of mental retardation, and a lot of out-of-context and hilariously misread remarks made by an off-site user account he felt needed to be linked to me, I've posted an easy point-by-point rebuttal on his user page [82]

This user should be warned, I have an autistic brother and he linking me to mocking mental disorder is particularly sickening when the reddit account even seemed to, by saying "Yes he does", agreeing that Ryulong, "is on wiki 24/7" as a form of speech, because of one particular and one-off example, not agreeing on the other user remark that he "either has a mental disorder or is getting paid", as PresN thought.

Or accusing me of calling him a "clown" because the word "loon" was on the reddit thread, without knowing the "flair" is written by MODS. Not the poster.

This in any case seems borderline WP:OUTING, since he apparently couldn't link to any bad on-wiki behaviour from me, he couldn't even find bad stuff on off-wiki accounts that who knows how he found Loganmac (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ryulong

Refutation of The Devil's Advocate's evidence

None of the diffs presented by TDA are actionable. I may have added poorly written content that did not gain consensus afterwards (and several attempts at reaching consensus were made before adding some of the content) but he is taking things out of context in order to paint me in a negative light.

Nearly every edit he has listed is simply those that he disagrees with because he is actively advocating for Gamergate on the article, and is one of a small number of established editors in all of this who has been acting as such. His dislike of my contributed content and his false claims that people negatively mentioned in reliable sources and then those reliable sources are used on Wikipedia constitute a violation of WP:BLP. BLP does not say "do not write negative statements about people". It says "make sure everything is verifiable and neutral". The constant claims that the word "bribe" constituted an accusation of violating a crime in the content regarding Anil Dash was thrown out or dismissed by everyone other than TDA and Tutelary. This is an archived discussion at WP:BLPN where I attempted to get outside input and editors disagreed with the statements TDA is making now that Tutelary made then. I made multiple attempts to better incorporate the content, but TDA has refused it each time, citing a vague prior consensus against it. Just because TDA doesn't like what the sources say (as is evident from every single diff he has pulled out to cast me in a negative light) is not a reason I should be punished for anything.

In addition, his claims that I was "edit warring" over a caption is ridiculous. I trimmed all captions on the page because there were complaints about all of the captions, and then Tutelary made a blanket revert that led to me re-trimming the caption again. Not to mention that I added all photographs to the page in the first place with that same caption that I'm apparently edit warring over refactoring.

TDA has been actively advocating on behalf of Gamergate onsite and offsite. He 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.

Refutation of Mr. Random's evidence & clarification of my claimed possible conflict of interest

I am ryulong67 on Reddit. I have never made this a secret when I began actively participating on Reddit. I also operate the account @ryulong on Twitter. The reason I chose "GamerGhazi" (a board consisting of people critical of the reasons behind Gamergate) is because several weeks ago, a friend of mine notified me that they were discussing me and the harassment that I had suffered onsite and off due to my involvement in the article. I posted there because of that reason. My post went semi-viral and turned into an informal question and answer session or an "AMA" thread or whatever they call it there. I also posted to the Gamergate advocacy board "KotakuInAction" and also head a minor informal question and answer session (responding in one of the many threads critical of me). During the course of the discussion at the "GamerGhazi" board, I mentioned my finanical hardships regarding a loan from a friend and it was at this point that someone suggested I start up a donation campaign seeing as I did not owe my friend terribly much and they wanted to help me out. I thought about this for a day, and then contacted one of the forum's mods for assistance and advice. I was told that if it was to be posted at all on the forum, I would have to make a public statement that I was no longer involving myself in the article. I agreed. I posted a link on my personal blog, and never directly posted anything regarding it to Reddit. I went to sleep and during the night one person donated all I had asked for (another person donated a smaller portion of the money). I removed all articles and discussion pages (except for arbitration) from my watchlist.

A week passed when I saw 8chan had been created. I contacted the moderator at Reddit if contributing to that page was okay, and he/she (I'm not sure) said that they saw no problem as far as they were concerned. The following is a timeline of what happened at that article:

• 11:03, 25 November 2014, I make the post on my user talk
• 11:05, 25 November 2014, first tags
• 11:11, 25 November 2014, talk page thread started to begin discussion on neutrality and POV
• 15:31, 25 November 2014, POV tag removed by Pepsiwithcoke
• 17:50, 25 November 2014, notability tag removed by Loganmac
• 19:45, 25 November 2014, notability tag re-added as I was not satisfied with the responses to my questioning of the notability
• 20:04, 25 November 2014, removed again by Pepsiwithcoke

I also saw a brand new editor was disrupting Draft:Gamergate controversy, an unofficial sandbox version of the main article to allow for general work on the page while it is fully protected. I reverted this edit a total of 3 times, requesting that the editor bring it up for discussion as well as informing him on a user talk page he was editing regarding the issues at hand ([83]). This caused Tutelary to open a thread on me at ANI claiming I was violating WP:COI and my voluntary break. That thread was closed without action as it was opened up at WP:GS/GG/E where wthe thread is still live but there is overwhelming support for me rather than any actual condemnation of my actions.

I have also been in email contact with Jimbo regarding the money I received and all he has asked of me is that I not further involve myself in anything, even though I am constantly assailed offsite.

Refutation of Loganmac's evidence

I've been supported in the incident concerning David Auerbach by other editors on Wikipedia. Actions I take off the website in completely unaffiliated channels should not determine anything. Loganmac's evidence impinges on actions made by others rather than myself. Issues concerning the draft page and any potential conflict of interest have been established in the prior section.

Off-site canvassing and harassment

Several editors involved with the Wikipedia article who have made edits advocating on behalf of Gamergate have been actively fomenting histrionics and drama offsite, including at least two actively enabling harassment towards myself and two who are listed as parties to this case (with some overlap). The editors involved with these actions and evidence relating to offsite behavior will be presented to the arbitration committee for analysis if requested.

BLP violations by The Devil's Advocate

This edit by The Devil's Advocate 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.

• ANI
• AN3
• AN3
• AN3

General issue of links to my Twitter account

Both Starship.paint and DungeonSiegeAddict510 (and as I suspect others will follow as these have been saved by offsite harassment campaigns) point to posts that I made on my personal Twitter account in regards to being contacted on that site ostensibly over my behavior on Wikipedia. I do not think that these or any posts from my personal Twitter account, one I rarely used until I began being harassed over it in late September, mean much here or elsewhere. The fact that both of them have to use archival links also points to the fact that the so-called Gamergate movement keeps track of anything and everything their idealogical opponents say in order to discredit them at any stage. These are constantly brought up, as is another tweet I made that has been mocked by another major harasser on Twitter who has several thousand followers and all of them began to harass me or mock me over the content of a tweet. My actions in responding to harassment off-site should not be used as any sort of evidence in this case.

Refutation of Starship.paint's evidence

There is no rule on Wikipedia against people being biased in favor or against something. Users can be biased. No one can possibly be without bias. Users should simply ensure that they do not let that bias enter articles and affect its neutrality. The majority of complaints of "bias" at Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are those that wish to give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Nothing I've added to that page, regardless of how many diffs TDA can bring up, show I've done that. I may not be the best writer to keep things short and to the point but that shouldn't be held against me either.

Starship.paint's evidence also features ad hominem attacks on a person not on Wikipedia in regards to the money I was given by said person. And as stated multiple times (probably at the WP:GS/GG/E thread), the WP:COI does not forbid people from being involved in anything on Wikipedia not that any of this should reasonably be considered actual financial incentive (as also previously stated at the enforcement thread I think). Gamergate isn't even a "debate" where people have sides to be on in the end, even though that's what its supporters make it out to be.

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.
• 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 ([84], [85], [86], [87]).

There are also several other editors who were inactive on Wikipedia for some period of time and then made edits advocating for Gamergate but they were the ones who were most displeased with being included on the poorly executed list of last month.

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 in particular who as indie game developers are effectively competitors in the game design space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:25, 28 November 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. They have publicly acknowledged that they are Wikipedia editors. [88] (Tarc's admission is quoted below) 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 [89]
I don't have time to deal with gamergate fags here [90] - 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. [91] Ryulong's GoFundMe quota was met by a $350 donation from a certain FishFox Nuro, [92] a self-described "SJW Lunatic" [93] (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)

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)

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. HalfHat 08:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Most of my action has been related to GamerGate since returning, but that is not against any policy. Before his initial accusation I counted 6 totally unrelated edits, excluding things like userpages, in his criteria of recentness, and have since made more like my recent addition of a picture to the outline of biology page. Many of my edits were simply to conform to WP:Say because of the article's frequent poor use of "Noted", I further made the request (since acted upon) to change to "Category:Conspiracy_Theories" from "Category:Conspiracy_Theories_in_the_US" (or similar). If someone is convinced I'm here to push an agenda then please look through my contributions, and what the edits are I'm actually making, I'm not here to push an agenda. HalfHat 09:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I quickly compiled some difs here I think help show I'm not here to push an agenda.HalfHat 23:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Thargor Orlando

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

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 [94] and this response from Tarc [95] Avono (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc's conduct is especially worrying because he has been repeatedly warnned of this [96], [97] Avono (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Tutelary

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

Ryulong has repeatedly gotten away with edit warring even 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.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive261#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29 (By administrator Dreadstar, who declared it 'stale' 15 hours later)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive259#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Titanium_Dragon_.28Result:_Butter_and_Cream_blocked_per_ANI.29

(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.) Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated refactoring 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 coming later as well as usernames, this is a big issue on the page. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by DungeonSiegeAddict510

All links archived for security.

Off-site conduct

Since if one side (pro-gg)'s actions are being scrutinized, it is only fair that ALL off-site actions are scrutinized, and yes, feel free to dig up my Uncyc history.

• https://archive.today/HbWqp -comment by Ryulong, via archive.org / twitter.com
• https://archive.today/PHr2R -comment by Ryulong, via archive.org / twitter.com
• http://tweetsave.com/tarc0917 -archived tweets from Tarc, via tweetsave.com / twitter.com

Evidence presented by Bosstopher

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Weedwacker

Behavior of involved admins

In addition to the presented concerns with admins on the Case Request page by Devil’s Advocate [98], Tutelary [99], Titanium Dragon [100], and DungeonSiegeAddict510 [101], I’d like to present additional administrative actions that should be evaluated by the arbitrators.

Titanium Dragon was topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise for daring to raise the argument that death threats shouldn’t be attributed to a source until the source is known. [102]

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” [103], this hatting was later reversed [104] and commented on [105] by another admin.

The Devil’s Advocate was temporarily blocked by Drmies [106] for presenting evidence of Gamaliel’s involvement in the article. [107]

Tutelary was very recently topic banned by Gamaliel after a boomerang motion request. [108] 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 and called it “frivolous”. [109] 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”

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 [110] to topic ban 35 editor accounts [111] 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)

Evidence presented by Tarc

I do not forsee compiling evidence against others, as IMO it was an ill-advised decision to accept this sprawling case. But things could change; for now, rebuttals

Rebuttal, Retartist

1. I place no value on "warnings" from involved single-purpose accounts, hence the removal.
2. You misinterpreted this comment in regards to Corbett. I WANT the civility pillar to be enforced against so-called "vested editors", but am too jaded to believe it will ever happen.

Rebuttal, Starship.paint

1. 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.

Rebuttal, Avono

1. My off-wiki comments directed at 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. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 28 November 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 [112], 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 PresN

Mostly-uninvolved editor here; I fixed a broken ref and a punctuation issue once, and asked about switching out an image on the talk page once.

Since so much of this disagreement has off-wiki components, I'm adding in some evidence of Loganmac's seeming personal vendetta against Ryulong; statements taken from Reddit, where he posts as Logan_Mac. (comments list where I got the links from- only going to go back for 5 weeks or so, because this gets long.)

And since Tutelary left a coy message on my talk page that this violates OUTING unless there's proof Loganmac == Logan_Mac: Reddit posts where Logan_Mac says he's the editor on the wiki article (Loganmac) - 1, 2, onwiki thread where Loganmac rebuts statements made by Ryulong against Logan_Mac, only to throw a quick CYA that "it might not be him", then goes back to defending Logan_Mac in the first person; joke he made two days ago about the Reddit karma he's getting for the posts by Logan_Mac.

Off-wiki ongoing vendetta against Ryulong by Loganmac

• Logan_Mac states Ryulong is engaging in paid editing (November 25)
• Logan_Mac posts a thread with a picture of a twitter discussion between Ryulong and Jimmy Wales, including a comment calling Ryulong a "clown" (November 21)
  • also comments in that thread stating that Ryulong was paid by anti-GamerGate people for his work on the article
• Logan_Mac posts a thread of a twitter comment from Jimmy Wales saying that paid editing is against Wikipedia rules, claiming that Wales was accusing Ryulong of paid editing (November 19)
• Logan_Mac intimates that Ryulong is being paid to edit three times in comment responses to discussions of Ryulong's GoFundMe campaign. 1 2 3 (November 19)
• Logan_Mac describes Ryulong posting at a pro-GamerGate forum as "Sometimes a dog shits on your lawn" (November 16)
• Logan_Mac mocks Ryulong for having a high edit count and intimates that Ryulong gets paid to edit Wikipedia in general (November 16)
• mocks Ryulong for not being a "drinking type of guy" in response to a now-deleted comment claiming Ryulong was drunk (November 16)
• coaches other Reddit poster on how to title posts so that they are more accusatory towards Ryulong (November 16)
• Logan_Mac claims Ryulong is/was the only editor ever using the word "fucking" on the GamerGate talk page (November 15)
• accuses Ryulong of violating WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR and claims he was de-sysopped for off-wiki collusion to ban editors, exploiting technical bugs to hide edits, and sockpuppetting - Ryulong was actually de-sysopped for being too hotheaded, threatening to block a user, and abusing rollbacks. (November 13)
• claims that Ryulong sought out Zoe Quinn to get a worse and misrepresentative picture that she preferred to put in the article; she was actually approached by several editors who felt that the original picture was poor, and Jimmy Wales has said that he thought approaching her was fine. (November 9)
• claims that Ryulong was unjustly unblocked in April after 3 days by an "admin" (November 8)
  • comments in that thread that ArbCom "like to feel they're some kind of Superman council" but are actually just corrupt admins (November 8)
• claims Ryulong (and NorthBySouthBaranof) commited BLP violations that "anyone else" would be banned for (October 30)
• Not Ryulong- recommends GamerGate supporters not publically message The Devil's Advocate in support because it will "look suspicious" (October 27)
• Agrees with another comment that Ryulong either "has a mental disorder or he is getting paid" because he feels Ryulong edits the article too much (October 27)
• makes a post just to gossip/make fun of about Ryulong's writing style on Wikipedia (October 27)
• claims Ryulong lies about stepping away from the article periodically to avoid getting banned (October 26)
• Says Wikipedia is good for non-controversial things "Except when you get into an edit war with Ryulong over fucking Pokemon episodes" (October 26)
• Agrees with accusations against Ryulong of trying to get editors who say things against him blocked as SPAs (October 23)
• Says Ryulong edits the article as much as "hundreds" of GamerGate supporters (October 22)
• "this Ryulong guy is the most pathetic person I've met on the Internet" (October 22)

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.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by previously involved IP user

Since clarification was requested on my Talk page - I am an IP user who contributed to the Talk page as 70.24.5.250 back in September (I think), and made a statement in the request for this case as 74.12.93.242. I thought I had one other IP (72.something) involved in the discussion, but upon review (using my browser's history to look up the IP, and then checking the contributions) it was not me but simply another IP user whose comments I found interesting.

I was blocked from the topic at one point as WP:NOTHERE (an accusation which I strongly deny; calling out poor conduct by established editors is absolutely an attempt to improve Wikipedia); I respected this block in spite of IP changes (and in fact did not come back for an additional two weeks). I have never had a Wikipedia account and am definitely not sockpuppeting or ban-evading (since those accusations have either already come up or seem likely to). All this in the interest of transparency, in case anyone recognizes the previous IPs.

I will be making a statement shortly, but for now I'm just setting up the section.

Possibly more assertions to follow

76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the first assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.