Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Avono

Avono topic banned one month by User:The Wordsmith. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Avono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
ReynTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Avono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Avono linked to a "source" on the Gamergate talk page. The source in question is a opinion piece from a student newspaper that includes numerous clearly libelous statements about Zoe Quinn. I request that Avono be warned not to disseminate links to known libelous statements as "sources" for this article page. Avono is fully aware of the BLP issues involved here. Request a 24 hour topic ban. [Diff.] ReynTime (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Avono

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Avono

Then User:Carrite [1] should be sanctioned as-well as the user linked to material making similar accusations. This is a bad faith request as ReynTime made no efforts to confront me first and instead went straight to this page, ReynTime should be reminded that this is not a battlefield; He has also not notified me. I made a explanation why I linked to the following material here [2]. I never made any comments stating that these "libelous" statements were true. And I never said that the source should be used in the article, so stop misquoting me [3] Avono (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Because I never used the link to express the concerns raised about Zoey Quinn. I used it in response to the assertion that the amount of GamerGator's not involved in the Harassment are insignificant. As mentioned above I would request you to stop making bad faith judgements about other users out of context. Avono (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And as per Defamation#Proving_libel I do not think that ReynTime has as standing/authority to make these claims (i.e attempt to do malice and lack of any research) Avono (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
User also continues to imply unfounded legal threats after being told not to [4] (with additional indirect accusation of canvassing) Avono (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
And now ReynTime is grouping The Daily Caller together with the above two links... Avono (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)

While we may allow some new editors some wiggle room concerning these accusations, Avono is well aware of Gamergate sanctions and the libelous BLP violations that have infected the articles and the various Talk pages. Avono also knows that editors have been sanctioned by topic bans and blocks for inserting the same libelous accusations that they linked to. One would also assume that the editor read the article and knows the author must not have done any real research on the issue, and stating that they are trying to show the "amount of GamerGator's not involved in the Harassment are insignificant" by linking to such an obvious BLP violation is preposterous. I'm leaving in a minute and this will be my only comment. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I am in the camp that thinks a topic ban here is unnecessary, largely because Avono (thankfully) didn't actually repeat what the source claimed in talk or articlespace, but the point does need to be driven home that it is totally unacceptable to present student newspaper articles, pseudonymous blogs and web forum posts as if they're acceptable support for highly-defamatory allegations (bordering on criminal accusations) against living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that the article in question has been removed from the Amherst Student's website, which I believe we can take as proof that the newspaper's own editorial processes have judged it to be seriously problematic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Keeping in mind WP:AGF and the fact that Avono was not given the official notification prior to the disputed diff (though they was aware of the GS because they notified another editor of the GS), I propose that this request be closed with the official delivery of the notice and let it be at that. Obviously, if Avono does this again there will be significantly less good faith as they've now been notified. Of note, the actions of others does not excuse any individual editors behavior. Each editor is responsibile for ensuring each edit they make is compliant with policy. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ReynTime

This article has had repeated warnings to people about including, referencing, or citing material that violates WP:BLP and it does not appear to have sunk in. Until some action is taken, certain editors will continue to try to introduce this material and repeatedly cite "sources" that are blatantly unusable per WP:RS. Avono is aware of these issues and linked the libelous article regardless. If he is not sanctioned, then at least a statement should be made that this behavior will no longer be excused on the grounds of "I didn't know the source repeated those terrible lies." Editors need to take responsibility for not promoting BLP violations in WP in any way. Such responsibility-taking will not start to occur until there are consequences for failing to do so. ReynTime (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition: We now have another example of another editor, Willhesucceed, posting defamatory material about the main targets of Gamergate on the article's talk page, suggesting that the BLP-violating opinion piece he pulled the quote from be included in the article. Add this to Carrite's attempt to introduce a pseudonymous blog containing, yet again, BLP-violating material as a "source" and we have a pattern of recurring misbehavior that needs to be addressed in some fashion.

Statement by DHeyward

User:ReynTime should refactor all his comments that threaten or imply that an edit was illegal. There are at least two edits where he wrote that the article in question is illegal and the source will be sued (outside of Wikipedia). He then accused Avono of bringing illegal activity to Wikipedia. That is a legal threat. Since I doubt ReynTime has standing to make either a judgement or file a case but such accusations are chilling to collaboration. I suggest a sanction that he not be allowed to mention the legality of other editors post or the legality of sources within GamerGate article talk pages as they do not add to the discourse. Refactoring BLP violation is not the same as calling them "illegal" or threatening lawsuits. --DHeyward (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Second we need to at least be reasonable with facts and exactly what is wrong with sources. It is true that Grayson and Quinn had a relationship.[5]. It is not a BLP violation to say that. It is true that Grayson has never reviewed Depression quest (ibid). It is also true that Kotaku, his employer, did review depression quest[6]. And note the new ethics line at the bottom[7][8] that was added on Oct. 31, 2014 by the Kotaku reviewer. The error on Wikipedia would be to claim Quinn exchanged the relationship for positive coverage by Nathan Grayson as we have no indication this happened. The violation is accusing Grayson of ethical misconduct (it's actually kind of insulting to claim that it's Quinn's choice of partner is the BLP violation when she has no ethical duty as Grayson does but misogynist tendencies are to blame the woman whenever sex intertwines with ethics). It's not a BLP to say she received positive reviews from journalists that she has personal relationships with (i.e. "friends" in this case). There is no indication it is quid pro quo but Kotaku and others have clearly adopted policies of disclosure and we need to be careful about redacting and dismissing information that is not, in fact, a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It does seem odd the remedy would be so much more severe than requested and the requestor seems to now be gone. Linking to an article from a site we would have considered reliable before its take-down doesn't appear to warrant a sanction so severe. We've published entire articles on falsehoods that were later disavowed and retracted by the media sources that wrote them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: what I am not following is the logic from the request "I request that Avono be warned not to disseminate links to known libelous statements" morphing to a 30 day topic ban. Your statement "under no circumstances should have been published by even a college paper, much less posted on Wikipedia" is arguably true if we presume that he posted it to wikipedia and that it was not a reliable source. But he didn't post anything as far as I can see, he didn't make any claims which was your first requirement for offense. He provided a link to a site on a talk page. A site I suspect is linked to in many articles. We've had links to a lot worse sites. He didn't quote or use any of the material. In fact our article highlights the exact same material in question as "Streisand effect" type items. This article[9] for example, is cited in the main GamerGate article and highlights the same accusations excepts frames them as "alleged." (as an aside, the source we use directly links to the ex-boyfriends rant - are we accountable for links within sources too?) Everyone discussing the article knows what's alleged. Is it really that the story linked by Avono and never quoted or used is so egregiously bad because the author of the external piece failed to used "alleged?" This is rather an extreme position to take about external linking when BLP has link exceptions for talk pages and this seems like wikilawyer minutae as nothing is ever said in WP voice or space. You should not need copies of external, deleted articles to determine if someone violated BLP policies unless you are validating the source. No claims on Wikipedia=No BLP violation.

  • WP:BLPTALK specifically allows such links; For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? It's very disheartening to see that the interpretation of policy appears to conflict with an exact example of how controversial links should be handled on talk pages.
 --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, if you are telling us that an article talk page statement "This link has serious allegations about about Zoe Quinn; should we summarize some pieces about Gamergaters from it?" and it used the Amhurst link is a BLP violation, I question whether you really understand BLP policy regarding WP:BLPTALK as it is a direct replication of what is explicitly allowed and recommended for such material. The fact that you actually needed the contents of the off-site link, and not Avono's own words/diffs, should have been a clue that you were using the wrong section about claims and content. --DHeyward (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Per WP:BLPTALK it is not always an automatic violation to include a link to contentious material about living persons; it is the context and use of the link in the course of discussing improvements/additions to the article that must be considered, among other factors. Arguably the quality of the source link is important - a link to a blog or forum that contains such claims would never be allowed; on the other hand, if a high reputable source like the NYTimes introduced a claim, we might have to consider and discuss that. Here was a student-run university newspaper which is very much on a cusp for this specific article; including the link isn't likely going to happen, but I wouldn't not immediately call the link bad. The behavior here seems like an completely earnest attempt to present some possible information for inclusion; more specifically they mention the article for other information it included; it just also happened to include some serious BLP claims that a student-run paper cannot readily be in a position to make. Redaction of the link after quickly seeing it as a BLP issue is reasonable, and caution should definitely be given to avoid such links in the future, but I'm not seeing any action here that requires much more than a trout. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Given Avono's recent [10] [11] efforts to imply that the allegations against living people have not been thoroughly debunked in the media (as they have been since the very first media reports), this additional lack of concern about carelessly spreading such allegations are cause for concern of a troubling pattern. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Okay, I looked at an archive of the article and, suffice to say, the issue is just the oft-repeated and discredited claim about Quinn gets stated as fact a couple times. In this opinion piece it even makes the false claim that the claim originated with Gjoni, when it was merely a confabulation of suppressed Internet discussions about the Zoe post. While an opinion piece in a student newspaper is not a reliable source, it appears Avono is merely guilty of citing an unreliable source that contained libelous claims as it was clearly raised to note an unrelated point about GamerGate that was not libelous. This article was raised on the talk page rather than used as a source for content. Avono should have paid closer attention to the source being cited, but it seems this was an error in good faith.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell blocked the filer of this request for being a single-purpose account, not to here to build an encyclopedia, and possibly a sockpuppet. Neither WordSmith or EdJohnston apparently bothered to look into the filer's obviously problematic history or extend even the slightest understanding to Avono. I think you should reverse your sanction immediately, Wordsmith. This process of coming down like a ton of bricks on long-term good faith editors for minor mistakes, or essentially nothing, while allowing rampant POV-pushing and other abuses to go on unabated is exactly why there is an arbitration case open on this matter. 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. Even The Goddamn Washington Post has made egregious BLP-sensitive errors in their coverage and one such article is being used as a source in the actual article despite it still retaining the misinformation. This is an outrage.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wordsmith, the very editor who filed this report and sent you that archive link has been indeffed as a disruptive SPA and on suspicion of being a sockpuppet. I see no indication that Avono has tried to re-insert the link to the talk page after it was removed or that the BLP-violating claims within the article were being repeated by Avono on the talk page. Websites may contain things we cannot include on-wiki per policy, but that does not inherently mean linking to the site violates policy if that source could be reliable for other details. Indeed there is no indication in policy that such standards are expected of editors. Your initial instinct of no sanction was the correct one. The fact that your only other evidence is a rather dubious misrepresentation of Avono making an attempt at compromise and discussion over a long-running unsettled content dispute someone else rekindled only makes this more obscene.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia; it does not apply, to the best of my knowledge, to websites other than Wikipedia. Therefore, I am concerned that an editor can be sanctioned for just posting a link to a student newspaper, in that, if there was a BLP violation, it appears to have happened off-Wiki. If editors are sanctioned for posting a link to any external website which may contain contentious material about a living person, this is a slippery slope. Indeed, how can WP:RSN and WP:BLPN possibly function? Posting such links is not only a routine activity, it's integral part of their very existance. I don't think that it is desirable, or within existing policy, to sanction editors for simply posting such links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Avono

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem. The actual article has since been removed from the website in question, so I can't review its content to confirm that such claims were made. Google doesn't seem to have cached it, and without that, I can't issue a sanction. The argument that Avono has not been notified of the sanction is a specious one, since as Hasteur points out he has given the notice to other people, which does actually count as official notification. I've also officially notified him of WP:BLPSE. If there are further conduct issues, they can be brought either here or to WP:AE for enforcement. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed an archived version of the article in question that was emailed to me. It does indeed contain unsupported and likely libellous claims, and under no circumstances should have been published by even a college paper, much less posted on Wikipedia. Unless somebody can come up with a very good reason otherwise, i'm going to impose a two week topic ban on GamerGate and related articles, broadly construed. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd support this, though topic bans of less than a month may not be worth it. Either a full month or just a warning would be my suggestion. Avono has already been mentioned in an earlier GGE thread. Previously in the Masem request I was unhappy about Avono making a change in the Zoe Quinn header, that he should have known was against consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I was mitigating it because it was his first sanction, but you're right. Less than a month isn't going help the topic area. I'm therefore imposing the following sanction: Avono (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any pages related to GamerGate controversy, broadly construed, or from making any edits in other areas that discuss the same, for a period of 30 days. An exception is made for participating at WP:ARBGG. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward: and @The Devil's Advocate: The requested short-term ban would have accomplished nothing and been strictly punitive and not preventative. Also, before my retirement I had a reputation as a BLP hardliner. After reviewing an archived copy of the link posted, I have no doubt that it was a clear BLP violation and sanction was warranted. That said, I am not an unreasonable man. If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously, and that he'll make an effort to be much more careful going forward, given his contribution history and track record I would be willing to commute the ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Torga

User blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. RGloucester 17:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Torga

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Torga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Torga has violated his GamerGate related topic ban by participating in this AFD. I apologize if I haven't formatted this properly or if the ban violation reports go elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

NotifiedRyūlóng (琉竜) 04:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Re to Torga: It concerns any and all pages related to Gamergate, which Fredrick Brennan falls under. This isn't even a stretch of being "broadly construed". Brennan owns 8chan and actively participates in Gamergate debates because his website is where they mostly congregate, and the article concerns his participation in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Torga

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Torga

Seriously again? What actually defines a gamergate-controversy topic ban? What i am allowed to write about at all? I do not consider a personal page about a web-developer as gamergate-controversy and the only thing i wrote was to keep a page about a person that created a soscial media page. This is getting ridiculus. --Torga (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

The latest CheckUser results from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torga are concerning. They tie Torga to Argotton (talk · contribs) and Ruylon (talk · contribs) both accounts that have edited GG related articles. — Strongjam (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI above the Torga has been blocked indefinitely. This request can probably be closed. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Salvidrim

Indef'ed for socking, so whether a TBAN violation occurred or not is moot. AfD !votes hatted per standard procedure. I would close the request if I knew how to as there doesn't seem to be anything left to do with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Torga

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • Our article on Fredrick Brennan identifies him as a 'prominent Gamergate advocate.' In my opinion User:Torga is violating his topic ban from Gamergate if he posts in that AfD. Torga's ban runs through 11 February 2015 according to WP:GS/GG. There may still be time for Torga to strike out his AfD comment to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, its clearly and unambiguously a topic ban violation. The article itself even mentions GG, so it should be obvious. I'm not sure what action would be appropriate though, given that its on an AFD, the comment was reasonable, and that we want to be preventative and not punitive. If Torga would strike his !vote, that would be a show of good faith and require only a mild sanction. If he refuses to see why it violates the ban, a more significant sanction is in order. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Cla68

Interaction ban imposed; no further action necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Cla68

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Cla68 has twice made personal attacks on me by alluding to matters that the community already decided are inconsequential for the sole purpose of attacking me on this board and others.

He was never formally added to WP:GS/GG until I gave the notification tonight but he has been heavily involved in the arbitration case by inserting himself right into the dispute there and has edited talk pages where the talk page version of the notice is in place, so he is well aware that these sanctions exist but he had not been formally warned of the matters. Even if this is not exactly the right place to request this, this behavior is beyond the pale of what should be acceptable. Not being formally notified of the fact that you shouldn't attack other editors in the area is no excuse for his behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur and EdJohnston: The second diff was made outside of the purview of arbcom clerks as it was on an article talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He's still at it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cla68

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Cla68

Statement by DHeyward

It doesn't appear that GG sanctions apply here. Both links are outside the scope of enforcement. --DHeyward (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

Do community sanctions have any effect on the arbcom pages? Seems the arbitrators would be able to police those pages.

This comment does appear to be problematic to me, it's not very hard to figure out who they are referring to. Support warning Cla68. — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cla68 is still at it with his edit summaries. — Strongjam (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

There is precedent that GS enforcement does not sanction over ArbCom case postings. Suggest that this enforcement request be raised over at the ArbCom clerk noticeboard/ArbCom notice board for them to resolve. Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cla68

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • This issue now seems to be sufficiently handled by my post to an active clerk: User talk:Ks0stm#Clerk issue for GG. Whether regular admins should intervene on Arbcom case pages is murky, and I don't think we need to go there. If unhappy with this solution, you could reason courteously with User:Ks0stm. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • See Guerillero's decision to impose an interaction ban between Cla68 and Ryulong on the Arbcom case pages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac

The comment is possibly a BLP violation, but is not nearly serious enough in isolation to warrant sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Discussion concerning Loganmac

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Hipocrite

Loganmac egregiously violated BLP in this edit, in which he states that "[an identifiable living person] has links to [a publication that reviewed her game awarded her game a prize], if this wasn't tied to GamerGate the source would be gone by now." There is absolutely no reliably sourced evidence presented about any such relationship. It is a violation of BLP to imply that a living person is using personal relationships to garner positive reviews win awards without sourcing. BLP applies everywhere.

  • WP:BLP: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages"
  • WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Loganmac has repeated his BLP violations below. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam - correct, corrected.

DHeyward - The accused stated that the artile in question was "tied to GamerGate."

Statement by Loganmac

Saying she has "links" is no wrongdoing, I'm not accusing her of anything, just that the iMore staff is close with her, just judging from her multiple apperance in their various podcasts [14] [15] In an effort to judge a source reliability, editors are often advised to look if a source could be biased. Those links will obviously not appear on reliable sources, they don't need to, I'm not accussing her of anything illegal or even important, we have to look into poteantial COIs. In any case, the COI, if it exists, is mild, as a simple disclosure could serve in the original source. I have already doubts if iMore is cited as RS on other articles, that's my biggest concern, if it is, then it could stay. If this is judged as BLP, an admin could delete the talk page commentary, this is the first time I've been accused of violating BLP and a sanction in my humble opinion is exxagerated, when my concern relates to better sourcing of an article. This is similar to when people were discussing on the GamerGate article if an article by Liana K should be put in the article given that she had a discussion with Milo Yiannoppoulous hours before, I'm not implying paid reviews or anything. Loganmac (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not forbidden from editing subjects related to the ArbCom, IronHolds is not understanding what I tried to say, I didn't edit the article because I thought it would bring more drama over this, it was absolutely voluntarly, all my edits have been neutral, the deletion nomination was just that a nomination, which was contested by simply deleting it, I nominated judging the previous state of the article, which was mainly edited by someone who had admitted in the talk page that he was asked to do so, and judging by his contributions, is an absolutely SPA [16], contained multiple non-free images, and was extremely long in sections with multiple non-RS, as the template says one is free to improve the article, the article was improved, now I think the article shouldn't be deleted. Loganmac (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds's analogy that I said "sticking my hand in a blender is probably a bad idea, I'll avoid doing it", that's his own interpretation, I said "sticking my hand in a blender will bring drama over me" , and I did 1 single edit, not even to the content of the article. I even said [17] "I'll propose its deletion soon" so I don't get what's you're getting at. If we're to say any judgment on a source is BLP then Wikipedia would cease to exist, time and time again editors study sources, potentital biases (which isn't an accusation), same as you wouldn't cite an article sponsored by a brand on said brand's article. Voicing your concerns that an article could be sponsored in relation to that brand would be BLP? I don't think so. If you think otherwise you're free to contest my proposal, that's how this works. Loganmac (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My concers seem founded since the iMore managing editor refers to her as "A friend of mine" [18] in any case this particular problem should be discussed in the talk page. And I think I'm out of the word limit by now Loganmac (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

The user in question has just admitted they have no source to support their accusation, and the user should well know at this point that unsupported accusations of wrongdoing have no place in the encyclopedia. Claims of a conflict of interest in an awards process is a serious allegation and if it cannot be supported by a reliable source, it needs to be struck and the user sanctioned. Appearances on an interview podcast are in no way evidence of such a conflict, or even of so-called "links" - it is hardly surprising that a notable iOS developer would be invited to speak on a podcast devoted to iOS topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, it should be self-evident that an article about a video game designed by one of the key victims of Gamergate's harassment campaign is covered by the community sanctions on articles related to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

Hipocrite seems to have linked to a diff of his own comment. I believe the edits he meant to link to are here and here. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds

Loganmac seems uniquely incapable of understanding what is and is not proper on Wikipedia. The BLP violations brought up Hipocrite are an example of this; other noted behaviour around the same content includes:

Essentially, Loganmac appears to be a POV-pusher: incredibly biased towards one side, and attempting to pay lip service to neutrality in order to gain some credibility when making highly skewed contributions that seem largely based on his personal opinion. I'd suggest sanctioning him if for no other reason than that, as this talkpage exchange suggests, he doesn't seem to have the fortitude to disengage and is going to do himself an injury if he doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Logan, no, you're not forbidden from editing articles relating to the ArbCom case. I'm also not forbidden from sticking my hand in a blender. However, having stated "sticking my hand in a blender is probably a bad idea, I'll avoid doing it", and pushed my hand in anyway, someone should probably note that I'm evidently either (a) barely paying lip-service to responsibility, and not actually trustworthy on the subject, or (b) actively incapable of controlling myself, and, either way, take the blender away. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated, deliberately failing to remember another user's username is just sad and petty ;p. Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

First, "Please remember the main developer has links to iMore" is not a BLP violation. I don't even know what iMore is but I assume it gave an award? If so, it would be an accusation that iMore, not the developer, acted improperly if that is what is being described. If it's just unsourced information about iMore, don't put it in the article. But it's not a BLP violation. Unless iMore is infamous and being linked to them is somehow negative, there is no BLP issue. it's an iMore sourcing issue.

Second, it's pretty lame to tag the article as gamergate related after the comment was made and then rush over here. [19] --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely just a sourcing issue with iMore. [20] is an article by a friend of Wu's describing her ordeal. I don't see any information that iMore improperly in awarding her a "Best of" prize. It's still not a BLP violation since the concern is with iMore, not Wu. It is true, at least that Wu has links to writers from iMore as that's in the linked article. Questioning a source like iMore is not a violation either. --DHeyward (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To Summarize:

According to iMore, Pete Cohen is the managing editor of iMore. He is also friends with Wu [21]. That's definitely a link. No evidence that iMore acted improperly. It seems this is a good faith presentation of whether the award was objective enough to be mentioned in the article and is a fair question. --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

Per what DHeyward said in his summary, the statement by LoganMac holds some merit, and I don't understand how it's a BLP issue to raise concerns about the COI of a source. Weedwacker (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The filing complaint is really stretching BLP to the point of absurdity. As to the rest, Logan's assessment is not completely off-base. Right now the article is overwhelmingly backed by primary-sourced material and only a small amount of sourcing provided can be considered reliable. Given that there is a BLP for Wu it is not unlikely that an uninvolved editor might consider the game to not meet GNG. Unfortunately, this poor state is a consequence of a series of SPAs that appear to have been called forth by Wu on Twitter, starting with the editor who created the article, an IP user who added most of the material, and the editor who added a large number of non-free images. The two named accounts appear to be operated by members of the iOS dev community. While this does not really amount to a COI issue, articles built in this manner tend to look little different from the kind of promotional pieces often written by COI editors. Someone seeing a COI-style piece with poor sourcing may very well view it as not worthy of inclusion. I believe enough reliable sources exist to establish the game's notability independent of Wu, but Logan's position is within reason. He clearly followed deletion procedure by prodding the page rather than attempting to speedy it or going straight to AfD.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

It's not a explicit BLP violation, but any type of stronger statement would definitely make it one. To say, in terms of evaluating a source, that "X has ties to source Y", and using the logic that since X has appeared on a show produced by Y (which is a verified fact) that there might be a COI, that's reasonable to include to discuss for Y is a usable source or not. Mind you, there's an Insane Troll Logic-route of thinking that if that's pressed too much (such as considering any source touched by X to be a COI towards X), and a stronger claim would definitely start down the path of a BLP issue (eg "X has financial ties to source Y" without demonstratable evidence). Caution here, but no outright violation. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loganmac

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • User:Hipocrite has argued that this edit by Loganmac is a BLP violation. I'm not seeing it as a violation. Editors are debating what conclusion to draw from well-known publicly-visible facts. They are trying to determine whether iMore and Wu have a business connection that could make iMore's coverage not completely objective. I find Loganmac's claim implausible but I don't think it breaks any conduct rules. In my opinion this complaint should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Lamest. Enforcement request. Ever. The comment is slightly controversial, but doesn't come close to a BLP violation. There is no unsourced or poorly sourced controverial claim made, negative or otherwise. The fact that there is a link between the two is obvious from even a quick glance; Loganmac makes no insinuations of impropriety or claims as to the nature of this link. No action needed for this request. If others think that this user has demonstrated a harmful pattern of editing, Arbcom is thataway. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary

f this is still an issue, please re-file the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tutelary

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

This is not a request for sanction enforcement, this is a request for clarification submitted by User:Tutelary, who has asked me if the article Hatred (video game) falls under her topic ban. I do not see any direct connection between GamerGate and this particular game, but I wanted to put the question before others more knowledgeable about games than I, which is pretty much everybody. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tutelary

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Ryulong

Yes. Hatred has become a cause celebre in Gamergate due to a backlash of it being taken down from Steam's greenlight thing and then put back up again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac, it's a stretch to say that all video games fall under this topic ban. Hatred, which has become a point of contention in Gamergate, has.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, it is indeed related as well. If something gets heavy discussion in various off-site forums dedicated to Gamergate like both hatred and cultural Marxism then they should be part of any broadly interpreted topic ban. It doesnt have to do with video games specifically but when there are multiple threads on the subject and the fact that they want the Wikipedia article retained then it's related.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

The game has been getting lots of attention by Gamergate supporters and has been tied to Gamergate by at least one RS:

Their game had already been cynically marketed to supporters of the Gamergate campaign as something that “social justice warriors” would hate, to the extent that fans were asking for downloadable content which would add women like Anita Sarkeesian into the game as murder targets.

— Hern, Alex, "Removing Hatred from Steam leaves awkward questions for Valve". The Guardian.

Strongjam (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Cultural Marxism, it is a topic that is getting attention on Gamergate forums, but I think it would be a stretch to put it under the Gamergate sanctions. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

With regards to Hatred, I'll be honest in saying that it has been the subject of criticism, boycotts, and campaigns to remove it from distribution services because of its content, and that GamerGate has fought back against these efforts and got it back up on Steam. I could only find 5 diffs of Tutelary editing on Hatred, all before the topic ban, 4 in the article space and 1 in the talk page. One appears to be nothing, two of the edits were reverting vandalism [22] [23], and one removes an image for undue weight. Her talk page edit was removing an uncivil comment. I posted these diffs only to show that it doesn't appear Tutelary has ever had any contentious editing on that article. You could apply the general sanctions, but i'm letting you know this wouldn't do much. Everyone knows the game is controversial, i'll save everyone the trouble and say that i'm sure lots of reliable sources say some terrible things about it. The developers wouldn't care how badly their game is portrayed on that article because it will sell well because it's controversial, all anyone would fight is BLP comments about the developers.

I have concerns that if every videogame that gets mentioned by GamerGate supporters becomes part of the scope of sanctions the broad scope will become very bloated, as that would include games like Grand Theft Auto V, the Postal series, the Bayonetta series, Hotline Miami, SeedScape, Metal Gear Solid V, any game by Stardock, Dragon's Crown, Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, the Mass Effect series (though mainly 3), and arguably any game that contains violence, controversial subject matter, or receives undue attention from games media. Any game that someone can be offended by, or the games of any developer that supports or opposes GamerGate could end up under sanctions. Yes, I am advising against a slippery slope whereby a topic ban on GamerGate will be in effect a topic ban on Video Games, as GamerGate is concerned with coverage based on relationships and the censorship or sales restrictions of video games. Any video game that from here on out is the subject of criticism or boycotts because of the nature of its content could become a game that is supported by GamerGate.

I would agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that Tutelary should use good judgement if she chooses to edit the article again, and in my opinion sanctions would not be necessary. Weedwacker (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I think the subject is sufficiently distant (for now) to not be considered directly under the umbrella of the topic ban, but it's definitely on the borderline. I think Tutelary would be well-advised to exercise good judgment in editing the article so as for their contributions not to stray into that territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Loganmac

I'm sure if you look for it any game will fall under GamerGate, I don't think so. For example David Jaffe has gotten an interview with a slightly pro-GG site Nichegamer, I made his latest game article, would that fall under GamerGate? Nah. Would all games made by him previously fall under it too? That's nitpicky, Hatred is being celebrated by everyone that considers himself a gamer. Most people have an opinion on it. Loganmac (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I would not consider Hatred yet a topic broadly under the GG umbrella only because from what I've followed on the GG side, it is not that they have any qualms with Hatred but they are using that (specifically its removal from Greenlight and replacement a day later) and the media response as an example of issues in the VG journalism field. They have no direct reason to interact with the Hatred article here since those developing it are not connected to anyone on their "list". There are other games that are much more likely GG-problem targets but yet have been touched by GG-based editors, and unless they act like we are getting on GG, Quinn, Depression Quest, etc., I would say they aren't broadly related - yet. This could all change if GG supporters that want to try to influence WP change their tactics. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tutelary

Thanks all for your responses, I would also like to question whether Cultural marxism is under GamerGate sanctions as someone slapped the template on the talk page and I'd rather not be blocked for assuming otherwise. Tutelary (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tutelary

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • No reason to think that edits of Hatred (video game) would violate Tutelary's GG topic ban. Naturally, if any statements about Gamergate later get added to the Hatred article, Tutelary should not edit those. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: What do you think about the Guardian article posted above? That makes me think that it perhaps should fall under the sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Its a very borderline case, and the edits made so far don't seem problematic. However, Tutelary's topic ban does specifically say broadly construed. Gamaliel, you imposed the ban. Did you intend it to apply this broadly? The WordsmithTalk to me 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • First, to clarify just in case anyone was thinking differently, I think we should treat all GG-topic bans the same and they should all have the same scope. Any Wikipedia topic ban is generally interpreted broadly, as they should be to prevent gaming the system, but here, as noted by some above, we run the risk of a GG-ban becoming essentially a ban of all video game related topics, which was no one's intent. As long as there is no direct link to GamerGate, Tutelary or anyone else under such a restriction should be free to edit almost any video game article. The question here is whether or not the Guardian establishes a direct link. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Cla68 2

Cla68 blocked and topic-banned independently of this report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Cla68

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Earlier this morning, Kitsunedawn posted entirely-unsupported and highly-defamatory allegations of criminal wrongdoing against identifiable living people to Talk:Gamergate controversy. I removed them within two minutes and warned Kitsunedawn that their edits were unacceptable — that Wikipedia is not a host for scurrilous rumor-mongering and gossiping about highly-inflammatory claims. I also privately, via e-mail, requested a revision deletion for defamatory content.

Yet before that could happen (three hours later) Cla68 restored the defamatory and unsupported allegations of serious criminal acts to the talk page, merely adding the comment, We need reliable sources before we start putting this kind of thing in the article. I submit that Cla68's restoration of this defamatory edit is highly unacceptable. We aren't even talking about a Breitbart link at this point — we're talking about entirely-unsourced and unsupported allegations of serious criminal acts, and as an experienced editor, Cla68 must well know that such claims have absolutely no place anywhere on the encyclopedia. Restoring them in un-redacted form is beyond the pale — this is not even a borderline call, it is black-letter policy that we do not play host, anywhere, to such claims, and there does not appear to be any reasonable explanation for Cla68's reversion of them back into the page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cla68

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Cla68

Statement by Strongjam

This is not even close to a borderline case. The accusations were extremely serious and unsupported. There was no legitimate reason for Cla68 to restore the comments. — Strongjam (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like HJ Mitchell has imposed a block and a topic ban. Most likely this request can be closed. — Strongjam (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cla68

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The Devil's Advocate

After a week, there is no evidence of continuing insertions of offending material, so there is nothing sanctionable here. All parties are reminded that talk page discussions must be compliant with BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning The Devil's Advocate

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

The Devil's Advocate is persistently reinserting into Talk:Gamergate controversy a link to a categorically-unreliable source which contains defamatory claims, private information and outright falsehoods about living people, despite being warned. There have been extensive discussions on the talk page, and based upon extensive discussions at RSN, there is a clear and unambiguous consensus that Breitbart does not uphold anything resembling journalistic standards, has a longstanding history of hoaxing, misrepresentation and falsification, and has no business being used in anything remotely connected to living people. There is, then, absolutely no reason to leave this link on the page. Yet TDA has described its removal on BLP grounds as "ridiculous" and "not remotely valid." I suggest that edit-warring to retain this unhelpful, unusable and outright-defamatory link anywhere in the encyclopedia is inappropriate.

Breitbart is not a "contentious" source, it is outright rejected for anything remotely approaching living persons issues. As MastCell aptly summed up in the debate that TDA linked to:
The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Breitbart websites do not have such a reputation. In fact, quite the opposite: they have a reputation for publishing misleading or false information, often about living people, in service of their political agenda. (Examples include the deceptively edited videotape which led to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod; a news article falsely claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy; and publishing recklessly false criminal allegations which cost a private citizen his job; see [24] and [25], among others).

It's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability.

The article in question contains private information; vile, unfounded, highly-defamatory assertions sourced to blogs, screenshots and YouTube links; entirely-unsupported implications, and is absolutely, 100% unacceptable in any Wikipedia space. Wikipedia is not a place for Gamergate supporters to spread their accusations about Zoe Quinn. The WP:BLPTALK exemption ceases to apply once it's determined that the questioned source is unusable or unacceptable, and we are long, long past that point here. As the policy states, Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If TDA believes there are unsupported defamatory allegations in another article that is not a reliable source, that should be presented on the talk page for discussion and potential removal. It doesn't excuse or permit unsupported defamatory allegations in the link in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning The Devil's Advocate

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Breitbart is certainly a contentious source, but there is constant debate about whether to use it on here (indeed, there is one debate going on right now) because many editors consider it reliable and it is generally seen as reliable as a source of opinion. Redacting a link to it on the talk page claiming it as a BLP violation is just patently absurd. Baranof's claim that it contains false allegations is incorrect. Nothing contained within that piece is demonstrably false. It is definitely a partisan piece that makes a few assumptions about the motivations or character of a living individual, but we already have plenty of that kind of material in the article already. It is not a BLP violation to link to that article on the talk page. An additional problem here is that Baranof explained why he believed Breitbart was not acceptable by citing the Wikipedia article on Breitbart and minutes later Baranof was heavily slanting material on that very article, misrepresenting the sources in the process.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is not a BLP and nothing suggests there was any intention to make BLP claims with any of the listed sources. The only private information contained within the Breitbart piece, from what I can tell, is the legal name of an individual. Currently, we include a piece by Amanda Marcotte in the GamerGate article and that source actually does make vile and demonstrably false claims about the individual's ex-boyfriend. Originally, Marcotte's false claims about the ex-boyfriend were actually included in the article itself. Baranof is edit-warring to redact a link to Breitbart on the talk page merely for making unverified claims about this individual.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

On this point, Gamaliel, I really am going to have insist that you are WP:INVOLVED given your very strong views regarding Breitbart.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

This is the only article by Amanda Marcotte in use on Gamergate controversy. Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is unnamed in the article in question and The Devil's Advocate is not clear as to what "vile and demonstrably false claims" it contains about him. TDA is yet again abusing policy and falsely claiming violations of policy to get his way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In a tangent, it seems that one article is in the references twice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, there is no way that Milo Yiannopoulos' insertion of himself into the controversy makes him a notable voice to be able to allow linking to an article that defames living persons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
IIRC the whole problem with Gamergate controversy was that it was host to every single BLP violation under the sun about Zoe Quinn. Or her page became all about the controversy. I can't remember exactly. But the issue is that Mr. Yiannopoulos's reputation, and the reputation of his employer, precedes him. When we know that his piece isn't about ethics in video game journalism but an attack on one person (or several, again, haven't read it in forever) then we should be extra careful not to continue including it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Loganmac

I really think this discussion is more apt for the reliable source noticeboard, I see that Breitbart isn't accepted but often this leads me to believe it's because they're right wing, while I would bash the site anywhere else that isn't Wikipedia since I'm leftist, in a place where we're supposed to be neutral is really telling of the editors. The scandals listed on the Breitbart articles are well cited innacuracies, but we're acting here as if well reputable sources like The Guardian are never wrong, every outlet will put out falsehoods. In my opinion Breitbart should hold for the opinion of its authors, in a due manner, but when you got sources like BoingBoing and BuzzFeed, or Gawker for that matter, being accepted at times by the same editors who constantly edit the GamerGate article, it's often impossible to not see a bias. Banning TDA for this is ridiculous, one could even argue NorthBySouth is injecting his own bias into the Breitbart article as he has with other articles he sees as even mildly defending GamerGate [26] Loganmac (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Just as a quick comment: if there is a Breitbart link about GamerGate, it is likely been written by Milo, who is a central figure of the GG situation (in that he is primarily the only really well established person even if working for an often unreliable source that has spoken in a positive manner towards supporting GG. Mind you, Milo does resort to some questionable journalistic aspects. But my point is here that if we are talking about an opinion piece written by a figure directly involved in a situation, even if that opinion piece comes from a source that we normally consider unreliable, and perhaps may include some statements that border on BLP, that does not invalidate any discussion of that source on the talk if it is reasonable to include the non-BLP-violating claims in the article, and that of course necessitates linking to the article in question. On the other hand, if we are talking a Breitbart piece by someone that has no connection to the events but tosses up BLP issues, yeah, that's probably not a good thing to be including. One has to remember that BLP/BLPTALK is to prevent WP or its editors from making unsubstantiated claims about living persons, but does not prevent discussion of inclusion of possible sources where BLP claims may be made among other more appropriate content, as long as the discussion or goal of the discussion is not about attempting to repeat any unsubstantiated claims within WP. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

To Ryulong: just because Milo has decided to get involved and has been the most visible reporter that favors GG does not mean we simply ignore that (there are other reasons to avoid Brietbart sources, as well as some of Milo's opinions too). Of course if he wrote a piece that was 100% a BLP attack on somebody, yeah, zero chance we'd be using that, but to link to an article that is 90% about his opinion and 10% is some questionable BLP stuff, that doesn't make the article invalid as a point of discussion per BLPTALK. For example, there are reliable sources we have in place already that mention some of the other charges that Gyoni put about Quinn in his post that are otherwise not part of the larger GG issue. We aren't going to discuss those in the GG article nor the Quinn article nor anywhere else on WP because that is straight up a BLP violation as the charges are unfounded/unverified/unsubstantiated, but that doesn't invalidate those sources since the BLP claims are not the focus of the article. BLP is meant to prevent WP trying to perpetuate unsubstantiated BLP claims, not necessary to prevent any potentially BLP-violating source from being linked in the context of BLPTALK. Poor sources, and sources that only exist to make BLP violations, obviously yes, but not ones where the possible BLP violation is a secondary thought to the topic at hand. Of course, if it is the case that the specific Breitbart article was linked before, and determined to be a BLP violation by previous discussion, and redacted then, redacting it when a new editor brings it up is fine. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

The article is far worse then the article that Avono received a month long topic ban for. TDA re-inserted the link multiple times after BLP concerns were raised and was not unaware of Brietbart's reliability issues, even themself noting issues with Breitbart. Far more then just a warning is warranted. — Strongjam (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: The diff shows TDA was aware of the specific reliability concerns other editors have with Brietbart, even if he disagreed with consensus. — Strongjam (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

As a question, does it matter when NorthBySouthBaranof first made a reference to the discussion over Breitbart? From what I could tell, NBSB was originally making the claim to retract the article based on what reputation they believed it to have with a reference to our article on it. However, unless I am mistaken, NBSB never referenced any discussion at all on Breitbart until this request was made. If policy states, Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion, then I fail to see how that part applies without a reference to a past discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To Strongjam: To quote the rest of your diff, "(...) You could say that about pretty much every major news outlet. In-text attribution is more than sufficient to cover for that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talkcontribs)

@Strongjam: The diff shows TDA was being civil when replying to a user who earlier had an issue with sourcing claims by Milo Yiannopoulos, a central figure in this issue, and not disagreeing with consensus. To sum up what TDA said: Breitbart has made mistakes before. Almost every major outlet has made the same mistakes before. Attributing the article to the source could solve the issue brought up.
My belief, TDA was only noting that a majority of sources, no matter the size, have made these mistakes and was engaging in discussion to come up with a compromise. Considering how Yiannopoulos has become a central figure in this controversy, attribution was apparently considered to be the best solution. I will note that TDA has participated in discussions about Breitbart, though the claim that he disagreed with consensus is not supported in that diff. --Super Goku V (talk)

@Collect: This is the diff you are citing, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I will take that as correct, but would you cite your diffs by linking to them on your statement? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Where an admin is WP:INVOLVED on any article specifically regarding the use of Breitbart, such an admin should so note and not place comments as an "uninvolved administrator." ("changed visibility of a revision on page America (2014 film)" admin action) multiple edits on that film (actions as editor), and voicing strong opposition to use of Breitbart as an editor on the article talk page ("This is exactly the opposite of what happened. The SPA who is the chief proponent of including Brietbart has spent hundreds of edits arguing about it in practically every noticeboard on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)") Where a editor with a pronounced animus posts on this page, they ought to do so as an ordinary comment, and not as an "uninvolved administrator" Collect (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@SG - one of more than a hundred examples where the one admin makes his case that he loathes Breitbart - he also hatted a discussion in which he had participated as an editor at NPOV/N on 6 August etc. The use of "uninvolved" at this point is outré, alas. And his apparent statement that he will use his admin mop to enforce his personal opinion is disquieting. Collect (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@SG They are all findable quite readily - but the case at hand is not about him, nor a place to present "evidence" about third parties, so I stuck to the issue of whether a person qualifies as "uninvolved" which he clearly does not. Thus only his words (unless he denies them, of course) are relevant here. Collect (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

Hi, I'm one of the numerous volunteers at the Reliable Sources and the Biographies of Living People noticeboards. My understanding is that WP:BLP applies to all of Wikipedia - article-space as well as talk pages, the Noticeboards, the Reference Desk, the Help Desk, as well as non-article pages, and their talk pages. But it does not apply to pages off-site to Wikipedia.

  • The alleged two BLP violations do not appear to be on Wikipedia. Instead, alleged BLP violations are off-Wiki[27][28] where BLP does not apply.
  • If a good faith editor asks at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN whether a website is a reliable source about a living person, how should we handle it? If it turns out that the source is not reliable, should we sanction the editor because they posted the link?
  • If so, we have a huge backlog of editors at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN which need to be sanctioned. Which admin(s) would like to volunteer for this task?

Admins of these sanctions are authorized to carry out the will of the community; but no more, and no less. They are NOT authorized to invent novel interpretations of WP:BLP. Specifically, there is no policy which states that BLP applies to off-Wikipidia sites. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with the existing BLP policy is entitled to that opinion, but the correct course of action is to start an RfC to have BLP changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by DHeyward

Breitbart is fine as source depending on context. Reliable sources are known to have oversights and errors. Breitbart is no different. ArbCom is reviewing all conduct including commenting admins and users. There is no reason to act prior to the arbCom decision and process Doing so would be strikingly provocative ans a usurpation of authority. Gamaliel's dislike of Breitbart is easily discovered in his editing history and his view as an uninvolved admin should be discounted. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

For point-by-point Sherrod was fired by the Obama administration because of pressure by the NAACP because the audience was applauding in an inappropriate place which put the NAACP in a bad light. The full audio exonerated Sherrod to an extent, but not necessarily the audience. NPR fired Juan Williams for nearly an identical incident of selective editing where he described personal feelings he had to overcome. "Gotcha" quote journalism are nothing knew and Breitbart isn't the inventor. NPR runs about 2 corrections per day. The Paul Krugman story was originally from another source, not Breitbart. Other outlets ran the story. As for innocent ACORN employee, all firings were done by ACORN after ACORN investigated violations of the organizations policy. The statement he "publish[ed] recklessly false criminal allegations" is a HUGE BLP violation since no such finding ever happened. O'Keefe, not Breitbart, settled out-of-court, and there was never any finding or admission of wrongdoing. Breitbart wasn't even involved with the lawsuit and was not sued. --DHeyward (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Devil's Advocate

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • Breitbart's poor reputation for reliability and its shoddy treatment of living individuals make it impossible to use as a source for BLPs or other sensitive topics. Given that, there's no reason for such a link to be present on the talk page. Editors are reminded that talk pages are not discussion forums and since there is no chance of this link being used as a source for the article, there is no reason for this link to remain on the talk page. I will not impose sanctions for editors who have inserted the link on the talk page in good faith, but now that this matter has been brought here, be aware that persistently reinserting the link to a clearly unreliable source amounts to sanctionable disruptive editing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ksolway

Ksolway has not edited for several days. Should they return to the same conduct, I recommend a hand-written, neutrally worded caution to inform them of the expected standards of behaviour. I would be happy to write it myself if somebody notifies me of their return. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Ksolway

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ksolway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Notification of sanctions

Ksolway is an editor who has an established account but has not edited in nearly a year and has been edit warring at Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over rewording the lede into one that is not as harsh on the Gamergaters. He was notified of the sanctions (as per above), warned about edit warring, and requested to join a discussion about his proposed changes but has not yet edited the article's talk page in a 24 hour period and in fact restored his version despite all of the attempts to get him to communicate. It is clear (to me) that Ksolway is one of the several problematic editors who have had dormant accounts for incredibly long stretches of time and has returned to Wikipedia to push an agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ksolway, you only posted to the talk page less than an hour ago and you're proclaiming you're going to revert again to a version that is not accepted by anyone there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Every diff above is edit warring so what are you insinuating? Also "TFYC" and Sommers are only described by themselves as any sort of feminist when no one else (other than Gamergate advocates) refers to them as such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward: That's not what reliable sources say about these people (particularly in the case of one who has been labeled as anti-feminist before Gamergate was even a concept) but to each their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Not what I've seen/read but Ksolway still is WP:NOTHERE and has an established identity on his user page that links to his personal website from which we can discern his anti-feminist/MRA leanings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ksolway edited the talk page once more to demand a rewrite based on his preferred sources. It is becoming more obvious he has an axe to grind rather than a good faith intent to improve Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Ksolway

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Ksolway

Every single statement in this article has been written by those who are vehemently anti-Gamergate.

This is like having the Wikipedia article on Christianity written by hardcore militant atheists.

I added an accurate, unbiased, fair description of the Gamergate controversy, but I am not being allowed to add even a single word.

My contributions to the talk page have been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolway (talkcontribs)

Statement by Strongjam

Page is fully protected again. No action is probably required to avoid disruption. @Ksolway: should be reminded to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages, and I've left a reminder for them about the proper use of minor edits. — Strongjam (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom re Ksolway

Per Ksolway's statement, its clear evidence that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, that they are here to be white knight saving poor gamergaters by pushing a view that is not supported at all by the sources , and that their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards the subject is going to be detrimental to all of their edits on the subject, whether or not they can currently actively disrupt the Gamergate controversy article page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I'd considered asking an uninvolved admin to have a friendly word with this editor, as several messages have been left on his talk page all in vain. I would emphasise that the issue here was the editor's continued failure to engage in ongoing discussion over his challenged lede edit. --TS 10:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dheyward

No Diffs for edit warring were provided. No policy violations or 3RR reports. This is excessive request for no evidence. The history of the article is rife with edit warring including by established editors.

For what it's worth, all his changes were not bad. For example, it is a generally true statement that harassment is reported by modern feminists that have spoken out about gamergate, not just "women" in general. There are many women gamers including women that are executives in large video game corporations that simply are not involved. The opening section is a very simplistic view of what is various political viewpoints including radical feminists, like TFYC (also sometimes called "trans exclusive radical feminists"), and libertarian feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers that refute modern feminist thought of victimization. All of these are covered in the reliable sources as to how each different group has been harassed. Fringe GamerGate elements have harassed modern feminists that have spoken out against gamergate. Libertarian and radical feminists have been harassed by different groups. In addition, the controversy started when the Gjoni blog post outlined connections between a modern feminist and gaming journalists.

Encapsulating that level of detail (or simply removing the incorrect and broader statements that put various living people in a negative light) should not be cause for sanction and current page protection makes the complaint moot as disruption by both warriors have stopped has stopped. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong all parties of interest have identified with various feminist affiliations long before GamerGate. There isn't a No true feminist test for identification. Yes, TFYC are feminists and yes, Sommers is a feminist. All have different viewpoints and all are feminist in nature. Please don't denigrate other women and feminists because their view of feminism is different from the one you have. --DHeyward (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong as far as I have seen, the only labeling of "anti-feminist" is by those extremists ideologically opposed to sub-factions of feminists. All variations are feminists in mainstream sources with different premises of what feminism is about. Sommers, Sarkheesian, Wu, Quinn and TFYC are all feminists that quibble over what feminist means according to their particular dogma. This is supported widely in reliable sources and it is not Wikipedia's place to discredit them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist

This user dosent seem to be WP:NOTHERE but seems not understanding of policy, recommend trout and low time (2-3 days) topic ban/block for edit warring and a mentor/lecture to teach them about wikipedia Retartist (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


Statement by username

Result concerning Ksolway

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

TrekMaster

Those were their only two edits for over seven years and they haven't edited since. Should they return and subsequently misconduct themselves, a block or topic ban may be in order. In that event, a neutral notification of their return would be welcome on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning TrekMaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TrekMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction violation
Notification of sanctions

TrekMaster last edited Wikipedia in 2007. His first edit in 7 years is to go straight to the Gamergate talk page and cry bias and accuse editors and admins of impartiality and collusion ([29]). He was notified of the sanctions and then made the diff above where he accuses another editor of being implicit by linking to a screenshot posted by "Logan_Mac" on Reddit. TrekMaster has violated the assumption of good faith for the sole purpose of advocating for Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Weedwacker: There have been many discussions on Wikipedia concerning the Reddit user known as "Logan_Mac" just as there are many discussions of the Reddit user "ryulong67", which I've admitted is my account, but that's really a stretch to bring up. The issue here is that TrekMaster reappeared on Wikipedia with an axe to grind and this page is meant to prevent that axe from doing any damage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning TrekMaster

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by TrekMaster

Statement by Weedwacker

I'm going to agree with you here that this editors contributions do not appear to be helpful. It appears he has used his 2 edits to deliver a message of displeasure with wikipedia and editors here, but he made the mistake of doing it in the wrong places and with insufficient evidence. Also this statement in your request: "TrekMaster has violated the assumption of good faith for the sole purpose of advocating for Gamergate" is odd because nothing in his edits suggested he was advocating for anything other than deleting the article and that editors' neutrality has been called into question, which is a factual statement, you can see it on ArbCom. The first of the two edits, while obviously being mostly things that can be subjective views of the article, is not breaking any rules. He's not accusing anyone of anything in that edit, simply airing his frustrations and stating that the neutrality of editors and admins has been called into question. In that edit, he is not the one accusing anyone of anything. The second edit however, does certainly contain accusations with weak evidence that doesn't really prove much of anything.

I'd support a warning and directing the editor to guidelines for talk pages. Since this is only one edit containing weak accusations, i'd say a limited topic ban should only be enforced if this continues.

Also, a link to imgur, why do you need to mention at all that it was also posted on another website by a "Logan_Mac"? This also seems like an attemped WP:OUTING as well as irrelevant information. Weedwacker (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Statement by (username)

Result concerning TrekMaster

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

YellowSandals

YellowSandals is cautioned against making personally directed comments on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning YellowSandals

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
YellowSandals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Violation
Notification

YellowSandals' editing history on Wikipedia solely exists on the Gamergate topic pages. In this reported edit, he accuses another editor of acting in bad faith. YellowSandals has not once edited any article on Wikipedia other than the Gamergate one. It is obvious he is not here to build an encyclopedia but wiki-litigate over article content.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning YellowSandals

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by YellowSandals

To be honest, seeing Ryulong and RedPen requesting sanctions against me just makes me feel tired to my bones of the article and this entire website. The editing on the page does appear factional to me, and discussion doesn't feel productive. I've tried bargains, compromises, trying to understand their points of view to argue from other angles - I've used my words and seen others use their words towards absolutely no avail. When I made an account here, I didn't expect that bloody-mindedness and passive-aggression were key factors to being involved in the site. If this is what Wikipedia is about, then tap me out. I don't think I was making much of a difference in any case. YellowSandals (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom re yellow sandles

The incident above is just the latest example of BATTLEGROUND behavior and approach to editing:

just a sampling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning YellowSandals

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Loganmac

Loganmac is cautioned against personally directed comments; Ryulong is prohibited from discussing off-wiki accounts on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Violation
Notification

In the reported edit, Loganmac makes an egregious personal attack on another editor, and has argued that it was on content and not the contributor when it was contested.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac's statements regarding the message I left on his talk page are inconsequential, as I simply remark on something I had discovered had been said about me off-site. Loganmac's behavior has been beyond the pale since he returned to editing Wikipedia, which is only exacerbated by off-site commentary which may or may not be attributed to someone on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Also that account might not be mine" wasn't really absolving yourself of ownership when previously explicitly accused of owning such an account, but I make no such statements here. I merely note that there is questionable behavior regarding Wikipedia happening offsite which may or may not be relevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Weedwacker: Obviously, no one would want to connect their identity to a user on another website that has almost exclusively used that website to harass me. And not to nitpick, but that "accounts on other websites" thing was added to the policy with no on-site discussion only a week before, so there was really no way of anyone knowing that it was against any policy. But that's not really the point. Loganmac violated a behavior principle prior to my messages. I intended to raise no issues of outing here. It is only Loganmac that accuses me of such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Loganmac: I in no way associate you with harassment. I have said that the individual on Reddit known as "Logan_Mac" has harassed me. I make no such suggestions that this individual is you on this page or any other (that has not been retracted). And my statement on the outing rule solely regards the comments made in October.
And Weedwacker, the same goes to you. I make no statements that these accounts are connected. I merely point out Loganmac's behavior on Wikipedia and tangentially comment in a completely different report that "Logan_Mac" on Reddit is responsible for harassment leveled at me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Weedwacker: In that situation, someone on Reddit identified himself as Pepsiwithcoke on Wikipedia, and The Devil's Advocate basically proved that there's no real outing in regards to Loganmac here considering that he admitted to owning a (renamed) Twitter account that has been used to post links to comments he's made on Reddit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Loganmac

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Loganmac

The comment was deleted and I chose not to re-add it. TheRedPenOfDoom was trying to insert a known falsehood reported on media by John Bain himself on The David Pakman Show here [30], and mentioned several times by him like here [31] and on his podcast. For admins that might not know, RedPen was arguing that GamerGate didn't care about the Shadow of Mordor scandal in which a PR company paid YouTubers to give positive reviews for their game. Bain said on an interview on the David Pakman show that he broke the story, and since he's a GamerGate supporter, it's wrong to say that "GamerGate" didn't care", he then mentioned the GamerGate subreddit /r/KotakuInAction had several threads about it, this is all sourced. Thus I called the writing in the suggestion tendetious because it didn't mention that the PR move was targeting YouTubers and streamers, not journalists, which again, sourced, is what GamerGate is targeting, video game journalism. All that comment does is argue about the neutrality of the SUGGESTED edit, see "biased SUGGESTION by TheRedPenOfDoom". Everything was about the actual idea being put forward for discussion, not the person, in any case I saw one person thinking it was a personal attack, who deleted it, and I chose to not readd it and moved on. All I was doing is judge an editor's neutrality based on their actual actions on this project. Also looking at the above reports being made by Ryulong I think he's approaching this with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and looks like he's trying to out me [32][33] [34] [35] while calling me not a normal person. Also this is pretty stupid but his notification was lacking, I had logged a couple of minutes before and saw his notification, he didn't mention he was reporting me and I thought he was requesting comment so I ignored it [36]. And I think him or TheRedPenOfDoom should have come to my talk page to solve this like TS if they had a problem instead of trying to ban me right away when I've never even been warned since the 7 years I'm here. Loganmac (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In this diff [37] Ryulong says my behaviour has been "pale" since returning when I've never been blocked and I think I got like 2 ANIs/Requests like these in the last 4 years, then he argues that somehow some off-site behaviour that he doesn't cite "exarberated" this? I'm sorry but what? What does "which is only exacerbated by off-site commentary which may or may not be attributed to someone on Wikipedia" even mean? This I think is further evidence of him trying to out me right here in front of the General Sanctions board.

Ryulong now tries associating me with harassment, this is grounds for WP:BOOMERANG 101. [38] [39] and Ignorance of the law does not imply innocence Loganmac (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong argues that he somehow "hasn't made the link" yet which is wrong, seeing as here he makes the association himself [40] thus he has accused me of harassment on absolutely no grounds, and I understand to an outside admin this looks like boring internet drama, and I'm here to defend myself, but I have said everything I think I have to say in my first paragraph, but this guy's behaviour is just incredible Loganmac (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

Looking at the diffs that Loganmac cited of Ryulong's edits to his own comments taunting Loganmac about a supposed link to reddit don't really look that much different to me than the "personal attacks" that resulted in the interaction ban of Ryulong and Cla68. Worse still, this request is full of attempted WP:OUTING. "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information (including any other accounts on any other web sites), or photograph whether any such information is accurate or not." From the diff Ryulong linked ""Also that account might not be mine", Loganmac did what the policy states to do; "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." Weedwacker (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: That policy change has been in effect now long enough and has been pointed to before this that we all know it took place by now. Yet since then you continue to bring up that redditor account name, and make comments about reddit and snark karma jokes to this editor. Another example. Weedwacker (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loganmac

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

TheRedPenOfDoom

Unhatting should be brought here first; hatting likely to be contested should be brought here first; hattings that are contested should be brought here for review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Violation

TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly used archive and collapse templates in a manner contrary to the guidance of WP:TPO, which states, "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

Notification of sanctions
  • TRPOD is a party to an ArbCom case in the area of conflict [[50]]

TRPOD has been notified that this behavior is disruptive, unwelcome, and contrary to WP:TPO, and has been unresponsive to these concerns.

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

WP:IAR if there is one thing that is not disruptive and is an improvement to the encyclopedia, it is a quick end to discussions that will lead nowhere on a talk page that has accumulated 15 16 archive pages in 4 months. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Please include me in this sanction request. I probably use hatting more than RedPen does. In my opinion the only reason we ever get any actual discussion done is that we swiftly and aggressively identify and close down attempts to bog it down in accusations that belong in dispute resolution, attempts to revive long dead discussions, references to off-site hi-jinks, etc. In fact, I think I hatted three or four talk page sections in the past 24 hours. Perhaps the guideline is at fault. --TS 22:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

The issue is not with hatting generally, but doing so as an involved party. All of the above instances have either been threads in which TRPOD participated or was addressed. Rhoark (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD should be commended for defending WP policy against SPAs over an extended period of time. Such an experience, however, could threaten anyone's ability to maintain perspective. There is a difference between a discussion going nowhere and a discussion TRPOD doesn't want to have. If anything results from this, I would hope that it be that TRPOD pulls back from the notion of being such an avatar of WP policy that rules no longer apply. Rhoark (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

There is far too much hatting period going on at the talk page, and the issue is one across the project, not just at this article. It's worse at this article as it's being used more to shut down discussion certain parties dislike rather than putting out fires. Not sure what's actionable here, but let's not let anyone pretend that preventative ending of discussions people don't like is at all helpful to the process. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel@, I think there's a middle ground between hatting disruptive commentary and hatting useful conversations that may generate some light in controversial areas. With tens of archive pages, it's just not reasonable to expect a new user, or even an established editor, to read through the archives to see what was covered. Furthermore, that something was discussed earlier cannot and should not preclude new conversation bringing new information to light. Discussion is kind of how we do things here, and when the hatting is being used to stop conversation that favors one side as opposed to reducing disruption (which is generally what is happening at this article), it's not helping the project. Some care in hatting should be done, long and short, and preferably not at all by involved parties. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: not taken that way, and thanks for responding. At least Masem's idea is an idea, and one that has some sort of way to combat what we're seeing. I can live with it until I see it succeed or fail in practice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I had some time ago asked here about if there was going to be a protocol for closing threads and the uninvolved admins basically said that involved editors can close threads, reflecting that if an editor feels a thread can be reopened, that is also an option per hatting guidance. Edit warring over the hatting of course is a problem, but that hasn't happened. Basically, TRPoD or any other involved editor is free to hat a discussion, but that hatting can be undone if felt there was more to be discussion. Of course, keeping in mind that a new editor rehashing some aspect that has previously be given an established consensus shouldn't be reopening hatted discussions that rehash that again. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • In comment to Gamaliel's request, only due to this page being under sanctions, I would rather see involved editors request threads be hatted (here) by an uninvolved admin, save in very obvious cases of completely offtopic threads or otherwise voluntarily hatted threads. However, as long as involved editors can hat and then other involved editors unhat once (per hatting guidance), the current system is fine. In that specific caes, where there's one revert cycle over hatting, that's where an uninvolved admin should be asked or step in to determine if the hatting should be done or not. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not (that that proposed system should work here) in light of my previous discussion on this matter a few months ago (which was only brought as a question, not a specific incident). Now, of course, if we have an editor that is prematurely closing down discussions (hatting the first time) after cautioning or without caution, that's a different matter, but I would not consider tRPoD's actions here actionable per this system for this incident. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

( to note, my initial request can be found here Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive1#In regards to involved editors closing/hatting discussions and followup with an uninvolved here User talk:Masem#Your post at WP:GGE. ) --MASEM (t) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

I roughly recall some of TPRoD's hatting summaries to be too heavy-handed or too snide or too authoritative. Hatting is already rather insulting for editors attempting to discuss in good faith, and aggressive hatting summaries will only exacerbate the issue. This can easily be seen as censorship by newer editors. Hopefully TPRoD can tone down and be nicer. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Loganmac

I always found hatting pretty unnecessary unless it's something off-topic that everyone would agree on. There's also ways to hat, being rude isn't appreciated, like mentioned above TRPoD comes out as authorative and kinda OWNny on the talk page. I think I've closed discussions like twice and one of these was reopened, I remember hatting NorthBySouthBaranof when he started venting on the talk page about being doxxed by 8chan out of nowhere, of course his frustration is understandable, but it really was out of place for the talk page, that's the kind of stuff one should close imo. WP:GOODFAITH discussion should be kept. And having your discussion closed for new people is kinda BITEy since the editor will probably be intimidated and probably won't even know if he can/should reopen the discussion. TRPoD's closing comments are too often jokes and snarks that come out as really unprofessional and uncivil, also most of the times TRPoD closes discussions that he simply doesn't like, as Orlando said, meaning that it's strange that he'd close comments critical of GamerGate. Loganmac (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

Hatting has and is being abused by established editors to silence any viewpoint that differs. TS is correct that the one-side view gets more work done when collaboration is shut down. The guideline is not incorrect and is spot on as to why TRPOD, TS and other regular editors shouldn't be doing it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist

The issue i have is that TRPoD's closing comments are uncivil and he mainly closes threads he doesn't like. Retartist (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • It is clear to me from when I regularly monitored the talk page and the fact that we need these topic-specific sanctions that we need to keep a tight lid on threads that are off-topic, potentially hostile, unproductive, and WP:NOTAFORUM violations. Let me ask this of all parties: If you don't want active editors to hat threads, what should we do instead? I don't mean that as a statement of opposition, but a genuine question. Leaving the talk page a free for all is not a solution, and demanding that parties come here to ask admins to hat threads seems way too onerous on both editors and admins. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Masem:, so if I'm reading you correctly, if we allow any editor to hat, and then allow any other editor to object to the hatting through reverting once, that should be a workable system. Contentious hatting should be brought here once that cycle has started, and the obvious exceptions of vandalism, etc. apply. Is there a reason why this system cannot work or isn't working here? Gamaliel (talk)
Okay, then, let's try it that way. Any objection if we make that the standard going forward and close this request? Gamaliel (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: Please don't interpret my response as dismissing your concerns. I just don't see logistically how you could possibly have a coherent talk page in a contentious topic area like this one if you couldn't hat anything without outside intervention. And outside intervention is becoming hard to come by. Sanction requests are going ignored. I closed one here that was stale for a week, I opined against a sanction, and I still got the guy who avoided a sanction complaining about the fact that I closed the discussion to ArbCom! Nobody wants to touch this issue with a ten foot pole if they are going to get treated like that. So expecting outside parties to mediate hatting is not realistic. I suggest we try it the way Masem outlined and see what happens. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I endorse Gamaliel's proposed solution—that anyone can hat, but anyone can un-hat if they feel there is a discussion to be had about article content, and editors wishing to re-hat should bring the matter here. Hatting, used properly, is a useful device for dealing with off-topic or inappropriate comments, of which this talk page attracts plenty. I would, though, caution TRPoD not to use hatting to make snarky, condescending, or otherwise unhelpful comments, as these are only likely to inflame matters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DD2K

Inactionable here; deferred to WP:ANI#User_DD2K_calls_people_.228chan_trolls.22_in_bad_faith_and_might_have_outed_an_admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DD2K

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Loganmac (talk)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Violation
Notification

In the reported edit, DD2K accuses me of being an "8chan troll" and reverts my comment letting him know of a possible violation of WP:OUTING by him done here [55] in which he attributes a comment made on reddit to OverlordQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and somehow knows he's "active on 8chan", implying of a brigade encouragement regarding the deletion vote for the article Cultural Marxism. I see this might look slightly broad to GamerGate but since admin Black Kite recused himself of the closing of said case because he participated in the GamerGate ArbCom, I've put this here instead of ANI. In my opinion, this user attributes bad faith on both me and user OverlordQ. Looking at his editing history he often accuses people of being sent from Stormfront, "/pol/" and other sites in a WP:BITE-esque behaviour. I had no intention of reporting this and was just at first letting him know so he could fix his behaviour. He has also reverted my notification here [56] in seconds and I know users are free to clean their user pages but reverting is less civil than simply deleting. Loganmac (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning DD2K

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DD2K

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

The discussion here [57] may be useful in determining whether or not outing has occurred. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

This is the wrong place for this request. WP:ANI is not under the GG sanctions and it does not appear that DD2K has been properly notified of the existence of the GG sanctions. Suggest this be closed and moved to WP:ANI instead if the two editors cannot work it out on their talk pages. — Strongjam (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

I'm also inclined to agree that this is not the correct board. Although the ANI where this took place concerned a topic that has been argued at times of being under the scope of gamergate, it is not under the sanctions. I also find it hard to believe, but not implausible, that DD2K was never given the formal notification of sanctions when the editor has participated in the ArbCom, ANI cases involving editors actions in the topic area, and the arbcom case request.

Bring this to ANI and i'll have a better statement to add. Weedwacker (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Statement by (username)

Result concerning DD2K

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • Since DD2K was not yet officially notified of the general sanctions, we cannot use the sanctions in this case. Even if he were, I don't know if we could use them to cover ANI discussions that aren't about Gamergate. I suggest you take this matter to ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Bramble window

Bramble window blocked indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Bramble window

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Bramble window (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

I would like to request that this user be topic-banned from articles or discussion relating to Anita Sarkeesian. The user's very first edit declared their intention to "fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles" and by "fix," they meant "depict negatively." All of the user's contributions relating to Sarkeesian have been to suggest the inclusion of criticism or attacks against Sarkeesian from self-published and other unreliable sources, and has stated that not including more attacks on Sarkeesian is comparable to Holocaust denial. The user has no substantive edits outside of Gamergate-related topics and disappears for long stretches, only to reappear in order to criticize Sarkeesian. The user recently reappeared after two weeks of inactivity to disruptively unhat a discussion whose own initiator had closed it. I submit that existing for virtually no other purpose than to negatively depict a living person is an improper use of a single-purpose account, that it is unhealthy for the encyclopedia to host an editor self-admittedly here to "fix" articles about living people, and that this editor should be encouraged to pursue other interests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Bramble window

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bramble window

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Given the user's belief that there are ""professional victims", a ban from all BLPs would likely be in order. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

While I do worry about someone that comes out to make a statement that they knowingly want to counter biases they believe exist due to and know they are tied to WP processes, it's about behavior and there's nothing here to clearly say they are here to be disruptive - the only disruption being the re-opening of the hat (though per the previous decision here, DonQ. should not have re-closed it unilaterately but come here for advice). The editor raises valid points that are not immediately signs of BLP issues (asking if WP should including information on a group that is critical of a person is not directly a BLP violation), but clearly the editor should be cautioned from heading down a battleground mentality. They have primarily only edited talk pages, so this is not disruptive to raise questions. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Statement by DHeyward

Are the only examples from talk pages? It seems that by "fix" they mean "discuss." Topic banning for merely disagreeing doesn't appear productive nor do any edits appear to be BLP violations in and of themselves. There are legitimate criticism from notable topic experts that have observed opportunistic behavior and it's not at all disruptive to discuss that and the sources of criticism. --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

I haven't seen Bramble window around lately, having little time to browse the broader topic and related BLP articles. But Bramble window has pinged my radar, so to speak, due to their occasionally highly inflammatory mode of engagement on talk pages and their failure to assume good faith in disagreements (which are frequent, given their published views).

I tried to engage them in some detail on the subject of their war-like behaviour about a month ago. Seeing that Bramble window appeared to have limited experience and knowledge of Wikipedia culture and policies, I took care to avoid an officious or "bitey" tone, and leavened criticism with positive feedback.

The response was rather hostile at first, then became rather surreal. It's a problem for all of us in this particularly delicate area when a hostile editor dismisses good faith discussion of their conduct on their user talk page as "concern trolling." 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

This is effectively a tone complaint, as Bramble Window does not appear to have any edits to the article space. As discussion is the way we reach conclusions in this project, there's no reason to sanction. If it's that his language is harsh, we have a lot of people to line up in front of this user. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bramble window

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

  • I've blocked Bramble window indefinitely. I'd considered this on previous occasions and having now seen their response to concerns feel it is the only appropriate action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting / Unhatting

Material (mostly) rehatted, users admonished and trouted. Gamaliel (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Hatting / Unhatting

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
N/A

Per the general Admin consensus Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheRedPenOfDoom , is the unhatting of this content [58] likely to result in productive discussion resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Hatting / Unhatting

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Hatting / Unhatting

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Suggest closing this as the ridiculous waste of time it clearly is. Suggest RPoD uses the time saved to look up 'metaphor' in a dictionary.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway

I post here only to acknowledge this request has been brought, and to point this out as yet another example of TRPoD's chronically uncivil and BITEy behavior. In addition to disagreeing that the hatted content was "bickering" or a "diversion," I thought it was obnoxious for Tony Sidaway to hat my question to TRPoD but leave his response unhatted. Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway I don't mean to throw your "It's my fault" in your face, but this "ugly situation in the making" had no edits made to it in the approximately 36 hours before you hatted it. And if you want to wring hands over BLP issues, I suggest rather than hatting a stale discussion in which someone has had the temerity to ask whether a person actually meant the words they broadcast over the internet with a finger-wagging admonishment about "bickering," you take a look at the characterization of Eron Gjoni (a living person, last I checked) as "spewing allegations about your ex all over the web because she dumped your sorry ass" by none other than TRPoD himself. [59] A final note: an incidental observation that an editor is behaving badly in discussion does not render the substantive discussion (viz. "do you have a source saying that Sam Biddle was saying something other than what he said?") nonexistent. I find TRPoD's attitude toward other editors reprehensible, and since the admins seem disinclined to do anything about the ensuing toxic atmosphere, I will continue to calmly and civilly point out bad behavior when I see it. Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

It's my fault. I saw what looked like an ugly situation in the making. The incident being discussed is well understood from reliable sources but has often been interpreted otherwise within the Gamergate context. There are also mild though substantive BLP implications in the edit being discussed: whether or not someone seriously advocated bullying. The parties here appeared in my judgement to be bringing the topic to the talk page rather than discussing the article. Sometimes I misjudge; anyone is free to undo such a hatting. --TS 02:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hatting / Unhatting

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Hatting an offtopic or unproductive discussion is an appropriate step to take. As previously discussed on this page, the proper procedure to hat the discussion and if this hatting proves controversial, to unhat and bring the discussion here. If this procedure is a "ridiculous waste of time", then complaining about it is an even more ridiculous waste of time.

@Starke hathaway: if you have a problem with the behavior of another editor, please open a new request for enforcement here and provide evidence as per the appropriate procedure.

I am reinstating the hatting while leaving the specific comment Starke Hathaway mentioned out of the hat.

Starke Hathaway and User:TheRedPenOfDoom are sternly reminded to be civil in their dealings with and comments towards other editors.

User:AndyTheGrump is mildly trouted.

Good day. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)