Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive3

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



Given the age of most of the diffs, and that there is relatively little evidence of misconduct that is both serious and recent, I'm going to formally caution Tarc, but I see no case for substantive action at the the present time. This is explicitly without prejudice to a new enforcement request being opened should more diffs from within the last 30 days (at the absolute most) surface, or to an ANI thread if Tarc has misconducted himself outside of the GamerGate topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 16 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 Tarc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Bosstopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tarc (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

Tarc has been engaged in gross incivility against editors he has been edit warring with. While reverting an edit by User:Starke hathaway, Tarc wrote in the edit summary "Single-purpose-accounts are not welcome in this topic area." [1] This is an innaccurate statement, as most of Starke's edits have been to non-GamerGate related topics. Yet even ignoring this, Tarc's comment is an unacceptable attempt to pressure an editor he disagrees with out of the editing process.

Tarc has also accused User:Shii of being in hysterics.[2] Shii's so called "hysterical" actions were merely to revert Tarc's edit to the Draft claiming it to be against consensus, and noting that Tarc had not participating in discussion.[3] [4] How this could be considered hysterical I am not sure.

Per WP:NPA Tarc should not be accusing other edtors of being hysterical. Tarc should definitely also not be trying to pressure editors he disagrees with, out of contributing. Bosstopher (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: Starke's edits both inside and out of GamerGate have almost all been reverts. Classifying his non-GamerGate edits as "minor" when they are pretty much the same as his non-GamerGate edits is unhelpful. Starke also claims to have edited substantially as an IP editor in the past on his talk page.[5] While the majority of his focus is on Gamergate, he is not an SPA. Also bringing up BLP violations as a reason why SPA's should be kicked out is irrelevant in this case, as the edit war in question did not involve BLP issues. Also also, none of this means you're allowed to tell editors they're not welcome. Bosstopher (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong, given that this was in response to the comments I was making about Starke, I have a feeling I'm the person who's not allowed in the Actual Editors club.
@Tarc Starke's non-GG edits are in large part anti-Vandalism, which is usually not considered to fall into the "junk" category. Also it is unfair to compare him to Xander who is a completley different kettle of fish. Also Also regardless of all this, you cannot just tell editors you disagree with they're not welcome to edit a page. It's comes across very OWNy, as well as being uncivil.
@TDA Proposed decision date has been pushed back again, no point waiting an eternity, especially considering this is regarding thigns that occured after the Evidence and Workshop submission deadlines.Bosstopher (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tarc I'm slightly confused here by the point you're trying to make with the Thalgor quote? Are you saying that reading it made you angry, and thats why you made rude comments to Shii and told Starke to get out? Or are you saying that I hold the same mindset as you think Thalgor does on this issue? If the latter, I must admit that I while I am waiting for Arbcom to ban a certain editor who cant be banned through any other means due to Wiki policy sucking, that editor most certainly isn't you. I just reported you because I felt telling people you're in dispute with that they're not welcome to edit crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to civility. Bosstopher (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tarc

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 Tarc

Single purpose accounts are a plague upon this topic area, this has been well-noted and well-documented in the Arbcom case. Editors who are only here to advance a narrow point of view must not be allowed to disrupt a topic area rife with BLP violations.

These are the kind of games, pov-pushing, and agenda-driven editing we face day in and day out around here. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the pings, this page is watch-listed. As for reverts, there were only two; the initial edit does not count. As for Starke whatever, all of the account's edits in other topics are junk, and likely made simply to become auto-confirmed in order to edit semi-protected pages. Actual Wikipedia editors are well familiar with this tactic. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What is this silly "I need days and days to dig for dirt!" catcalling? For allegations of incivility? In an encyclopedia project where the Arbitration Committee could not sanction an editor for referring to other editors as "cunts", civility enforcement is dead and toothless. I would certainly like it to be enforced, but when the rules-makers come out sand say boldly that some editors being more equal than others, civility becomes academic.

But really, anyone can peruse Special:Contributions/Tarc and see that my wiki-presence in GG has been rather sparse since the close of the Arb case. You don't need days, certainly not til the 12th, I'll help you our right now;

  1. Dec 30th Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 17#Failure to apply WP:IS, a zombie account pops up citing an obscure essay arguing long-debunked GG talking points. I make 2 comments to this effect, noting the cotinued pattern of 8chan/reddit-fueled disruption. Starship.paint and Loganmac egg on the zombie editor.
  2. Jan 2nd Per HJ Mitchell's note when closing the previousa Ksolway Enforcement, that this SPA has returned, along with a reversion of same.
  3. Jan 6th Talk:Gamergate controversy#Why are we citing First Things so much?, the current kerfuffle. Shii's edit was awful; I reverted twice and told him to calm down when he started getting all hand-wringing about me not yet taking part in the discussion. The subsequent reverts, on the draft article and at my own talk page, by throwaway SPAs only make the whole affair worse.
  4. Jan 9th Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#BoobFreq, single post.

Number 3 is why we're here, and what the real locus is is this post by Thargor Orlando (and a fe of the preceding ones), which let's not beat around the bush; it is a troll post. Not a Tolkien troll, not a pink-hair 70's troll, not even an urbandictionary troll, but an honest-to-goodness Jargon File troll. Was I an idiot to take the bait? Yes, I guess I was, so a well-played tip-of-the-cap to T.O., it was a page form the 8chan and KotakuInAction playbook.

At the end of the day, this is why we keep coming back again and again to Arbitration and Enforcement pages, it is just like the Scientology wars of a few years back. The powers that be will have to decide who is here to further the aims of the encyclopedia in the general sense, and who is here to advance an outside agenda in a narrowly-focused area of interest. I sure as hell know where I stand. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Avono

I also want to add that this user has been edit warning on the Draft Article while consensus was still developing in the talk page. [6][7][8]. I can't remember there being a consensus against SPA's editing in the Draft Article therefore this is also WP:BITE. Avono (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: I count three reverts which justify the template. Avono (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion between editors and allegations without diffs are not particularly helpful. If you wish to present further evidence, please feel free to move your comments out of the collapse box. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist

This is just a small sampling of tarcs uncivil behaviour, tarc has demonstrated his unwillingness to engage in consensus building and deems editors that disagree with him to be unworthy of civility. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Given that the arbitration case decision is imminent, I believe requests such as these should be put on hold. It may be superseded by the case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Loganmac

It's just tiring that the ESSAY WP:SPA gets thrown around so easily. I would advise Tarc not to bite the noobs and assume good faith. His uncivilness is long documented, and even clearly shown in this case saying some editors are "a plague" Loganmac (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

@The Devil's Advocate: I think it would be unwise to hold off on all sanctions until the case decision now that the proposed decision has been pushed back another nearly two weeks. Weedwacker (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

@Starship.paint: Well you didn't create your account and make a bunch of edits in a row to auto confirm so you can be disruptive in a topic area known for trolling, while the same cannot be said for several new editors that Tarc is clearly referring to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not at all what you were highlighting in your statement here though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. The swarms of "white knights" attempting to ride in and save poor gamergate's reputation (and ruin that of real living people) cannot be ignored. see all of the first edit revdels in the history of the articles and related talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

It is self-evident that, having utterly failed to convince any actual reliable source of the veracity of their allegations against living people — to the contrary, their allegations being roundly dismissed and reported to be factually false by those reliable sources — a wide array of Gamergate supporters have taken to attempting to present that POV in the encyclopedia, reliable sources be damned. By insinuation, lie by omission, anonymous gossip or outright fabrication, they've repeatedly attempted to present highly negative claims about Zoe Quinn, Nathan Grayson and others as something other than entirely discredited, rejected or unworthy of even mentioning in the encyclopedia. Observing and noting the onslaught of such single-purpose accounts cannot possibly be considered actionable misbehavior. It is merely stating a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So in response to the direction from HJ Mitchell that evidence of *recent* issues should be presented, Starship paint has instead unloaded a laundry list of diffs which primarily date from as far back as September and of which I cannot find a single one more recent than November. I submit that Starship paint's submission is non-responsive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but when you completely ignore specific instructions from an admin considering a request, you should probably not be surprised when the request is closed without the action you seek, and you should probably not then run around claiming that admins are "biased" or something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

self-hat for now starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In Tarc's statement above, [9] he writes that As for Starke whatever, all of the account's edits in other topics are junk, and likely made simply to become auto-confirmed in order to edit semi-protected pages. Actual Wikipedia editors are well familiar with this tactic. This is another example of the unneeded snark contributing to a more toxic environment. I am afraid that I am not familiar with this tactic, so I must not be an actual Wikipedia editor. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Ryulong, regardless of whatever the motives or actions of the editors Tarc was referring to as "advance a narrow point of view", there was no need for this snark from Tarc which I quoted, which seems to me to be targeted at everyone. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ryulong, I'm not inclined to argue further, my interpretation is what it is ... let us go contribute somewhere else. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: - I am willing to search for and present evidence, if any, before 12 January UTC. I welcome others to search as well, but they might need more time. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@HJ Mitchell:, I'm done... you'll have to read the edit summaries as well...

  • different sockpuppet accusations without proof; users not blocked 18 Sept 15 Oct
  • false SPA accusations 3, 6 Oct [12] accuses Skrelk
  • false SPA accusations 4, 10 Oct [13] (borderline case though) Muscat Hoe
  • SPA was civil, but Tarc wasn't, 29 Sept
  • incivility / name-calling / baiting (please also check edit summaries) 2 Sept

2 Sept 3 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 7 Sept 9 Sept 9 Sept 12 Sept 15 Sept 19 Sept 19 Sept 21 Sept 21 Sept 3 Oct 9 Oct 9 Oct 10 Oct 11 Nov 13 Nov

  • reverting reminders to be civil / not edit war 5 Sept

6 Sept 9 Sept 10 Sept 21 Sept 23 Sept 10 Oct 18 Oct 20 Oct 1 Nov

  • "lucky" that another editor is a "community pariah ... and is pretty much ignored", 21 Sept [15] [16] [17]
  • general non-collaborativeness / snarkiness to generally civil editors 3 Sept

3 Sept 18 Sept 18 Sept 18 Sept 26 Sept 27 Sept 28 Sept 29 Sept 4 Oct 5 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct, current article indeed shows culture war at this point 16 Oct 22 Oct 24 Oct 24 Oct 2 Nov 2 Nov 2 Nov 10 Nov 21 Nov 19 Dec

  • rebukes editor bringing up many sources, 27 Sept [18] which causes conflict with other editors [19] [20]
  • seems to approve of the doxxing of editors he does not like, 12 Sept [21]
  • edit warring 2, 19 Sept 1st 2nd 3rd in 1 hour 4th in 11 hours
  • edit warring 6, 10 Oct 1st 2nd 3rd in 2 hours
  • refused meditation, 14 Oct [22]

As per A Quest For Knowledge, seems like "long-term conduct issues" to me. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • In response to North, I don't think Tarc has been sanctioned for any of this (all are welcome to prove me wrong on this). If you think no action is appropriate ... given the past behaviour, recent or not, regarding GamerGate articles and the current transgression ... then by all means, carrying on thinking that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I started from the back, working my way until the opening of this case page. When I first read the stuff on "dig up some diffs", it was after AQFK had commented "long-term conduct issues", in the process, I missed out on "the last fortnight or so", and I am sorry for that, seems to have produced a lot more work for me, and now for HJ Mitchell or which-ever admin.
  • I did not read Tarc's ArbCom case contributions, but since Tarc focused his efforts more on the ArbCom case in December, and less on the GamerGate page or its talk page, that is why there is very little (but not nothing) in December. January is already presented as per this enforcement request. I would hope that September, October and November are not ignored when considering "systemic issue with Tarc's conduct in the topic area". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: - dates inserted. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

Here's a sample:

  • Tarc disregarding another editor because of a long break from editing [23]
  • Tarc making unsubstantiated allegations about another editor's motives [24]
  • Tarc claims "all this user does is edit-war to get a decidedly slanted POV into the lead" where the user has a clear history of sparse but consistent contributions covering 10 years+ [25]
  • Tarc dismissing an IP editor out of hand because he's not an 'actual Wikipedia editor' (see the edit summary) [26]
  • Tarc trying to drive another editor away (see edit summary - related to the evidence given by others above, I think) [27]
  • Tarc appears to call Avono an SPA (edit summary) [28]
  • Tarc regards abiding by a ban as a clear sign of bad faith and an SPA, regardless of, you know, actual editing history [29] (edit summary - the signs of a bad-faith editor are clear. Also apparently confused between block and ban.)

These are not all GG-related, but are all since December 30 and I think show quite a disturbing trend. GoldenRing (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I count five of the seven diffs as GamerGate-related; I'm not sure exactly how you conclude that "most of those aren't related to GamerGate." I'd note also that the text of the sanctions doesn't require that the misconduct be on GamerGate-related pages; merely that the editor has edited GamerGate-related pages, has been notified of the sanctions and displays repeated misconduct.
I don't have any axe to grind here and I won't be taking the time to dig further through Tarc's editing history. I just happened to be nosing through WP:GGE, was curious enough to look a couple of weeks back through Tarc's history and was fairly worried by what I saw. The most disturbing aspect, to me, is that Tarc doesn't seem to admit that there could be a problem; anyone who disagrees with him (at least about GG-related topics) is immediately written off as disruptive in some form or another and Tarc is immediately absolved of any requirement to be civil, AGF, debate in good faith, seek consensus etc. To my mind, that is clearly opposed to the goals of Wikipedia and should be sanctionable, even in the absence of GS. GoldenRing (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking further up, a prime example of this is given above. Thangor Orlando is labelled a troll, something which would be sanctionable in any other arena of Wikipedia; why not here? GoldenRing (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

If there are indeed long-term conduct issues here, it may take some time to dig up diffs. Twenty-four hours doesn't seem like a reasonable time-frame. If the goal here is determine whether there are long-term patterns of misconduct, I suggest keeping this RfE open longer, by at least several days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

Since I've been invoked here, my comment was not toward Tarc, and I have not seen any major incivility issues with Tarc to run up the flagpole. I regret that my comment was taken incorrectly, and I take responsibility for the lack of clarity in retrospect; having been called a troll for having the gall to hold a contrary opinion about how the article has been edited has resulted in exactly what I said, contrary to the incorrect claims that it was a "troll post" as Tarc asserts. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tarc

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

  • I'm reluctant to evaluate broad conduct issues because of the arbitration case, and certain parties will attempt to impugn any action I take. So, based purely on what's been presented here, Tarc accused a few people of being SPAs and got into an edit war. Both are mildly disruptive, but without commenting on any individual editor, it's a statement of fact to say that the topic area has suffered from an influx of SPAs, and WP:SPA—though an essay—enjoys broad community consensus. Obviously an accusation that a particular editor is an SPA needs to be made in the proper forum and with evidence, not on an article talk page. Would anyone like to present evidence that either is a systemic issue with Tarc's conduct in the topic area? I'd be willing to consider substantive sanctions if somebody could show that this sort of thing has happened multiple times within, say, the last fortnight or so. If not, I'm tempted to close with a warning to Tarc to comment on content and not contributors. I'll leave this open for 24 hours; if somebody would like to present more diffs (and please note that it's diffs, not more accusations, that are needed) but needs more time, please make yourself known here and/or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @A Quest For Knowledge: if, within 24 hours or so (I'm not going to be fussy down to the minute), somebody expresses an intent to gather the requisite diffs but needs more time, I'd be willing to allow them a few days or maybe even a week. Obviously a balance has to be struck: Tarc shouldn't have this hanging over his head if nobody wants to make a case against him, but if somebody wants to build the case then we need to get to the bottom of it and impose sanctions if the evidence shows they're warranted. Should I take your comment as an indication that you're willing to dig up some diffs? Note that I'm perfectly happy for multiple editors to compile the diffs (it's he diffs I'm interested in, not the editor presenting them). I'll also waive the "edit only in your own section" rule if collecting all the diffs in one section would be helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Starship.paint: Very well, I'll give you until the 12th to produce something.
    • @GoldenRing: Most of those aren't related to GamerGate. They'd be useful as background if sanctionable misconduct in the topic area can be proven, or you could take them to ANI, but they're not enough on their own to invoke GamerGate-specific community sanctions. I've promised to wait until the 12th for more evidence, so you have a little bit of time if you want to dig deeper (that is, this thread is not going to suddenly disappear before then). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't read all the diffs yet, but based on what I've seen so far and assuming for now that they say what they're alleged to say, I'm thinking something along the lines of a relatively brief (maybe a moth) topic ban or page ban and an indefinite prohibition on personally directed comments outside of dispute resolution or enforcement mechanisms, which would give everybody (including Tarc) a break and then address the main issue. I'd welcome outside opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Having started to look through your diffs, I see that several of them are not at all recent. Please provide dates for all those diffs if you wish me to review any more of them. I still think there's merit to a prohibition on personally directed comments, but for anything more than that I need recent, dated diffs. Older stuff could be useful as background, but doesn't constitute a basis for sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Draft:Gamergate controversy

TRPoD blocked for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

This war seems to have really bedded down over the past day or two. In a draft page this amount of reversion and shouting in edit summaries is quite worrying, when the draft itself is a result of page protection because of edit warring. [30]

More trouting needed. --TS 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Yet another contested hatting

Comment removed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

It was my impression that those contesting a hatting should undo and bring it to this page. That hasn't happened yet, so as the original (mad) hatter I'm bringing it here.

Original hatting: 18:23, 17 January 2015 at Talk:Gamergate controversy. Edit summary: Follow dispute resolution. Hatting comment: Editors are reminded to follow dispute resolution to deal with use conduct issues. This page is intended for discussing the article.

Formally asking the user to gather evidence and bring their complaints to dispute resolution: 18:21, 17 January 2015 at User talk:Thargor Orlando. Actually written before, but basically contemporaneous with, the hatting

Hatting is reverted: 18:27, 17 January 2015, edit summary Undid revision 642938142 by Tony Sidaway (talk)This is a content issue.

As further background, I've discussed Thargor Orlando's habit of casting bad faith accusations against unnamed other editors in the past, inconclusively, on their user talk page. My point is that this kind of unactionable complaint about conduct issues doesn't help, but hinders harmonious editing and if the editor has a complaint they should gather evidence and take it to dispute resolution. The editor has repeatedly and explicitly expressed an unwillingness to use dispute resolution.

But first things first, is this hatting appropriate and useful? --TS 20:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

More hatting/unhatting

Hatting overruled without any implication of misconduct or bad faith by either party. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 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 More hatting/unhatting

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See this diff. On topic, relevant information again being hatted for unclear reasons. Discussion of relevant information in the article needs to be left alone for the sake of discussion and addressing the information in a responsible manner. Furthermore, the hatnote is not an accurate, fair, or arguably civil description of its contents, which is perhaps as important an issue to address here.

Not seeking sanctions on anyone at this point in time. Merely acting in accordance with admin request here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

For what it's worth, I think attempts to underplay death and rape threats are highly irresponsible no matter what the venue. The authorities and the media both (correctly, in my opinion) take such threats very seriously; in my country typically a successful prosecution for Twitter rape threats may lead to a custodial sentence, in a country that doesn't like to send people to prison.

The US FBI is involved in some of the investigations related to this case. Attempts to second guess the law and the authorities, to suggest that the reliable sources get it wrong, are essentially a type of foruming. We're not going to pretend that rape and death threats aren't serious, while every responsible source in the world is saying the opposite. The discussion was intrinsically unproductive. --TS 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Deep breath.

Okay, that's out of my system. I think the reversal shows that the hatting can work to the benefit of all. If a hatting is perceived to be too heavy-handed it gets reviewed and may be overturned. People who hat have to show good judgement. Thanks to Thargor Orlando especially for bringing this to enforcement. --TS 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning More hatting/unhatting

I'm going to overrule this hatting (FYI @Tony Sidaway and Thargor Orlando:), as the comments are directly related to article content. Discussion of the abhorrence of threats belongs elsewhere, you're correct on that Tony, but discussion of how threats should be covered in the article (and in that context how commonplace or otherwise threats are on the Internet) is relevant. Thargor, it would be helpful to provide sources for you claims that such threats are commonplace (it's not quite at the level of "the sky is blue", though if my experience as an admin is anything to go by...), though talk page comments do not absolutely require sources unless they negatively reflect on living persons and please do make sure you confine your comments to how threats should be covered in the article. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

General bickering on talk page

TRPoD blocked for 48 hours. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for action against any other editors, but this is without prejudice to enforcement requests being filed as appropriate. Please don't bicker on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Today some edit warring erupted on Draft:Gamergate controversy (yes, we've descended to edit warring over pages that might at some point contain material that is part of the history of a Wikipedia article).

After a lot of bickering in edit summaries, Ries42 (talk · contribs) had the excellent and praiseworthy idea of actually discussing the topic on the talk page. Unfortunately what actually happened, instead of a simple critique of content, was this highly personalised ultimatum, which predictable escalated into an interpersonal squabble.

I intervened early, removing the attack and using the user's talk page to explain why I did that, and inviting the user to rewrite his comments without the personal attack.

That seems to have been ignored and the attack was reverted. More bickering commenced.

Seeing the way this was going, I took extraordinary measures, removing all personal references from the discussion. The discussion then got back on track, at least to the extent that people were no longer discussing their interpersonal problems and were instead talking nearly entirely about the topic.

Some editors are now complaining about my editing of their comments.

I think Ries42's instinct to take the discussion on the topic to talk was great, but he should make far more use of user talk and other dispute resolution methods to resolve interpersonal issues. Trying to do both at the same time is messy.

I'm sorry I edited people's comments; I hope the intention of my intervention was clear, and that the results speak for themselves. We have had amazingly little interpersonal bickering, from all parties, after my intervention. I would have preferred for all parties to not go into attack mode, but I understand why we all tend to get into that when we feel attacked.

Some of us (possibly me) need a good trouting. Take it away, Herr Trautmaestro! --TS 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Second thoughts: even after the discussion got back on track, Ries42 does seem to have made several attempts to personally bait people on the talk page.[31][32]

I think those who do this on the talk page of an article subject to sanctions probably need a bit of a talking to about bad habits. Ideally we can discuss the article content without personal references at all, let alone attempts to isolate and attack each other personally. --TS 02:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "I was annoyed" is an adequate justification for cluttering a talk page with material that belongs in dispute resolution. --TS 03:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

I would like to thank TS for attempting to de-escalate personal attacks on the article talk page. @Ries42: 's response to that attempt here [33] is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ries42: The troubling issue is not your question. Its your attempt at justification: "I noticed that Tony did this earlier and was very upset. " that 1) you show no comprehension that there was an effort to quell personal attacks /or you blew it off that attempt completely and 2) that you were angry that someone was trying to de-escalate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

Firstly just a comment, you should use the template provided at the top of the page for requests. After you've done so you can leave my statement in the proper place. Now on to the matter at hand. I think you had good intentions, but your actions were not good. Per WP:TPO you should not be editing others comments to talk page space without their permission, with some exceptions. The comments you edited you claimed were personal attacks. WP:RPA removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack Comments addressing an editor disagreeing with most other editors on the matter is not a personal attack. If they are uncivil comments, you still do not have permission to remove them per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL unless they are obvious trolling or vandalism. The edit you made to my own comment changes the meaning of my statement and attributes an opinion that is not mine. I take offense to your editing of my comment, but I accept your apology, and urge you to take greater care in the future and only edit others comments if they are clear-cut violations, as the policies state. Weedwacker (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ries42

14:18 RedPen made a questionable edit.

14:31 I reverted the important language back, specifically, the removal of the term "movement" which has ample support within the article and the reliable sources for its existance.

14:47 Red makes another edit, which may be considered even more slanted than his first.'

14:53 This time a different editor directly reverted him (Weedwacker).

15:04 I created a strongly worded section in the talk page, insisting RedPen discuss the matter. This has been labeled a personal attack. I disagree. It is directed at RedPen, but it is not intended to attack him. My tone though, is lacking. I apologize for that.

15:11 TS deletes the entirety of the section. While he may be attempting to deescalate the situation, he is in fact escalating it immensely.

15:12 I revert TS's deletion of the entirety of my comments directed at Red Pen.

15:23 RedPen ignores the talk page, proceeds to edit "movement" from the draft a third time.

15:24 Strongjam renames the title of my section to not directly address Red Pen This act tends to deescalate the situation much more so than TS's claimed attempt. The title is not as important to the discussion I am attempting to have with Red Pen.

15:26 Strongjam continues to my talk page. As his renaming of the title is a much better deescalation, I decide to consult him.

15:31 My question to Strongjam, expressing my frustration with RedPen's failure to discuss on the talk page and asking advice on how to proceed.

15:33 I return the Draft back to its last form with "movement."

15:36 Strongjam suggests I take a break.

15:37 I agree.

18:12 Nearly 3 hours after this began, RedPen finally shows up on the talk page.

18:21 In what I feel is the absolute greatest issue of this whole situation, TS edits mine and RedPen's actual comments. He effectively changed what we both said. I am livid over this. Not only did he put words in my mouth, he is was unrepentant about doing so until he was directly challenged about it. This is not just inappropriate, it is very much a betrayal of good faith at its core. TS's actions are, in my opinion, are the worst incident that occurred today.

His actions are so insidious, they were almost unnoticeable. He effectively changed what I said, and if I had not noticed the difference upon rereading the conversation his changes to what I said might still be there now. He says that his "results" speak for themselves, but his changes were unnoticed until well after they occurred. At least for me personally, they had no effect on my conduct, and I was most annoyed by the lack of RedPen discussing the issue. His coming to the talk page deescalated the situation, not TS's changes.

I will admit, in some cases, I may have been a bit heated. The last diff is an example of that. I hope anyone who reviews this situation understands how I felt when I discovered what TS did. My language was inappropriate, but my anger was very appropriate.

And with all of that being said, while we have a huge talk on the talk page about "movement" Red Pen decides to do this. Seriously. I can't make this up. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: RedPen, my question in that diff is because I was upset, but I would not escalate this situation to enforcement unless it was actually a sanctionable offense. My hurt feelings are not sanctionable, and I would not want them to be. Ries42 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As an additional note, Super Goku V reverted the original language back into the Talk page. He left a note speaking to this. TS decided to delete this as well. I'll not speculate as to why he felt it was a good idea. Ries42 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Theredpenofdoom: That is speculation, and incorrect. First, I was not angry that he "tried to deescalate". That is a mischaracterization of why I was upset. I was upset by what he did, not why he did it. Second, I do not consider my requesting that you discuss your questionable edits as a "personal attack". It was directed at you, but not an attack. Ries42 (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

@Tony Sidaway: This is less of a statement and more of a question to you. You appear to be opening a case, but you have not followed the form for requests that is at the top of this page. To start with: What user(s) against whom do you wish to request enforcement? I ask since you have not formally requested enforcement against any user(s). --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Huh, I didn't consider that. I guess I will only add what would need to be added then if that is the case. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am involved in this issue. At the time of when I became involved, most of what occurred had already taken place. When checking the history of the talk page, I noticed that one of the edits had a negative number of over 400 characters. Going through the diff showed that the user, Tony Sidaway, who had made changes to several comments made was not any of the users who had posted the comments in question (TheRedPenOfDoom, Weedwacker, and Ries42). Then, I proceeded to manually revert the edit by comparing the page as it was before the edit with the present copy and merging the two together due to WP:Talk Page guidelines. A note was left on the page due to a mistake I made in the summary, which was removed and reinstated in edits made by two of the named users. To note, there has been a discussion on hatting, where I made a comment about deleting vs hatting. If Tony Sidaway had an issue with the edits, I feel that they should hat them instead of deleting them. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

In response to Super Goku V, this noticeboard can also be used to request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to these sanctions. I don't think TS is seeking sanctions per se against a specific user, but rather is seeking administrative assistance in nipping a particular escalating problem in the bud before specific user sanctions might become necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: As has been repeatedly suggested, if you believe there are "worst offenders" here, it would behoove you to file a sanctions request against them citing specific evidence of the transgressions you are alleging. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

I am uninvolved in this current conflict. From reading Ries42's diffs, this seems to have started by POV-pushing (sorry. was cautioned to never use this term without evidence) by TPRoD. Ries42 was understandably upset by that and then after that, the changing of his comments by TS. I urge Ries42 to calm down and stop posting too "strongly worded" posts which are also personalized. I urge TS to not remove or edit comments unless there are WP:BLP violations. Ries42's first thread on TPRoD was personalized, yes, but that does not warrant removal. And I urge TPRoD to step away from the article. I'm even willing to mirror that move if TPRoD does so. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

The tone at the talk page was set many months ago, and it's no surprise that general exhaustion with the behavior and tone of those who are very clearly on the "anti-" side of the debate results in more heated and more uncivil comments in response. At this point as well, I'm sure many users expected the ArbCom ruling to have been handed down, and the continued delays are only fanning those flames.

If uninvolved administrators have not seen any reason to sanction the worst offenders at the talk page now, they're not going to see anything new today to sway them. The evidence page at ArbCom is a great place to start if there is an administrator interested. There is a trend I'm seeing yet again of trying to silence voices that aren't conforming with a certain point of view again, but with the ArbCom ruling imminent, I'm still not interested in trying to seek out a solution to those issues in detail. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: respectfully, my point was solely to note that the tone is set and that nothing has changed. I am fully aware that I can raise any concerns here if I wish, but pointing out that there are piles of evidence for uninvolved administrators to look at in the context of this request is meant to be helpful, not disparaging. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: I disagree that it's not relevant (I'd argue it's extremely relevant), but nothing I say here will convince you otherwise. Your commendation of the behavior that inflamed this situation while condemning my actions as not "collaborative" is a problem, as is much of the behavior that has been glossed over in the past. Want to crack down now? Great, but let's go after the worst offenders first. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I remain of the opinion that we should be waiting for ARbCom. I know that is not shared by everyone. That does not change the rest of the broader point, and noting that there is bad behavior is not against any rule or "best practice," but longstanding tradition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: I won't comment on this specific case again, as to not bog down the important bits of this with our back-and-forth. The evidence is significant over at the ArbCom case, and if there wasn't a case ruling imminent, I would likely pursue some of it with more recent events in mind. I can only point over that way so many times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SinglePurposePartier

There is most definitely an issue with bickering on the talk page, and I think it's come largely from some editors losing the assumption of good faith that forms one of the core values of the project. I believe HJ Mitchell's administrative action against TRPoD to be quite apt. I suspect the months-long slog of working on this page has gotten to them a bit, and a short break would do them well. Usually, when an editor ceases arguing points and starts arguing against people, a break is in order.

I don't believe TRPoD is the only issue here, however. I've noticed Ries42 has taken a rather combative attitude toward those who disagree with them, and again, I've noticed a loss of the assumption of good faith that makes this project work. I wouldn't necessarily say their actions are worthy of a strident administrative action, I believe they're working to better the page as best they can, but I must admit I was dismayed by their reaction to Tony Sidaway's actions that brought this discussion to the front. I've, admittedly, had my own issues with Ries in my limited action on the talk page.

When I shared my opinion on the representation of harassment on in the article, User:Masem responded with a good point about the direction of the article. Ries then joined in with a bit of snark seemingly directed at other editors. When I voiced my support for what Masem had written, wondering to what exactly Ries was referring, Ries adopted a rather hostile tone toward me, which I didn't really see fit to respond to.

I think Ries has, for the most part, contributed a useful voice to the editing process, but does seem to have something of a short fuse when an editor disagrees with their opinion on things. I'll leave it to more experienced editors and administrations to decide if that's worthy of anything beyond a warning or a gentle prod to remember to WP:AGF. I would think it does not, but I'd suggest to Ries that some of the edit warring and hostility on the talk page is their own making, and it'd be helpful to the project for them to do what they can to help reduce that hostility.SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning General bickering on talk page

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

  • I've blocked TRPoD for 48 hours for edit-warring and hostility. He's not solely responsible for the deterioration of the discussion, but he's a significant contributor to it. I'd welcome opinions on whether admin action is needed against any other parties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Thargor Orlando: Please don't be ridiculous. Admins at this board will not adjudicate on material that has been presented as evidence in the arbitration case (though having read every word and every diff on that page, describing some of its as "evidence" is a stretch), and as for If uninvolved administrators have not seen any reason to sanction the worst offenders at the talk page now, they're not going to see anything new today to sway them, file an enforcement request, with dated diffs and I'll look at it. But alas, telepathy is not among the many powers vested in admins, so you can't expect us to do something unless somebody tell us there's a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at diffs now. Will post response soon. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In no particular order:

  • I concur with HJ Mitchell both in that the hostility exhibited by User:TheRedPenOfDoom is inappropriate and that he is far from the only offender. I should add that I admonished TRPOD earlier this week on this page for matters regarding WP:CIVIL.
  • @Tony Sidaway: your efforts to diffuse talk page conflicts should be commended and I encourage you to continue to do so and to continue to redact uncivil comments. I think you realize that altering the text of comments of others instead of redacting them was a very boneheaded move, though it was obviously well-intentioned. I really do not want to see any more rewriting of others' comments, from you or anyone else.
  • @Weedwacker: In my experience I've found that those who complain the loudest about redacting comments are those whose comments are the most troublesome. In this case, you are not an exception. Your contribution to this matter was to participate in a revert war and post unproductive comments directed at TRPOD. While others like Ries42 also participated in the revert war and posted troubling comments, they also took positive actions that can be considered mitigating circumstances, and I see nothing to mitigate the circumstances in this case. As a result, you are formally admonished to conduct yourself in a civil manner when posting comments directed towards other editors, and that sanctions are in order if we see similar behavior on this page again.
  • @Ries42: Some troublesome comments by you have been noted here, so troublesome that I consider them sanctionable. I hope that you realize that they are not compatible with collaborative editing, including the inflammatory header calling out another editor. I understand that you are annoyed another person edited your comments (that would certainly annoy me as well), but your response to that well-intentioned mistake is way over the top. However, I do commend your willingness to take the matter to the talk page (despite your poor choice of header and tone) and your willingness to take advice and step away from the matter temporarily, so for those reasons I will not consider sanctions at this time.
  • @Starship.paint: the casual way insults like "POV-pusher" are thrown around has to stop. The next time I see that phrase used here by anyone outside of the presentation of evidence in a case specifically for alleged POV-pushing, I will consider sanctions.
  • @Thargor Orlando: I understand you are frustrated with this matter. I am frustrated with this matter. But that does not give you license to use every page in sight as a forum to air your grievances. Your comment here is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, as is your talk page comment removed by User:HJ Mitchell. I would like you to voluntarily restrict your comments regarding GamerGate to ones about proposed edits for the near future, as I do not believe you are using these pages in a way that encourages an atmosphere of collaborative editing. I believe you are a well-intentioned editor and as an experienced Wikipedia editor you could serve as a model for the many new editors who share your opinions about GamerGate to follow, but it is in no one's interest, including your own, if you continue to also serve as an example of what not to do.

That's it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: If you want to convince me that someone is one of the "worst offenders", put your money where your mouth is and post a case with diffs as evidence, as has been repeatedly suggested to you by multiple parties. At some point, you have to stop complaining you aren't getting what you want when multiple people tell you the way to get it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


DHeyward blocked for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 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 DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

I had hoped to avoid bringing anyone here for enforcement but this is getting out of hand.

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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 DHeyward

In each edit, I removed the objectionable pieces and tried to focus on the title of the subsection which was alternative views. I am not sure what the complaint about talk-page discussion is about. It's obvious from policy changes that the approach Grayson used prior to GamerGate would be not be acceptable today. We cover some of it in the article. PC gamer is the latest ethical policy change. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 18 JanuaBold textry 2015 (UTC)

Also a question about a current event regarding Milo and Shanley Kane is on my talk page. This is being covered by Gawker. The Breitbart articles were referenxed on the talk page but were refactored and I did not restore them.

On the talk page, I continued to refine the argument of "alternative readings" based on coverage of events that are not considered notable (this is reinforced be redactions and hatting of relevant viewpoints that are now being explored by multiple outlts). --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion regarding PC Gamer where the claimant erroneously states "more discussion about the source" is actually a new source from from "PC Gamer" that updates their policy [34]. Further complaints regard a totally different current event [35]. Keep in mind this is about talk page discussions regarding shortcomings in the draft article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A good trouting is in order for those that think contextual and sourced arguments on a talk page are sanctionable activity. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@NBSB, you refactored Grayson and I did not restore. I think it is obvious but respect that you do not. It doesn't change the fact that "PC Gamer" posted a policy much stricter than what Grayson claimed is ethical. the Breitbart article is covered by Gawker. --DHeyward (talk)

Google "Shanley kane gamergate" and the news and you will see it isn't non-sequitur and is very relevant to viewpoints not covered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is gamergate and is certainly allowed for discussion. It exists and is ripe for discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I take input very seriously and strive to provide data that can be analyzed within policy. My edits consistently removed objectionable material and removed entirely or replaced with sources that make the claim. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@woodroar, if you'll note, I never unhatted material and each subsequent edit was to address previous concerns. The topic was "alternative viewpoint." It seems incredulous that a gawker piece supporting GG champions such as Milo is not relevant as an alternative viewpoint. I am not sure how this translates to the draft, whence the talk page discussion rather than another draft section. Per the concerns, I refined the talk page comments to eliminate the concern. In 24 hours I suspect more coverage beyond brietbart and gawker. Stifling good faith discussion is not within WP ethos. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@NBSB I ultimatey stated the changes at "PC gamer". It's extremely obtuse to state Graysons disclosure ex-post-facto would satisfy the changes at his or any other gaming journo. He met Kotaku policy at the time andf he kept his job. It's not very hard to see the same actions would be unacceptable at his employer or any other game journo publication. Say what you will, but the updated policies at virtually every game journo to make his actions against policy should not go unnoticed. That doesn't mean we call his in-policy response "unethical". --DHeyward (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@partier - note that the heading on the talk page is alternative viewpoints. It seems that you are complaing that sourced alternative viewpoints are being discussed in the alternative viewpoints section on the talk page and complaining that it is sourced alternative viewpoints. I've already written more here than on the talk page. Anyone willing to complain that my response on the sanctions page is sanctionable before we move to the twilight zone? --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

What DHeyward claims to be "obvious" about Grayson is not actually supported by any reliable sources, and the situation he claims to be analogous is not at all analogous, as I have discussed on the talk page. Absent any reliable sources drawing such a connection, it is prohibited synthesis to be creating from whole cloth new ideas or claims about a person's behavior. The Breitbart links, which amount to a vitriolic op-ed making vicious personal attacks on a living person, are obviously inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It actually is sanctionable activity to make wholly-unsourced and synthesized claims about a living person's behavior on a talk page. Either the person is proposing to rewrite the article to include such material, which indicates that they do not understand sourcing requirements for claims relating to living people, or they are using the talk page as a general discussion forum about the subject, which indicates that they do not understand the purpose of an article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: I'm afraid that it doesn't matter what you believe to be "obvious" about Grayson — it matters what you have reliable sources to support. Either you have sources which compare the two situations in the way that you claim, or you don't. If you don't, then neither the claim nor discussion of the claim belong on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I submit DHeyward's latest reply as evidence that he is not here to write an article about Gamergate based upon reliable sources, but rather to use the article talk page as a platform to discuss his entirely-unsourced and unsupported original synthesis ideas. His repeated declamations about things he believes are extremely obtuse or not very hard to see are based on nothing more than his own personal opinions, not on any reliably-sourced analysis comparing the two situations he is claiming to be comparable. This is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SinglePurposePartier

It's just not clear what any of this has to do with the article. One needn't bring any diff's here, because the WP:FORUM mentality that's weirdly gripped the talk page has migrated over here. The conversation seems to have shifted away from how best to write the gamergate article and toward debating the intricacies of PC Gamer's ethics policy and the behavior of random Twitter accounts Gawker has chosen to write about. It doesn't seem to be particularly helpful on the talk page, and it seems even less helpful here. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Woodroar

DHeyward, the issue is that you continue to (a) comment negatively about living persons based on your own opinions as well as unreliable and self-published sources, (b) link to unreliable and self-published sources which make negative claims about living persons, sources which policy forbids us from using, meaning there is never a reason to link to them, (c) comment about living persons and challenge sourced content based on your own OR and SYNTH, (d) treat the Talk page as a FORUM, and (e) ignore redactions, hatting, and respond in an uncivil fashion when others point this out to you. Woodroar (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

I've blocked DHeward for 48 hours. I'll leave this open for a little while in case anybody wants to present evidence that there is a longer-term problem with DHeyward's conduct in this topic area which might necessitate a topic ban. Please address comments only to administrators: discussion between non-admins is not helpful to administrators in reaching a decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support this action. I've was very unimpressed with this user's behavior reported here on January 8 and it appears now it is part of a recent pattern of combative and unproductive behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


No formal admin action taken, but to all parties: please comment on content, not on contributors, and please bring conduct matters to this noticeboard (or to AE once the arbitration farce closes) rather than discussing them on talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 24 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ries42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  • NA
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • I consider this a minor, but problematic development. When asked to explain in detail how some content violated a policy he alleged it violated, user responded by personalizing. Offered a second opportunity, repeated personalization. I request a final warning that future assumptions of bad faith will be met with immediate sanctions. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Ries42

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 Ries42

This is absurd. If anything, this deserves WP:BOOMERANG because of Hipocrit's pointy and uncivil behavior and wikilawyering. Hipocrit should be reminded to conduct himself better and not force editors to repeatedly request he stop his bad behavior.

My first comment, asking RedPen a question about WP:Synth and whether it would be an issue here or with his statements.

Hipocrit steps in, not by helping explain why this might not be WP:Synth, or going over what may be misconceptions on my part, but by pointedly asking me to provide specific diffs. My questions were general, not making a specific argument. He responded very uncivilly and pointedly, but I assumed good faith at this point and responded as such.

My response to Hipocrit, effectively offtopic from my question, but in good faith, trying to explain myself and my thought process.

Hipocrit ignores my response, and asks the same pointed question again. He is asking for a basically "lawyer" response. It appears he wants me to specifically make a proposed section so he can attack that specific directly, instead of address my more general statement. This is wikilawyering. While I assumed good faith in his initial, if pointed, questioning, I do not believe it is necessary to continue to assume good faith when the editor in question effectively asks the same pointed question again, after I had answered it. Further, he is asking a question to a specific that I even mention that I'm not attempting to get into. This is uncivil and pointed behavior. Ries42 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I ask that he not wikilawyer me, and not be so pointed.

He ignores my request, and continues with the uncivil, pointed wikilawyering.

I repeat my request, asking him to stop being pointed and wikilawyering directed at me.

He then opens this sanctions request.

Hipocrit is acting uncivil, pointed, and wikilawyering. He continues to do so by escalating at best a minor disagreement to sanctions. I thought about making a note on his user page if he continued with his uncivil and pointed behavior after my second request for him to stop. This is just as well. Ries42 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I wish to let it go, but I can't not respond to a sanction request filed against me. Ries42 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@TonySidaway: I tried to respond to the first request in good faith. His repeated requests despite receiving an answer is what I have issue with. Ries42 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I use wikilawyering because of how he was going about asking, not what he was asking, and his insistence on asking the same question when I did not give him exactly the response he wanted.

His request was for a specific form of response, he wanted me to specifically challenge a part of the article as Synth. Despite such a challenge being completely offtopic for the section we were currently in. I responded that I wasn't talking about specifics, yet still used an example to demonstrate my point that "as I understood it," Synth may be at issue in the lede (the topic we were talking about). Despite my response, he ignored me and repeated the question. I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics. What is the correct way to respond to this derailing of the topic?

He then began badgering me to answer in exactly the form he wanted. To point in fact, I did respond to his initial question, but not exactly in the form he wanted me to. Ries42 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Perhaps, although I submit that it could be considered wikilawyering as well because of the technical form he was requesting, so as to abide by the letter or technical interpretation of the SYNTH policy rather than the spirit or underlying principals that it represents. My response was unacceptable (and thus, he repeated the question) because I did not answer in the technical form he wanted, not because I didn't respond, which is how wp:wikilawyering is described on that page. Ries42 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: How does my response to his initial question not answer it then? My original response to Hipocrit talks about the lede sentence I was concerned about. Ries42 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hipocrit's latest outburst simply proves my point. He is being uncivil and pointed. Ries42 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@TonySidaway: I am relatively new to WP (although its funny when some people have implied they think I'm either an old editor with a new name, or I think the term is "sockpuppet" and this is a different account from my "main".) With that being said, I do believe I answered Hipo's original question in my original response. If there was a deficiency there, and I may very well have made an error, I would appreciated a response more in line with pointing out the error and allowing me an attempt to correct it. What would just ignoring my response and asking same question again end up doing other than... well the issues shown. I feel like my asking him not to do that was the best response. Ries42 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: For your pleasure, Hypocrit's most recent talk page comments. Hipocrite threatens to close discussion unless he is given a "policy reason" not to within 15 minutes. Masem and a new editor, BlookerG respond that they both disagree with him. In one diff, Hipocrite asks them the same pointed question, askig for specifics. Masem responds. Hipocrit's response to Masem's response (Read it. I don't want it to be said that I in any way editorialized this response. It stands for itself.)

  • I am more than happy to move on from this. I feel it was absurd to have brought it here in the first place. I am more than willing to be able to work with Hipocrit following this so long as he is civil and does not direct a battlefield mentality toward me. I do believe he perhaps needs a temporary break from the article; however, I will leave that to the admins to judge and abide by their decision. Ries42 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: @HJ Mitchell:, I hate to ask one of you to rule, but as there appears to be no other admins willing to... I'd rather not have this cloud above my head over the weekend. Ries42 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Actually I was just about to pop over to Ries42's talk page to say I thought they should respond to reasonable requests for specific and actionable criticisms of article content, as they seemed to regard them as impertinent and even wikilawyering.

While it may be a little precipitate to jump straight to enforcement without a visit to user talk to tackle what perhaps might have turned out to be a misunderstanding, I see no harm in a mild trouting for evasion and a lack of collegiate response in this instance.

In my brief experience Ries42 has shown himself capable of taking the basic confidence-building measures that enhance rapport on a talk page and reduce friction (for instance, their instant apology to a recent complaint by TheRedPenOfDoom, and their response to a request by me to hat the problematic section of the discussion.) This apparent lapse is a relatively minor one at this stage. --TS 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, am I correct in my impression that Ries42 is relatively new to Wikipedia? Perhaps if so, it explains their apparent bewilderment at being asked to respond to a request to provide specific, policy-based and actionable criticism of the brief passage they're discussing. The importance of precision in such critiques may be difficult for a relative newcomer to appreciate. It takes time to understand that, without specifics, time is wasted by editors trying to guess what others are referring to and how it can be fixed. --TS 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

At this stage I think both parties are being a bit ridiculous (but Hipocrite has far more experience and is setting a bad example). A warning to both against unconstructive arguing. --TS 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

On reflection, not adding anything that admins need to know. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If either of you feel your discussion is not being productive just WP:LETITGO. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ries42: not suggesting you ignore the request. Just that both of you let it go on the talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi

I believe the lawyering comes from Hipocrite's insistence that Ries42 format his complaint in a specific way, and not engaging in the response that Ries42 gave.

Statement by Masem

Way back I was cautioned on making personal issues within the scope of the GG talk page after one slip similar to this, and been careful to follow that. Tony sounds like he was about to give Ries the same type of warning, which is fair; I don't see this as any gross personalization/"attacking the editor" type thing, though the formal caution is proper. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand (After I posted the above), this reply shows extremely poor and unwelcome behavior for a talk page by Hipocrite. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Further Comment by Hipocrite

I don't see how asking someone to describe in detail merely two times - how specific content violates a policy by referring to the specific requirements of the policy is badgering. If people are reading into my completely flat tone something that is not there then they should stop reading "tone" (you can read a sneer into those scare quotes) into the written word. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The standard I am being asked to uphold by Ries42 is dramatically different than the standard that Ries42 himself upholds. For instance, I refer to a specific policy, and outline what he'd have to show to show that content was in violation of that policy, but if I do that repeatedly (sneer implied in the bolding) then I'm using poor tone.
I disagree. Repeating something that was obviously ignored is not "poor tone." However, R42 must obviously agree however, because otherwise, his complaint that I was "wikilawyering him, and being so pointy" would be completely without merit. Should we hold R42 to his own standards? He repeated his complaint twice - [38], [39], and was explicit that he was merely repeating himself for emphasis, as opposed to honestly believing that the person didn't fully comprehend the first time (I note that I do not repeat the 3 elements of SYN in my third comment, responding to the first accusation of wikilawyering and pointy behavior.)
As such, There is absolutely no standard by which R42 can argue that anything untowards can be done to me that cannot directly and immediately rebound to him. He believes people who repeat themselves should be sanctioned? Then he has no defense for repeating himself. Period.
I amend my request and ask that R42 be banned from Gamergate, broadly defined, for behavior that he, himself, believes was "wikilawyering and pointy," regardless of my personal belief that he was merely being sharp. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I considered responding to DHeyward, but this is not the place to argue about article content. I asked R42 to explain the synth by showing me two sources, merged together, to state something neither stated. It wasn't a hard ask, but it was not done. Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I readily admit that my tone did not have the desired effect, and I have determined that I just won't respond to R42 anymore. I think that should satisfy all of his issues. Moving on from that, do you see something slightly wrong in his tone, perchance? Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

I don't see why Hipocrite ignored the reply that explained the synthesis and then continued asking the same question that was answered. That's badgering.

It's pretty clear that the "synth" is with the use of the word "but" in Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. to juxtapose two statements from multiple sources. That is a common "SYNTH" mistake and this edit is badgering[40] after the problem was explained here [41]. I had no trouble identifying the SYNTH concern even before reading the entire section, just the diff.

Second, Hipocrite starts off the defense of the lede The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources..... That should be easily referenced with a source that says "false." That is not the word, however, I have found in reliable sources. It's synth to merge so many ideas into that single statement if for no other reason than Quinn is not a journalist and "ethics in journalism" don't apply to her in the slightest. It is very much "synth" to conflate them. Reliable sources don't conflate them. The first investigation by Kotaku was into journalist Grayson's, "possible breach", and their statement doesn't use false but rather the editor uses his own voice to say While I believe no such breach [in ethics] occurred, I feel it is important for Kotaku readers who have questions to get clear answers. That is a far cry from saying it is a "false allegation." He outlays his opinion, then the facts and makes no conclusion about whether it was objectively ethical, only that the relationship was not followed by a review by Grayson. The question about synth and wording and juxtaposing multiple sources seems obvious and badgering over a clearly obvious and well described concern seems to be a battleground mentality by Hipocrite.

I don't see any problem with Ries42's question or response. They seemed pretty straightforward and it seems bringing it here is more of a battleground mentality by Hipocrite. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel My comment can be distilled down to Ries42 seems to be reasonable while Hipocrite seems to be fostering a battleground mentality. Content and quality of input shapes that perception but it is not the content itself, rather it is the behavior of the two editors. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ries42

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

  • At first glance, my impression is that Hipocrite was being a bit prickly towards Ries42. But, tone aside, asking how something violates a particular policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, and I'm puzzled how that can be interpreted as "wikilaywering". Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ries42: I don't think that's wikilawyering, I think that's just plain badgering. I also don't see how it is off topic, since the section is called "Regarding lead section" and you were asked about claims that a particular sentence in the lead violated SYNTH. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hipocrite: In the future, can you just say "I don't feel you addressed the question" and leave it at that. Just repeating the whole thing will be seen as obnoxious badgering by the other party and will not encourage them to give a reasonable and polite response. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ries42: In my opinion, that's a valid point to make if you are objecting to someone's conclusion or interpretation, but I don't think it's a valid excuse to avoid participating in a conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @DHeyward: Matters of content are beyond the scope of this request at this point. The matter at hand is trying to get two editors to have a discussion about that content in a civil manner, so it's irrelevant which party may or may not taking the "right" stance on the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hipocrite: I am remarkably unimpressed by your response here. You have loudly declared that you can't see anything wrong with your behavior and then demanded someone else get banned for a mild offense? I am willing to believe that the initial conflict was a matter of misunderstanding, but the fact that you are unwilling to even consider that your tone might not have the desired effect is an indication not of an editor who wants to engage in collaborative editing, but one with a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 29 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 MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Avono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[42] A minor infraction in which MarkBernstein comments on a barnstar award that was related to a gamergate sanction.

[43] MarkBernstein is discussing a gamergate related topic outside of arbcom proceeding thus violating his topic ban Avono (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[44] [45]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

  • I've blocked MarkBernstein for a month. My full rationale is on his talk page. This is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban, and his edits since his last block (and indeed since the topic ban) have showed no intent to abide by the topic ban. I've also warned him that if he violates the topic ban again after a month, he will be blocked for the maximum duration permitted under general or discretionary sanctions, which is one year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Topic-banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 29 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 09I500

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 11:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
09I500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21 January - Adds "partially" to the unequivocal, well-supported statement that the allegations against Zoe Quinn which launched Gamergate are false.
  2. 25 January - Edit-wars to remove the word "false" entirely with a misleading edit summary, constituting lying by omission about Quinn.
  3. 25 January - Continues the edit-war with this material.
  4. 25 January - Continues the edit-war again.
  5. 25 January - Yet again, continues the edit war.
  6. 25 January - Yep, again.
  7. 25 January - Yes, another revert.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User is well aware of the extensive talk page discussion at Talk:4chan which painstakingly explains and documents why we will unequivocally state that the allegations are false. User has made a number of other tendentious edits in the Gamergate space, including filing a spurious complaint against arbitrator GorillaWarfare. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The user in question has responded aggressively and with hostility toward my repeated efforts to explain why removing the word false contravenes the reliable sources and violates the biographies of living persons policy as an unequivocal lie by omission. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The user in question continues to revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning 09I500

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 09I500

No, you are the one edit warring, not me. You, SouthByNorthBaranof are breaking all the rules. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors now, and are currently on trial for punishment by the arbitration committee. Leave it alone and use the talk page to reach consensus if you don't agree. You are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND consistently, you violate WP:ISNOT and WP:AGF also. As for the conflict of interest thing, I honestly still don't understand what I did wrong. I am a new user. I read the conflict of interest wikipedia policy extensively and nowhere did it say that it does not apply to administrators. GorillaWarfare obviously has a massive conflict of interest with Gamergate and should recuse herself from any feminist and gamergate related articles, sanctions, etc. I still stand by that opinion. You also didn't adhere to WP:Dispute Resolution because you didn't try to find a solution first by discussion on my talk page first. Because you failed to do this, I see this entire sanction request as not legitimate. And I quote: The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available. But no, you had to open some kind of silly dispute thing. And for that, I will ask you, very civilly of course, to get off my lawn. 09I500 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

There is an discussion on the talk page that NorthBySouthBaranof has used, and 09I500 has not contributed to. Consensus of that discussion is to use "false". Not only is important to per BLP to write with great care about the accusations, but as all the sources say "false" or "unfounded" then NPOV requires us also to ensure that the mainstream POV is presented. — Strongjam (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 09I500

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

  • Topic-banned. I see a threefold form of disruption here: first, in the edit-warring and overall belligerent attitude, second, in refusing to join the discussion on the talkpage while loudly demanding of others that they should "gain consensus" (with him, presumably), and third and most importantly, in rehashing this whole issue while being well aware that the exact same question had already been debated to death on the main Gamergate talkpage. There is a very clear-cut status quo at the main article, after weeks and weeks of people bringing up this exact issue: nothing less than having the unqualified attribute "false" in the phrase in question is going to find consensus, in light of the predominant understanding of WP:BLP. Everybody there knows this. Taking this same issue and simply transferring it to another, less well watched article and raising the same kind of fuss over it again there, is just the kind of tactics of trying to wear opposition down down that has plagued the area so much. Fut.Perf. 15:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)