Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive1

Video game journalism

Matter resolved. 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Video game journalism article is currently under attack by an anonymous IP repeatedly inserting discredited and specious claims about a living person related to the controversy, while refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. Needs semi-protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)  User blocked by Drmies. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that if this wasn't resolved in the manner that it was, the IP could not have been sanctioned as they have not been noticed of general sanctions. (Unsure where to put this as there isn't a talk page for this sub page) Tutelary (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

NBSB didn't request that IP be sanctioned, only that the page be protected. However, it is all moot now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Torga

User blocked for 72 hours. 02:10, 14 November 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 Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Torga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13 Nov, 2014 Post #1 to Talk:Gamergate controversy 13 Nov, 2014 Post #2 to Talk:Gamergate controversy Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 27 Oct, 2014 Notified of discretionary sanctions. 11 Nov, 2014 Topic-banned from Gamergate for 90 days. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 Nov, 2014 by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 Oct, 2014 Additional comments by editor filing complaint I think it's pretty straight-forward; user continues to post to the talk page of Gamergate controversy after a topic-ban was handed down. Hopefully this all comes out right, I have never filed one of these before, and cribbed some of the lines from WP:AE, as what's at the top of the talk page wasn't easily copies here in wiki-markup. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. 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 Yes i take the blame here. I misunderstood and thought it was the gamergate article that it was about. I did participate in the discussion, and if that was also under the sanction i apologize. This a reason and not an excuse and i take the responibility of the action used here --Torga (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Torga This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 72 hours. Pretty much an open and shut case. I acknowledge that User:Torga took responsibility for their actions, which is a positive and led to be more lenient than I otherwise would have been. I would suggest that now the user is aware of the scope of the ban, any future violations of the topic ban would justify a harsher response. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

DungeonSiegeAddict510

No action. 01:53, 18 November 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 User who is submitting this request for enforcement 137.111.13.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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] Soapboxing about Gawker media and a commentator, misrepresenting their position as "20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny"" [2] Soapboxing on the arbcom case, promotes conspiracy theories, referred to Gawker as "encouraging domestic abuse under the guise of "feminism" or whatever" and their authors as "sick bullies on their payroll". Dramatically exceed the word limit despite admin notice . [3] Soapboxing on the Arbcom case, claiming that Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are more neutral than the WP article [4] Soapboxing on Gamergate discussion page, equating feminism with fearmongering against men ""All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum"" [5] Making nonsensical proposals on talk pages eg, using unsourced images from the internet [6] [7] Violates WP:CIVIL, referred to User:Tarc "It's only because your No True Scotsman BS" [8] Again, soapboxing, referring to a source as "trite from a known troll". [9] On RS noticeboard, claimed that all Gawker sources should be blacklisted, and that they're nothing but clickbait. [10] Soapboxing about OpSkynet, refers to Gawker and GG critics as promoting an echo chamber and censorship [11] Reposted BLP violating material on his talk page Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [12] Warned about sig policy violations [13] Warned by uninvolved admin for edit warring [14] Indirectly notified for violating WP:FORUM If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them [15] Warned about GG sanctions Oct 28 Additional comments by editor filing complaint DungeonSiegeAddict510's edits largely involves Gamergate [16], and judging by his edits, he is far interested in pushing a pro-GG POV. foremost He spends a large amounts of discussion soapboxing and aimed at attacking particular editors, such as Ryulong, than work towards the improvement of the article. His edits largely violates WP:CIVIL, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, and WP:COMPETENCE. I'm sorry, but to blow me off just because I have no desire to create an account is bizarre, and basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines aren't that hard to grasp with a quick read. Furthermore, the vast majority of DSA's edits began on September 23, and has barely editing anything outside of Gamergare. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [17] Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 I see they've started to harass me anonymously on Wikipedia too. As if the drama tosay on IRC involving my dox wasn't enough to deal with. I refuse to comment further on these cherrypicked claims. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Retartist Note, ip user is registered to Macquarie University Retartist (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Avono I would request the Admins to be aware of the following sock puppetry policy before making an enforcement Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. However the IPs claims are legitimate and DungeonSiegeAddict510 should be warned to be aware of WP:FORUM and Wikipedia:Verifiability Avono (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hasteur I endorse the statement by Avono. The familiarity of the IP address with mineuta of policy suggests WP:BADHAND and potentially evasion. Suggest delivering the official GS/GG notice to the IP since this type of nitpicking is the type of behavior we're trying to curtail. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein It should be remembered that the context of this complaint includes a protracted conflict which is being openly orchestrated off-wiki, and in which the publicly-stated aim of one faction has been to acquire damaging information regarding their wikipedia opponents, including five specifically-named editors. It should be further the remembered that the same faction named three primary "targets" for their movement -- Zoe Quinn, Aninta Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu -- that official police investigations have been initiated into credible threats against all three targets, and that two of the three have been forced to leave their homes for their own safety. We have here, it is true, a complaint that is carefully drawn up and documented by an IP poster. Had the complaint not been drawn up with great care and thorough documentation, it might well have been dismissed out of hand. Indeed, it might have evoked a strong WP:BOOMERANG as, in the nature of things, a badly-drawn complaint will often appear to be less than civil, to fail to make the appropriate ritual gesture toward AGF and DONTBITE, or simply seem to be a personal attack or an effort to venue shop a conflict dispute. I also point out to admins the real possibility that this page (and satellite pages such as those for notable Gamergate targets) may well be subject to particularly close scrutiny in the future from both the mainstream press and the research community should Gamergate investigations result in one or more prosecutions. In many Wikipedia subject-matter conflicts, we can let things play out, confident that the acrimony will eventually settle. Here, however, it is likely that anything more than transient BLP violations -- even if only on talk pages, project pages, or edit messages -- could subject Wikipedia to very stern censure or worse. We all fervently hope this does not arise, but if it did, the whole world will literally be watching -- and looking through the edit histories to see how well sanctions were handled. Even if the IP is a sock, she may merely be lodging on anonymous complaint at the place specifically set up for that purpose, and her preference for anonymity might well be prudent and even necessary. That so many pro-GG commentators above do not anticipate this is a shame. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hustlecat I just wanted to say I was planning to make this same request and am very glad to see someone has done it, and done it well. The behavior of the user in question should not be overlooked just because it is a potentially questionable IP user who has posted the request. Hustlecat do it! 18:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Comment While I've noted a tendency to soapbox or digress by DungeonSiegeAddict510, I regard much of what's been posted as either stale or below the threshold at which sanctions might be imposed, and I'm very reluctant to act on the basis of a report from an IP with little in the way of involvement in the topic, given the level of off-wiki activity. I advise DungeonSiegeAddict510 to be careful about soapboxing and against speculation that might be misconstrued [18]. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Agree with Acroterion. Though it is hard to see DungeonSiegeAddict510 as making valuable contributions to this topic area, there is no obvious smoking gun. When an IP with no record makes the complaint, you can't rule out that it's actually a participant in the dispute who is trying to avoid scrutiny. I would close this with no action except the warning suggested in Acroterion's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc

Trouts to everyone on both sides of the issue who edit warred without engaging in discussion. Claims of violating consensus are unfounded since there was no evidence provided of a discussion establishing consensus. Since a new discussion on the issue is now ongoing, there is nothing actionable here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:57, 22 November 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 Tarc User who is submitting this request for enforcement Retartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 Ignoring consensus again revert another revert If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Tarc (talk · contribs) – notified by RGloucester 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 Whatever consensus may have existed in a weeks-to months old discussion is not binding in perpetuity, as consensus can change. The sources cited in the passage in question predominantly use the word "rape" over the milder "sodomy". Tarc (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I have nothing more to state on the merits of the subject matter itself, as my statement above is IMO sufficient. Admins, do note that Retartist is canvassing editors of a like-minded point-of-view here and here, and while this user will likely engage in excuse-making about only alerting editors that were directly involved, it is curious that Mr. Retartist failed to inform me of this filing; I only knew of it because i had the page watch-listed. This entire filing is nothing more than game-playing antics egged on by his friends at 8chan, the group which Retartist is the self-appointed Wiki-spokesman of, e.g. the page that is subject to the still-open Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I will also say that at the time of the initial edit, I was unaware of any such prior discussion, and was only made aware...vaguely...by handwaves to some past discussion via the other editor's edit summaries. I made the change to make the text conform to the sources, which is precisely what Tuletary and the SPA were violating. I followed the policy of sticking to what the sources say and not cherry-picking what one wants them to say. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston:, @Gamaliel:, note this update at the talk page by one of the complainants above, which IMO renders this affair rather moot. Tarc (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam There is limited discussion about the exact wording in the talk archives from what I can see, and no current discussion about it on the talk page. I'd suggest the editors involved try to resolve the content dispute there first. This request seems premature. — Strongjam (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved RGloucester This request strikes me as odd. The user who submitted it failed to provide a statement, and has not said what action he'd like to be taken. I suggest that he make such a statement if he wishes for any action to be taken here. RGloucester — ☎ 02:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein This is simply an effort to escalate an edit war, hoping sanctions will squelch the opponent. Note that editors have been organizing at 8chan specifically seeking precisely this scenario. Moreover, on the merits, it appears Tarc is right. Application of WikiTrout may be ineffective, BOOMERANG would be advisable as complainant is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Retartist I submitted this request as i noticed that there seemed to be the start of an edit war occurring on the draft page. Tarc had reverted two separate editors without discussion on the talk page, and by his edit summary "Consensus doesn't override the fact that it is describes as "rape" far more often in the 2 cited sources. Go start on the talk page anew if you think your WP:SYNTH-based argument carries the day." Tarc knows that he was against consensus but still tried to change the text towards his pov. Recommend a block of appropriate time (with reference to previous if any blocks) for edit warring against consensus. Also this talk of a boomerang is absurd as i made no edits over this particular point. P.s. the submission form is difficult to use Retartist (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC) @Tarc: Consensus can change but there was no discussion about it. The only consensus was in your head, or against your edit Retartist (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) In reply to tarc, I forgot to notify you because the template was funny and i had class to get to, sorry. I only alerted the other editors AFTER you made your statement; they were the ones who reverted you so they should have a say in the edit ear discussion. And its interesting that you get all up in arms about not being alerted because the MFD you mentioned, You never alerted me about it and you filled it. Retartist (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Tl;DR i filled this because i thought Tarc was edit-warring with two other editors and i thought it wouldn't stop unless i filled. But i am mad at other editors accusing me of being some sort of brigade leader for an illuminati of scary 8chan members, To put this to rest: I have not made many (if any) edits to the gamergate main page, i have only really participated in discussions, and the reports i have filled have been good-faith attempts to stop arguments and edit warring on gamergate, and the interaction with the 8chan members has purely been to collect wiki diffs for the arb-com case. Retartist (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tutelary As the person who has reverted Tarc (and subsequently he reverted back), it's been evident that if they hadn't have been brought here for their conduct to be discussed according to sanctions, that they would've continued reverting. This was already have been discussed on the talk page in the archives and the fact that they're wanting to sling dirt into an issue already having been resolved is really telling. Tarc also did not go to the talk page when reverted, continuing to revert (and also manually editing the article so I wouldn't get that red +1 for the revert) and thus bringing an edit war. This is a failure of WP:BRD, a well respected way to gain consensus on certain topics. Tarc evidently is aware of this but chooses not to follow this, preferring to reinstate his own changes rather than discuss them. Also, not to derail this reply, but MarkBernstein complaining about Retartist filing a sanctions request while subsequently wanting to get him blocked for doing so, when he just accused him of trying to get 'sanctions to squelch his opponent' is also quite telling. Check your words before you write them. In essence, Tarc should be remanded for this but the exact punishment--whether a severe warning or a small block I do not know. An admin telling Tarc to not behave in this manner may be warranted, but this behavior isn't new, so I don't know. Tutelary (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by DSA510 Tarc is clearly trying to charge the article in a way that slanders TFYC, and supports a bogus claim. Its like the birther movement talking about Obama. They hold onto wild and baseless claims backed by pseudoscience and speculation. In an already biased article, more bias makes it worse. Quick note to MarkBernstein, I, the high czar of GamerHate (Sponsored by Doritos™), will reveal the true nature of the threads on hatechan. They were to make you go insane. But in all seriousness, MB's claims now are bordering on the absurd. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC) It should be noted that the "RS" that say green+purple=rape are relying upon the same fringe evidence, and pseudosciences utilized by the ceaseless whining of holocaust deniers, birthers, Frankfurt School theorists, and just about every other idiot from stormfront or /pol/ to grace the internet. Pushing for a fringe theory does violate WP:FRINGE. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Cobbsaladin I don't have much to add that's not apparent in the revision history. Regarding which word is more correct: the second source is a "boing boing" summary of the first and in the first the author describes it as sodomy. He uses "rape" only in quotes and paraphrases from tweet and blog sources. Statement by Masem I cannot remember or find any prior section about the claimed "consensus" (though I do agree there's ways the wording needs to be given, a subject ripe for discussion). Even if there was a consensus, edit warring should not have happened - the reverters should have opened a new talk page discussion, saying "Hey, remember this discussion (with link)?" and reassure there was consensus. Mind you, Tarc should have already done the same but so should have those that reverted those, so I'd recommended trouts/warnings per the sanction that should that happen again, short term blocks be in place. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Super Goku V @EdJohnston - Mostly this is going to be about the consensus issue since I have little else to add. Since Tutelary has not made an amended statement, I would like to note at this point that they have addressed the issue. As for what the prior discussions that are being referred to is, searching for the colors green and purple did provide a few results. The topics called "GG Branding" in Archive 12, "What the hell?" in Archive 13, and "Move "Vivian James" character image from The Fine Young Capitalists to this page? in Archive 13" seem to be the relevant discussions to the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom Question: I thought the Draft page was set up for BOLD test editing to try and move the logjam while the article is locked down? I can see how BLP edits there would be sanctionable, or bulloxing in the discussions about the draft, but I am not seeing either one of those by Tarc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) [19] the only discussion of "sodomy" appears to be in the current discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 22 November 2014 (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. In a recent edit summary, User:Tutelary stated (while reverting Aquilion and restoring the word sodomy) "This was discussed a while back in the archives, this was the result of said compromise. I endorse it and I dissent against your revert of such". Can anybody link to the 'discussion a while back in the archives' about rape versus sodomy? EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) In my opinion, for this to be actionable, we'd have to demonstrate that a consensus was established through a previous discussion and Tarc either refused to engage in that discussion or will not respect the consensus that emerged from it. As EdJohnston asked, where is this discussion? If there is no discussion, then everyone on both sides should be trouted and sent back to the talk page to start one. Also, if I am reading the complaint correctly, it seems to be a dispute over the terms "rape" versus "sodomy", but the sources cited feature the former word prominently in either the title or the lead. There cannot be a consensus to rewrite reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510

User topic banned for ninety days by Future Perfect at Sunrise. 21:58, 22 November 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 User who is submitting this request for enforcement PearlSt82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 Long WP:NOTFORUM screed 2 More WP:NOTFORUM stuff not based in RS 3 Comparing RS-based arguments to holocaust deniers 4 Comparing arguments to Obama birthers Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 1 User previously warned with no action If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Notification Additional comments by editor filing complaint Shortly after a request for sanctions was closed with no action resulting in a warning not to continue FORUM type behaviours, DungeonSiegeAddict510 has continued posting long rants not related to improving the article on the talk page and compared other editors and RS-based discussion to Obama birthers and holocaust deniers. This kind of battleground mentality is only causing disruption, and DungeonSiegeAddict510 does not appear to be able to contribute productively to this topic. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 I like to illustrate my points with things that would make an impact. If you are going to tone police me for trying to make as much of a point as possible, how am I to argue. Also, the filer fails to note that the POV pushers have also used the birther comparison. Nice double standards you got here Wikipedia. And, is being skeptical make me some evil misogynerd? It's already insulting that I get doxxed for trying to make the article neutral. --DSA510 Pls No H8 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC) @Arcoterion: am I not allowed to find the absurd humorous? I never knew Wikipedia was this draconian. --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway On visiting Talk:Gamergate controversy today I found that DungeonSiegeAddict510 had made 8 of the 14 edits to that page since midnight, and is mostly discussing Gamergate in violation of WP:FORUM, that is, without offering reliably sourced information or proposing actionable changes to the article. This editor is effectively turning the talk page into a forum for advocacy. In the circumstances and given the tone of the comments, there is also a WP:BATTLEGROUND violation. 14:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Thargor Orlando Contrary to the belief above, the question raised is not forum-like, but is actually exploring an aspect of the topic and seeking sources for inclusion. The continued removal of the information by Tony Sidaway and User:MarkBernstein is inappropriate and bordering on disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) As an added note, the discussion about finding sources was now hatted by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, helping establish the idea that discussion that might be unflattering to a specific side of the greater topic not be discussed. This is a common problem on this article that should be recognized regardless of where one sits on the topic as an issue. Contrary to what User:MarkBernstein has posted, I have no opinion, declared or otherwise, on the topic itself, but would rather prefer the article be edited neutrally and properly and without the battleground mentality displayed here. Coupling me in with topics I have had no input in (such as the 4chan image topic linked) only serves to paint editors with an inappropriate brush, and it makes me wonder when, if ever, the boomerang will hit. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Avono I thought It was made clear in the previous enforcement that the forum violations were not actionable. This is unconstructive drama around a legitimate question if RS were available. Involved parties should be warned that this is not a battlefield and trouted Avono (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: This enforment is about DungeonSiegeAddict510 and not about the 4chan Image. Maybe you should be aware with what you are dealing with before making further contributions to this topic. That discussion had to be taken place in order for us to be impartial (referring to the image). Avono (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein Thargor Orlando defends a long and speculative rant concerning the possibility -- raised on Twitter last night by a single individual -- that he might someday file a lawsuit on behalf of a client against a scholarly organization that linked to a well-known Twitter blacklist. No lawsuit has been filed, nor has any WP:RS covered the matter; as the threat was issued by one individual in the middle of the night, the absence of reliable coverage is not surprising. Allies of the person threatening the lawsuit and supporting Gamergate have, however, found time to broadcast twitter pictures of the dead sister of the (female) developer responsible. But DSA and Thargor Orlando want to us be sure to strain every nerve so that, should an arguably WP:RS appear, Wikipedia can use it to exonerate Gamergate. (If it does not exonerate Gamergate, the record makes clear, Thargor Orlando, DSA, and User:Masem will strain every nerve to soften the language: see [[20]], yesterday’s extraordinary discussion in which User:Masem claims no static image can really depict rape, Tutelary again proposes we use "sodomy" as a milder euphemism for "rape", and DSA argues that Boing Boing and Fair Company cannot possibly mean what they say because that would be making windows into men’s souls, or something. MarkBernstein (talk) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof That is correct, I hatted a discussion which was clearly going nowhere due to its admitted lack of anything remotely resembling a reliable source. I myself have had discussions that I launched hatted — correctly — because of a lack of reliable sources. The solution is to... wait for it... reopen the discussion when and if a reliable source covers the issue. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox for DSA510's opinions nor a forum for them to initiate free-form discussion of an issue. When and if reliable sources (or even arguable sources) discuss the issue, it's not difficult to start a discussion which can actually go somewhere. There is no reason for an already-heated talk page to host discussions that can generate nothing more than heat without even a glimmer of light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Alanscottwalker User unable to "stay neutral" - [21] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom Contrary to Avono's interpretation that previous decisions had indicated that FORUM violations are not covered under the sanctions, the previous result actually was " Comment While I've noted a tendency to soapbox or digress by DungeonSiegeAddict510, I regard much of what's been posted as either stale or below the threshold at which sanctions might be imposed, and I'm very reluctant to act on the basis of a report from an IP with little in the way of involvement in the topic, given the level of off-wiki activity. I advise DungeonSiegeAddict510 to be careful about soapboxing and against speculation that might be misconstrued [18]. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Agree with Acroterion. Though it is hard to see DungeonSiegeAddict510 as making valuable contributions to this topic area, there is no obvious smoking gun. When an IP with no record makes the complaint, you can't rule out that it's actually a participant in the dispute who is trying to avoid scrutiny. I would close this with no action except the warning suggested in Acroterion's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC) " (emph added) For the "forum-like" behaviors to continue after such advice/warning are an indication of a continuing problem that will at some point need to be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. @DungeonSiegeAddict510: in your statement could you link to what do you feel is a positive contribution or suggestion for an edit or article improvement that you have made on the talk page? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC) As pointed out by TRPOD above, I specifically cautioned against digressions and soapboxing - in other words, forum postings. I will not act at the moment: I will be away for several hours and will review when I have some time to respond appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) In passing, I saw that DSA posted this [22] at Two Tune (talk · contribs)'s talkpage on 11/13 in response to this [23] edit by Two Tune. I have imposed a 90-day topic ban on Two Tune for that edit and for BLP violations at Talk:Zoe Quinn. DSA's endorsement of the edit doesn't help his case.Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) DungeoSiegeAddict510's response to Gamaliel's question isnt' very persuasive. He is accused of engaging in WP:FORUM posting. The best way to answer that is to show how your post will lead to actual improvement to the article. You should propose article changes or offer new reliable sources. Reporting a tweet by Mike Cernovich is unlikely to help the rest of us and risks wasting the time of regular editors. I think we should be considering a 90-day topic ban for DSA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed. When the only response to asking about positive contributions is an attempt to "work the refs", it seems to only bolster the case that this user is not a positive presence. The two links posted by Acroterion are particularly troubling. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Here too. And since he's disrupting a thread again right now, I'm imposing this topic ban this moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban?

Editor warned. Appeals must be done at WP:AN. Comments at other talk pages could be considered a topic ban violation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[[24]]: DSA apparently working with other pro-GG editors to source materials. At least has the appearance of topic-ban evasion; given extensive offsite collaboration and efficient tag-teaming in today's edit wars, leaves a poor taste. Ive no idea how or whether this ought to be reported; please reformat or adjust or toss as you see best. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) ?????? "Both names work". What offsite collab, and what tagteaming? --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) And [[25]], though the latter can be seen as an informal appeal, my understanding is that topic-ban appeals should be conducted in a specific place and format. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Not my problem if I don't find this little kangaroo court untrustworthy. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC) And at Jimbo’s page [[26]], apparently something to do with a prominent right-wing Gamergate Supporter. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC) It says at WP:GS/GG: "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard." Presumably DSA should take his appeal to WP:AN. If instead he just goes around to complain at various user talk pages it could be considered a topic ban violation. Do it right or don't do it at all. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

DungeonSiegeAddict510

No action. Resumption of this behaviour may result in a block. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 24 November 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kangaroo_Courts - With Great Sound and Fury, DSA510 makes unfounded accusations at AN/I in a poorly construed attempt to overturn a previous GS/GG sanction while at the same time making some very serious accusations of corruption in the Wikipedia corps [27] - At the ArbCom case request page, DSA makes further accusations of being Doxxed and being conspired against. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [28] - topic-banned from all edits and all discussions related to the Gamergate controversy for a period of 90 days notified of GS applicability Additional comments by editor filing complaint The conduct of DSA510 has not improved since the 90 day topic ban has been enacted upon them, but instead has escalated. The user requested a week block, but the serious accusations that lead to a near fatal WP:BOOMERANG at AN/I indicates that the user is so wound up in the GamerGate topic area that they've become a Single Purpose account for righting great wrongs with respect to the topic. I suggest a co-terminal block (20 Feburary 2015) to encourage the user to take some time off and re-evaluate their purpose for editing wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [29] Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510 Statement by Tutelary Cool down blocks are not permitted. This request also seems to be more punitive rather than preventative. The user has withdrawn such an action at WP:ANI, apologized for it, and requested themselves a week block (which wasn't given) to take time off. I don't see what disruption this would prevent. I encourage them to look at wikibreak enforcer rather than blocking, but otherwise, I don't see anything actionable here. Hasteur, also note that no one can 'become' an SPA. You're either one, or you're not. And with the ArbCom case thing, administrators have deliberately declined to enforce a topic ban there because that's ArbCom's authority there. Other topic banned editors were allowed to post and add their statement for ArbCom. I see no reason to single out DSA here. Tutelary (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hasteur @Tutelary: Responding in order to your absurdities Blocking an editor to prevent further disruption of AN/I and the ArbCom request page is not punative, but preventative of causing more drama in an already drama filled subject. DSA510 was given a topic ban against all edits and discussions related to the subject for a period of 90 days. Assuming good faith that their abortive attempt an AN/I was trying to appeal the sanctions, their further landing on the ArbCom request page with the exact same claims (that they later retracted on AN/I) shows that they're unable to follow the topic ban, therefore the ban must be enforced with a block. I long suspected that DSA510 was a SPA, however per Assuming Good Faith, I did not voice my suspicions previously. DSA was acting as a coordinator for the external communities only to go off the deep end and assert that they were doxxed too (just as the opponents of the GG movement were). That burned the last shreds of good faith I had, so it was come down to me asking for them to be blocked. It's clear that the Clerks and arbitrators are asleep at the switch, but that does not excuse DSA's behavior with respect to willfully violating the terms of his topic ban in open discussion to stir the drama pot more for the express purpose of getting an ArbCom case. For these reasons, blocking DSA is preventing them from disrupting wikipedia further and not punishing him for statements he's made. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. A thread about this was at WP:ANI#Kangaroo Courts. It was closed on 23 November by User:Ricky81682 as "The claims have been withdrawn". That ought to be enough for now. Thanks to his colorful remarks DSA has recently got a lot of admin attention. If he makes any further posts about Gamergate that contravene his ban a new request at this board may not be needed. It's my guess that admins will reason with him directly. In my opinion this can be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I agree. If the behavior resumes, then appropriate action will be taken. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: 8chan, DungeonSiegeAddict510 and Loganmac

This is not the place for this. This page is for requests for enforcement of the GS/GG sanctions only, not for threaded discussion. If one wants to submit a request, follow the procedure. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I moved this here because this is unrelated to Masem's case where it was originally posted. starship.paint ~ regal 04:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I disagree and this was not my choice of title, but I have more urgent things to do. obviously. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry. You can change the title when you are more free. Stay safe. starship.paint ~ regal 04:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein (placed here because I'm in a hurry: may need to call police right now. Refactor as needed) Just received 8chan thread from one of the GamerGate victims of planning for Arbcom proceeding in which I appear to be a target for retribution -- of what 'precise nature is not immediately clear. [30]. I have an archive in case it's sanitized, and have sent excerpts to Arbcom. Cursory examination indicate that at least two three participants in this discussion are reporting its success to 8chan and planning further triumphs, to with "Logan" and "DSA". I'm not accustomed to being targeted in this way; excuse the lack of decorum. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion Reading through the posts by "Logan" (ID: 89d6e6) and "DSA" (ID: 9886fc) - seems to me that it's highly likely they are indeed the editors on Wikipedia. But "Logan" and "DSA" don't seem to be conspiring to do anything. DSA: I just decided to swing by here today to see what you guys are like ... I could work on the [gamergate] wikia, but due to the doxxing I won't. I'll be editing KDE articles ... The one post by "Logan" is equally harmless. starship.paint ~ regal 04:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Is there a request here, or is this just an off-topic, misplaced set of comments that needs to be hatted? Not to give any leading questions, but...Dreadstar ☥ 04:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I didn't put it here. hat away; if something bad happens, maybe you'll read it then. I'm done with wikipedia. Checking if I need police. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry you're being threatened, but unless there are threats on Wikipedia, there's nothing I can do about it here. If you're being threatened on Wikipedia, then yeah, I'm right there. I was asking Starship Paint too, is there an actual, potentially actionable request here? . Dreadstar ☥ 05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think there's anything actionable. I just moved the post. starship.paint ~ regal 05:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Second edit conflict. :: you might conceivably want to know about the collusion, since I'm accused above of having invented it. I posted this as an extension of my statement; starship moved it here. Oh, and if something does happen -- unlikely as that is -- maybe you'd be interested, but other than that, I WAS here from 1987 (yep, that's right) to build an encyclopedia, but mark me wp:NOTHERE. (Sorry if I got the indent wrong or starship put this in the wrong place or if I don't remember the right acronym right now. (What's WRONG with you people?)MarkBernstein (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)≤ How can you have been here from 1987 when Wikipedia did not exist until over ten years later?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC) because some people built hypertext in order to make wikis possible. We talked about stuff like this at ACM ht 87, though we didn't forsee the disaster it's become. MarkBernstein (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Hmmm, I think accusing other editors of being part of plans to rape and beat people without a scintilla of evidence is hardly making things better. Do you really find it that shocking people would say mean things about you in response?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to involved editors closing/hatting discussions

Would hatting sections by clearly involved editors, such as this one [31], be appropriate? I'd have no problem if one called to ask an uninvolved admin to close it out, but when the user is involved and consensus is still developing, that's not helpful. (There will be obvious IAR cases to close discussions, but this is not such a case IMO). It would be helpful to establish if such closures should be left to uninvolved admins in requests on this page. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this needs to be settled. It's not only that thread, but see the two directly above it closed as WP:FORUM? They were actually deleted by an involved editor [32] and [33], before being restored by yet another editor as closed topics [34]. I really don't think involved editors should be doing this, it's stifling discussion, preventing improvements and favouring the status quo of the article. starship.paint ~ regal 23:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The reason that I closed them was because I disagree with deleting the edits and believed that the other editor should have closed them if they felt that it was a violation instead of taking action to removing them permanently and preventing them from being archived. I feel that hatting should be used as little as possible, but I do not believe that both sections and the edits in them be completely removed in the way that they were in this case. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: - Frankly, your edit was a net positive, thanks for restoring the comments to the page. The previous edit which deleted the comments was the more serious edit I was targeting. starship.paint ~ regal 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem

No action against Masem. The submitter, Mark Bernstein, is indefinitely banned from the topic of Gamergate by User:Gamaliel. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Masem User who is submitting this request for enforcement MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=634848471 Masem: “one static image cannot readily imply rape” and argues we must not follow the sources in this. In the context of a controversy over anonymous rape threats being sent to female software developers in order to persuade them to leave the field, this is clearly against policy though I'm uncertain precisely which policy forbids editors and administrators from edits that would bring scorn and ridicule upon the project. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=635058861&oldid=635058803 Regarding discussion of the sex life of one of the female software developers who received threats, at AN/I Masem writes that "You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time." https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=635088283&oldid=635082662 Later, he writes that “we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way...” (emphasis mine) This regards a protracted edit war on the talk page over whether the discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life, which Masem had argued was indispensable, could be hatted. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=634978574&oldid=634978105 In the discussion to which the AN/I comments above refers, editors had (moments after page protection ended) changed the heading "False Allegations Against Zoe Quinn" to remove "False". Masem wrote: "No, the claims, while based on weak evidence, has some foundation. But the claims have certainly be "refuted" by and large - the claims were made but the press has considered what the involved parties have said to be truthful so the claims were refuted." This claim is unsupported by any reliable source. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any none known -- I don’t have any idea how to find these. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) notified Additional comments by editor filing complaint I submit this with a heavy heart and scant hope. I undertook to edit GamerGate reluctantly, having been scarred by Jews and Communism, but felt it was a necessary responsibility to my colleagues who were receiving threats of assault, rape, and murder in order to convince them to leave their profession. We’ve had endless hours of inquiry into the sex lives of blameless software developers, and Wikipedia is being used here to rehash every iota of scandal and insinuation. Here, we have insinuations that there are more scandals and insinuations to come (but Masem can’t tell us what). In conclusion: please review the talk page for the past 72 hours. User:Masem has been instrumental in leading this discussion and in insisting that it drag on and on, as well as in his WP:FRINGE theories that sending rape imagery to women who are receiving threats is somehow better if it's a joke or if the image might concern anal rather than vaginal penetration. That this discussion should be required here is shameful, and after a long night’s thought I conclude that, while I am far from the ideal person to file this complaint, I cannot say I fear any WP:BOOMERANG: if this sort of talk page discussion is what Wikipedia wants, then the heavier your censure the better I shall be pleased. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Program Chair ACM Hypertext 97, ACM Hypertext 98, ACM Wikisym '08, ACM Web Science '13. As the question of "righting great wrongs" has been raised, perhaps I might be indulged with an opportunity to explain the wrongs that, in my view, ought to be righted, on User:MarkBernstein. Discussion concerning Masem 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 Masem There is nothing at all actionable against the sanctions here. There may be statements MB doesn't like, but that's not anything under sanctions or that we would censor or block per BLP. On the 4chan image: There was an ongoing edit war of how to describe the 4chan image, but no one was discussing it on the talk page. I took initiate to open it. Now, you can agree or disagree about my statement, but that's the whole point of discussion to establish what the proper wording should be. So unactionable (and actually needed to be done to stop the edit war and get a consensus on the matter). On other allegations: There are allegations that the proGG have made that I am aware exist that when proGGs talk about this WP article, they are concerned this article doesn't reflect those. These are not allegations I have about her, nor do I believe any of the proGG allegations. There are no sources to even include those, much less talk about the details, but knowing they exist without making any claims is absolutely not a BLP violation. In fact we have to be aware what other articles - if they become targets of offsite editing pushes, need to be watched due to these allegations. In addition, we have to discuss in the article, and how to present it, the core allegation that launched the GG "movement", and the series of attacks. It is not a BLP violation to discuss this and how to word it properly given that every mainstream source on GG has discussed the basic accusation, naming all parties involved. It very much helps that there is general full agreement in the press that the accusation is refuted. BLP does not prevent talking about accussations, but requires that the best possible sourcing must be in place to avoid any implications created by WP or weak RSes, and that's exactly the case here. Again, we're supposed to be working to develop consensus instead of edit warring the page or the draft. There is nothing actionable here on Mark's claims. On the other hand, Mark's claim that I'm coordinating a brigade of offsite proGG editors [35] without any evidence (among other statements made as well as twisting/misquoting me) is definitely a personal attack against me --MASEM (t) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC) To add to these, Mark has engaged in off-wiki personal attacks against me: [36] [37]. (I strongly contest the idea I'm a "rape apologist". I'm trying to keep WP's voice neutral, neither sympathetic nor critical; I'm just as upset as most about the harassment aspects, but that is something we can't write to in WP's voice). --MASEM (t) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) BTW: Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We are supposed to be neutral, meaning we're not supposed to be taking a side. Trying to use the GG article as a platform to support that were harassed and condemn those that did it is absolutely the wrong use of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC) (replies moved to User:Masem/GGGS to stay w/in 500 words, not critical to above statement) Statement by Thargor Orlando Please boomerang this onto MarkBernstein. With DSA topic banned, MB is the only person left with significantly bad behavior at and surrounding the GamerGate article, as opposed to Masem's reasonable (albeit line-toeing at times) comments that took care to discuss the topic appropriately. Compare Masen's edits to MarkBernstein's, who dove right in with repeatedly mentioning specific allegations he also considers a BLP violation ([38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]) and attacks on myself ([47][48]) Masem ([49][50][51][52]), and others/in general ([53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]) with no basis in fact (such as claiming editors are "pro-GG" or anything similar). For someone so concerned with BLP, his willingness to misrepresent a notable living person as "right wing" in a pejorative manner ([62]) goes part and parcel with how he's treating editors he disagrees with. If the sanctions are truly for everybody, MarkBernstein needed a topic ban 24 hours ago. He clearly cannot edit the article within the parameters of BLP or civility due to the emotional investment he declares ([63][64]). It's long overdue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Regarding User:Aprock's misleading claim, the discussion resulted in my point of view being explicitly clear. I don't want to believe this (or this or this) were left out by Aprock on purpose. Yes, I believe an article should reflect what is actually going on. If that's a crime, this article is even further beyond hope than I thought. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Gamaliel: you say you're concerned about that edit, and you fail to explain why, unless you're arguing that we should assert evidenceless-claims without question. Regardless, an examination of the thread figured out the problem between the claim that is disproven and the claims that are simply unfounded, and was resolved here, and the article conflates the two for reasons I don't care to speculate on. I am still troubled by the comparative lack of attention to MarkBernstein's edits, of which there are literally dozens of problems. It would be good to see some resolution on that, as this has gone far too long without being addressed, a simple warning implies he would be unaware of what's going on here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: this is "running out of steam" because many of us are waiting to see when the sanctions are going to be used on the bad behavior of those that have been detailed here. User:MarkBernstein might say he's no longer contributing, but that doesn't seem to be true given his actions of the last 12+ hours in telling others how an off-site group is looking to "deploy" certain editors, which certainly isn't true for me at least. Again, I ask you how much more of this we should be tolerating. These sanctions have been enacted on users for much less, but somehow Mark should be immune to them why? You don't have to do the digging, we've done it for you. Please act. Please show that the sanctions are for everyone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Gamaliel: allow me to be frank. MarkBernstein is guilty of multiple things here: 1) continually, explicitly raising a BLP situation in plain text repeatedly and in multiple places even as others trying to discuss how to properly include (if at all) within the article do not mention them explicitly in order to keep BLP in mind. ArmyLine was topic-banned for discussion of "observations on the subject's sexual behavior", exactly the same thing MarkBernstein was doing with different language. 2) Consistent, multiple, unfounded personal attacks on multiple editors (something you have issued topic bans on before. 3) Creating a battleground mentality with his screeds about rape victims and the like (a key similarity to the rants that resulted in the proper topic ban of DSA here). I haven't even raised the fact that he petitioned on Twitter for help, the same type of behavior that brought the general sanctions into play to begin with on the other side. If MarkBernstein was arguing on the opposite side of this topic, he would have been topic banned, if not blocked outright, days ago. That there's still any question is why so many of us are puzzled and why we're convinced that the sanctions, as speculated, were only for one side of the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Avono This is a frivolous request as There was never a discussion about Zoe Quinns sex life taking place, we were discussing the fact that she had a friendship with Zoe Quinn which was confirmed by Reliable Sources, Hell even Quinn herself admits in a Tweet that Grayson was a beta tester on Depression Quest. The discussion about the 4chan Image had to be taken place because of a previous edit war that was discussed in this enforcement page (are we really having the discussion that a set of colours can represent rape?). MarkBernstein was warned by Multiple Users to stop making personal attacks [65][66] and continued to make unfounded accusations of Canvassing[67][68]. I request That this enforcement is to be boomeranged onto MarkBernstein because this was a bad faith request (he has also baited numerous Users me and Tutelary to make an enforcement request on him [69],[70]) Avono (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Apparently that was me, but only because I failed to consult the Archives before making that edit; Yes I should be trouted about that, but that is not enough to assume I maliciously did it. I will happily in the future consult the talk page first, but that is sadly pointless now as It was completely locked down again. Avono (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I already explained why I did the "Unproven" edit here [71] and as I previously said I will consult the Archives first in the future before making any edits to the mainspace article. Avono (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tutelary I don't see any violation of the remedies here. MarkBernstein seems to be trying to say that Masem arguing against his points is therefore a violation of the sanctions. MarkBerstein's hands are also not clean, as evident by all of the diffs of baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims of others culminating off site. A boomerang would be appropriate, in this instance. Masem's edits do not violate any of the remedies. You can also see in his own reply and other diffs that MarkBernstein clearly cannot be neutral in this conflict and is in effect advocating for the accused, something he has stated incessantly. This is incompatible with WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION. Tutelary (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Since they've asked for diffs, here: Making allegations that other editors are colluding off site on the talk page for gamergate Soapboxing and general ranting on the Gamergate talk page, with no discussion of content in site Starts off about content, but comments about others and more soapboxing Poking fun at a topic banned editor and inappropriate hyperbole about Terrorists on the gamergate talk page Making unsubstanciated claims about the administrator Masem User making allegations that Masem is coordinating off site with 8chan with no proof A ranty speal on the talk page with nothing to do with content Deleting an already hatted section, a violation of WP:TPO Tutelary (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Plainly making a point on his username page insinuating about this dispute When asked on whether proof of those editors were seriously on 8chan, made inappropriate hyperbole relaying to dead bodies and his wife. (Diff added 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)) Tutelary (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Addendum MarkBernstein also has a website, which has linked from his userspace. It's revelations are astounding, ranting about the administrator Masem, having emotional appeals and support of the people involved in GamerGate, the whole lot. The fact that he filed this report trying to get Masem sanctioned correlates with his comments on his website and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Link: http://www.markbernstein.org/ Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway This request has the makings of a case for soapboxing on BLP matters, though I'm not sure Masem is the worst offender. The message here is that the talk page and all related discussions need to be watched. This article should not be difficult to edit because there are many reliable sources. Editors who want instead to dredge up long-settled BLP matters in this way should be gently (or not so gently) dissuaded. --TS 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Ed Johnson asks for clarification, I offer this reopening of a long settled BLP discussion in which the irrelevant matter of somebody's private life is openly discussed on the talk page. The editors involved are Avono, Thargor Orlando and Masem. That link is an on-page snapshot and it's been hatted. If you want diffs, they are as follows: Avono, Thargor Orlando, and Masem. This is the start of a pointless barrage of BLP-sensitive discussion from mostly unreliable sources. It's difficult to see how anyone would want to reopen this discussion which was long ago settled by reliable sources, now reflected in the article, declaring the allegations of journalistic corruption involving the principals false. Assuming good faith (and I see no reason to doubt this), these editors seem to need some guidance in appropriate editing on an issue of public interest where the privacy of individuals is also a priority. The main problem here, though, is soapboxing. The reliable sources settled this weeks ago so delving into people's private affairs in search of material to write about in the article, or merely for gossip, is terribly inappropriate and suggestive, I hate to say, of carelessness. --TS 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Statement re Masem by TheRedPenOfDoom The pretty version of this with excerpted quotes is [72] trimming to the 500 words will leave just diffs and interpretations Masem's relentless push to implement some bizarre application of NPOV is probably deserving of review. We can start with his initiation of the RfC "Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? " speaks for itself. In this section [73] particularly starting with his comment about the sources : "[74]" In Masem's comment and the discussion that follows he is pushing the idea the the passing comment about GG must be given the same weight as all the other content about GG that the sources provide. [75] Masem is again insisting that we do not follow the sources and give excessive weight to a portion of the GG. also from another reply in the same post [76] --MASEM asserts that we cannot follow the mainstream sources because it is "bias" [77] more assertions that the mainstream media are bias and so we cannot their overwhelming conclusions and must give specific voices under GG more value. then there is this section [78] in which he repeatedly argues that we cannot put the mainstream interpretation first because somehow that will "bias" against the GG's claims. "[79] one of the many NPOV discussion sections [80] ". again, Masem never specifying where any "impartial " language in the presentation actually is, merely that it somehow exists by following the sources. after presenting a proposal for re-phrasing the lead [81] --MASEM presents his proposal for the lead to which TaraInDC appropriately responds "Your proposed lead para is distinctly parial (sic) in that it gives undue weight to an aspect of the 'controversy' that has essentially no reliable sources.... -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) " then here [82] "... because regardless of what RS say about the nature of the movement,... an explicit directive to edit the article contrary to what the reliable sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Masem: while edit warring to insert bizzaroworld interpretations of policy would have been worse, the tendentious editing to push a version where where we discard the WP:RS and actively subvert WP:NPOV#UNDUE to "give an 'impartial' view for GG" is " repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Masem: that there are multiple users spewing the "per Masem" spin on your upside down view of RS and UNDUE is perhaps less a sign of your non-disruption and more a sign that you are leading and stirring up disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Masem: To claim that you are not pushing a "well the reliable sources x but we should say y" is belied by your numerous postings pushing exactly that logic - as per your RfC for one: "Technically this all fits within our sourcing and content policies, but there's something wrong when it can be argued "well, there's no proGG sources, but there's plenty of antiGG sources, so lets keep adding those"... I have tried to point out that we should be clinically/detached neutral, which means we should not be repeating the praising that the antiGG side and berating the proGG side. "] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement Pudeo Nothing wrong done by Masem. I agree with other editors who think this could boomerang onto MarkBernstein. It seems he's here only to participate in drama and culture wars. His user page is a personal essay how Wikipedia is doomed to end (The Coming End Of Wikipedia). That is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and definitely not a helpful participant in sections related Gamergate sanctions either.--Pudeo' 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Starship.paint This is the first statement. The update is at the bottom. So MarkBernstein wants Masem banned for ... civilly discussing and presenting arguments on the talk page? Regarding MarkBernstein's first diff, Masem was arguing to use "rape joke", which was what the sources present. (1) Regarding MarkBernstein's fourth diff, Masem is right to say that the claims against Zoe Quinn have "some foundation", from the GamerGate article itself, Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship the source - Quinn was claimed to have a relationship with a games journalist and that claim is true. I'd just like to make known that MarkBernstein might be too close in real life to targets of GamerGate, this might influence his editing here. He twice admits that it his colleagues have faced threats of rape from GamerGate, with [3] being more explicit. (2 and 3). I think this has led MarkBernstein getting too emotional - he freely admits he is getting angry. (4 and 5). Perhaps this anger has led to MarkBernstein openly accusing editors of collusion (implied to be with outside forces), serious allegations indeed. Here he claims that Masem was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned. (6) Here he starts attacking editors who have not even participated in the discussion yet - Next, the three remaining un-topic-banned editors and their admin will arrive (7) Later, he essentially accuses me of being a meatpuppet commanded by offsite coordinations. really interesting that starship shows up a few minutes after another user, one who makes the same arguments in the same tone, is topic-banned ... we all know they've been coordinating offsite - (8) These personal attacks on editors' integrity without any proof should cease and be retracted immediately. starship.paint ~ regal 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Update. @EdJohnston: and @Gamaliel: - have you read this - accusation of Thargor Orlando being deployed by 8chan, without explicit evidence? starship.paint ~ regal 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Protonk Posts about the "journalism pov" causing systemic bias in sourcing against GG:"They are part of the media so they are going to be reporting this from the journalism POV", including "The higher quality RS are far less biased because of their separation from the video game sector but they still have some because GG, broadly, is questioning journalism..." The full quote notes that this is marginal on sources like NYT, but everyone is indicted at least a little. This 11 November ANI discussion includes a back and forth between Masem and several involved and uninvolved editors as they try to explain masem's strained application of FRINGE. A 15 November Essentially a push to write the article from a fringe perspective All of this is after a long running RFC Masem started regarding "bias" arising from reliable sources agreeing. Masem is a prolific editor and has contributed to many talk page discussions about GG. I could find a half dozen diffs like this tomorrow, and the day after that. In almost all cases (save for a recent period when they admitted "but ethics" was a fringe view, a position which has since changed I believe) the push will be the same, even if the content under discussion is different. Some of this is legitimately a content dispute, but it trends away from that when an editor has been strenuously arguing for weeks to effectively invert FRINGE on a particular article. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: The problem is this isn't acute. We could go back 30 days or 45 and find the same issues: Masem pushing a peculiar form of NPOV which validates GG's FRINGE justification for the movement. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Cobbsaladin Articles should be dispassionate presentations of fact. The Gamergate article is anything but[83]. Masem appears to be one of the few editors striving for neutrality. Further, he's maintained patience and civility throughout. He's an exemplary editor who's done nothing to warrant sanctions. Cobbsaladin (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate Personally, I have found Masem to sometimes make bad arguments, but the one thing I have found is that he makes them on both ends. He does at least try to be neutral and takes fair consideration of the concerns of both side, even if his arguments and conclusions are not often very good. Basically, he is trying to be me and is failing at it. You are not me, Masem. There can be only one. In summation, 7/10 would not topic-ban. The fact Mark, Red, and Protonk, apparently want to ban one of the more neutral editors on this issue should tell you something about them, rather than Masem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston, Avono did not in fact make the original change to the heading. That was Tellstar in this edit and a subsequent edit. While the first was sloppy and disruptive, I don't think sanctions against Tellstar would be appropriate given the editor made exactly two edits to the article before any notification was given and none afterwards. From my perspective, any qualifier in the heading is inappropriate because the allegations go beyond just the idea of Grayson writing a review for Quinn. This is alluded to in the section, but efforts to elaborate on some of those other allegations based on coverage in reliable sources have met with significant resistance. Either way, the statement in the heading should be taken as referring to all the allegations, rather than just the one that has been proven false. In that respect it actually is not in compliance with NPOV to have such qualifiers in the heading.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @North, the whole quote from that source: A jilted ex-boyfriend of hers posted a nearly-10,000-word screed that accused her of sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false, set off a wave of outrage that eventually escalated into a campaign against all the designers and critics who have argued for making gaming culture more inclusive. First of all, The New York Times piece makes the demonstrably false claim that the allegation of "sex for reviews" came from Gjoni, when that is not the case. Other sources do get that point correct, but this one does not so it is already a cause for concern about this specific piece. Secondly, and more importantly, the quote above does not in any way contradict what I just said. The claim that is noted as false in The New York Times is the claim of Grayson giving her positive reviews. As I said above, that is the false allegation. Other allegations have not been found false either because they are actually accurate or because no one has bothered to investigate them. The heading does not accurately reflect this fact.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC) North, what you are saying is simply wrong.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Other allegations have been covered in reliable sources, just not as much.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Aprock Reviewing the hatt'd section, it's not the behavior of Masem that stands out, but rather the behavior of Thargor Orlando, who argues ad nauseum that wikipedia use the unsourced phrasing "unfounded" to describe the false alegations: Unless I'm missing something in the sources, isn't the accurate description of the claim "unfounded?" That's why "unfounded" appears to be a better word So there isn't anything proving or disproving the allegations, thus they're unfounded I think, given what is known, that "unfounded" is what we should be using. thus "unfounded" seems fair so this accusation also appears unfounded. The reliable sources call the accusations false, yes. No one is disputing that. The question is how we, as a project, should refer to them in Wikipedia's voice given the evidence of the claim. Thus the option to use "unfounded,": This example (emphasis added) is a particularly egregious diff, with Thargor Orlando acknowledging that the reliable sources characterize the accusations but false, but wikipedia should use unfounded instead. there does not seem to be any other word (... than unfounded ...) that responsibly defines the situation described This tendentious editing against sources over a single word, to transmogrify "false" into "unfounded", speaks to a spectacular zeal for introducing distortion into the article. aprock (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Halfhat On the subject of righting great wrongs. You seemed to have missed the point of the policy entirely, I ask you step away from the article voluntarily, because that is not why you should be here. It's just as problematic as if a Pro-GG editor came here because they thought Kotaku acted wrongly. HalfHat 09:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I simply wanted to make a point about WP:Policy. HalfHat 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher Haven't been paying much attention to this article at all lately but from what I can gather this really needs to boomerang. The sort of comments Mark is making about other editors are unacceptable. [84] Bosstopher (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Mark has since shown no concern for the harm his accusations could pose to other editors. Bosstopher (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof @EdJohnston:, there was never any consensus to change the word "False" to begin with —neither "unproven" nor "unfounded" correctly sum up the conclusions of reliable sources, which effectively unanimously declare them to be factually false. First Tellstar edit-warred the word out as soon as the protection was lifted, then Avono joined in. No attempt was made to discuss this major change until after the edit war was commenced, wherein Avono demanded that his radical shift in the tone of the heading be treated as the default. The article should be administratively returned to describe the allegations against Quinn as "False" which was the longstanding consensus and status quo ante. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate's claim that there should be no qualifier in the heading is absolutely absurd. The allegations against Quinn have repeatedly been denounced as false by mainstream reliable sources, most recently by nothing less than The New York Times — [85]. Describing false allegations of wrongdoing against a person as anything but false is an unacceptable violation of the biographies of living persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Other allegations have not been found false either because they are actually accurate or because no one has bothered to investigate them. The only allegations which have been discussed in reliable sources (which means they are the only allegations we are concerned with and the only allegations which exist for our purposes) have been determined, repeatedly, to be false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate, what you are saying is simply wrong. See, I can write a declaratory sentence too. Except mine is actually true. If an "allegation" against a person is not discussed in reliable sources, then we don't care about it. It does not exist for Wikipedia's purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Bilby The first diff raised by MarkBernstein isn't actionable - Masem started a discussion as a result of an edit war which he was not party to. It is a difficult topic to discuss, but it needed to be raised, and Masem wasn't unreasonable in how he handled it. In going over the discussion, though, I am surprised to see MarkBernstein saying that Masem argued "we must not follow the sources in this". In the discussion, it is pointed out that both of the sources used employ the wording recommended by Masem. [86] In regard to the second issue - the allegations against Quinn - I disagree with Masem's conclusion, but I don't feel that he handled the issue badly. This was (once again) the basis of edit warring in the article, and it is an issue that hasn't gone away. I wish it would, but Masem was attempting to navigate a core issue without violating BLP, and as someone who has also tried to engage on the same issue, it is a tricky thing to word. I don't think that Masem needed to make reference to the other allegations - as they are never going to be in the article I'm not convinced that they need to be raised at all - but he was trying to provide context by acknowledging their existance without describing them. I don't see anything actionable there, either - just a difficult topic that I really wish we could leave behind, but is too central to the GamerGate discussion to ignore completely. Generally, Masem is trying to take a middle ground, but the difficulty with sitting in the middle is that both sides tend to view you as part of the opposition. It is a difficult topic to manage, and part of the problem is that there are so many allegations, and so many consipracy theories, that the whole thing is a BLP minefield. Masem has been in a frustrating position, and like anyone Masem may not have always used perfect wording or said the right things, but I honestly can't see anything serious enough in the diffs raised to warrant sanctions. - Bilby (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Kaciemonster I'm not sure Masem has done anything sanction-worthy, but I do have some serious concerns about how he determines that content from reliable sources should be treated in our article. When multiple sources state something that he disagrees with adding to the article, he argues that it can only be included if it's cited as the source's opinion. 25 November 2014‏ - "The problem is that while "severe" harassment can certainly be supported without quotes (we have plenty of reliable documented facts about this), "misogynistic" can't be - that's how its been characterized widely, certainly, but it's also an observation" 25 November 2014‏ - "That is the press's wide opinion, but only opinion. There is no factual evidence of what started GG." When it's something he agrees with adding, he argues that it should be included because it was written in reliable (press) sources. 25 November 2014 - "It is not appropriate to trivialize how GG is described as a movement by some high quality RS, like Time, the Age, and the Washington Post" These are just the most recent ones I've seen, and I'm sure I could find more if needed, because he's been making these arguments for a while. He's also previously said that a scientific report or a legal document is needed to cite something as fact, and the press can only be cited as opinion. 2 November 2014 - "100% wrong per NPOV. It is claimed the ethics issue is a front, but there is no fundamental statement (like a scientific report or a legal document) that supports this. As such we will continue to treat that claim as a popular opinion in the press, but absolutely not as fact." The way he treats the reliable sources is inconsistent, and depends on whether or not he agrees with the point that's being sourced. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Obsidi From what I have seen there is nothing actionable in the diffs posted of Masem's conduct. --Obsidi (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Clerk note I want to remind everyone here that statements should be limited to 500 words. This is not a place for endless bickering back and forth, but for substantive evidence. Please make sure that you adhere to the 500 word limit, if at all possible. RGloucester — ☎ 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Is it time to close this request? It seems unproductive to keep it open, as the filer has been topic banned. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Masem This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The poster of this request, User:MarkBernstein and User:Thargor Orlando have provided diffs. If the other people who have commented want to have their views taken seriously they should also provide diffs. In particular User:Avono should clarify how MB "baited numerous Users to make an enforcement request on him". It is hard to disagree with User:Tony Sidaway but your comment is too vague. Who are the editors who 'want to dredge up long-settled BLP matters'? EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC) My first pass through the diffs some things jump out at me. Many of these statements, particularly ones by User:Tutelary, User:Pudeo, User:The Devil's Advocate, and User:Halfhat, do not provide diffs or useful information and seem to only serve as a way for editors to state their opinion about which side they are on. If we are going to sort through this wall of text, we're going to need useful, actionable evidence and we will need to begin removing non-compliant statements, if only to reduce clutter. I find this statement by User:MarkBernstein absolutely appalling and will remove it and warn the user. We should discuss whether or not this deserves some sort of sanction as well. On the one hand, we certainly want to put a stop to this sort of behavior, on the other, if we go down this road, I suspect we'll have to sanction half the people on this page for uncivil behavior. I am particularly troubled by these statements by User:Masem and User:Thargor Orlando respectively which indicate a disregard for WP:RS. I'd like to hear from some other admins (such as @EdJohnston:, @Acroterion:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @Dreadstar:) about these and other matters before diving in further. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Gamaliel, thanks for your post. I haven't had time to consider the new items you mention, but here is what I concluded after seeing the complaint here and viewing the talk history. The diffs so far don’t add up to a convincing case against User:Masem. Looking at the last two talk archives, there are a number of hatted sections. Generally the hats were due to problematic posts. Tony Sidaway made reference to one of them here: “...BLP issues that are now in this hatted discussion.” When hatting the section, Tony's closure was "Highly disruptive reopening of a settled topic with strong BLP implications". The reason for opening the now-hatted discussion was presumably that User:Avono made the BLP-sensitive edit here where he changed a section header in the article from "Unfounded allegations against Quinn" to "Unproven allegations against Quinn". User:Avono opened the talk section and was joined by User:Thargor Orlando. User:Masem then explained why the claims about Quinn can be said to be ‘refuted.’ Masem made a statement at 16:51, 22 November 2014 that is hard to disagree with, about the BLP significance of having this kind of claim in the article. Now right after this, User:Gamaliel restored one week of full protection, which seems correct to me. There was enough BLP concern to justify the full protection. But in the hours before that, there was a confused sequence of events and we might be asking if what happened on the (briefly unprotected) article and on the talk page is enough reason to sanction any particular editor. In the few diffs of User:Masem that I checked, I didn’t see any problems. In fact, Masem gave some good reasons why we shouldn't be playing around with the header about the Quinn allegations: The fact the accusation has been the major point of discussion of sources - and that all key parties have clearly stated that these are not true - means that from a BLP standpoint, it is acceptable to include the high-level nature of the allegations, as long as it is 100% clear that they have been refuted by the specific parties and by the press at large. This has been determined waaaaay in the past. Now there are other claims that have come against Quinn based on Gjoni's post, but which the press have generally ignored, but we are absolutely not including those per BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) This does not raise any alarms for me. Considering the posts by all the parties we might be more concerned with the edits of User:Avono in this episode. His first edit after he merged the draft article was to change a very high-profile section header about Zoe Quinn. Can he have reasonably thought he had consensus? I'm assuming that the people named here have been around the article long enough to be aware of past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This complaint is running out of steam. User:MarkBernstein, who opened it, has been leaving messages saying he will no longer contribute to Wikipedia. I didn't find it very easy to follow Mark Bernstein's arguments, but what User:Tony Sidaway said was more clear. If the complaint won't proceed unless I or other admins do a lot of digging, nothing much is likely to happen. Viewing the talk page, you can find a lot of intemperate comments by various people but hardly ever by User:Masem, who is diplomatic. The only angle I see as having any merit is that Masem might be obstructing or slowing down a consensus that would otherwise emerge. Masem is the #2 contributor to the Talk:Gamergate controversy page with 1199 edits, second only to User:NorthBySouthBaranof with 1558 edits. If you were seeking evidence of obstruction, you would probably want to look at the wording of the RfC Masem launched on 26 October: Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage? --MASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) A first impression might be that Masem was inviting people to ignore the reliable source policy to tilt the article to be more favorable to the Gamergate movement. But it's hard to say that offering such an RfC violates any Wikipedia policy. (It's very similar to a previous RfC from September opened by Retartist). Generally it is up to the consensus of editors how RfCs ought to be worded. In my opinion, the time could have been better spent creating smaller RfCs about specific wording. For example, the section header "Unfounded allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment." Somebody could have opened an RfC to decide once and for all how to word that heading (unfounded, false or whatever) and then progress could move on. There's also a possibility that some of the article wording might have a partisan tone. Masem has pointed out that the wording of our Westboro Baptist Church article describes how various sources describe the church as a hate group but don't put that in Wikipedia's voice. If you want to pull out particular sentences for review they could be discussed in smaller RfCs. There is a huge amount of discussion here that seems inefficient, and seems not to make progress. As to whether Masem is dragging down the article by his persistence, and thus guilty of tendentious editing, I don't think there's enough evidence in this complaint to get any conclusion on that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with you Ed, I'm not seeing anything actionable regarding Masem at this point. In the various comments and in the RfC by Masem linked to above, I do see a need for Masem to review WP:NPOV and the other content-related policies; as well as gaining a greater understanding of how to phrase an WP:RFC, particularly the section WP:RFC:Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues; that particular RFC is neither neutral nor brief. Dreadstar ☥ 03:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Recent edits by User:MarkBernstein leave something to be desired. Zeal in the defence of BLP can go too far. User:Gamaliel already took note of this post which seems to accuse another Wikipedia editor of being a supporter of raping and beating women. The tone of Mark's complaint against Masem (above) is so indignant that it's hard to get a clear focus on what the problems are. What looks to be a personal attack on User:Masem, posted on MB's blog, raises questions. In a post dated 21 November and titled "You've GOT To Be Kidding" he says "...I guess you can accomplish great things with the aid of a rogue administrator", referring to Masem. I wonder if anyone can suggest proper wording for what we should say here. Mark has stated he is leaving Wikipedia but he still commented below in another thread at 05:38 on Nov. 26. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I've been giving a great deal of thought to the matter of MarkBernstein. There has been a frequently expressed opinion that the sanctions have only been imposed on one "side" of the debate, but I think that an editor thinks of himself on the same side as the flagrant BLP violators and disruptive SPAs that we have banned and not on the side of encyclopedia editors striving to write a neutral article, then that is evidence of a battleground mentality. In some cases this is a sincerely held belief, while in others it is a clear attempt to influence our decisions. Regardless, there has been so much complaining along these lines that I'm having difficulty sorting through the evidence and coming to an objective judgement. We should not sanction MarkBernstein in order to prove a point to one "side", but we shouldn't also refrain from doing so in order to spite their ill-tempered grousing either. What we should do, well, frankly I have no idea yet. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I seen no evidence to support sanctions against Masem. What I do see is a continuation of the pattern of disruptive edits by MarkBernstein; this alone is, in my view, to support a topic ban for MarkBernstein, certainly in combination with this; if this hadn't been GamerGate, where we have to discuss everything ad nauseam, I would have simply blocked them for it, for a week. Now, supposedly MarkBernstein is a "former" editor (how they claim "uninvolved" is a mystery to me), but former or not, I will block for such personal attacks and I think admins should keep a close eye on the editor and their attacks, insinuations, allegations. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I have given this matter much deliberation. My reticence comes from the fact that there has been long-term incivility on these pages and I do not want to single out one particular user for sanctions for that particular behavior. Despite the loud grousing from one "side" that they are the only ones being punished, no long term users on either "side" have been sanctioned for this type of behavior. However, this matter has dragged on long enough and the wider Wikipedia community is unhappy about what is happening with these articles. It is time to take a harder line against disruptive behavior. In my judgement, MarkBernstein's rhetoric is incompatible with collaborative editing on these articles and he has given no indication that he will moderate his behavior in this area. For that reason, I am imposing an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, on User:MarkBernstein. This ban will not forbid participation in any Arbitration Committee matters related to these articles. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Wow, that was a ton of evidence to sift through. I give particular weight to Thargor's detailed and well-supported statement. After considering my position carefully, I do think that some of Masem's comments are troubling, but I don't think they quite approach the level where cantions are necessary. I therefore trout Masem and urge him to be very, very careful to stay on the side of caution when discussing potentially BLP-sensitive information on-wiki. Mark's conduct is another issue. I've been known as a BLP hardliner, and I think Mark's unsourced allegations, particularly the ones about off-wiki coordination, to cross the line. Ever since WP:EEML, such allegations are taken extremely seriosly. If Mark has evidence of such, it should be immediately forwarded to a trusted Arbitrator or other Functionary. If he does not have evidence, he cannot say such things about another editor. For this reason, I endorse Gamaliel's above indefinite topic ban on GamerGate and related articles in all namespaces, broadly construed, with the exception of Arbitration-related matters. Hopefully it will help break the back of this dispute. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC) User:MarkBernstein has privately asked me to clarify that he had already forwarded such evidence to the committee via email prior to your comment. I can verify that this evidence was sent to and received by the Arbitration Committee as I was cc:ed on that email. I cannot discuss the contents of the email or whether or not it verifies any particular assertion, but I ask all parties to not repeat the claim that evidence was not provided. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) @Gamaliel:Thanks for noting that. However, since that evidence has not been provided publicly, it is not actionable here and the fact doesn't change that he should not be making unsourced assertions about living people, including other wikipedia editors. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary violation of ban

No action. Appealing your ban to the admin is allowed by WP:GS/GG. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request by NE Ent Ban [87], violation [88] NE Ent 19:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Tutelary This qualifies under WP:BANEX, clarifying the topic ban itself and in essence, appealing it. Additionally a necessary concern about the topic ban itself, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. It's kind of mean to take talking to the admin who imposed the ban about the topic ban as a violation of the topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by RGloucester This kind of appeal is explicitly allowed by the general sanctions. Please see WP:GS/GG#Remedies. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ivanvector The alleged diffed violation is explicitly allowed under WP:BANEX. I wonder whether the appeal discussion is genuinely constructive or simply trying to wikilawyer her way out of it, but technically neither is a violation of the ban. I suggest the allegation be retracted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning Ryulong

Admins had various opinions but it was decided to take no action against User:Ryulong. The original complaint was COI editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement Dwavenhobble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 Recently you may be Aware Ryulong was asked by Jimbo_Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to step away from the page temporarily. However as can be seen in the edit logs Ryulong has returned to editing the page again. However since during his absence he undertook discussions with members of one side of the present edit wars going on Further to this he has been in contact with the moderators of said area and is said to be actively working this them including having them promote a funding effort on his behalf. This funding effort to be precise. While Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is known as being a competent editor evidence suggests that he is no longer neutral on this topic and has received monetary compensation in kind from one side. I would suggest Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talent s be better spend on articles where there is no such conflict of interest present. References Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Official enforcement of sanctions against Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to prevent him from editing this article. Discussion concerning Ryulong 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 I edited an unofficial sandbox version of an article today (and engaged in discussion at another the other day) after I had announced I would possibly considered to have a conflict of interest after I made a donation page to help me pay back a friend I owed money to as I would not know where the money came from considering that my blog is watched by both sides of the debate (my blog is the only place I've provided a link to the donation page). The only thing I've done is break my promise to stay away from the topic area. Because adding two tags to an article, bringing up a discussion on its talk page, and discussing the article offsite are not violations of any on-site sanctions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) People here are almost exclusively using off-site evidence to show I've violated some official rule onsite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Loganmac's timeline on my behavior on 8chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is flawed. 11:03, 25 November 2014, I make the post on my user talk 11:05, 25 November 2014, first tags 11:11, 25 November 2014, talk page thread started to begin discussion on neutrality and POV 15:31, 25 November 2014, POV tag removed 17:50, 25 November 2014, notability tag removed 19:45, 25 November 2014, notability tag re-added 20:04, 25 November 2014, removed again —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Loganmac, that's directed to your audience and not yourself or Pepsiwithcoke.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Procedural note: there have been far too many pile-on "comments" by involved parties from both sides in this thread, just as in the one about Masem above. Everybody, please take note: These requests are not for voicing your opinions on each other, support or oppose each other with pile-ons, or engage in further debate between each other. Please only add a statement here if you have some substantially new, factual observations to make about the specific case at hand that are needed for the uninvolved administrators to come to a proper conclusion. People who make unhelpful comments in these kinds of threads will be blocked in the future. (Not saying that all the below sections are unhelpful, but the volume has become so high I don't see a lot of alternatives to throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC) {{hat}} @The Wordsmith: please don't give my harassers an early Christmas present.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: Even if I do have a conflict of interest (which every other administrator finds tenuous at best) I made edits to a sandbox version of the article and simply tagged a completely different tangentially related article and participated in discussion on its talk page. None of that AFAIK consists of disruption that this whole request revolves around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with Johnuniq. THe timing is off here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom @Dwavenhobble: Its interesting that you are aware of Ryulong's substantial history of being a competent editor. Have you been following his work on Wikipedia before you created your account earlier this month? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) To those who have asked, I will point them to the top of this page in the big red box where it says: "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Dwavenhobble: could you please point to any change in Ryulong's edits that would be reflective of this alleged payment having any impact on Ryulong's editing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Dwavenhobble: i am having trouble following your logic, but are you are saying that Ryulong's removal of "cite needed" tags from content that was sourced by several sources which Ryulong had inserted into the article on OCT 25 is evidence of editing that was biased because of a donation that occurred after NOV 19 when the funding campaign was started? that seems more than a little stretched to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Dwavenhobble: You have a fundamental misunderstanding. Wikipedia editors may not use primary sources like tweets as a basis for analysis and article content. We require the reliable sources to do the interpretation and analysis. Once a reliable source has made a determination, then we follow the source. WP:OR applies to US and OUR analysis, not to the experts published in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Dwavenhobble: so you are actually claiming that The Guardian, Time, CNN and Washington Post have all not done proper analysis and are nonreliable bias sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [89] is quite troubling- a promotion that 4 of the most trusted news organizations in the world have all simultaneously failed their basic journalistic duties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof This is an incoherent mess. There is no prohibition against editors discussing things off-wiki; indeed, if I don't miss my guess, such a prohibition would result in topic bans on all of the above complaining users as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Loganmac: You can't keep poking at someone on-wiki and off and then complain when they respond with a bit of relatively mild invective. Your carrying on this campaign against Ryulong has the strong scent of someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to continually stoke drama. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by 92.142.2.237 This isn't about discussing things off-wiki, this is about taking money from a clearly biased group and then keeping pushing that group's agenda on the article despite previous suggestions by Jimbo to refrain on further edits. -- 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @TheRedPenOfDoom: How is that relevant to the conflict of interest displayed by Ryulong? Don't try to discredit his claims by investigating his history, get some real arguments please. -- 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Starship.paint It seems like Ryulong has received a donation of $350 from FishFox Nuro, [90] [91] a self-described "SJW Lunatic" [92] (essentially equates to anti-GamerGate). This seems like WP:COI to me, if he has returned to editing GamerGate topics, which he has. This was echoed by Ryulong himself, as per his comment after opening the GoFundMe [93] starship.paint ~ regal 23:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Update: I concur the statements made by Obsidi and Weedwhacker (at the time of this post). In addition, I'd like the deciding admin to clarify whether any future editing the draft article of GamerGate would count as a violation of WP:COI. starship.paint ~ regal 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Masem There's nothing to enforce here: there is no weight in Jimmy Wales' requests to Ryulong stepping away from the page, or even Ryulong coming back after saying he wouldn't. (The only thing close I could even consider this would fall into is something like Right to Vanish and then coming back to edit, which can be a matter of some admin action, but that's not happening here). None of the actions seem actionable under sanctions. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Retartist Even aware of that, nothing yet screens a paid-editing problem; there's a potential, but nothing yet that I can see actionable. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Weedwacker: There is the basis of the necessary elements that in the future Ryulong may end up doing that in the GG area, but all that depends on what and how he edits. And we need to AGF until that time; the evidence here is not for that. --MASEM (t) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Loganmac This isn't the only time he's edited GamerGate related topics, he has added a notability tag and a neutrality tag to the 8chan article, twice [94] [95]. After getting reverted, he vented on his personal talk page about it. I ask admins to see this for what it is, it's paid editing, even if unintentional. The subreddit GamerGhazi is a self-admitted forum in opposition to the subject in question. He has recieved $350 after having made an AMA on their forum, in an obvious display of gratitude, and I'm SURE if any so called "pro-GamerGate" editor as Ryulong has called some, had been caught in this, he'd be, not topic banned, banned site-wide. Jimmy Wales, for what it matters, has referred to this on multiple occassions on both Wikipedia and his personal Twitter page and advised him to back down, not only for this but because it has according to him caused him stress since he's taking this into a personal matter. Ryulong then proceeded to say Jimmy Wales was "retweeting conspiracy theories" and then proceeded to delete his tweets. It doesn't matter if the money was for editing or buying some clothes or whatever, an anti-GamerGate forum wouldn't give a random user money if it wasn't because they saw it as a way to thank him, and if he had admitted this conflict of interest, it would have been left at that, but this is now outrageous that he keeps his constant behaviour, a behaviour that has been noted ad nauseum yet he refuses to take advice from the community, and moderators refuse to even reprehend him Loganmac (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Sookenon: What are you implying? I for once wasn't implying anything, I refreshed the page, saw my comment was gone, saw it was deleted by Ryulong, found it hilarious and reposted it, mentioned it. It obviously wasn't intentional and I never implied this, you should assume good faith Loganmac (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Ryulong has now told me to "eat shit" and has called me an idiot [96] if this isn't WP:CIVIL I don't know what is Loganmac (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Weedwacker: expresses exactly what I think Loganmac (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sookenon @TheRedPenOfDoom: Agreed: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=author%3ALogan_Mac&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all Sookenon (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher @Loganmac: This is yet another case in a long history of you misrepresenting the actions of other editors on reddit (especially Ryulong) thereby inciting hatred against them. This is in especially poor taste given the harassment Ryulong is currently undergoing. Further evidence regarding this can be seen in my Arbcom statement Bosstopher (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by AndyTheGrump Having stayed largely out of this whole GamerGate mess up to now, I regret having getting sucked into the latest drama over at WP:ANI: [97]. However, now I'm in, and since it is obvious that nothing concrete can possibly be resolved in that particular exercise in mutually ignoring the point, and arguing in circles, I may as well comment here. As far as I can see, the suggestion is that Ryūlóng has received funds in relation to some forum or other involved in the GamerGate controversy. Ryūlóng seems to acknowledge receiving funds from someone for something, but the connection between these funds and any edits made seems to me at least to be as yet unestablished. And unless and until it can be shown that there is a verifiable causal link, assertions of a COI seem premature. Furthermore, I think that it can be taken as read that Wikipedia can't sanction someone for voluntarily 'topic-banning' themselves, and then changing their mind - it wouldn't be voluntary if we could. Accordingly, I have to suggest that those claiming that Ryūlóng's editing has been influenced by financial gain have, per burden of proof, to demonstrate this, rather than merely assert it, and failing that, either withdraw the assertions, or accept that they may face sanctions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Dwavenhobble @TheRedPenOfDoom I have previously edited wikipedia using the IP based system long ago before creating an account and have seen and heard others talk of him and his work previously. Unfortunately I do have a dynamic IP so showing those edits before I had an ID will be difficult not least due to them being many years prior to creating this account. The edits surrounded Dr Who entries on Cyberman and the webcasts Pyramids of Mars and Scream of the Shalka. Additionally I did add further detail on characters in No Heroics Dwavenhobble (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @TheRedPenOfDoom I'd suggest this points to some level of bias due to an editor investigating the sources provided by the linked sources. The sources themselves according to the user had no sources themselves. Essentially the source being allowed to be submitted was itself being used as the entire source. I believe this would come under X reporting on X. As Wikipedia itself doesn't allow mere twitter post speculation to be used then the sources being linked here to make the claims would be invalid. Hence the suggestion can be made that the events should be detailed as alleged. I refer you therefore to "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" As such the source isn't verifiable itself as the source is becoming in this case the source of it's own information which cannot be verified by checking said source. References @TheRedPenOfDoom: Well yes citations. firstly and foremost to verify the claims that it was gamergate doing the harassment. Otherwise the same arguments could be levelled at other such groups (some of whom have been shown the be intent on editing biographies here). If Wikipedia will not allow Tweets as then the sources themselves are the only evidence as the sources they used are not verifiable under wikipedia's guidelines. @TheRedPenOfDoom: However from Wikipedia's page about a source being verifiable "There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate." thus without Reliable sources in this case which have done the primary analysis and use verifiable sources which these do not verify the claims made. A Citation proving the claims is required or an adjustment to the statement to show said claim is an allegation not fact. What would be fact would be Felicia Day having her address posted. What is not fact is who did it, that for the most part in every article is speculation. The only verifiable thing is the source expresses that view not that the source is correct. References @TheRedPenOfDoom: I am claiming that they aren't verifiable which is part of the point of contention here. As has been shown recently in some fields one reporter has seen another group running the story and made the assumption the information is correct. If it is not possible to verify the claims being presented under Wikipedia's rules it shouldn't be presented as "Wikipedia's voice". So as such the article should either point out it's alleged by the sources that Gamergate was the source or it requires a source whose work is verifiable not merely being taken on trust of the sources past. Statement by Obsidi I have mostly stayed out of the gamergate controversy except when it gets to AN/ANI, but given this issue blew up at ANI I thought I would post my comments on it. First thing is to establish that the user ryulong67 at reddit is Ryulong on Wikipedia, this thread, combined with this Wikipedia edit shows that reddit user ryulong67 is Ryulong. Then this post by ryulong67 shows that he believes he received (and choose to accept) the money from a user at /r/GamerGhazi. /r/GamerGhazi is a site with an explicit POV on gamergate. As such Ryulong has now accepted money from someone with a direct interest in promoting a POV on gamergate. This to me shows that Ryulong has a COI on gamergate. Now as to this specific instance, I do not believe he violated WP:COI interest policy as the edits were not to a mainspace article and/or not controversial. So I would ask that the result be a declaration of a COI for Ryulong on gamergate going forward but no further action taken. (PS. I have no problems with closing this because the ANI thread, but I figure one of these two will get closed on the merits and wanted to make sure whichever one it was my views were considered.) --Obsidi (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Now that the ANI thread was closed for forumshopping, this is the only thread on the subject. --Obsidi (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Super Goku V: Editing of any "pages related to the Gamergate controversy" are subject to the general sanctions, to me that includes the draft article. --Obsidi (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I agree with everything you wrote, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a COI. He shouldn't be topic banned over this, but he does appear to have a COI now. --Obsidi (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ivanvector I wasn't going to post here per a request from Tutelary (via ANI) but since Andy and Obsidi have, I feel I should as well, thus I apologize in advance for going against Tutelary's stated desire for this not to be posted here (a sentiment I respect though I don't understand it). I have no horse in this race; like Andy, I've gotten into the discussion at ANI against my better judgement. There has been an allegation that Ryulong has received compensation for edits made to Wikipedia, and evidence has been suggested in the ANI thread (I'm not going to cross post the links) but in my observation that evidence fails substantially to establish that Ryulong is being paid to edit Wikipedia. Furthermore, such an allegation requires definitive proof, and throwing around such unfounded accusations is a direct violation of our harassment policy (WP:OUTING). In the interest of civility (one of the Five Pillars, I'll remind you) editors should refrain from this behaviour, though I don't hold out much hope for civility in this topic area any more. There has also been extensive reference here and at ANI to Ryulong's "self imposed topic ban", referring to their response to having been accused of COI because an off-Wikipedia attack article mentioned their username. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Ryulong for full context. The user volunteered to step away from this topic area with a prediction that their future involvement would cause further drama, but that's far from an enforceable topic ban - it is no more than a voluntary absence, one that obviously can be revoked at any time, and it is certainly not an admission of conflict of interest. Ivanvector (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Gamaliel: Ha! I spent a large part of today whinging that ANI shouldn't consider this because there was already an open thread here. Maybe there really is no appropriate venue. Ivanvector (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Weedwacker If we're all going to come over from ANI I might as well join in too. I am going to have to agree with Obsidi's reasoning behind the subject. Ryulong accepted money and thanked those responsible from a site with a POV on the topic at hand. Whether or not it can be directly shown that he accepted money for editing, the fact is that he accepted the money and opened himself up to receiving it by posting the funding campaign to his blog connected to his editor name. I cannot in good faith directly claim he used his editor name in the crowd-funding campaign for nefarious purposes, but it does give the appearance of requesting money of those that agree with him as an editor. I am going to be less harsh in my calls than I was on ANI and suggest that no action be taken related to his recent edits, but that he should be barred from future edits on the topic. It has become clear that self-imposed bans have not been effective. Weedwacker (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I take significant offense to Gamaliel's comments in the result section. Calling the editors who are raising disputes "kids" is demeaning and far from WP:civil. Also: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." He is clearly not an uninvolved administrator at this point.Weedwacker (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Resolute this topic is hardly about only the self-imposed topic ban.Weedwacker (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Masem I understand your points, but do you think that there is a WP:COI at play here that should be considered for future edits? Weedwacker (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Comment by Resolute Mostly just endorsing AndyTheGrump's statement in whole. The idea that someone should be sanctioned for "violating" a voluntary self-topic ban on the basis of allegations that do not appear to have been demonstrated as true is rather silly. Resolute 01:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by former editor and uninvolved (MarkBernstein) Ryulong has been working to improve Wikipedia since Feb 2006. It appears I arrived the following September, at the urging of Aaron_Swartz who convinced me this was not as ,such an impossible as I had supposed. Aaron was a convincing fellow: he was wrong in this case, but here we are. My candid impression is that Ryulong and I have crossed swords at times, and agreed at other times. His is a familiar name to me, as to many of you. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know him. As of late I've been alternating farewells and recrimination here, I'd like to leave Wikipedia with a proposal for what I believe to be a better solution. We owe Ryulong a debt for long and loyal service. We owe him collectively, even if he has sometimes opposed us, and even if he currently opposes us. Ryulong has found himself in an awkward position having just moved to a new continent, changed institutions, jobs, whatever. Some people have offered to help out. There is nothing wrong with that; this is what friends and people of good will do. This help presents, to some of us, a suggestion of impropriety. I agree with AndyTheGrump above. I think that this suggestion is ill-mannered and ill-conceived but clearly some people (for whatever reason) hold it. THEREFORE, we have a problem over which we've just spilt a whole lot of ink in lots of places. But we can fix it -- easily. 1. Ryulong will return the $350 given to him from the source which is objectionable to certain editors here. If they wish, he will provide them or a trusted Administrator (see below) evidence that this has been done, within (let's say) 90 days. 2. We will pass that hat here. In the 18th century, we would take up a subscription for Ryulong. I or my firm will pledge a significant fraction of the sum, conditional on others subscribing for at a total of at least $350. Subscriptions will be capped at a total of $1000 and will be confidential with the following exception on which my contribution is contingent: at least three contributors should be drawn from the ranks of the editor who nominated this request for enforcement or from those who, before this posting, supported it. 3. If total subscriptons do not exceed $350 within 14 days, this proposal fails without prejudice toward any other proposal, sanction, or other action. 4. A designated agent will be chosen to administer the subscription. I'd suggest Gamaliel, or EdJohnston,, or AndyTheGrump; plenty of other people would be entirely suitable. The agent will announce an address, post office box, and/or PayPal account to which contributions may be sent. The Administrator will announce, within (let's say) 90 days, that the requisite sum has been collected and disbursed, that the $350 has been returned, and that the subscription has been wound up. The Administrator will provide receipts or try copies of receipts to donors upon request. Expenses of up to $50 may be reimbursed by the subscription fund; otherwise the Administrator will receive our thanks, but no further financial reward, for his or her services. 5. Additional regulations for the collection and use of the fund are at the sole discretion of the Administrator; in the event of any dispute, the determination of the Administrator will be final. Summary: this removes any trace or taint of a conflict of interest; none existed, but we'll extinguish here any appearance of conflict and also place Ryulong on what we hope will prove a firmer foundation while restoring his books to him. I do not expect this to be endorsed -- I expect, in fact, a storm of protest and vituperation -- but I’d like to leave Wikipedia on an amicable note and I think this best accords with the better angels of our nature and with what Ward Cunningham originally termed The Wiki Way. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Request by Super Goku V I do not believe that any action should be taken right now against Ryulong, but this request has made me request my own. The Draft Article is currently a way for those who want to edit the article to do so as a suggestion on how to improve the article. Currently, the Draft talk page is a redirect to the main talk page. Considering that the Draft talk page does not mention anything about the general sanctions due to this, is it alright to assume that it is still subject to general sanction? I believe that it should, but I want to make sure that this is the correct interpretation. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Obsidi: Thank you for your response. I was close to certain that it was, but due to how the draft article was done there was no technical notice for editors at the time. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Thank you for doing this. That should make sure that if there are any future issues with edits made to the Draft that no one can fairly claim not to have see the warning. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Thargor Orlando @EdJohnston: you shouldn't close it as no one knows where to put these anymore because the issues aren't being dealt with in either area. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Muscat Hoe @EdJohnston: With ArbCom taking up the Gamergate case I think this would be best left to them. I disagree that the AN/I request was frivolous and baseless as there is clearly an appearance of COI, but whether it merits any sanctions can wait at this point with the article on lockdown and ArbCom stepping in. Muscat Hoe (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by ReynTime Note: This was originally a direct reply @The Wordsmith:. Moved to the appropriate section. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I'm confused about this "promotion of a fundraiser" concept. From what I can tell reading the ArbCom evidence page, this editor has received and continues to receive incessant harassment, organized on Reddit, for making efforts to keep this article free of BLP violations and other problems (although not always in the most congenial way). Someone else on Reddit decided to be kind by gifting the editor a very small amount of funds to deal with a personal financial emergency, a subject which arose spontaneously during a conversation about the edit war occurring on this topic. The editor didn't ask for money, wasn't asked to make any edits in exchange for money, and had been editing the article actively for months before this happened. The use of GoFundMe was suggested by the person making the gift, not the editor. I see no sign of quid pro quo at all, so why does Wikipedia care?ReynTime (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johuniq @The Wordsmith: It would be very unhelpful for a user to return from a 14-month break, have their admin bit returned, then launch into action against an editor who has been subject to attacks coordinated off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Clerk note @The Wordsmith: No "consensus" is required to sanction an editor under discretionary sanctions, specifically WP:GS/GG. If you feel that some behaviour documented here is worthy of a sanction, you are within your power to impose one. If not, then we can close this request as "no action". It is up to you. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by {username} Result concerning Ryulong This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Why should we even consider this when there is an open ANI thread on this matter? Also, where do you kids get all this energy to keep arguing about GamerGate all day? I envy you. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Good point! If we could harness that energy, we could run a fossil fule-free world, or we could finish some huge project, like an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be a case for action against User:Ryulong here, at least not on grounds of COI editing. This complaint should be closed. I'm noting that there are not enough admins active here to keep up with the volume of complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The same complaint about Ryulong was also made at WP:ANI. That thread has now been closed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise with no action. His closing comment was "Frivolous, baseless and misplaced/forum-shopped request". Can anyone think of a reason why this one shouldn't be closed as well? EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Ryulong:, I care nothing about your offwiki supporters or harassers. What I care about is whether or not your on-wiki conduct violates policy and could bring the project into disrepute. Your offwiki issues are your own, and not relevant to enforcement here. I saw a notice on AN asking for uninvolved, impartial editors here, and that's what matters. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) @Super Goku V: I created an edit notice for Draft:Gamergate controversy at {{Editnotices/Page/Draft:Gamergate controversy}}. This notice should appear to anyone who hits the edit button. This will make any new contributors aware of the community sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC) After carefully reviewing the evidence, I don't think there was genuine editing for pay or off-wiki coordination, I do think the $350 issue, the ongoing promotion of the fundraiser by a subreddit with a strong POV on this issue, and the fact that it has garnered considerable attention (Twitter, etc) does present a problem. As per the precedent at WP:EEML, "The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community". Given the ongoing nature of the financial relationship, I think it would be best if Ryulong were under a one year topic ban of GamerGate-related pages, broadly construed. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Procedural note: Hatting reversed; please do not close comments containing useful statements and evidence. This makes it harder for uninvolved admins to see all the facts and reach a decision. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Now that the matter is closed on ANI, I think it's appropriate to consider it here. My initial take on it is close to the first two sentences of Wordsmith's comment. I'm going to go through all the evidence, read it, and remove non-compliant statements before I say more. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC) First of all, I am opposed to paid editing and I think it should be banned outright, so if it were up to me, even borderline cases like this one would be subject to banning. But I can't impose my personal opinions on Wikipedia decisions, I have to look at community policy and norms. Paid editing is not banned, unfortunately. The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline reads "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." So even if we concluded that the behavior here amounted to "paid advocacy" and he should not edit the article, Ryulong should still be allowed to participate in talk discussions according to the guideline. If we had some kind of evidence that there was a quid pro quo, that someone directed him to make specific edits in exchange for compensation, then we would have a stronger case here. But all I see is evidence that people who share his preexisting opinions about GamerGate gave him money. (Also, I would note that having an opinion is not the equivalent of having a bias or a conflict of interest, otherwise those complaining about biases would be guilty of having biases themselves and should be banned from the article as well.) At best, he was paid to do what he's already been doing. Perhaps this isn't much different than Wikipedia's donation drives or compensating a Wikipedian in Residence. Do I like it? No. Do I think we can take action here? Also, no. If an employee of a political opposition research group can edit Wikipedia articles about candidates from the opposing party and not be blocked (see User talk:Sprinkler Court) then I don't think we can ban Ryulong for passing the hat around. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not really seeing much of the "COI" issue here. This is a rather atypical situation of "paid" editing – he isn't an employee of the party in question, nor a freelance contractor, and not in any way bound – contractually or otherwise – to edit in their favour. He edited according to his own convictions, completely independently of any relations to those outside parties, and then, after the fact, accepted a one-off gift of gratitude from people who agreed with his edits. I don't see any scenario how he could have edited the way he did in order to gain a financial advantage, and I see no reason to expect why in the future he would be editing in ways other than those he subjectively feels right because of that advantage. In short, I'm just not seeing how this would lead him into a "conflict" between what he feels, in good faith, to be in the best interest of Wikipedia, and the interests of the people who gave him that gift. This is fundamentally different from the typical "COI" situations our policy is about. – That said, even if we do apply the letter and the spirit of the COI policy, he has already agreed to not edit the article directly, and that, according to the policy, ought to be enough. On the basis of the COI issue alone, I do not see a case for a wider sanction here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with you that this is an extremely unusual situation. The compensation came beforeafter the edits, and there was no prior expectation of compensation. If I thought there WAS an undisclosed prior agreement, I would push for an indef topic ban. However, it wasn't simply a one-off "thank you" payment either. The fact that the same person/persons are actively promoting and supporting Ryulong's independent fundraiser creates an ongoing relationship with financial implications. The fact that this has gone public over Twitter, Reddit etc further complicates things. The last thing the project needs is another scandal, hence my quote from the findings in the WP:EEML case. While I don't believe Ryulong is abusing his influence, even the appearance of wrongdoing can be almost as bad as wrongdoing itself. Maybe we could compromise on a topic ban until the GoFundMe campaign ends? This way nobody can raise issues about the relationship between Ryulong and his benefactor, since he'd be staying away from this topic area until the relationship has ceased. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Wait, am I missing something? You said "the compensation came before the edits"; was that just a typo, or did I get something wrong here? And what is that thing about them being still "actively promoting" the fundraiser? I was under the impression he just asked for help to raise one specific sum of money for a specific private purpose, and got it as a one-off gift from a single benefactor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC) That was a typo on my part, I've fixed it. As for the promotion of the fundraiser, check the third link presented as evidence. It links to an archive of a Reddit thread with the quote "I am a big fan of the current Wikipedia article. I'm an even bigger fan of people stepping up and admitting that they may not be able to continue to approach a subject objectively. Which is why I'm shamelessly bumping a donation drive again. I know, I know, I'm too soft :P" and containing a link to the GoFundMe campaign. That's my main concern here, not the one-off donation. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC) It seems there is disagreement over whether or not there is anything actionable here, and further discussion isn't going to change anything. Should we close this as no consensus and impose no sanctions? The WordsmithTalk to me 04:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I agree that this should be closed with no action. If the only argument for banning Ryulong is COI editing, it appears that existing policy won't justify that. But according to what FP said above, Ryulong has agreed not to edit the article directly. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 7 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 DHeyward User who is submitting this request for enforcement Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT 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 Article page disruption original research and synthesis adds "feminist" to the BLP of GamerGate supporter Christina Hoff Sommers although the sources he uses either don't mention the her or refer to her in a different context (e.g., [98]) edit-wars over the "feminist" label [e.g., [99]) NPOV violation uses Wikipedia's voice to describe Sommers' opinion (e.g., [100], many more] adds undue quotes in the lede section of a BLP (e.g., [101]) deletes sourced content despite ongoing discussion and no consensus for removal [102] Talk page disruption uses faulty comparisons instead of reliable sources, e.g., compares GamerGate community to African-American community [103] and Muslims [104] compares Quinn's former boyfriend's blogpost to the diary of Anne Frank ([105]) compares GamerGate supporter Christina Hoff Sommers to Galileo, Einstein, Obama, etc. ([106], many more) attacks straw men by stating such things as "all gamers are not misogynist" or "Zoe's ex is not misogynist" uncritical repetition of allegations, e.g., [107], [108] dismissal of sources opines that RS are wrong (e.g., [109]) says that RS are "TERF-like" for calling a GamerGate supporter antifeminist [110][111] says that the coverage in RS is "biased coverage" ([112]) argues that we must not use RS if a BLP subject objects to what the RS say (e.g., [113][114]) discusses how the people involved in GamerGate should be portrayed as apposed to how they are portrayed ([115]) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [116] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Request a one-month topic ban for starters. @ Retartist: The point is that he's replying to imagined arguments instead of what the article or other editors actually said. It's just one of several disruptive behaviors. It's like writing "Not all journalists are corrupt" over and over again although no editor ever said that all journalists are corrupt. @ DHeyward: The Christina Hoff Sommers page is a related article because Sommers is one of the most vocal GamerGate supporters. The talk page even has the GamerGate sanctions template. You yourself referred to Sommers on the GamerGate talk page several times. @ Thargor Orlando: "so some of the same editors who have the Gamergate article on lockdown are now putting the Sommers article on similar lockdown" – unlike you and DHeyward and others, I have never edited the GamerGate article or talk page. The CHS page originally got on my radar as part of the MRM sanctions, not the GamerGate sanctions. "people would like to see a BLP defined by partisans rather than sources" – yes, that's precisely what DHeyward proposes, i.e., that we ignore reliable sources (such as these) on the matter. And that's just one of several disruptive behaviors on the CHS and GamerGate pages. 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 WP:BOOMERANG for cherry picked and out of context statements almost all of which are talk page discussions. The latest complaints aren't even GamerGate articles. This is a vexatious complaint and the warning to filers is clear. --DHeyward (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC) @SY, I thought you included your threat[117] from an article about a 20 year old book in your baseless rant above. Still don't know how you are familiar with any of my edits. --DHeyward (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC) @SY, I added "feminist scholar," not "feminist" per your first complaint as is shown in the diff. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the biography on Christina Hoff Sommers doesn't mention gamergate or her comments about gamergate or anyone involved in gamergate. Rather, she attracted the attention of anti-gamergaters when she commented on Sarkhesian on her blog. It never rose to a level to include in her bio. She complained on twitter that her biography was being trashed on WP by the anti-GG crowd. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC) For those speculating, I came to CHS biography when she complained on twitter and that complaint made it to Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo even edited the talk page here [118]/ I agreed [119]. SY didn't [120]. That's my first recollection of SY86. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Retartist What action is requested? Also some most of these complaints look unactionable (e.g. saying all gamers are not misogynistic is not disruptive) Retartist (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) People can't be sanctioned for holding an opinion or having a slight misunderstanding over argument intentions. Retartist (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Reyntime There is a good example of DHeyward’s disruptive behavior on the current talk page where he states, “I don't think "video game academics" exist do they”. When reminded of DiGRA, he replies “Then say DiGRA if you mean DiGRA and source it. I don't see any sources for "video game academics" existing outside that group”. This disingenuously ignores the wide variety of academic research going on in all fields related to video games at many highly regarded institutions of learning worldwide, including at the MIT Media Lab where Harmonix was incubated, solely to argue against mentioning in the article’s lede that academic researchers regard Gamergate as sexist and misogynistic, which is well-sourced. Statement by Thargor Orlando They key history here is that Sommers has been critical of Gamergate and of modern feminism, so some of the same editors who have the Gamergate article on lockdown are now putting the Sommers article on similar lockdown, most notably ceasing in calling Sommers a feminist because other people choose to define her as not a feminist. She self-identifies as a feminist and espouses feminist thoughts, just not ones that other feminists do, thus this is ultimately a content dispute being dragged here because people would like to see a BLP defined by partisans rather than sources. Yes, there's a battleground mentality. No, it's not by DHeyward. I'm not sure if there's any sanctions that need to be handed down over it, but some editors have been pushing this point of view based on the Gamergate issue repeatedly on talk and in the article itself, and that's where the problems lie. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC) And to explicitly answer User:EdJohnston, there are two editors in particular who are acting very problematic, but they're not parties to this, not issuing any complaints, and I assume that the administrators looking into this can figure out the relevant parties if they choose to act. If they try to endorse this, I reserve my right to change my mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I see two editors repeatedly demeaning the efforts of a feminist by diminishing her record and cherry-picking sources to help support it. Not a BLP violation in and of itself, more the battleground mentality than a BLP one spurred on by the Gamergate nonsense, and ultimately a content dispute that isn't really relevant to this. I'll only have an issue if they try to win the dispute by trying to get DH removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by NE Ent I followed about five of the diffs in the original post and didn't find anything of concern. That is, the diffs did not support the claim framing it. NE Ent 11:42, 6 December 2014 (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. There doesn't appear to be a strong case here. I would be curious whether *any* uninvolved editors agree with this complaint. If admins do consider this in any detail, it would probably need a close study of the edit history of the Christina Hoff Sommers article. It seems possible that such a study would produce sanctions against more than one editor. An alternative to deep investigation might be a couple of months of full protection. Comments on these issues are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC) @Thargor Orlando: I don't know what you might be referring to. The Christina Hoff Sommers article doesn't look too bad, and the recent editing is within bounds. The talk page is more of a concern than the article itself. The earlier thread at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Lead does raise some questions of POV-pushing. (People were arguing about who deserves to be called a feminist). But the later talk thread at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Lead Rewrite looks to be reasonable and collaborative. The editors there seem confident that they can produce a better version of the lead. User:DHeyward who is the nominal subject of this enforcement thread is a reasonable voice throughout those discussions, so I fail to see the problem with his edits. At the moment it's not evident that the article needs any form of protection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC) No action and a very large trout to Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs) for bringing to enforcement a content dispute that is being actively discussed and worked on without admin intervention. There is no evidence of violation of WP:BLP or any other policies/guidelines. Slightly aggressive, sure, but this is a topic that lots of people seem passionate about. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)