Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:58, 30 November 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

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

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

Evidence presented by Retartist

Tarc Ignores the WP:CIVIL pillar

1 2 3 4 5

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

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

Evidence presented by Tstormcandy

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

To preface, I would like to point the Committee to precedent set at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list which states that ArbCom can and will consider certain off-Wiki activity as part of final decision principles and findings of fact. This is meant to be more procedural evidence and generally not directed at any specific editors.

Involved editors have been targets of harassment

Some of the users listed as involved parties in this case have been specifically targeted by external forces for additional scrutiny and potential harassment. Though this does not excuse user actions it may help explain some of the stresses and behaviors displayed in other evidence and should be taken into account as state of mind. User Ryulong is singled out exceptionally, with screen captures of discussions posted on top of diffs. I would welcome the overall behavior of this user be examined the same as any others, of course.

Found as another extension of an off-Wiki forum is this Pastebin file, detailing how persons should complete an "operation" to "dig through" post histories of particular users for the sake of gathering obstructionist evidence for collection and reproduction. In this one case, users Ryulong, NorthBySouthBraanof, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and TaraInDC are singled out as "The five horsemen of Misplaced Pages" and messages such as "here's a guide to help". These users have suffered from needlessly excessive talk page contacts., and common listings at incident board discussions.

Off-wiki discussion is disrupting the Encyclopedia

The task of collaboration and research resulted in many edits at incident boards and even on the talk page of User:Jimbo Wales (as recommended) many times; . The repeated forum shopping and multiple requests to ArbCom in a short amount of time can also be attributed to this high amount of off-WIki discussion. One recent example is seen here which is "for the purpose of discussing Misplaced Pages matters". Another offsite thread was created after my original statement merely to warn people that I had used the first link, , advising users to "try not to be a fucking moron" thus implying their possible participation.

By extension of the collaboration and cases of users following through with it we get a large amount of meatpuppetry happening within this topic. I strongly support this evidence section as a collection of diffs.

Such bullying and discussion designed to intimidate and impact on-wiki matters must not be permitted to hold sway over WP:FRINGE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT article content on Misplaced Pages and editors should feel safe in the process of following basic Misplaced Pages policies (such as WP:RS and WP:BLP) without being threatened. I implore the committee to not "let the bullies win" in this case. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 23:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Edited: ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Heavily edited: ♪ Tstorm(talk) 13:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Masem

Ownership and refusal for consensus development

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof

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

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

Zoe Quinn

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

Brianna Wu

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

Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

• — An anonymous user vandalizes her biography with unsourced attacks, accusations of untruthfulness, etc.
• — Akulkis inserts something so offensive that it has been rev-deleted.
• — PizzaMan inserts the unsourced insinuation that Sarkeesian has been untruthful about reporting death threats against her, and reinserts it after it was objected to, with an edit summary accusing her of lying: "It's debated whether her tweets are truthful."
• — Poroboros persistently inserts YouTube-sourced claims that Sarkeesian "lied" and generally attempts to discredit her.
• — Bluefoxicy makes unsupported statements on the talk page to the effect that Sarkeesian has "known limited credibility due to multiple earlier false statements."
• — Tomous43 makes repeated BLP-violating edits to the talk page, all of which are revision-deleted.
• — Xander756 repeatedly makes unsourced/poorly-sourced defamatory claims on the talk page, purporting to link Sarkeesian with fraud and deceit.

Gamergate controversy

• — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon persistently inserts unsourced and poorly-sourced accusations against Zoe Quinn and other living people.
• — On the talk page, YellowSandals compares Zoe Quinn to a prostitute.
• — On the talk page, Thronedrei makes unsupported accusations that Brianna Wu has lied about death threats.
• — On the talk page, Tutelary reverts an expressly-cited removal of BLP-violating material, claiming that such can be justified as "content choices." The edit is later revision-deleted on BLP grounds.
• — On the talk page, "previously-involved IP user" makes the unsupported claim that Zoe Quinn was responsible for "an abusive relationship."

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

Gamergate supporters have repeatedly attempted to shift the tone of the article's coverage of the movement's core claims about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. It is provable that neither Nathan Grayson nor Kotaku ever reviewed Depression Quest and that Grayson wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship. Thus, mainstream reliable sources have widely and effectively unanimously dismissed these allegations of unethical behavior as unfounded, debunked or false: and plenty more. Despite this fact, there have been repeated efforts by Gamergate supporters to water down our description of these false allegations and present them as the subject of legitimate debate or even as true. Many of those diffs are presented above, and I won't repeat them here. Presenting false and debunked allegations of misconduct by living people as anything other than false and debunked violates the biographies of living persons policy and fundamentally ignores Misplaced Pages's responsibility to treat living people discussed in its articles with fairness and sensitivity.

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

As noted elsewhere, Gamergate supporters immediately began attacking long-term editors such as myself who became involved due to the onslaught of BLP, NPOV and UNDUE issues brought about on related articles, and who were working to prevent Misplaced Pages from being used as an attack platform. They have created multiple pages which are essentially "hit lists" including dozens of long-term Misplaced Pages editors who have substantively opposed them. Their apparent goal was to identify such editors, drive them out of the subject area and intimidate anyone who dared oppose them. This has included implied and explicit threats, abusive vandalism, miscellaneous garbage and other personal attacks — the latter of which was helpfully rev-deleted before I even had a chance to see it. The result is that almost every uninvolved administrator who has imposed blocks or topic bans under the community sanctions has been subsequently labeled as "biased" and "involved" by Gamergate supporters and targeted on the above-linked hit lists.

There has been no lack of discussion or failure to engage

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

Community processes have not found the article to be biased

On 26 October, Masem opened a Request for Comment asking two questions, one entirely hypothetical and one actual: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? and Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner? The RFC saw extensive, widespread community participation — particularly for the second question. On 29 November, the RFC was closed by an entirely-uninvolved neutral party, MDann52. The first (hypothetical) question was closed with the comment that Overall, people seem to think there is a bias in the press and the usual pool of RS over this. However, Misplaced Pages is kind of trapped into reflecting this. The second (actual) question was closed with the comment that There are feelings on both sides here, both the article is too biased to the pre and anti sides here, while quite a few people seem to think it is ok. Often, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are hard to distinguish in situations like this, due to the unbalance in sourcing avalible. However, the overall tone is, while there are some issues, there is no overarching bias in the article.

Events of 30 November exemplify Gamergate editors' bad faith

The events of 30 November involving myself, Xander756 and Kevin Gorman are instructive as to the way Gamergate-affiliated editors deal with other Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. Xander756 posted a thread on WP:ANI accusing me of disruptive editing on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Gorman, a previously-entirely-uninvolved administrator, responded to that thread and recognized that Xander756 was committing flagrant violations of the biographies of living persons policy and that my allegedly-disruptive edits were, in fact, entirely supported by policy in the removal of unfounded and highly-defamatory material. Gorman appropriately warned Xander756 of his misconduct and of the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG.

In response, Xander756 declared that Gorman "appears to be a feminist" and that Gorman "is clearly not unbiased when it comes to Anita Sarkeesian." Xander756 then tweeted that "Misplaced Pages admin Kevin Gorman is currently covering up Anita Sarkeesian's shady work history with Bart Baggett" and posted on Gorman's user talk page that "I am currently talking to a news site that is working on a piece about your behavior tonight which may be sent to Jimmy Wales. Looking through your bio and edits, it seems that you are a feminist. Is this the case? Please let me know so it can be accurate."

This is the way Gamergate operates on Misplaced Pages — any editor or administrator who acts against them is declared to be biased, treated as an enemy and subjected to on- and off-wiki attacks. This is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's traditions of productive, good-faith collaboration to develop an Internet encyclopedia. It is, in fact, destructive of all these things.

Later, The Devil's Advocate adopted Xander756's line of reasoning, declaring on Gorman's talk page that "you have been highly active and very much involved regarding articles covering feminism and men's rights. Sarkeesian is a feminist critic and her vlog is called "Feminist Frequency" so you are involved regarding her bio." This suggests that TDA believes that any administrator who has actively edited articles on the topic of feminism cannot take administrative action on any article remotely related to feminism.

Rebuttal to Tutelary

Hatting unproductive talk-page trolling relating to a living person is not only permitted, it is encouraged per WP:NOT. This does a good job explaining I hatted the edit request as trolling — it is a common Gamergate meme to refer to their primary targets as "Literally Who" (basically an attempt to dehumanize them) and yeah, ha ha, funny, the edit request would have resulted in the article containing text referencing the meme. POINTS! for effort, but no, not on Misplaced Pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal to The Devil's Advocate

TDA has presented a diff of me... inserting into an article a direct quote from Zoe Quinn sourced to The New Yorker. OK then.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

Ryulong has repeatedly made egregiously POV and inflammatory edits

• Adds numerous unnecessary quotes of insults made by a single person towards GamerGate to reinforce narrative about a gender bias in harassment.
• Uses "noting" when referring to several inflammatory opinions about GamerGate, thus presenting them as fact.
• Adds massive paragraph accusing GamerGate supporters of copyright violations based off a single source.
• Adds nearly a paragraph worth of material based off one in-depth source suggesting the unofficial mascot of GamerGate references what the source suggests is a depiction of rape.

Ryulong has engaged in POINTy behavior to push a POV

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

Ryulong has violated BLP

• Adam Baldwin
  • Adds material listing several prominent supporters, including Baldwin, who the material states "have had nothing to do with video games", despite the source not stating this about him.
  • Halfhat removes Baldwin noting he has been heavily involved in video games previously (numerous voice-acting roles).
  • Ryulong restores Baldwin's name.
  • Ryulong amends it to say article author "pointed out" statements "by the various people . . . derisive of gamers" prior to GamerGate implying Baldwin had made such statements despite this not being said in the source.
• Eron Gjoni
  • Changes lede to state the controversy began with "harassment . . . by an ex-boyfriend" despite no sources labeling his actions harassment. Several sources mention Gjoni by name.
• Milo Yiannopoulos
  • Adds material accusing Yiannopoulos of making a "sexist remark" and includes other negative comments about him. These are attributed to a piece by Liana Kerzner, who is not a professional journalist, on MetalEater, which appears to have no editorial staff. She was also remarking on a personal dispute with Yiannopoulos.
  • Ryulong, and several other editors (Red Pen in particular), engaged in derisive off-topic discussion of Yiannapolous on the talk page.
• David Auerbach
  • Added a paragraph claiming Auerbach "insisted" women who were threatened should be "held responsible" for "what Gamergate had become" as well as the men threatening them. As I explained, this completely misrepresented the source and presented the misrepresentation as fact.
  • Auerbach personally requested Ryulong not mention or cite him again, to which Ryulong responded by attacking Auerbach at Auerbach's talk page and the article talk page, including accusing Auerbach of threatening him. He also asked Drmies to revoke Auerbach's manually confirmed status.
• Dale North
  • After Jimbo supported inclusion of material about GameJournoPros and the section was added, Ryulong added material about an incident involving Destructoid, presenting allegations of an attempt at "blacklisting" as fact even as the source states this as an allegation and that such action would potentially be in violation of state law.
• Zoe Quinn
  • Ryulong inserted material from an interview in a non-reliable source to insert contentious claims about Quinn, a third party.
  • See first incidence of edit-warring mentioned above where he made three reverts to restore the material, breaching 3RR in the process. The claims were removed and after being restored the next revert noted the BLP issue, but Ryulong still made two more reverts.

Ryulong has repeatedly and flagrantly breached 3RR

• 9RR (seven listed are significant) -
• 9RR - Case notes five reverts within a 24-hour period. Additional instances not mentioned in report: . Attempts to close a discussion over lede wording. Eight of these reverts occurred after this suggested compromise by Titanium Dragon. Ryulong rejects discussing it, stating this is because TD "should still be banned from editing the page."
• 12RR - AN3 report. At least seven were significant POV reverts:

Baranof

(work in progress)

Red Pen

(work in progress)

Gamaliel is INVOLVED

• A year ago he and I were engaged in a content dispute over a BLP of a female Microsoft executive, where I objected to giving undue weight to online comments about the executive. In several edits and comments he sought to emphasize "widespread gamer misogyny" on the article.
• I detailed evidence of Gamaliel being involved in the GamerGate articles during an ANI discussion. One important example is this remark calling for topic bans of Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, and "Puedo", which I believe was referencing PseudoSomething, an editor he had argued with on the talk page about sources. This comment on the talk page stating (bolding mine): "Any discussion of GamerGate supposedly being about "corruption" should note the reliable sources pointing out the complainers' complete disinterest in actual corruption", this subsequent response, his removal of one IP user's criticism of his comment, and his reply, are also significant.

Gamaliel has misused his admin privileges while INVOLVED

• Per above evidence, Gamaliel had called for a topic ban of Titanium Dragon and been involved in disputes over the GamerGate article. About a week after that statement on TD is when he imposed an indefinite topic ban on Titanium Dragon under the BLP discretionary sanctions. This action had actually been performed out of process as TD had not been clearly notified of the sanctions and thus the topic ban was reversed.
• When an editor filed a community sanctions enforcement request against Tarc, stating he was edit-warring to include an inflammatory term and flouting a compromise to use one less inflammatory, Gamaliel essentially argued that no action be taken against Tarc even if he was editing against consensus because his edit was correct and later closed the discussion with no action.
• Soon after this case was opened Gamaliel imposed an indefinite topic ban against Tutelary, who as I noted was one of three editors he previously voted to topic ban. Gamaliel states he made this decision by ruling out "involved" editors, but from my own count there are only six editors who are uninvolved regarding Tutelary generally or uninvolved regarding GamerGate specifically. Of those Cullen328, Dave Dial, and Daveosaurus, supported a topic ban, while Ivanvector, Obsidi, and Xezbeth opposed a topic ban. Mere minutes after the topic ban on Tutelary, Gamaliel imposed an indefinite topic ban on MarkBernstein, but logged it to where it looks like Tutelary was topic-banned after Mark. A day earlier he made a very sympathetic statement about Mark suggesting he did not want to sanction him. His reluctant statement about imposing the sanction came after at least two other admins suggested sanctions based off Mark's egregious incivility for which Gamaliel had previously only warned him with a very sympathetic statement.

Black Kite INVOLVED

(work in progress)

GameJournoPros

(work in progress)

Regarding Drmies

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

Evidence presented by Mr. Random

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

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

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

Evidence presented by LoganMac

Ryulong recieved $370 by a known anti-GamerGate subreddit

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

Said Reddit thread

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

He does so here confirming it's his account

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

His fully founded GoFundMe page

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

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

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

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

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

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

PresN's evidence

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

Evidence presented by Ryulong

Refutation of The Devil's Advocate's evidence

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

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

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

TDA has been actively advocating on behalf of Gamergate onsite and offsite. He has constantly edited the article and talk page in a way to ensure that any negative material is demoted to being an opinion of a writer while actively pushing that anything supportive of Gamergate gets treated as a fact.

TDA's renewed claims are still nonsense. He has cherry picked honest mistakes made in good faith and is displaying them out of context as if they are full of malicious intent. The inclusion of Adam Baldwin in that list of people is supported by the source in question, and it does not imply what he has said it implies. The content on Elias Isquith's criticism of David Auerbach's piece was also done in good faith and other editors found no real fault in my paraphrasing. Unless TDA can show that I've added content for the sole purpose of being anti-Gamergate rather than a couple of unintentional mistakes that are no longer in the article then he has no leg to stand on.

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

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

A week passed when I saw 8chan had been created. I contacted the moderator I had spoken to at Reddit if contributing to that page was okay, and they said that they saw no problem as far as they were concerned. The following is a timeline of what happened concerning that article:

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

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

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

Refutation of Loganmac's evidence

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

Off-site canvassing and harassment

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

BLP violations by The Devil's Advocate

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

Harassment by Tutelary

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

• ANI
• AN3
• AN3
• AN3

Examples against NorthBySouthBaranof as well

Edit warring by Tutelary

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

General issue of links to my Twitter account

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

Refutation of Starship.paint's evidence

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

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

Coverage in forums frequented by Gamergate advocates also doesn't mean anything. A bunch of people overwhelming a poll and their hate of me doesn't mean anything to anything as to what should happen to me on Misplaced Pages. Gamergate supporters will rally against anything that they think casts them in a bad light. They've gone after the Digital Games Research Association because they might have feminists amongst their researchers. They've gone after the International Game Developers Association because they provided a link to a third party app to prevent harassment that involved a blocking list based on Twitter users most involved in advocating for Gamergate. A poll on Misplaced Pages that wrings me out to dry is the least of our problems, nor are pieces by extremely biased journalists on websites that would never be considered reliable sources in the first place.

Single-purpose accounts and "zombie" accounts

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

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

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

Tutelary refutations

First diff was directed to anyone at KotakuInAction and not particular editors. My harassers there can still eat shit. So can the people on Twitter who follow certain users like sheep, the anti-Semites and homophobes at /gg/ and other boards that attack me, and the various users at Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipedocracy who enabled details on my private life to go public. Second one is perfectly within context. Cobbsaladin was indeed full of shit in his explanations regarding directly copying my user page to mock me.

Community sanctions & admin shopping

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

Since the instatement of the page, 11 editors were banned for various lengths under these sanctions. The bans were mostly meted out against editors advocating for Gamergate. Complaints have been made about a claim of unfair implimentation of these rules, despite no attempt by editors on one side of the dispute to even attempt to use the enforcement page to seek out sanctions against editors they consistently complain about on noticeboards.

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

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

East718 refutation/rebuttal/whatever

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

Evidence presented by Silver seren

Notice of possible meatpuppetry

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

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

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

There's also this acknowledgement.

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

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

Evidence presented by TheRedPenOfDoom

User:Titanium_Dragon has an inherent conflict of interest

User:Titanium_Dragon self identifies as and therefore has an inherent conflict of interest in editing gamergate articles, since gamergate in general is ostensibly about wide-spread collusion between game designers and journalists when it is not about sending death threats to women, and articles/content about Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu in particular who as indie game developers are effectively competitors in the game design space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Starship.paint

Comments and actions bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusations without proof by MarkBernstein

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

Closure of 12RR as Stale

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

Evidence presented by HalfHat

Odd action by Dreadstar

I'd like to bring up a recent action by Dreadstar that I find rather odd, and I think is worth looking at. Basically he told me to stop making references to Hitler threatening me with sanctions. The thing is all I was doing is referring to the Misplaced Pages article on Adolph Hitler to make a point. The reason I (and I'd guess others) make references to the Hitler article is because it's a well written article on a very controversial topic where nonfringe sources have strong opinions, the argument requires it to be an article on someone or something hated by the RSs. I was simply making the argument that if all sources share an opinion we shouldn't agree in Misplaced Pages's voice. Please note I did not compare anyone or anything to Hitler, I didn't accuse anyone of being a Nazi or anything like that, I was simply making an argument about what is written in the RSs. HalfHat 08:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Response to Ryulong

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

Evidence presented by Thargor Orlando

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

Evidence presented by Avono

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

Regarding Battlefield Mentality

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

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

Evidence presented by Tutelary

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

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

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

• (By administrator Dreadstar, who declared it 'stale' 15 hours later)

(By Future Perfect, giving no reasoning on why Ryulong shouldn't be blocked per WP:3RR saying to go to WP:ANI if anything needs to happen further, even though Ryulong perfectly passed 5RR without an exception.) Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Multiple users have hatted, refactored others' comments even withstanding those user's rejections and have gotten into edit wars regarding this fact. Note that WP:TPO states Indeed it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. and also states that involved users should not be hatting others' comments. The template for hat advises to follow WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR, which states that if anyone objects to refactoring, that it be reverted. Diffs coming later as well as usernames, this is a big issue on the page. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen:

• Hatting a discussion related to content (without signing), a violation of WP:BLPTALK
• A violation of WP:TPO, editing another's comments More diffs to be added as I find them. Tutelary (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

North:

• On 11/28/2014 Hatting another user's edit request with the edit summary 'Nope' and leaving said template unsigned to ensure one has to look at the edit history to see who hatted it

Conduct and comments unbecoming of a Misplaced Pages editor

Ryulong:

• Telling another editor to 'eat shit'
• Says another editor is 'full of shit' More diffs and users as I find them. Tutelary (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Refusal to engage in the encylopedic process
• Making unsubstanciated claims about another editor
• Assuming bad faith with a Misplaced Pages editor

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

The decision on whether to issue discretionary sanctions for GamerGate was closed only after 23.5 hours of discussion, with no SNOW close but with "2:1" support as by closing administrator. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive265#Proposed_Gamergate_solution_by_Hasteur No matter on whether or not they should have been passed, it is a bit ridiculous that not less than 24 hours is enough to impose discretionary sanctions while dsicussion was still ongoing. I'd expect at least 7 days. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect's Conduct

Future Perfect, the administrator closed Ryulong's boomerang topic ban as a result of him proposing that 35+ people, at least 70% of which were not SPAs the way he described them, citing 'no possibility of consensus' as reason for closing said discussion. In this, he also closed one of the 3RRN noticeboard complaints with no action against Ryulong. He's also rarely if ever active to the WP:3RRN, when searching through his Misplaced Pages namespace contributions, he's only ever reported commented on the noticeboard 6 times while the contributions span through April. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar's conduct

Dreadstar used administrative tools multiple occasions in protecting the article, topic banning users, and the like on the article. However, one particularly instance which I can't find an exact reasoning for doing is this deleting of a page to remove revisions. Northbysouthbaranof was edit warring with another account over some edit. I later reported North to which no action happened but that's not the point. Dreadstar deleted the page to -remove- any evidence that this edit warring happened, and the actual content which was being edit warred over. Literally, once those revisions were gone, there was absolutely no evidence that North had edit warred at all, and my diffs for my 3RRN report became void. They were invalid links after that had happened. I questioned this on their talk page and Dreadstar reverted, but the fact that Dreadstar would delete a page to delete revisions so no one could prove that they existed is baffling. Even when an edit is oversighted or revision deleted, the username, the edit summary, and the content of the edit may be deleted. But not the edit itself. This was strange. Tutelary (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of the GamerGate article for 5 months

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

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

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

The sanctions were enacted on October 24, with the wording proposed by Hasteur (and is on the WP:GS page as)

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Misplaced Pages community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee

1. I was never warned of any conduct relating to GamerGate by any administrator, only notified of general sanctions. That, per the official process guidelines for general sanctions only explicitly counts as a notification, and cannot be revoked. Hence, I was never warned of any type of disruption regarding the topic area which is mandated for sanctioning and never given any time to clarify any appearance of disruption.
2. Gamaliel took this community process of WP:ANI and twisted it into discretionary sanctions with exactly no need for it. The community does not lose their ability to propose sanctions just because discretionary sanctions are enacted.
3. Ryulong is not related to GamerGate. I proposed on WP:ANI for experienced users and administrators to look at Ryulong's conduct, decide if it was alright, and accordingly, sanction if it was not. I proposed a topic ban due to his pronounced WP:COI in the area. None of this is related to GamerGate edits, but a COI with the tangential topic of a GamerGate forum. General sanctions do not cover specific editors, but topics, and I was sanctioned for in effect calling Ryulong out.
4. Even deferring to the community discussion which Gamaliel blatantly stated was an imposition of general sanctions, and not a community based one, his reasoning still does not hold up.

Evidence presented by DungeonSiegeAddict510

All links archived for security.

Off-site conduct

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

• https://archive.today/HbWqp -comment by Ryulong, via archive.org/today / twitter.com
• https://archive.today/PHr2R -comment by Ryulong, via archive.org/today / twitter.com
• http://tweetsave.com/tarc0917 -archived tweets from Tarc, via tweetsave.com / twitter.com
• https://archive.today/l3Mk6 -well well well, what have we here? Post overview for "PresN" on Reddit, via archive.today / reddit.com
• https://archive.today/SxPRC -more, via archive.today / reddit.com
• https://archive.today/zatwq -more, via archive.today / reddit.com
• https://archive.today/k0qeH -more, via archive.today / reddit.com
• https://archive.today/kzdmI -more, via archive.today / reddit.com
• https://archive.today/7D59T -Fishfox Nuro (wat) follows Ryulong on twitter, via archive.today / twitter.com

On-site conduct

There'll probably be reposted info/diffs here.

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

Evidence presented by Weedwacker

Behavior of involved admins

In addition to the presented concerns with admins on the Case Request page by several other editors , I’d like to present additional administrative actions that should be evaluated by the arbitrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what an actual SPA looks like. And here he is editing my comments Weedwacker (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ryulong

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

Evidence presented by Tarc

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

Rebuttal, Retartist

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

Rebuttal, Starship.paint

1. I will make no apologies for expressing empathy to victims of rape and murder threats, nor for assuring them that the Misplaced Pages has strict policies against scurrilous tabloid material, and that they wiki-bios will be written fairly and neutrally.

Rebuttal, Avono

1. My off-wiki comments directed at Auerbach were hasty and ill-advised. I retracted what I said and apologized personally ( here and a longer post on Drmies talk page.) Note that Mr. Auerbach accepted that apology. We have moved on from that unfortunate tiff, which was my fault entirely. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Obsidi

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Gamaliel

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

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

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

Evidence presented by previously involved IP user

BLP violations against Eron Gjoni

On September 15, User:Ryulong rewrote the lede of the article, asserting that the controversy "...began with harassment of... Zoe Quinn by an ex-boyfriend".

On October 25, in the context of an admin noticeboard discussion, User:TheRedPenOfDoom argues: I quite disagree that any "matters of style" allow us to read WP:BLP as condoning any formulation that presents the ranting blog post of an ex boyfriend (repeated ad nauseum by internet trolls )to sit as an unadorned "allegation" when all of the reliable sources covering it specifically point out that the "allegations" had zero basis for being made in the first place. Since "the... blog post of an ex boyfriend" (i.e. Gjoni) is being labelled as the 'allegation' that in TRPoD's opinion must be 'adorned', this phrasing therefore attributes the specific claim being discussed in the article - i.e. "that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage" - to Gjoni.

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

Additionally, talk page discussion has been full (diffs to come) of pejorative descriptions of Gjoni and his blog post; if not BLP violations, then they are at least not WP:CIVIL.

The current article includes several quotes and opinions sourced directly from Quinn, but none from Gjoni. Quinn is mentioned 52 times not counting titles of citations; Gjoni twice. Two of the citations are Quinn's own work. Thus, Gjoni has not been allowed to defend himself, with descriptions like "strange, rambling attack" standing unopposed, and to the best of my knowledge he has not been given appropriate space in the article at any time. While I recognize that Arbcom does not handle content disputes, this is important context to my BLP claims - the policy is being applied hypocritically, with a double standard against Gjoni and in favour of Quinn.

Other BLP issues

On October 18, User:Ryulong made opinionated, disparaging remarks about Milo Yiannopoulos on the talk page (personally, not referring to the reliability of Breitbart in general).

On October 26, User:TaraInDC reverted an edit by User:ArmyLine on ANI, citing BLP. ArmyLine cites a source used in the main article (Totilo's statement), that explicitly states "in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship", which corroborates ArmyLine's claim perfectly - since Quinn and Gjoni were still together at the time.

On October 28, User:Ryulong made a claim in the article about Dale North, which was promptly removed by User:Bilby, citing "significant BLP concerns".

Violations of WP:CIVIL by Ryulong

On October 8, Ryulong was explicitly asked to stop using profanity on the GG Talk page, and he agreed to this, but did not comply (diffs to come).

On October 18, Ryulong was repeatedly incivil on AN/EW, and his responses to Titanium Dragon were dismissive of the entire DRN process, showing disrespect for official Misplaced Pages policy. User:NorthBySouthBaranof showed up in that thread to defend Ryulong, immediately after (note timestamps) a direct appeal for help on his user talk page.

Ryulong has continued to be uncivil even during these proceedings (defending previous, clearly uncivil actions and repeating the profanity); (this frankly reads to me like an attempt at intimidation). He now appears to be stalking me across Misplaced Pages.

Hypocritically, however, Ryulong appears to feel that being reported multiple times by the same user, for multiple violations of policy, in presumed good faith, somehow constitutes "harassment".

Demonstration of WP:NPOV, violations of WP:CIVIL by TheRedPenOfDoom and WP:TAGTEAM concerns

On the GG Talk page, TheRedPenOfDoom repeatedly referred to Gamergate supporters as "(sexually repressed) basement dwellers" (October 11) (October 13). Hypocritically, on October 14, TRPoD suggested to Arbcom that the talk page could potentially benefit from adult oversight.

After I called out the obvious bias demonstrated by these remarks, Ryulong removed those comments as "trolling and comments that will prevent this page from ever adequately being archived", while allowing TRPoD's comments to stand. The comments he removed also include me attempting to call out NBSB for hypocrisy in his evaluation of the reliability of sources.

17 minutes later - immediately after removing my attempt to appeal NBSB's accusation of supposed BLP violations on my part which I maintain were nothing of the sort - Ryulong performed a "manual archive", effectively shutting me out of the discussion. I cannot find an indication of where the supposedly "archived" content was placed. I was never given a proper hearing on the BLP accusation and the entire encounter struck me as very much WP:BITE.

These incidents typify a pattern of behaviour from these editors in a few ways. The attitude expressed by TRPoD is typical. In particular, the opinions expressed in the sources are reflected and treated as factual in the talk page discussion. Somehow, "gamergate supporters" are not protected by BLP, while e.g. "unnamed members of the GJP mailing list" are. Attempts to defend against BLP accusations get held up in this discussion as evidence of a prurient interest in irrelevant details; when people attempt to clarify what the details actually are and demonstrate that they are not about Quinn's "sex life", it gets treated as further BLP violation. The effect is that some editors don't even get to explain exactly what it is they want to look for sources to support, while other editors get to propagandize about the first group with impunity.

Ryulong and COI

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

Biased assessment of reliability of sources

In this discussion from October 21, we can see how Ryulong is openly antagonistic towards the inclusion of any sources that might paint GG in a positive light - even when they're undoubtedly reliable. He specifically attacks the proposing editor User:Willhesucceed, going so far as to criticize him for "creating new sections to discuss new links" (when the talk page is long and needs that level of organization), and when the article introduces new points. He goes so far as to describe single-paragraph replies as "essays", and engage in Ad hominem on that basis.

Editors have pushed WP:FRINGE theories about Vivian James

TODO. Defense of the claim that the theories are WP:FRINGE has been moved to the Workshop.

Rebuttal, TheRedPenOfDoom

TD has a conflict of interest simply due to being a game developer (and not any specific one whose name has come up in a related news story)? By that reasoning, we could just as easily argue that Tutelary has a conflict of interest due to being a woman.

Rebuttal, NorthBySouthBaranof

I did not make any such claim and the diff proves it. You had already misrepresented the nature of claims that others proposed to attempt to back up with reliable sources, and I clarified what it is that they sought to demonstrate (i.e., "present evidence" supporting). Perhaps nobody ultimately found sources that would stand up to WP:RS scrutiny, but there is definite reason to believe that there was something there worth investigating. The context of that discussion was to establish the validity of such an investigation. Now you persist in misrepresentations, just as you did back at the time.

Evidence presented by east718

Ryulong's witch-hunting mentality

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

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

Ryulong has engaged in edit warring

• 15 reverts: ; AN3 thread: .
• 9 reverts: ; AN3 thread: .

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

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

Ryulong has been a recidivist problem editor for years

Concerns about Ryulong's lack of decorum, hostility towards newcomers, edit warring, inappropriate off-wiki behavior, and failing to address community concerns have been voiced over a period of years. Ryulong has been blocked for edit warring 13 times since 2009.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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