Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | GamerGate Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:48, 20 December 2014 editThe Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 edits →Clerk/Arbitrator request← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:21, 24 October 2016 edit undoKs0stm (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,727 edits fix 
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched|
{{Ivmbox|border=black|1=This page is for editors to discuss their own evidence with the committee. Do not use this page to rebut evidence submissions by other editors. Attempts to do so will be put down by the clerks, and you may be blocked for disrupting the arbitration process. ] ]] 01:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)}}
*To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see ].
{{Casenav}}
*To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see ].
*To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see ].}}
{{Casenav|case name=GamerGate|clerk1=Ks0stm|clerk2=Sphilbrick|draft arb=Roger Davies|draft arb2=Beeblebrox|draft arb3=David Fuchs|active=14|inactive=5|recused=0||}}


__NOINDEX__
== That didn't take long ==
{{ombox |image=] |text= This page has been ]. The contents of this page can be viewed in the . <!-- Template:Courtesy blanked -->

}}
And an SPA has already messed up the page. Is only a clerk allowed to clean that up or what? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
: It had to be expected, I and several others took to his talk page already. Hopefully this will get cleaned up. ] (]) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:Don't bite the noobs people, people politely explained to him what he did wrong, it was fixed. It's OK now ] (]) 03:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::That's because I'm the one who fixed it's formatting before the editor redacted it. It still doesn't belong.—] (]) 04:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::: I agree with Ryulong here, it doesn't belong as it's not relevant to the purpose of the Arbitration. ] (]) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Quick question about standards of evidence ==

], are we seriously entertaining the use of a webpage - one that's - as evidence of the POV bias of parties to the case? In that case, shall we also consider the use of, say, unusual rhetoric (such as "sea lioning", a term which I've thus far only heard from anti-GG and which in fact ; or "]", which seems to come directly from ] social circles)?

] (]) 04:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:I want to add in to this discussion of ]'s comments about archive.today (This may be better suited for a refutation within an actual evidence presentation on the main page, but I have not yet made one with new evidence to present that has not already been placed there). Associating the use of a website used for snapshotting purposes with a particular group and implying they should be disregarded for this is quite troubling. Also, quoting Silver: "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". This statement proves the occasional necessity of archives, and they are more reliable than screenshots which are easier to manipulate. In response to comments on the exact evidence links posted having been compiled offsite and sourced for here, the archive links were mostly ones initially posted by myself on the ANI discussion, ones which I collected myself through either creating new archives of pages or using the archive website to select already made snapshots of pages saved on archive.today. These archives were also necessary for showing changes that had taken place on the pages in question, with relevant new things added and relevant old things that had been removed. Also, are you really making the accusation that a post on an anonymous board claiming to be an editor here should be taken seriously? ] (]) 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::That's especially rich seeing as SilverSeren has been a recurring presence at the GamerGhazi subreddit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, I have. Problem? I haven't been discussing the Misplaced Pages article there, while that's pretty much the only thing you've been doing over at The Escapist. Well, that and also trying to dox/out a Wikipedian that doesn't edit anymore. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 06:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I will only comment that it seems hypocritical in this case for you to point out other editors for personal involvement] (]) 06:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::You are being a bit disingenuous on your Reddit activity regarding this issue, but I don't think anything you have done there is a problem just like I don't think anything I have done on The Escapist is a problem (saying a Twitter user who talks about having edited Misplaced Pages is, in fact, the same as a Misplaced Pages user with the exact same pseudonym does not constitute outing). It is only funny because you are going all "Muh collusion!" over the slimmest associations with 8chan.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Your only reason for going after said user in the first place is because they make Storifys that detail the horrible comments made by Gamergate proponents. Unless you have an actual reason for doing so, other than that he is anti-Gamergate? Have you done as such for any pro-Gamergate people, several of which who have claimed to have edited Misplaced Pages? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::I thought they would find it interesting that a prominent member of GamerGate's opposition had such a colorful past here.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::While I have already forwarded information to the arbitration committee referring to this, let me just tell you that you were entirely incorrect in the situation being discussed.—] (]) 08:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Incorrect about what? If you are saying I am incorrect about the dude on Twitter being the dude here, then you are sorely mistaken and I would be happy to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt to the Arbs just so they can be assured I did not spread a false rumor about you. Also, why would you forward information to ArbCom about it? You got like five @replies over that whole thing and some of those were just because you kept palling around with the guy on Twitter, which is how I originally got turned on to this fact in the first place.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::"saying a Twitter user who talks about having edited Misplaced Pages is, in fact, the same as a Misplaced Pages user with the exact same pseudonym does not constitute outing". Agreed. This is especially amusing to me in a context where both of you have implicitly accused each other of being the same user off-wiki (on Reddit and The Escapist respectively) and implicitly admitted each other's claims. ] (]) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:: I feel I should clarify my earlier comments on why I think screenshots are an outdated and unreliable source compared to archive.today for the benefit of not only arbitrators watching this page, but also all involved parties. Screenshots can not only be manipulated through photo-editing software, but also through people manually changing the source on a web browser to alter the text that they then screenshot (not to say this always happens, but it can). Archive.today involves submitting a URL, which the website then looks at from their point of view and makes a snapshot of, eliminating any attempts by the user to manipulate the page. Archive pages are a more objective and reliable source. ] (]) 06:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::The issue here is that off-site evidence should not factor into what happens on Misplaced Pages. There is no need to use archive.today on links found within Misplaced Pages. There's no reason to link to anything offsite that must be archived through a service in order to preserve it as evidence.—] (]) 08:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Based on this off-site evidence of accounts confirmed by editors on wikipedia to be theirs is allowable depending on content. ] (]) 22:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Ask Ironholds whether off-site evidence is "factored into what happens on Misplaced Pages". At least one Wikipedian was banned for contributing to an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on him. ] (]) 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

== Clarification request ==

], could you please quickly clarify what you mean by "obstructionist" evidence, and explain how coordinating an effort to gather such evidence has anything to do with "deliberate harassment"? It looks to me from the pastebin like the intent is/was to turn up diffs - you know, the same standard of evidence that Arbcom demands - and present them with minimal comment for the consideration of the general public. ] (]) 07:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::My statement is meant to be more "big picture". I cited precedent of when ArbCom used off-site evidence in a similar situation, thus making it part of "standard evidence". There are literal how-tos and instructions on where and what to post given to users in the forums I linked, including block evasion discussion. As a ] IP user with mysteriously high knowledge of Misplaced Pages you are, ironically, a ''perfect'' example of what I'm talking about to where I wouldn't be shocked if you came up at ] eventually. Bluntly, you could be evidence. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::The hounding of those listed on the "Horsemen" pastebin after the date it was posted speak for themselves on incident boards and talk pages. I have no interest in commenting on this case further as I do not wish to display partisan bias. My only complaints are those against policy regardless of who committed them. I don't care who is being talked at or why. Only that it is damaging. <small>signed as a separate comment</small> <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::::That reads like a threat, and also does almost nothing to answer my questions. Any knowledge of WP I have is the result of paying attention while reading these discussions and being a quick study. I've been around; I'm the "previously involved IP user" from the statements made in the case request. I assure you I am only "sockpuppeting" for myself, as my IP is not under my direct control.

::::That said, I don't really understand what ''your'' involvement here is. I can't say I recognize your username and you didn't make a statement in the case request. ] (]) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Ryulong's BLP claim against me ==
{{collapse top|Appears the desire of others to ] is too great to leave it out in the open.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)}}
I love how someone repeatedly accusing me of not really violating BLP, but almost doing it, is only advertising the very thing that is supposedly so suggestive like some sort of , but I believe the only way I can feel comfortable addressing this is in private with the Arbs. Comment from the Arbs on that front por favor?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:It's pretty obvious from the diff that you were referencing or otherwise hinting at something that if you actually said it, it would be a BLP violation toward the article subject. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::Nice to see you also acknowledging that it was not a BLP violation. This is great. Let's just keep talking publicly about this thing that is not a BLP violation and make people even more curious to learn what it is about. I think that makes total sense.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::You intentionally toed the line in a way that was much more pointed than any of my additions to the Gamergate article that you simply dislike.—] (]) 07:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Pray tell, how ''else'' could one make the case that "we should favor images from late 2008 onward"? (Do you dispute that we should? Do you believe you know specifically what's being hinted at?) ] (]) 07:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Stop pressing you fools!--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Question about Outing Policy ==

If I were to present evidence that commented on the offsite behaviour of editors, and the potential for serious problems their behaviour could have and has caused, would this be in violation of ]? ] (]) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, it could easily be. Bearing in mind that we only rarely take off-wiki stuff into account, you should ask yourself whether such evidence has any probative use. Even so, best is to email the committee, using the email user function on ]. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Thanks. In that case I'll email any parts of my statement relating to non-acknowledged accounts to arbcom instead of posting them here.] (]) 13:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:: It seems like a lot of people here are angling to cite off-wiki stuff. Are there any general guidelines for what's relevant? I fear that arbcom is going to be getting a lot of email if everyone decides to take the "safe" route... ] (]) 17:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::: Yes. We normally only take off-wiki stuff into account if it is serious (typically outing, threats of violence etc). We don't usually act on stuff about off-wiki cabals because it's very difficult to prove who the individuals are and what they're up to with any degree of certainty. Joejobbing is also not unheard of. Simply put, we are not law enforcement and we have no resources for dealing with stuff like:
:::* "User:XXX on ForumABC is probably WikiUser:XYZ and was talking on Forum123 with User:YYY (who could easily be WikiUser:Ynot on wikipedia) to say nasty stuff about John Doe, who probably edits Misplaced Pages as User:WWW. ArbCom therefore needs to ban them."
:::So, to cut a long story short, the less private evidence the better. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 01:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::To be clear, would evidence of, say, ] be considered "serious"? But presumably not evidence of WP:POV? How about, say, conspiring to violate WP:BLP? Those seem to be the major categories of why people want to bring up off-wiki evidence, from what I've seen (apologies in advance if anyone feels misrepresented by that; that's just how it's come across so far). <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::No one outside of Gamergate thinks I was paid for anything so quit accusing me of that.—] (]) 03:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: You were not even named in this discussion, nobody in this discussion accused you of anything. You're very defensive about accusations of ] even when they don't name you. ] (]) 07:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::When most of the complaints about me from people off-site concern money I've received and there haven't, as far as I'm aware, been any other issues of any money going around anywhere, then occam's razor strikes again.—] (]) 08:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: It easily could have been about someone else ] (]) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:If this is for that screencap I posted on Twitter, I already apologized if you took it as a personal attack and not a general criticism of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

== Please, guys ==

DSA, Bosstopher, please treat this seriously. Don't add anything to the main section header that is not your user name, and DSA, I think it has to be your full user name.—] (]) 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:I'm going to go to their talkpages and add a comment if there isn't one already. ]] 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Regarding users blocked ==
<s>
The following users are blocked on Misplaced Pages who participated in the original case.
*
*

Tobascoman77 is blocked indefinitely and as a result cannot participate in this ArbCom case even though they expressed interest on , being blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE
ArmyLine is blocked for a week (5 days from now) and this may limit their evidence collecting and workshop time.

I propose a limited terms unblock for the both of them, ArmyLine topic banned to only ArbCom's namespace for this case for 5 days, and Tobascoman77 the same, indefinitely pending any result overturning his block as a final result of this ArbCom case. ] (]) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)</s> See below. ] (]) 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' — the sum total of TabascoMan77's contributions to this encyclopedia on this matter involve describing three Misplaced Pages editors as "white knights for Zoe Quinn" who he describes being "as notable as belly button lint" on a noticeboard, then repeating a number of false, discredited and poorly-sourced attacks on Zoe Quinn on that noticeboard until being banned by general acclamation. ] (]) 21:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There is already in the workshop. ] (]) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
'''Struck proposal''', per the above. ] (]) 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Clarification request #2 ==

], in reference to your statement "I will make no apologies for expressing empathy to victims of rape and murder abuse, 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.
" - what are "victims of rape and murder abuse", exactly? I really can't find a way to parse that that makes sense. The most likely interpretation I can think of is that 'rape' and 'murder' are both intended separately as modifiers for 'abuse', but I don't really understand what "rape abuse" and "murder abuse" are supposed to be. Did you perhaps mean "rape and murder ''threats''"? In which case, is the argument then that the recipient of a threat is ''ipso facto'' a "victim"? ] (]) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, "threats" would have been a better word choice Sorry, was in a hurry. ] (]) 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Question on PresN's evidence ==

{{ping|PresN}} Do you have any evidence that Logan_Mac on reddit is ] on Misplaced Pages? (Anyone can go create a reddit name that is similar to a wiki name and then act badly on it) I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, but just curious (maybe I missed it?). --] (]) 22:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:Added some, going through his edit history to find more. --''']]''' 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks. --] (]) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Also, can I add that it is exceedingly tedious that several editors on one side of this issue keep trying to coyly pretend that wikipedia users who make comments about reddit posts of theirs and Reddit users with the same screenname who make posts about their wikipedia edits are not, in fact, the same users. --''']]''' 23:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I have no idea who is who on reddit (I almost never go on there). I'm not trying to "coyly pretend" anything, I just don't know. --] (]) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::PS. looking over that thread (which I hadn't seen before) makes me kind of angry. To me it looks like Ryūlóng was ] ] when he says: "That account is definitely you and it's been established onsite already when you posted about that other person and you didn't deny owning the account then." per ] you have not "established onsite" if you fail to deny that it is your account. That said, I am unsure of the policy now if Loganmac response confirms it, the policy gets a lot less clear. --] (]) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Since there has been a lot of talk about WP:OUTING now I have attempted a proposal about it in the Workshop. It's probably terrible but please have a look. ] (]) 23:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Loganmac and Logan_Mac are close enough in name and behavior to eliminate reasonable doubt. Just because he doesn't want to own up to his harassment offsite does not mean that this is a violation of outing.—] (]) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: If he has not "own up to it", it is ], as the policy page says: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." And as an example of "Personal information", it gives "other contact information (including any other accounts on any other web sites)", so unless ] has done something on Misplaced Pages to say that account is his, it is ] to say that it is. (Not to mention that it is potentially inaccurate as anyone can create an off-wiki account with the same/similar name) --] (]) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Occam's razor. Someone who has been heavily involved in Reddit's "KotakuInAction" board with the screenname "Logan_Mac" before Loganmac returned to editing Misplaced Pages has almost exclusively been posting about Misplaced Pages on the "KotakuInAction" board and often attacking me when I have been in content disputes with Loganmac on Misplaced Pages. "That might not be me mate" is not a valid defense as described at ] either.—] (]) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Even if you are right (lets assume for the moment you are), that still violates ]. Do you think it is ok to post the address/phone number of someone just because you are correct that it is their address/phone number? Clearly not, so being "right" that they are the same person just makes the ] even worse. --] (]) 00:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::}} {{ping|PresN}}, so I am looking at the on-wiki thread that you linked to. And he objects to any off-wiki accusation and then says "that account might not be mine mate", that seems to be what WP policy says to do when someone does that, per ]: "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." And then Loganmac says: "And on the reddit account, silence doesn't mean admission". So can you, PresN, explain why you think that the WP user ] identifies the user Logan_Mac on reddit as himself on that thread ? --] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Ryulong given that you are highly involved in this, it's probably wise to let uninvolved users (preferably Arbs and Clerks) to decide how similar their behaviour is. ]] 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I can make up my mind and inform the arbitrators about it and others. Besides, it is not my evidence in question here.—] (]) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have posted an easy point-by-point rebuttal on his user page
I find him linking me to mocking mental retardation sickening. ] (]) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:So, are you denying that the reddit user "logan_mac" is you, or not? If not, it is admirable that you've created a point by point rebuttal to defend this person. ] (]) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::He doesn't need to deny that the reddit user "logan_mac" is him. As long as he does not admit that it is him on WP, then the two accounts should not be associated on WP. --] (]) 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::Read it again, the rebuttal is to defend myself from accusations he made against ME, this Wiki account. Like me mocking mental retardation. And looking at how he got half the stuff wrong to accuse me with. ] (]) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

:I think Loganmac is Logan_mac because a) both accounts refer to things that happened to the other account in the first person; b) Loganmac, even while claiming that Logan_Mac may not be him, still laughingly defends actions taken by Logan_Mac; c) Logan_Mac has implicitly claimed to be Loganmac several times and Loganmac has never denied such, even when it would make then look better, and d) I have more than two brain cells in my head- if the user in question was the president of a country they might have pretend stalkers, but this is a tiny, niche issue and no-one is pretending to be a different no-name user than they are. --''']]''' 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::If a shared username is "obvious" then it's hilarious you call yourself uninvolved when you're a member of GamerGhazi. Do you stand by your remarks that I laught at mental disorders? ] (]) 04:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::What comment are you talking about? And do you have any proof that the Reddit user PresN is me, and that he was talking about you? --''']]''' 05:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::This PresN guy still doesn't get it, he just added "Also, Loganmac has posted on my talk page arguing about my interpretation all the Reddit links I've posted below. Don't worry, though, he's just defending on wiki this other person who's pretending to be him on another website, without ever saying that they're not him, he's not saying they are him.", and this comes FROM AN ADMIN, don't you see how I and many others think certain people ruin Misplaced Pages's image? You still refuse to apologize or ammend your statements, if you had read ANYTHING, I was defending MYSELF, this wiki account, from the conclusions you yourself took, that I laugh at mental disorders, that I called ArbCom corrupt, this are your own conclusions ] (]) 04:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I think you've lost your plot- all the links I posted are to Reddit posts by Logan_Mac. I didn't post any links to Misplaced Pages edits by Loganmac. Are you now saying that Logan_Mac is you? Because if you're saying that Logan_Mac is not you, you could have just said that, instead of a point-by-point refutation of my interpretations of Logan_Mac's comments, since that heavily implies that he is you. Because if he's not you, why would you care what I said about him? --''']]''' 05:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Very funny, but you were very explicit that you were talking about what you believed to be the same person, so they were accusations against both reddit user Logan_Mac and ]. Secondly ArbCom has no jurisdiction (or power) to change reddit. --] (]) 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes, ''I'' think Logan_Mac is the same as ]. But all the evidence I posted was about Logan_Mac. If they weren't the same person, then all User:Loganmac had to say was that they weren't, that there was no proof, and that the evidence should be struck. But he didn't- he defended Logan_Mac point by point. Why? He has also now made claims that the Reddit user PresN is the same person as me, but with no more proof then a comment that Reddit user made. Why can you only link Reddit accounts to Wiki accounts when it's convenient for him? Finally, at no point have I asked for ArbCom to do anything at all on Reddit; I've only provided evidence that a user I believe to be Loganmac has been pursuing a long-term "vendetta" of sorts against Ryulong, keeping it off-wiki to avoid getting in trouble here. --''']]''' 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} You've now added "evidence" that is nothing more than an archived link to the reddit post history of a user "PresN". What proof do you have that that user is me? And what are you trying to prove, since you don't link to actual comments- that a user by that name exists? --''']]''' 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
: {{ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} It appears that PresN and Loganmac have both stood down here. You should remove the link as well. ] (]) 06:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's incomprehensible to me why we are all supposed to pretend as though we're complete idiots when discussing this issue. Is a user on another site whose activity, interests and username are the same as one on wikipedia? PROBABLY. I mean, '''come on'''. If the resolution to this kabuki dance is studied indifference, shouldn't we be worried about the epidemic of wikipedia users being impersonated by reddit users who post on KiA? Especially considering that many of the same editors are vocally devoted to "neutrality", we should worry about their good name being sullied by posts under an identical username in a forum devoted to harassing people. If someone using my account name on another service spent months stirring the shit, canvassing editors and riling up a community of people already angry about gamergate I'd want someone to at least tell me about it so I could clear my name! ] (]) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:If you think a user is doing something off-wiki that is so egregious that they need to be sanctioned for it here on-wiki, then feel free to , that's why we have private evidence. If ArbCom thinks the evidence presents a potentially valid reason to sanction the user and there are real outing problems they can choose to setup a private hearing where the user can rebut the evidence against them in a private setting. (and if you really are just trying to notify the user, you are free to email them with the other account name, and they are free to post anything they want about it) --] (]) 17:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

: ] nuff said. ] (]) 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::I'm aware of the policy, thanks! The reason why I've got my name and my accounts posted on my page is I was outed by Daniel Brandt years ago. But this is just dumb. ] (]) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

== Question for mostly uninvolved admin PresN ==

PresN is that has been and about the GamerGate coverage on Misplaced Pages you? This three-year-old account certainly to belong to an admin using the username PresN on Misplaced Pages about Quinn's photo. If not, should we contact the Reddit authorites so they can shut that shit down?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:You shouldn't be asking him this (again see ]). --] (]) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::Wait . . . what the hell?! Whose brilliant idea was to the policy? According to that month-old version I just engaged in outing merely by asking the above question, but I refuse to consider this to be the case. It would be one thing if the account was under a different name and they weren't talking shit about Misplaced Pages, but in what universe is it "posting personal information" to suggest that someone using the exact same name as a Misplaced Pages editor, identifying as a Misplaced Pages editor, and discussing Misplaced Pages-related issues, might actually be that Misplaced Pages editor? Some people are really taking this whole "secret identity" thing all the way to Clark Kent levels of stupidity.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: Doesn't happen often, but for once I find myself in agreement with TDA. That addition to the policy text is pretty nonsensical. Discussions about off-wiki accounts like this are, and always have been, legitimate. Some more detailed thoughts on the matter here . ] ] 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Looks like it was claimed to have been done based on what ] said. That "other contact information" a subset of which includes "any other accounts on any other web sites". If this was not changed based on information from ], I would ask that it be reverted (but clearly I don't know if that is the case or not). --] (]) 01:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:To answer the original question: PresN on Misplaced Pages is just as much PresN on Reddit as Loganmac on Misplaced Pages is Logan_Mac on Reddit. Which is to say, unless God himself comes down and declares the IP address of both accounts to be the same, Logan will continue to smugly deny that they're the same, so there's no earthly way to prove that either/both accounts aren't smirkingly denying the obvious, so no. There's tons of people out there who think "PresN" is a great user name. I think I'm supposed to ban you now? --''']]''' 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::I suspect that post has broken multiple rules, but if nothing else it's extremely uncivil. I'd suggest reconsidering what you just said. ]] 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Which post are you referring to? If it's the one that you're replying to, well, saying that Logan is "smugly" and "smirkingly" denying the obvious may be pushing it, but I don't think that it crosses the line into uncivil, or else I wouldn't have posted it. The "ban" bit was a joke; I agree with the other commenters in this section that the new, narrow addition to the OUTING policy is too much. --''']]''' 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I have no issue with the ban comment. Attacking Lognmac here however, especially in a section where he hasn't commented, was totally unneeded. It adds nothing to the comments here. Further I'm sure he has said he is neither confirming nor denning it because it said in ] "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information", however that is just from memory. ]] 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Here's the difference: PresN has just voluntarily confirmed, using their Misplaced Pages account, that they are that same user. Now, I haven't looked, but no matter how obvious the connection between the Logan WP username and the Reddit ID is we cannot verify it with any degree of certainty. So we cannot treat them as the same person.

::::::This came up in an off-wiki matter the committee dealt with earlier this year, where a user who had just been blocked here was severely harassing another user via youtube, using the same username. I was personally 100% convinced that they were one in the same, and I believe most of the arbs were as well, but the user in question denied it was them so we simply couldn't consider the connection verified.

::::::This is sort of like the wheel warring policy. It gives an advantage to the admin that reverts another admin. That first admin, no matter how much they just ''know'' that the second one is wrong, cannot revert the action back or they risk being summarily desysopped. Is that fair? Not really, but it is the best way anyone could come up with to stop wheel warring. The outing policy is the best way anyone has come up with to stop malicious outing or "Joe jobs". It is not perfect and it sometimes requires us to ignore our own observations in the absence of hard evidence. I should think that would be a concept any experienced Wikipedian could easily understand since it mirrors the verifiability policy. ] (]) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::: Not convincing. Of course there are situations where hard-and-fast proof is difficult or impossible. But just like with sockpuppet investigations, Misplaced Pages "justice" doesn't go by judicial standards of evidence, but by what is best for the smooth functioning of the project. This is a far more apt analogy than your rather far-fetched one of the wheel-warring one: the "DUCK" concept applies for these off-wiki kinds of identities just as it does to sock investigations. "Joe jobs" may of course be a realistic problem in some situations, but they can be fairly safely excluded through simple common sense whenever both the on-wiki and the off-wiki account are clearly older than the dispute situation in question, and of course especially if the off-wiki account is older than the on-wiki one. Finally, and very importantly: it is one thing to warn (rightly) that off-wiki links of this kind may often be impossible to prove. It is quite another thing to claim (as was hinted at by some in this thread) that the mere ''attempt'', the mere ''mentioning'' of a hypothesis of this kind ought to be treated as sanctionable misbehaviour. That suggestion is indeed outrageously against the best interests of the project. ] ] 22:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Regardless of whether talking about off-wiki contributions count as outing, since Beeblebrox has made it clear that they won't look at Loganmac's off-wiki comments unless he specifically admits that it's his account, and Loganmac has made it clear that he will do no such thing, I've removed my evidence section from the page so as not to waster the arbs' time with evidence they won't be taking into account. --''']]''' 22:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm glad we could work at an agreement, you were free to leave it if you wanted, I just had a particular problem with one of those conclusions, the mental disorder thing. Thanks, I will now delete the rebutal ] (]) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Glad you could work it out. ] (]) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm glad you guys could work it out as well. ] (]) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Question about contributing ==

I would like to make some arguments that, while they don't ''directly'' point to anyone's wrongdoing, should provide important context for the claims of others. In particular I wish to argue about (a) the nature of specific claims made by individuals involved in Gamergate, as they relate to BLP policy; and (b) how the RS policy works/ought to work, and differences between talk page discussion and main page writing.

Is there a place for that on the evidence page? Would it be better on this talk page? I could probably find a few relevant diffs highlighting things that can be seen as undesirable editor behaviour in that context, but it would still mean writing a lot of argument and little actual evidence.

] (]) 03:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit/general: Where exactly is the correct place to propose "findings of fact" that don't refer to any specific wrongdoings by users, but which should be agreed upon in order to be able to interpret evidence and arguments sanely? In particular, where is the correct place for assertions about what the (putatively) reliable sources actually say, and about how the guidelines for interpreting WP:RS should be interpreted in the specific context of Gamergate? ] (]) 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No response? Per ] I have added proposed principles to the Workshop that cover most of what I had in mind. The remaining portion is an argument regarding the truth/plausibility of specific claims that have been commonly made, separate to what the sources say (since my complaints have generally been about the talk page, where VNT is not directly applicable). ] (]) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:The user of this IP address has constantly and falsely accused Misplaced Pages editors of putting words into the mouth of one of the people involved with the subject of the article when that has in fact never happened. I have responded to his proposed findings on the workshop page as I originally did regarding his original statement.—] (]) 23:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::It's up to you to evidence that, especially the 'constantly' part. I vehemently deny it. I did not even propose any findings on the workshop page, just principles; and that was certainly not a way of accusing anyone of anything. ] (]) 02:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

== A note from one of the arbs who will be handling this case: ==

*First of all, for those that were not aware it is a major holiday weekend in the U.S. right now. If you have a question or otherwise require a response please bear that in mind, and also that fact that on any given day we are still just volunteers who have other obligations in life like jobs, family etc. In other words please be patient.

*Regarding what evidence even is, and more importantly is not:
::It is ] of clearly problematic behavior on Misplaced Pages
::It is clear, specific evidence that a specific Misplaced Pages user, who has ''tied an off-wiki identity with their WP username by (and this is the really important part) publicly making the connection known'' '''here on Misplaced Pages''' is co-ordinating or encouraging unacceptable behavior on other websites. Attempts to tie WP usernames with off-wiki identities without on-wiki supporting evidence are not acceptable, per ].
::It is not your opinion without supporting evidence
::It is not threaded discussion and back-and-forth arguments between the persons submitting evidence
::It is not Twitter/Reddit/whatever posts where someone simply makes a remark you don't care for
:We are obligated to read and evaluate everything that is submitted to us. What we are not obligated to do is to consider off-wiki name calling or rants with no evidence on the same plane as actual hard evidence. Please do not waste our limited time and resources by submitting such material.
Thanks. ] (]) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

== Question regarding activity on other wikis ==

Would my history on Uncyclopedia (.co) be taken into account? --] ] 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

::Have you been co-ordinating or otherwise encouraging disruption here from over there? ] (]) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Since I felt the inclusion of the BoingBoing/Fastcodesign articles opinions that "purple+green=rape", was absurd, I wrote a parody article. But no disruption/coordination. --] ] 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

Everyone on this case should be aware that ] has reverted the previous edit to ] as a change to policy without consensus. The previous edit was claimed to be under the authority of the functionaries. --] (]) 22:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
: ] (]) 22:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:: This qualifies under ] behavior. {{tq| In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by '''making changes to content or policies,''' and do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.}} 100% guarantee you that he did this just to permit some of the evidence against other editors. ] (]) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I wont comment on his motives, but the change does not affect ]. --] (]) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Future is right on this one. The problem is that "outing" under policy carries with it the implication that any such incident should be oversighted and is grounds for an immediate block. No way do I think linking two accounts with the same name to each other is sufficient grounds for such action. Other aspects of the policy adequately cover abuses of that allowance, such as opposition research.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

== Silver Seren's promised screenshots ==
I don't feel that, in this day and age screenshots are good, since the "F12" key exists, and so does Photoshop and MS Paint and Krita, among other '''image-manipulation''' tools. Perhaps actual links or, heaven forbid, an archive.today link, to eliminate the possibility of evidence tampering. --] ] 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:I've posted my own thoughts on this subject . ] (]) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::I'm sure that ArbCom are quite capable of deciding for themselves what they consider acceptable evidence. ] (]) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

== 8chan/reddit threads ==
Another question of mine. Since parties involved in gamergate would be, well interested in the article about gamergate, and things related to the article, perhaps a temporary thing that should be done is to track the specific threads discussing Misplaced Pages matters. If there will be accusations of collusion, and evidence can be provided, my question is why not have the threads in question linked for all to see? --] ] 00:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

== Since I have a dynamic IP ==
{{archive top|IPs are humans too. Your problem is not something that can be dealt with easily: you made your bed and you have to either lie in it or accept that others can figure out roughly where your bedroom may be. ] (]) 01:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)}}
Since clarification was requested on my Talk page: I am an IP user who contributed to the Talk page as 70.24.5.250 back in September (I think), and made a statement in the request for this case as 74.12.93.242. I thought I had one other IP (72.something) involved in the discussion, but upon review (using my browser's history to look up the IP, and then checking the contributions) it was not me but simply another IP user whose comments I found interesting.

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

] (]) 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Make an account.—] (]) 04:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::I'm going to assume good faith and interpret that as a suggestion rather than a demand. I am not interested, or I would have done so long ago. My early attempts to have productive discussion on the GG talk page firmly convinced me against the idea. I'm here at the Arbcom case in large part to explain exactly why that is. ] (]) 04:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Well either you make an account to better coordinate discussion and your identity or you continue editing without an account which actually is less anonymous than having a pseudonym. It solves two problems.—] (]) 04:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:I'm with Ryulong on this one. It'd be easier for everyone involved, including yourself - I don't see how the talk page presents a disadvantage (or other reason not to). ]<font color="green">]</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::First off, if I were to create an account now, I would be compelled to link it to the IP for credibility. That would put me at a disadvantage to other Wikipedians with accounts, since I could at least be geolocated by those former IPs even if I reset my router.
::But much more importantly, it's a matter of principle, not convenience or anonymity. Creating an account represents formally joining the community, and I see this community as one that has serious problems that need to be rectified before I can join in good conscience. That's what I determined with the first IP, why I mainly participated in procedural discussions with the second, and why I've joined the Arbcom discussion with the third - I'm explicitly here to make my case, and see if the problems can be solved. If I'm not satisfied, then I have no reason to create an account. Simple as that. ] (]) 18:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::If you have a dynamic IP, then all that's really being geolocated is the office of the ISP rather than any specific address or the such. That and it only shows major cities/general locations.—] (]) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Given that, I'm already as anonymous as I feel any need to be. ] (]) 19:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Well either you make an account so your attributions can be retained or you worry that every time your modem resets you have to go through some sort of explanatory nonsense. Your choice.—] (]) 20:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Curious about an off-wiki detail ==
{{hat|The answer is "no"--this is not something that needs to be considered here. ] (]) 01:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)}}
While I recognize that off-wiki evidence is of questionable use here, I do think was probably not the best idea. Picking yet another fight with a journalist is bad enough (this one with a bigger megaphone) after his , but I find his this "zoequinn" person at the same time questionable given the individual's as a moderator of GamerGhazi. Should this be considered a cause for further concern?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 09:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:A four-line conversation on Reddit is "fraternizing," apparently. And one must admit, the "Literally Who" thing was creative if nothing else. POINTS! for at least trying to make the trolling amusing. ] (]) 09:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::My point is more the whole accumulation of things at this point. Doing an AMA there about Misplaced Pages is not really a problem. Getting money from them could be a problem. Using them to attack people who have been the subject of previous negative editing when they call you out on your editing is a bit more of a problem. Bringing in a moderator who just happens to be one of the central subjects of the matter to delight in how much you hate GamerGate together ''may'' put him over a line. If he were being completely neutral and civil regarding these matters on-wiki this would all be less of an issue, but that is not the case either. For the record, I have only just begun, though I am a bit perturbed by that evidence limitation.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 09:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::"Bringing in a moderator"? Anyone on Reddit can comment on anything, they don't need the permission of the thread poster. Implying that Ryulong asked Zoe Quinn to comment on his post, even if that mattered (it doesn't, at all), is disingenuous. --''']]''' 09:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::He pinged her quite intentionally to talk about Misplaced Pages things.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Could it be perhaps she was being "attacked" onsite as usual?—] (]) 18:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::I would hardly call a lame pun an "attack" worthy of notifying someone. Your actions put together and in context seem more like someone trying to "rally the troops" off-wiki similar to, though not as bad as, Mark's actions regarding the issue.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:What fraternizing? We are only discussing the ＣＥＮＴＲＡＬ　ＷＡＳＰ　ＭＯＮＯＬＩＴＨ. Also Yiannopoulos and Young (character) attacked me first, not to mention their reputations precede them on that board. Simply pointing out that those character attacks exist in one of the few forums I am able to these days should not mean anything in the long run.—] (]) 10:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{tq|this "zoequinn" person}}, i.e. /u/zoequinn on Reddit, is by all available evidence actually Zoe Quinn, FWIW. She . ] (]) 18:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here at all? TDA, if you think this off-wiki observation is actual evidence of tangible wrong-doing of some sort, then go and put it on the evidence page; if not, it's nobody's business and certainly doesn't belong here. This page is for discussing technical issues about the process of submitting evidence, nothing else. ] ] 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Technically, it is for discussing evidence submissions generally. Arbs have suggested they would not consider off-wiki evidence so, in my own cheeky way, I am asking if they think this evidence is worth considering.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== About intention ==

One theme that I'm starting to see in refutations/rebuttals/etc. on the Evidence page, particularly WRT alleged BLP violations, is "my supposed transgressions are unintentional if valid; my opponent's are clearly deliberate".

The validity is a separate issue. What I'm wondering is: (i) who is qualified to judge whether a violation of BLP rules was "deliberate" or not? (ii) in particular, what gives any ordinary editor the right to assume this about any other editor? (iii) Most importantly, ''does Arbcom actually care''?

Honestly, it all looks like petty squabbling to me - the sort that, per the arbitration guide etc., is heavily looked down upon - and if it were up to me it'd all be refactored away.

Also, speaking of refactoring: can we hat the talk page discussions about the PresN/Loganmac situation now?

] (]) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:There have been many edits made to the whole of Gamergate that have had to be expunged due to their inclusion of deliberate attacks on people or spreading of unsourced information. Meanwhile, most other transgressions that have been listed (at least those that concern edits I've made) have just been perhaps not the best writing, considering most of what had been added was sourced but negative rather than unsourced and negative.—] (]) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Why are you so extensively participating here anyway?—] (]) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::I could ask you the same question. --] ] 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I know I'm not any of the people who've been asked this question, but does no one else find this arbcom case to be a fun and enjoyable pass time? Surely no deep and complicated reasons are required to be interested in this arbcom case? ] (]) 23:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree that arb-com is fun. ] (]) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Final Question, regarding ] ==

Are Wikipedians covered under WP:BLP? I forget. --] ] 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Can someone answer my question this time? --] ] 23:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, they are. Often, ArbCom codifies this with a narrow "Casting aspersions" principle () but it applies to editors more generally too. That being said, in practice it is less rigorously enforced for editors than for article subjects. ] (]) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes they are, what I'd ask if insulting a whole site demographic as "anti-semites" is a violation of BLP or not ] (]) 03:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Everyone knows /pol/ turned into Stormfront 2.0 YEARS ago. From what my accomplice tells me, the far right idiots have been trying to co-opt GG since day 2. --] ] 04:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

== Request that BLP-violating link be redacted from evidence ==
I request that an arbitrator or clerk redact the personal blog linked in from the evidence page — the ] does not contain any exemptions for Arbitration pages. There is no reason to permit, in "Evidence," a link to someone's personal blog which presents unsupported defamatory accusations against a living person — it cannot provide anything of value to this proceeding. ] (]) 23:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

:It explains why a search for more reliable sources was justified. Further, a detailed reasoned argument is made, and the author . And if Boing Boing is a reliable source for the article, then The Flounce meets the same qualifications. Both are group blogs. ] (]) 23:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::Er, no, The Flounce is not a reliable source. It is a group blog with no identifiable editorial structure or fact-checking system, no method of contact other than e-mail and fewer than 130 Twitter followers. It has no known reputation for fact-checking and editorial reliability. In short, it fails all facets of the ]. Moreover, the piece in question boils down to "I read something on the Internet where someone says a person is bad, and I think that person is bad too." It's an opinion of an opinion, with no evident effort to analyze or confirm the contentious and defamatory claims it repeats.
::Your comparison to Boing Boing is misplaced, given the numerous differences. Boing Boing is a well-established blog with identifiable staff and editorial structures. More to the point, we do not use Boing Boing to make contentious claims about living people.
::If you do not understand why and how we treat claims about living people differently and require more stringent sourcing for such material, you should probably review ] and familiarize yourself with its sourcing requirements, particularly the requirement that editors: ]. ] (]) 23:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::The Flounce . I see no evidence of a "fact-checking system" for Boing Boing. It's just clickbait. And yes, you absolutely do use Boing Boing to "make contentious claims about living people", because you're using it to paint users of 4chan (who are living people) with a broad brush.
:::Your characterization of the piece in question is also absurd, given that it's a ''direct analysis of Gjoni's claims''.
:::And again, ''I am not actually making the claims; I am supporting the assertion that the claims were and are worth investigation''. Pray tell, how else could I possibly go about this? ] (]) 23:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::You fail to recognize that by repeating defamatory claims, '''you are making them''' implicitly because you are putting them into the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages does not "investigate" things, it republishes what has been published in reliable secondary sources. ''The Flounce'' is not one of them, and if you disagree, ] is thataway. ] (]) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I did not repeat the claims. ] (]) 23:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::By linking to a blog which makes such claims, you are presenting the blog's contents as truthful — otherwise, why would you introduce it into evidence in this proceeding? Are you saying that you're introducing something into evidence which you don't believe to be true?
::::::The way you go about things on Misplaced Pages, by the way, is to have reliable secondary sources to support all claims that you put forth about a living person. If you can't find a reliable secondary source to support the defamatory claim you want to introduce about a living person, then it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, the end. ] (]) 00:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Sigh. What I said was that the blog's argument is a reason to suggest that the claims ''may be'' true. I was ''not making a point about the claims''; I was making a point about what happened during a discussion on the Talk page when it was proposed to investigate the claims. This is, therefore, supporting evidence for the notion that this discussion was not entirely frivolous. It is ''not intended to evidence the claims themselves'', which I am ''explicitly not arguing about here''. ] (]) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Citing a patently-unreliable blog source to support defamatory claims about a living person is no support at all. ] (]) 00:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::What part of '''I was not attempting to support the claims, but only to justify that an investigation into the claims was merited''' do you not understand? ] (]) 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::May I politely suggest that you are on the wrong website. '''].''' We are not a source of original research about unverified and unsupported claims of anything, much less claims of a highly-defamatory nature. With very limited exception, we republish only what has already been reported in reliable secondary sources. From Misplaced Pages's perspective, that blog does not exist and its claims are a nullity. We don't care what some random person said on their blog, and we don't accept defamatory claims about people made by some random person on their blog. ], which is precisely the crux of this entire issue. GamerGate largely hasn't been able to get reliable mainstream sources to accept its claims, particularly those made about living people, and until and unless it does, Misplaced Pages cannot treat its claims about living people as meaningful or relevant, much less true.
::::::::::tl;dr: If you don't have a reliable secondary source for it, don't put it on Misplaced Pages. The end. ] (]) 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::By "investigate" I clearly mean "find reliable sources which support".
:::::::::::Incidentally, for a while, Quinn's Cracked article was used as a source on the main page. It made defamatory claims about Gjoni, since it characterized his blog post pejoratively, and also makes a completely unevidenced claim involving Gjoni allegedly coaching someone to make a video about something (for obvious reasons I am not going to give more detail). While it was used only to give Quinn's side of the story specifically with regards to her own experience, Misplaced Pages was definitely linking to that material, on an article page no less. So going by what you've been saying here, that was also definitely not OK. After all, that content bore no more relation to the article at that point, than Wyeth's claims do to my current argument.] (]) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}} I do not recall Quinn's article on cracked ever used outside of her biography.—] (]) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{strikethrough|Well, I guess I'll just have to track it down then and add it to my evidence, won't I.}} I likely misremembered, there's tons to sort through. Regardless, it definitely was used on Quinn's article, and as far as I can see, that would not pass the standards I'm being held to here. ] (]) 02:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::No, you're correct. It was used, briefly, in the main article, but after a discussion, consensus was established that it wasn't appropriate in that article, and that consensus has been adhered to.
::It is used, appropriately, in Quinn's own biography, as a ] supporting Quinn's own statements about her personal experiences, which is a specific exemption permitted for self-published sources in biographies. That said, we have better sources for those experiences now, including her interviews with the ] and ]. We can (and probably should) replace it with quotes from those interviews. ] (]) 08:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Butt wait! Christina Sommers was interviewed by MSNBC, therefore it must automatically be biased or something. --] ] 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

==Cla68's evidence section==
Because TheDevil'sAdvocate's evidence exceeds the size limit, I've given him permission to post some of his evidence in my section. ] (]) 06:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:From the notes at the top of the evidence page: "If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so". I can't see how you are in a position to 'give permission' to anyone to get around this, or indeed how posting evidence in another contributor's section would actually do so anyway. If a person's evidence exceeds the length limit, it does so regardless of where it is posted. ] (]) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:This is ridiculous and should be outright forbidden. You're not a party to this case. You're not an arbitrator. You do not get to do this.—] (]) 07:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::I don't see any reason to assume that it isn't forbidden already. "You must submit evidence in your own section" seems clear enough to me. ] (]) 07:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I also don't know why Obsidi was informing editors of the length limit. He is not a clerk or administrator.—] (]) 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Why not assume good faith? Several evidence posts are over limit here. You don't need to hold a position to remind people of rules and limits. ] (]) 07:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::For such a sensitive thing as arbitration, I would prefer an air of officiality behind warnings.—] (]) 07:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I let 4 people know they were over the limit. I'm sure the clerks would get around to telling you about it eventually. You are free to ignore me if you wish and wait for a clerk to tell you, my note was just a friendly reminder (not a warning). --] (]) 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with Ryulong and Andy on this, if TDA feels he has more evidence to post than can fit in his section, he should be asking the arbitrators for permission. Comment to Ryulong, even though what he's doing isn't allowed, him not being a party to this case has nothing to do with anything. ] (]) 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::Once TDA's or anyone elses' evidence is placed in my section, it becomes MY evidence. ALL MINE!!!! And I will not be giving any of it back. ] (]) 07:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, there's a good way to ensure that nobody is going to take any evidence submitted in your section seriously... ] (]) 07:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::A joke doesn't invalidate your evidence, I don't see why the arbs would think it did. I don't think these jokes are a good idea though. ]] 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::That said TDA should probably ask for extra space, I think he could make a pretty good case to do so. ]] 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Judging from the ], I do not believe so readily dismissing Cla68 is very wise. ] (]) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hmmmm... I don't think that judging people by the accolades on their userpages is very wise, but ''chacun à son goût''. The fundamental assumption by all parties here seems to be that evidence is convincing in proportion to its length. I'd question that assumption. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::It like seems decent as a quick crude check to me, though obviously far from perfect. ]] 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|Ks0stm}}, {{ping|Sphilbrick}}, this is something that seems to fall into your Clerking purview. ] (]) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:The reason people present long evidence sections is likely because they're trying to lead the arbitrators towards agreeing with their conclusion that a particular editor is not operating in good faith. Therefore, it is believed that a long trail of diffs is needed to logically, inductively lead the reader to that conclusion. ArbCom has influenced editors to think this way by the manner in which they have structured the case presentation format, but then they've conversely tried to limit evidence sections, to the obvious confusion of participants. Anyway, any diffs I present in my evidence section should hopefully be helpful in assisting the arbitrators in deciding which anonymous editors here need to be sent to bed without their suppers. All you here who are taking this so seriously that you're willing to bicker about it on this and other pages and complain about attempts to joke about it are probably a little too emotionally invested in the outcome. ] (]) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::I believe that the limits are needed in that the goal is that if there is a dispute, then the users must summarize their issues and let ArbCom review the finer details as and when needed. I believe this is why there is more of an importance in citing difs than in posting words. --] (]) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Ridiculous. This on top of your policing of Ryulong's twitter... surprised the arbs suffer your comments. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 06:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been out of town with almost no internet access. Just walked in door, will look through soon.--]] 20:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If TDA needs more space than the usual limits, then a request to the arbs is in order. Posting evidence in someone else's section is not permitted.

I do see that some section are overly large, I will be addressing those issues forthwith.--]] 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Personally, I just want to finish adding my evidence and then evaluating whether I can trim it to a reasonable point.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Any evidence from anyone on the evidence page which gets trimmed, but which I feel to be good evidence, I will place in my section. I will do it myself so as to not give the appearance that someone else is putting their evidence into my section, and therefore offending the procedural sensibilities of the process managers. ] (]) 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I believe that it would still be violating what Sphilbrick just said. An extension can be requested or the summary could be made smaller to fit the limit. --] (]) 08:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::One of WP's, nay the Internet's, greatest failings is not being able to display facial expressions to influence people who are talking past you. ] (]) 12:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== Offsite doxxing and EvergreenFir evidence ==
{{archive top|This talk page is for discussing technical issues with submitting evidence, not arguing over the efficacy of other user's evidence or discussing things they said on Twitter. --''']]''' 17:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)}}
Reposting from his talk page

I don't get it I went ahead and googled "Ryulong gamergate" and most of it seems to be only documenting what has Ryulong done to the article, there was no "doxx", at least on the first two pages. A mock up encyclopedia (not naming cause it might incite people looking) has an article on him that lists his alleged real name but as far as I know that was even before GamerGate, like a long time ago when he was dessysoped. And that ANI was mostly wrong, citing admins as SPAs, the list was edited several times by him and the case was dropped by him, and if I remember right he even said that if anyone was to be topic banned or warned was him for that ] (]) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:While a page on me was on said website for years, my alleged full name and photograph were only added two weeks ago, seeing as it hadn't been touched for years prior.—] (]) 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::Ryulong, did you make a homophobic slur on your Twitter feed when referring to your editing of the GG article on WP? ] (]) 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::As a homosexual I can reclaim it for my own use. Not to mention said slur is often used as a meaningless suffix for some of the websites this topic originated on.—] (]) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Acknowledged. ] (]) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Actually, this is somewhat of a debated topic. I'm familiar with a variation of this issue, as someone diagnosed wit Aspergers Syndrome (now ASD), the term "aspie" could be used by me as a self-descriptor. However I think that the context in which the term is used is more important. --] ] 06:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Along that line, one more question for Ryulong...if you were reserving it for your own use, then why were you using it as a pejorative phrase to refer to other people? Had any of those people you were referring to given you permission to use that word to label or reference them? ] (]) 06:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Because it was my understanding at the time that the bulk of the people involved in the debacle came from the website that the term has lost any and all meaning despite its presence in the vernacular as a homophobic slur and it was simply used as they would use it to suffix the words "new", "old", "linux", etc. It's honestly hypocritical of a lot of them to come down on me as they had for the use of the term.—] (]) 07:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

? Beeblebrox's statement above is clear that off-wiki behavior is only relevant when users are "{{tq|co-ordinating or encouraging unacceptable behavior on other websites}}" or and evidence "{{tq|is not Twitter/Reddit/whatever posts where someone simply makes a remark you don't care for}}". Tweeting to my (at the time) ~50 followers that I was contacted by someone I discovered I did not want anything to do with is not in the purview of this case.—] (]) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, really. Let ArbCom judge my evidence, not you. ]] ''']''' 09:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::None of it is relevant to the case. This is victim blaming at best.—] (]) 09:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::If you really think the evidence is irrelevant, then you shouldn't be concerned about it, right? Well, unless you don't have faith in ArbCom. ]] ''']''' 09:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::::My experiences are not the best. I do remember it being it just like this though. The issue still is that my posts off of the site are constantly being used as evidence of misbehavior onsite when I haven't done nearly what others have. I reacted in a human way to harassment and trolling. I was not acting in regards to Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:Ryulong, maybe you should be less concerned with the quality of other people's evidence and more concerned with your own. You're accusingme of being here to push an agenda with a diff of me saying the placement of a paragraph makes no sense and that the opening sentence of that paragraph is irrelevant to that paragraph. ]] 09:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:The evidence shows that >90% of your edits concern the topic.—] (]) 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::That breaks no rules. ]] 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::An issue only arrises if I'm engaging in either agenda pushing or article ownership, you have failed to show either. ]] 11:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

'''Comment''' PresN, as an active party to this Arbitration case, you should not be closing the discussion especially because you are not uninvolved. Especially because Loganmac started it and you just finished removing your entire speal about how he personally harassed Ryulong. If it needs to be hatted or stemmed, let someone uninvolved do it. You doing it is unacceptable. ] (]) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:The entire thread is just arguing about other people's evidence, which is not what this talk page is for, and complaining about off-wiki behavior, which the arbs have made clear they don't care about. This talk page is to discuss technical matters about evidence, such as whether evidence A is admsissable or if statements B are too long, not if statement C is good evidence or not. Don't sit here wiki-lawyering about whether I can close an off-topic thread or not, especially since you're topic-banned from GamerGate on-wiki. --''']]''' 06:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I endorse the thread closure as an arbitrator, so it stands. Do not continue discussing here. ] ]] 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== Process for extension in word count ==

What is the formal process for an extension of word count? I know I'm over by about 200+ words, and rather than purge, I'm wondering If I can get an extension in word count. Additionally, does my copy and paste of the GamerGate sanction text (that is on the WP:GS) page count against word count? Thanks. ] (]) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
: We'll let you know about an overall length icrease. If you want to get it down, don't quote stuff in full. Links are fine. For information, words limits are the total number of words, including rebuttals. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:An increase in the limit is in progress.--]] 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:See three sections below: ]--]] 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== "BBC recommends the article" ==

{{ping|CIreland}}, what we are looking for here is evidence of problematic behavior on Misplaced Pages. It's nice that the BBC has found the article useful but it is not relevant to the issues we are trying to address here, which are behavioral rather than content-related. Please either present relevant evidence or remove your submission.

Thanks. ] (]) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:IMO, what this evidence shows is that a venerable and trusted reliable source has vetted the project's article on the Gamergate controversy. We have has a small handful of editors who have argued vociferously that our article is garbage, is slanted, is biased, and all sorts of similar verbiage. This was evidenced by the edit-warring (which I will present as Evidence soon, as it appears that no one else has yet) and constant battling over the now-finally-removed POV tag. The BBC endorsement undercuts those attempts to gainsay the article's quality, and shows that we may have editors who ] for their person point-of-view to be heard, rather than airing genuine concerns with project policy such as ]. Would you reconsider your request for removal in this light? ] (]) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Beeblebrox}}There is a repeated accusation, both on the article talk page and at this arbitration, that some editors have controlled the article and engaged in POV-pushing, resulting in a biased article. That is an accusation of misbehavior. By rebutting the contention that the article is biased, the accusation of misbehavior is also thus rebutted. One may or may not find this argument convincing, but I don't understand why it is irrelevant. ] (]) 22:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::It's funny how WP editors are quick to ridicule any outside journalist who criticizes Misplaced Pages, but any outside article that finds that it likes something about WP is held in high esteem. Anyway, would the arbitrators like some evidence of editors who have exhibited good behavior, i.e. have made notable efforts to compromise and find a middle ground? Granted, there aren't too many who are involved in this article but there probably are a few. ] (]) 01:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Quoting the BBC: "there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity". I've contented the article ''is'' factually correct, but presents the material with inappropriate objectivity as maintained by a few editors in ownership. As such, what the BBC says doesn't say anything about the underlying behavior dispute. --] (]) 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Your accusations of ] are inherently flawed, Masem. You are conflating preventing violations of BLP and NPOV and such from a vocal group of editors with ownership which is entirely out of the question. There's been little to nothing ever proposed by any number of Gamergate advocate editors to improve the article and it's all been complaints that it's biased against the Gamergate movement, when that is what every source out there other than the handful of Gamergate advocacy sources say. Sources full of polemic statements that violate BLP. Saying that editors are owning the article when it is to prevent the same attacks from being perpetuated on Misplaced Pages is laughable.—] (]) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I have contended in the past that the article does not accurately represent the sources, and will continue to do so (WRT some aspects) in evidence to follow. This is important to the case and not simply a matter of content, because I intend to show that a BLP-violating narrative has thus been spun against Eron Gjoni. Anyway, making a (reasonably detailed) complaint that the article is biased absolutely is "proposing to improve the article", ''by removing or rewriting the biased wording''. ] (]) 04:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Why are you so intent on saying he has been maligned in the article?—] (]) 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't understand the question. ''Why shouldn't'' I say it? ] (]) 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Because it is only you saying it when everyone else is calling it unfounded or evidently not there.—] (]) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Additional comment: I find it at least interesting that the BBC's praise is being used to defend the article content, when two articles from the BBC are currently used to source a combined 14 assertions on the main Gamergate article. Is there not some kind of conflict of interest there, on the BBC's part at least? ] (]) 20:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} All I can add here is, whether it remains submitted as evidence or not, I cannot foresee any circumstance in which the committee would consider it useful evidence that informs a final decision. However, there seems to be plenty of other submissions for which I could say the same of at least parts of them.

And that's the whole point, we've got two dozen plus users submitting mountains of evidence, to the point where we are probably going to double the normal limits. In order to even determine if it is useful or not we are obligated to review it all and we want this case to move forward as quickly as possible so I have been trying to discourage people from submitting unhelpful material but it has been somewhat of an uphill battle. ] (]) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

:Wouldn't you want to take the opposite tack, then, and make people be more succinct in their filings? Why do you wanna read twice as much from all of us? :) ] (]) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

== BLPTALK etc. as relates to Arbcom proceedings ==

{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} I just noticed that you've redacted BLP content from NBSB's evidence statement. It occurs to me that in my own evidence, explaining the BLP violations I perceive sometimes requires a bit of effort, and it's particularly difficult to do this without direct quoting from the linked diffs in places. Guidance is appreciated. ] (]) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:As a general rule, personal attacks and comments that are likely to cause distress to real people should be avoided, and should be redacted where present. It's a fine line to tread, I know. I won't RevDel anything unless it's absolutely disgusting, so anything I redact will still be in the history for others to review. We should probably courtesy blank the page once the case is over. ] &#124; ] 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::The case is so big, it could effect future cases though, so it's not an easy choice ]] 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== Gamergate evidence limits ==


The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
* Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
* The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
* Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. ''For the arbitration committee'' --]] 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== Private evidence submissions ==

As GorillaWarfare is recused on this case, I understand there is a limited mailing list being used for private discussion of this case. Is there a way to contact this list using the "email user" function as there is with the regular ArbCom mailing list? There appear to be a few sensitive matters that I would need to discuss privately.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

:Whether we use a secondary list or not depends on the reasons for recusal. For example, on the Nightscream case I was actually the filing party and therefore directly involved in the case so it was obviously not appropriate for me to be privy to those discussions. GorillaWarfare is recused in this case, but she is not an active participant in the case itself so far as I am aware, so you may contact the main arbcom list with any material that is sensitive. If for some reason you specifically object to her in particular being able to see it you may contact me or any of the the other drafters directly. ] (]) 20:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|The Devil's Advocate}}{{ping|GorillaWarfare}}{{ping|Beeblebrox}}My understanding is that GorillaWarfare is '''not''' recused on this case. She was, but changed status. GW, please clarify if I misunderstood. Obviously, no need for a secondary list if she is not recused.--]] 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::That's correct. ] <small>]</small> 07:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

== Odd goings on ==

Who is ], is he really an alt of ], and why is he editing the case pages when Ryulong is capable of doing so? And why is his user name similar to the blocked ] sock ] and a fake sock account made by another master to look like CS ]? ''']''' 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:I have no alternate accounts. It is indeed someone's sock puppet but I honestly cannot remember who the hell it should be. Probably Wiki-star—] (]) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::Per your comment I have blocked the account as an impersonation of you. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::This is definitely Wiki-star aka Dragonron. I'll file a check user when I get my notebook on because I have to go digging around for the actual case/sock master. Also, can we please semi protect the case page at this point? The only person it might affect is the IP editor but why is he being allowed to make such massive statements anyway? He is clearly someone heavily involved in this real world dispute rather than a concerned anonymous editor.—] (]) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I just opened ] SPI for an editor that looked suspicious, and I think this all might be related? I see you've tagged {{u|Im back my frend!}} as a possible sock of Dragonron. — ] (]) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, this is Dragonron and not "Im back my frend!".—] (]) 18:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Roger Davies|Beeblebrox|David Fuchs}} I'll leave the decision over Ryulong's request to y'all, since the semi-protection might prevent sockpuppetry like this but would shut out the aforementioned IP user. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Well, this certainly is an interesting development. I've honestly been going back and forth in my head on the issue of making an account. I somehow doubt that doing so would relieve Ryulong's concerns, but I assure everyone that I am not {{tq|heavily involved in this real world dispute}} - I'm not even really clear on what "real world" means in this context (sending emails to advertisers?). Certainly I have formed an opinion (who hasn't?), but my involvement elsewhere has been much as it is here: attempting to legitimize that opinion. I have made no edits to the GG article, even when it was not semi-protected, and my edits elsewhere have been quite minor and not intended to alter expressed viewpoints.

If Arbcom requires it for my continued participation, I would be willing to create an account for the proceedings, verify that it's mine using a ], and retitle my evidence section. In exchange, I would humbly request that I be added as a party to the dispute (I think my involvement has been adequately demonstrated by now, if only by the fact that Ryulong seems to object so strongly to my participation while nobody else seems to have a problem with it{{strikethrough|, except perhaps NorthBySouthBaranof}}), and for an ] of bad faith. It's especially frustrating to be told, in turns, that I don't know enough about WP policy and that I know too much about it. The reality is that I have been picking it up on the fly, and I'm a fairly quick learner.

As for my "massive" statements, I assure everyone that I have every intention of getting them within mandated limits by the end of the evidence period, and the log shows that I have already made several efforts at trimming. Just as I ] for all the other editors whose statements are currently on the long side. ] (]) 19:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with your participation. We disagree in a lot of places, but you've demonstrated good faith and that's all that matters in terms of participating here. ] (]) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::Fair enough, thank you. ] (]) 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

== Parties ==

{{ping|Roger Davies}} Given that {{tq|it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted}}, would it be a good idea to send out talk page reminders to parties who haven't submitted evidence yet? Also, have the proposed evidence length extensions been decided upon? ] (]) 08:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the list of parties probably also ought to include those who ''have submitted evidence'' (and were also on the original list). Otherwise, the net effect is to penalize editors (by restricting their evidence sections to the "non-party" limit) because they ''haven't'' been accused of any wrong-doing, which seems wrong. But I see no reason to keep names on the list that haven't come up at all in the proceedings. ] (]) 10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:Something's going out just as soon as a clerk is available. On your other point, being a party doesn't penalise anyone; it is a merely a formal way of telling them to watchlist the case pages and keep an eye on, and be ready to respond to, what (if anything) happens. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::Wasn't the extreme number of listed parties an issue that was sought to be addressed by the committee before the case was opened?—] (]) 10:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It's not that extreme. We've had more. It just means the case won't be over particularly quickly. In any case you can't make an informed decision about parties until you've had a chance to go through the evidence (or lack of it). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 10:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::::And again wasn't an expedited case what was desired?—] (]) 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::And we certainly will expedite it, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

:I think I was misunderstood on the second point - what I'm saying is that being ''removed'' from the party list penalizes someone who has contributed, in that they don't get as much space to contribute. ] (]) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:After doing some more reading, particularly of previous Arbcom cases, it appears I've misunderstood the significance of being listed as a "party" to the dispute. Never mind the second point, then. ] (]) 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of parties, could we please add {{u|Xander756}} to the party list? I believe evidence should be submitted against him (and may do myself if nobody else does) with a view to him being the subject of FoFs and remedies. ] &#124; ] 13:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:Xander756 is banned past the due date for the evidence. He should be able to defend himself if evidence should be used against him ] (]) 13:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::He could present evidence by emailing it to a sympathetic editor or to to ArbCom. I would suggest copying it over from his talk page, but his access to that page was revoked because he used it for personal attacks. ] &#124; ] 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::: Good. Will send him an email telling him to send his evidence to arbcom when he is added as a party. ] (]) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: It needs to go via the , &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I've asked the clerks to add Xander756 pro tem. If nothing is posted in the meantime, he can come off the list at the review of the parties. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:He was banned through a peripheral dispute. Why should he be listed as a party now?—] (]) 17:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Because wasn't given a full <s>ban</s> block. ] is also under GG Sanctions. ] (]) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::: I thought it was an indefinite ban but only a 2 week block or whatever.—] (]) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:I'll add my evidence regarding a few of those against whom evidence has not been presented today I think after trimming my section.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Evidence needs to contain diffs, and not just unsupported accusations. For example, the evidence against me contains an accusation, but no actual evidence. If the idea is you are saying that it's ok to link to an external website that in turn links to unacceptable sites, then you should explain that's your interpretation of policy. Also, you mention the block and the block reason, but it's unclear why. Are you saying it was a bad block? Again, evidence is required. As things stand, there isn't sufficient detail for a rebuttal. ] (]) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

== Personal attack ==

This I take as a direct personal attack unsubstantiated by the evidence/diff given, along the same lines that ] had claimed against me here which led to his indef ban on WP, and well beyond necessary to provide evidence. What would be the proper steps to address this. --] (]) 03:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:" is a clear assertion that we should "understand" the 4chan "rape jokes". following those statement and following your assertion that a static image cannot depict "rape" and is a clear assertion that we should not treat a 4chan "rape joke" as a "rape joke" because , well you know, 4chan. If you meant something else, please explain more clearly here and I will strike. -- ] 05:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::]. To resolve the edit war that ''no one else was taking an initiative to start a discussion on'', I started the threat and explains how to describe the joke in an encyclopedia article so that we would not pass any judgement on that. I never said we has to "play along" with the joke, simply to understand it's origins as documented as to disengage the edit war and write something about it. And the "Thanks, doc" is clearly a sarcastic addition that was not needed, making you appear to imply that support the 4chan's use of their rape joke, which I never said, only trying to objectively identify the issue of the joke in light of the sources given. --] (]) 05:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::Also keep in mind the issue over what I said was already discussed in the GG/GS page, and while I accept a trout that was issued for one aspect (about trying to clarify BLP issues a bit clunkly), there was no action over this part. So that issue was already resolved. --] (]) 05:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry is even worse. I never said anything along those lines, and you are purposely twisting my words in a very negative manner. --] (]) 05:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was indefinitely topic-banned from GamerGate broadly construed, not WP. I have, rather, ceased to contribute to or support Misplaced Pages because no one should condone or countenance the blatant victim-shaming and rape apology epitomized by the excerpts above and by others I discussed at ]. The quotations speak for themselves, as does ]'s continued eagerness to find a construction, however far-fetched, in which he can excuse the so-called rape "joke" despite the unanimous agreement of the sources.

I regret that Masem felt the need to drag me into this again in order to make some sort of point, especially as this point will not reflect favorably on Misplaced Pages. It's difficult to denounce one editor's indefensible opinions, repeated and edit-warred indefinitely, without its being construed as a personal attack -- especially when those opinions consistently lend sympathy and support to those who threaten to assault, murder, and rape blameless professionals because they are women. That this is the most appropriate characterization of Gamergate is the overwhelming consensus of the most reliable sources; Masem and others continue to seek alternative characterizations somewhere -- anywhere -- and (as here and in the disgusting, hatted contribution below) to assert such characterizations in the absence of sources because, well, ethics!

Please note, also, that this debacle is spreading rapidly through the encyclopedia; see particularly the effective deployment of GamerGate off-wiki to induce Jimmy Wales to rescue ], a content fork of a conspiracy theory that treats the fringe theory as true.

I had not intended to submit evidence here, as I can no longer support the project. However, if it is necessary for me to do so as a formality to justify this informal lament, I shall. I await advice on whether this is required from competent representatives of Arb Com, who in any case have my email address in evidence necessarily submitted off-wiki. ] (]) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
: And again MarkBernstein has made unfounded accusations of canvassing towards another editor ] (]) 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{re|Avono}} The edit you link does not show any accusations by Mark. Further, it's already been established that there's a lot of off-wiki coordination occurring. That is not a stretch. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Again, you are reading what I said in that discussion in a completely wrong, emotionally-attached way. There was an edit war going on of whether to call the 4chan image that is claimed to have inspired the color choices of the GG logo/image as "rape" or "sodomy" (I was not involved in this editing). No one was discussing it, there was some claim I think at an ANI post that there was consensus for something but I never saw it, so I opened a discussion to discuss ''objectively'' how to resolve the nature of the image within the sources in a completely detacted manner. That doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I support the "rape joke" culture of 4chan like people are insisting; the thing is - that rather unkind culture exists, we cannot bury our heads about it, and we have to be accurate in a neutral position in discussing the nature of the image on the article even if you morally object to the image. That is how I attempted to present my arguments in the discussion, not in any way in a manner that WP is supporting 4chan's culture, but only ''documenting'' it. We are neither sympathetic or judgemental, and I am getting tired of taking crap for trying to resolve an edit war over something that is morally questionable and having my words taken out of context to say I am a "rape apologist". --] (]) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

{{od|::}} {{tq|see particularly the effective deployment of GamerGate off-wiki to induce Jimmy Wales to rescue ]}} Is an unfounded accusations until links providing these coordinations are provided, off wiki discussions dont count, there have to be links substantial showing that editors are coordinating off wiki. The diff I provided shows Wales saying he contested the move on his own regard ] (]) 17:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Accusation, yes. Personal attack? No. No names have been specified. Users are allowed to state <small>conspiracy</small> theories if they wish. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:: {{ping|User:Jimbo Wales}} was named. ] states {{tq|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki}}. Saying that Jimbo Wales was influenced by an outside group is a serious Accusation when done without evidence. ] (]) 17:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::: (4th consecutive edit conflict-- good grief!) That Jimmy Wales claims to be unaware of canvassing is not evidence of whether canvassing exists or not. The simultaneous appearance of numerous zombie and SPA accounts on the page ''might'' be evidence. The ''existence'' of extensive off-wiki canvassing, as reported by experienced and respected editors, probably ''does'' constitute evidence. However, in my remarks here, I did not suggest that this particular editor, or that ], took part of that effort. Rather, GamerGate's coordinated activities -- activities which have been abundantly well documented -- are now spreading to infect parts of the encyclopedia which, though contentious, do not appear to involve either video games or the sex lives of independent software developers and game critics. That development is likely of interest to people who still hope to salvage the project, and as I have no ill-will for those people, I believe their attention might reasonably be directed to those quarters. If you must have links, see ] or Google "Cultural Marxism Restored" or just browse 8chan or KotakuInAction.

::: This matter, though alarming for the future of the project (if it has one), is largely irrelevant to the issue raised above. If ] wishes to pursue this question, he or she might start a new section, and perhaps ping RGloucester and other editors who have followed Cultural Marxism and its discontents. ] (]) 17:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: The link you provided does not make any mention of "hay edit this page for me!". Off Site Discussion != off site canvassing since no one is apparently complaining about http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/ ] (]) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::"Email and tweet Jimmy Wales, make your voices heard...A list of journos who might be interested in picking up the story: " . Fish in a barrel. Are we done now, ]? ] (]) 18:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'm still not seeing ], as it has not been linked to editors. Also Mark for someone who spends half of every other edit talking about how they no longer contribute to Misplaced Pages, you sure do spend an awful lot of time contributing to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::As I explained, I responded here to a personal attack which happened to be false. Previous edits since my resignation have been (a) a note of sympathy to another discouraged editor, three days ago, and (b) a response to a question on my talk page, the day my final post. I believe my final post to article space was 22 November. You remember 22 November: that was the day when, after an '''eight year''' hiatus from Misplaced Pages, interrupted by one-day of editing on hip-hop, you returned to being editing the Misplaced Pages article about 8chan and then to engage in a very great deal of work on this arbitration case. WP:NOTHERE is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. ] (]) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Now now, there's no need for personal attacks on a subject about them. ] (]) 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::Let's suppose for a moment that we could establish unambiguously and without disagreement that it's "a rape joke". Then what? It's clearly also an ''in-joke''; the reference is obscure even to people within the culture. In fact, from what I can make of it, the ''entire point'' of the "meme" is to make references to the original GIF ''be as obscure as possible''. Is that really supposed to "trigger" people or something? It honestly looks to me more like a sign of not taking things seriously. It certainly can't reasonably be described as "misogynistic" because, in the original gif people are talking about, '''both parties are male cartoon characters'''.
::But I really don't see how we can call it "a rape joke" in Misplaced Pages's voice. The two IMO-not-very-reliable sources - one of which is essentially just quoting the other - get the "rape" wording from Twitter and Tumblr commentary by people like David Futrelle, who apparently feels entitled to assign a "manic pixel dream girl" personality to Vivian James based on absolutely nothing and in contradiction to the explicit personality description "Low-affect, grumpy, perpetually fed up and tired" given to TFYC and evident in the body of fanart. In the one place where the actual GIF is described, the term "sodomizing" is used, because that's what's depicted. There's no reasonable way to argue for non-consent between ''cartoon characters in an animated GIF'' - as commenters on the Fast Company Design article pointed out.
::In short, I perceive the whole thing as a WP:COATRACK smear campaign. There's no reason to mention it except to allege things that are obviously not true.
::BTW, regarding that "Thanks, Doc!" line - "I see what you did there". ] (]) 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::::The comments above by ] were previously hatted by ] and then un-hatted by an account with no previous edits, which challenged whether TRPoD had standing to hat. I have no idea whether or not TRPoD ought to have hatted or ought not to have hatted, but '''someone''' might want to hat it before it further embarrasses the project (no longer my concern, I admit, but still) and because TRPoD had a point: this isn't the place for content disputes. ] (]) 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::] nuff said, have you seen the mohammed image jet? ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: This is referring to the assertion that the purle/green discussion embarrasses this project ] (]) 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::<sup>Just throwing in my 2cents, see ] which seems to be happening with the purple/green. ] (]) 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)</sup>
::::::(e/c) Not an issue of censorship at all, (and claiming such nonsense is pushing the disruption line) its an issue of FORUM - claims about presenting and analysing content in Misplaced Pages's voice have Zero place on '''''talk''''' page of an '''''Arbcom page'''''. If you want to further demonstrate that you are just here for the disruption, go ahead. But the Arb Com has made several comments about such actions not being taken lightly and you can push for such disruption at your own will but this section was already headed that direction. -- ] 22:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Red Pen, are you an ArbCom clerk on this case? ] (]) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::if you wish to engage in debating the wording and content of the article here, that is your choice. -- ] 13:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You objected to Masem's approach to the disputed content. I clearly explained why I feel you're expecting something unreasonable of Masem. Simple as that. From my perspective, you're the one trying to argue ''in favour of'' the material. This is an important issue because the dispute over this content clearly ''has led'' to disruption in the past, to the point that we actually have about {{tq|sending rape imagery to women who are receiving threats}} (how, exactly - by using Vivian as a Twitter avatar? I never understood exactly what the logic was here) and accusing editors of apologizing for that behaviour. Arguments about the content are a necessary underpinning for arguments about how editors have conducted themselves WRT that content, if only to demonstrate the absurdity of the motivation for their actions. ] (]) 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}} {{ping|MarkBernstein}} Exactly what do you find "disgusting" about my contribution? I am making factual observations based primarily on the sources used for the article. Do you disagree that both Piccolo and Vegeta are male? Do you disagree that the sources are only sharing opinions about what is depicted in the GIF? Is there a specific aspect of the GIF that leads you to conclude non-consent?
And suppose that we agree that canvassing is going on; in the absence of evidence connecting it to one or more specific editors, ''exactly what do you expect Arbcom to do about it?'' ] (]) 23:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

== Deadlines extended? ==

I thought that there was a push for this case to be expedited due to the topic and now all of the evidence and workshop stuff has been pushed back a week? What's up with that?—] (]) 11:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:It's being expedited. We still have a responsibility to examine the dispute thoroughly. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::I should have my evidence posted today or tomorrow. ] (]) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::You were never a party or an uninvolved person when the case was opened. You specifically opened up your evidence section as a means to allow The Devil's Advocate to post more than was necessary as already discussed on this page. Why are you being allowed to present anything now when it's just a means to break the rules of this page again?—] (]) 01:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Sphilbrick}} Please handle this considering we've already been through a half a week of discussion on Cla68 intending to disrupt these proceedings with his original "evidence" section.—] (]) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I will second this as Cla68 should not be suggesting and as their words. I feel it would be tantamount to allowing users to exceed their allotted space without discussion through an arbitrator. {{ping|talk:Ryulong}} To answer your original question, I would assume it is to give everyone enough time to adjust their sections for the increased limits and so that everyone has adequate time to attempt to do so if they should want to. --] (]) 05:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Cla68 is not going to just re-post evidence I have already presented. I suggested he could present evidence regarding the history of one of the admin parties and he has plenty of his own evidence to present on that front.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|The Devil's Advocate}} According to what I have read, "Because TheDevil'sAdvocate's(sic) evidence exceeds the size limit, I've given him permission to post some of his evidence in my section." That implies that Cla68 was originally planning on allowing another user, yourself in this case, to take evidence directly off of your section and load it into their section without a discussion by an arbitrator. There are reasons for these restrictions and Cla68 has shown intent to ignore them. At the moment, I believe the best solution is at least a talk with an arbitrator about why this should not be suggested for the future. --] (]) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I am not doing that, however. He can do whatever he likes with his evidence section, but as far as I know he is going to be presenting his own evidence.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I know that you have done nothing from what I have seen and they can post what they want to. However, I am not sure if the evidence presented by Cla68 will be their own. Especially since you seem to believe that they might also re-post evidence already presented in addition to what evidence they have. {{ping|Cla68}} Since I have not asked yet, will you at least reassure me that you were not serious or at least that you will not take any action to submit evidence from others in the manner that is being discussed? --] (]) 22:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop this bickering. If there is important evidence we want to see it. If there is unimportant evidence don't waste your time or ours. ] (]) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:I have my evidence section. ] (]) 04:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
::By the way, in the spirit of the above conversation, which I found to be unintentionally hilarious, I'm not claiming that the evidence in my evidence section is "my" evidence. I'm generously donating that evidence to the community. It belongs to everyone! You're welcome. LOL. ] (]) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Cla68}} I do not see much where it is funny, but I digress. My issue is that it appeared that you were acting outside of the established guidelines. I hope that I can take it that you claim that the evidence presented is at least in your words, correct? --] (]) 08:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I guess I could entertain myself by keeping this discussion going for awhile longer, but I know by experience that if one messes around too much on the ArbCom case pages, the Members and clerks may start to get a little tired of it. ] (]) 09:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

== Cuchullain's evidence ==

Cuchullain has provided a large amount of evidence against me regarding the Sarkeesian article. I am already slightly over the expanded limits and while I am intending to trim things down some more to make room for additional evidence, addressing this evidence would probably not be possible. Most of the discussions detailed are not directly related to GamerGate. So I am wondering if Arbs think I need to address all of that and if I should get an extension as a result.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:Jeeze, dude. Reading through it- I think you've posted enough evidence! AFAIK the new limits are a lot stricter, too, given that they've doubled (?) the standard. ] (]) 08:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

== The inherent incompatibility between the GamerGate Controversy article and WP itself. ==
{{hat|''Uninvolved editor hat'': Per the big banner at the top of the page ''This page is for editors to discuss their own evidence with the committee.'' Hatting until {{U|TyTyMang}} can present significant compelling arguments as to why this ] needs to be here ] (]) 13:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)}}
'''Due to the nature of Gamergate and the guidelines for content standards, I believe that WP in its current state is not in a position to host an article of neutrality.'''

Gamergate is essentially a movement against the Media at large. Not initially as a major goal, but by the inherent inter-collaberation and ] nature of the media itself. What started as a movement against corruption in gaming journalism has been escalated by the gaming journalists in question, through positions at reliable (by WP standards) sources and their vast network of contacts to include basically all of the media. The problem here is with sources. Some of the "reliable" sources are the subject of the controversy itself. These "reliable" sources are a means to add one-sided content to WP to reflect their narrative, and ] And unfortunately WP guidelines don't include fact-checking or allow many kinds of evidence/proof while the extent of journalistic investigation for some, if not many, "reliable" main stream writers is limited to reading an article and checking if WP corroborates the story. Sometimes they also interview one of the more prominent figures of an issue which, in the case of the gamergate controversy, tend to be the very people the original narrative articles are about who are making the broad, accusatory claims and labeling the people of the movement in whole with derogatory terms.

The first paragraph of the ] itself negatively labels the movement, then states the people who this article is about claim that the movement is about Ethics in journalism. The next line states that "the overwhelming majority of commentators" say it's about something not even related that is very much inflammatory and controversial.... Are the gamergaters getting their due weight in this paragraph? Are the ideas expressed against this group well founded or fair? One of the saddest things about watching this WP mess transpire is watching what appears to be an actual neutral editor use a source that is very much antiGamerGate and believe that it is neutral.

There are no ProGamergate "Reliable" sources. There are only AntiGamergate "Reliable" sources... There is plenty of evidence against the vast majority of the claims made in the WP article/cited articles. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Gamergate supporters are not even just ''Not'' harassers,misogynists,anti-inclusive,etc, not even just pro-inclusion,feminist,anti-harassment,etc, they are also minorities,women,harassed who are being subjected to the very treatment that is being said they engage in by the very people who are claiming they engage in it..... Unfortunately none of this evidence is considered a "reliable" source for WP if it's even considered a source at all.

I am pro gamergate. I am not a misogynist (internalized or otherwise). I do not engage in harassment. I am not against women or diversity in the game industry or in anything at all!

Unfortunately the article on Misplaced Pages, who's reputation has grown to be considered a very credible source of information, does in fact make the claim that I am these things that I am not through the citation of questionably researched and/or very involved yet "reliable" media articles simply because of the nature of WP guidelines and the unusual position that this controversy has fallen into. And it is also unfortunate that, because of the light shed from this whole mess, it seems in some cases WP does little more than echo the media.

I'm not sure what the possible courses of action are regarding this, but as WP and GamerGate are now, there is no possibility for a neutral article. Also, I feel like the shortcuts ] and ] are quite misleading.... But maybe that's another issue....] (]) 06:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:We are not going to continue to humor this conspiracy theory that all media is biased against Gamergate on this Arbitration talk page. Can someone hat this thread?—] (]) 07:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


'''Comment''' He's the one who constantly asserts his opinion on the enforcement page for GamerGate and who proposed a topic ban on me on GamerGate on ANI. He's not uninvolved at all. ] (]) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:Stop accusing everyone of punishing you lot of being involved FFS.—] (]) 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::Hasteur was the one who crafted the sanctions. Of course he's involved. ] (]) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

:I believe Hasteur means uninvolved in the sense that he has no input into the Gamergate topic itself, i.e. mainspace editing. ] (]) 18:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::How can anyone be mainspace editing given the full protection? PS. I'm fine with hatting it, just have a clerk do it. --] (]) 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::: concur with the above, hatting should be done by the clerks ] (]) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::]. -- ] 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::]. Though I am not sure what can be done if an arbitrator does not. --] (]) 20:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Tutelary}} {{tq|constantly asserts his opinion}} If I recall correctly out of 12 enforcement requests, I've opined on 3. A quarter of the overall. Yep... That's '''constantly'''.{{Reply to|Obsidi}} ]. Hatting the discussion (and this sidebar) improves the Arbitration process (and by extension Misplaced Pages) by curtailing a off topic discussion. The original poster of this topic has a venue to demonstrate why they think their thread belongs here (via presenting significant compelling arguments), they have the right to appeal to an administrator, ArbCom clerk, or an arbitrator that the hatting is out of order, or they have the right to enter their thought into evidence. In short, the original poster does not need any of the white knights that have materialized to advocate for them. ] (]) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Hasteur}} It is a more serious matter on this page than others where that rule is applied since this is an Arbitration page, not to mention that you linked to an essay and not the rule. I feel that it would have been easier to get an endorsement from an Arbitrator or bring it to their attention to hat this. Especially since we are discussion the hat and what was said instead of either the subject of the section or nothing at all. --] (]) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This can stay hatted. Thanks. ] (]) 00:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Is this pertinent? ==

I'm not sure that this affects the case in any way, but there appears to be . --] (]) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
:That actually started and was mentioned on-wiki soon after the request was filed. As far as I can tell, it has had no discernible effect on the proceedings, except to serve as some sort of boogeyman to feed people's paranoia.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
*I wouldn't worry about it. SPAs and trolls are found quickly enough. Paranoia? Don't be silly. ] (]) 01:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
*] ] (]) 02:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
:Unless you can link this to specific editors this is pointless, in any case said operation only seemed to revolve around looking at people's contributions, the same thing everyone here did. ] (]) 18:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

== Dreadstar's mention of Vivian James ==

{{ping|Dreadstar}} I'm mainly bringing this up because i'm genuinely curious what evidence your investigation uncovered to formulate this statement: "The '''Vivian James cartoon''', On the surface, the cartoon seems harmless; but investigation finds that the drawing was created as an attack on Zoe Quinn." Or an explanation on how colors are associated with rape?: "The image has visual elements that are degrading, including colors and patterns referencing rape (Quinn has been subjects to numerous threats of rape)." This seems rather silly to me, I don't think I've ever seen genuine evidence backing up these claims. ] (]) 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::If you want to have this discussion have it somewhere else. Like somewhere not on Misplaced Pages at all. Whatever the character is or is intended to be is not pertinent to this case, whose purpose is to review the behavior of ''Misplaced Pages editors on Misplaced Pages''. ] (]) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:::All due respect, this does concern the behavior of Misplaced Pages editors on Misplaced Pages. This '''cartoon''' image has been reasoned as being a BLP violation and attempts have been made to remove it, and i'd like to know how a cartoon not representing a real person can be considered a violation of BLP because of it's association with a poisoned well. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Let me put it another way: unless there is evidence that someone acting in their capacity as a Misplaced Pages editor created that image specifically to be some sort of rape joke/attack image here on Misplaced Pages, it is not going to be relevant to this case. I haven't done a thorough analysis yet but I am guessing there is no evidence that is the case so it's not going to be considered relevant to the eventual decision. So less of a poisoned well and more the fruit of the poisoned tree.

:::::To put it yet another way: this is, at its core, a content issue and therefore not really something ArbCom is going to rule on regardless of what answer TDA may have to give to your query. ] (]) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Appreciate the clarification, you can feel free to hat this. ] (]) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::The problem here is that Dreadstar seems to be engaging in a bit of revisionist history. His phrasing of "I deleted then supported deletion because it was a BLP violation" is implying that he deleted the image because it was a BLP violation, when the deletion rationale he cited was "unambiguous copyright violation", which does not apply to reasonable claims of fair use. When I pressed him on that front, he tried to argue that the caption for the Vivian James image was the basis for the fair use claim. After I pointed out that there was an entire paragraph of criticism serving as a basis for the claim he cited the F7 rationale. Only after the NFCR was opened did he start trotting out the BLP claim as a cause for deletion. It was all an attempt to cover for a bad deletion. Should Dreadstar want to claim BLP to retroactively support his original action then he should give a decent explanation for how it is a BLP issue. As far as I can tell, his claims about the image are not supported by any reliable source.

:::Mind you, the fair use thing is just a technicality. I seriously doubt any of the people on 4chan who were responsible for creating the character have any interest in claiming copyright on it and TFYC considers the character to be public domain. Only reason for claiming it as fair use is because the image was not formally released into the public domain by those who created it and thus cannot be legally considered public domain.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::so you treat ] as fecklessly as you treat ]? given that they are the only 2 cited exceptions to 3RR, i have to say, that gives me pause. -- ] 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I don't treat either policy fecklessly. Like many people, I think copyright laws can be pretty absurd at times.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::''" I seriously doubt any of the people on 4chan who were responsible for creating the character have any interest in claiming copyright on it" '' is in fact treating COPYRIGHT fecklessly as COPYRIGHT requires actual verified release of copyright and not your assertions that the copyright holders probably dont care. -- ] 06:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Dude, I uploaded it as fair use. I thus freely acknowledge that it was not formally released on a free license or formally released into the public domain. My point is more that we are probably the only ones who actually care about the copyright status of Vivian James.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

== Really? ==

?—] (]) 11:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:If we are Questioning his identity {{ping|FredrickBrennan}} should forward his reply to arbcom-l (at) lists.wikimedia.org from the 8chan domain or either make a statement from his website. ] (]) 11:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::It is possible I did not understand LoganMac's request, maybe he wanted me to make my own section. Blame him and not me, he did ask me to add to the page though. I can confirm my identity rather easily though:
::::<pre>service@8chan-sql:/srv/http$ echo yes ryuulong i own User:FredrickBrennan>wiki.txt</pre>
::::https://8chan.co/wiki.txt I would make the joke that you do it for free like the ] janitors but you accepted $370 :^) ] (]) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::No, I am questioning why he should be allowed to participate in the 11th hour and in someone else' section at that. It just seems to be some sort of means of cutting the Gordian knot of my edits to the latest article to be complained about.—] (]) 11:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::Well, Hotwheelzchan should not be posting such things in Logan's evidence section. Though, I suppose it makes sense given Ryulong's questionable editing of his BLP that Monsieur Wheelz would make a comment about the matter.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It has nothing to do with the case but is instead to do with the article. If he wants to clarify something about the article the talk page is where that goes. This proceeding is not for every single external party to have their go at turning this into a kangaroo court.—] (]) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Nor should he be allowed to make the same personal attacks in this very thread some IP address got censured at ANI for doing.—] (]) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: If he's got evidence related to the case, that's valid evidence. The Arb's I don't think mind who's it coming from, as long as it's evidence that can be adequately construed to be relevant. A blog post by someone claiming to be Ryulong I don't believe would be allowed. But he just came here to confirm that another user contacted him about an issue. I believe that's perfectly fine. But uh, Misplaced Pages is a more collegial atmosphere and I do think that he should refrain from making innuendo or inside jokes on the talk page. Other than that, he's free to contribute. ] (]) 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::He's only here because Logan Mac emailed him to super vote in a stupid content dispute over how to describe criticism of him in his biography but for some reason decided to tell him to post here instead of the talk page. The evidence is supposed to close today and his edit doesn't add anything other than play into making the content dispute bigger than it needs to be.—] (]) 11:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::What is "super vote"? ] (]) 11:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Fredrick. What do you think of how your bio article (BLP) is being treated? Misplaced Pages has a troubled history with its BLP subjects. ] (]) 11:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Quite honestly, I view Misplaced Pages as the bureaucratic capital of the internet. I mean, I pretty much knew that my edit was wrong (I did not, however, think that Ryulong would show up so quickly and get so mad over it) because it's almost impossible to make correct edits to pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace unless you read a ten page manual. I totally understand what's going on with my article, and I think I even get Misplaced Pages's source policies (we can only paraphrase what's in the sources, it doesn't matter if the sources are biased in certain instances so long as they are generally trustworthy) and think that there is probably no better way to do things. I'm just helping a Misplaced Pages editor who also requested I upload a free photo, . So long as the article is not full of crap sourced on someone's Tumblr (just as an example) and sticks to the sources, there's nothing else you can really do in terms of neutrality. It's also pretty amusing to me that Misplaced Pages editors are duking it out over an irrelevant cripple who runs an imageboard, so there's that. ] (]) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::His presence here also leads me to believe I am probably being heavily investigated in his website, again.—] (]) 11:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Ryulong, have you taken any actions on his BLP which could be considered as negative, attacking, or pejorative? If so, do you feel that the target of those actions should be allowed to come here and confront you about it? Or, should editors who edit BLPs be shielded from answering to the people whose BLPs they have edited? ] (]) 12:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I wrote nothing that wasn't in sources already on the article for it to matter. People were arguing with me over the inclusion of a mention of Gamergate in the lede and wording of criticism of his website and his stance on it. Also . We do not need to be making this a massive circus where everyone in his chat room shows up to disrupt.—] (]) 12:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This is another instance of Ryulong biting noobs ], you should have waited for a clerk to revert it and move on. I didn't ask Brennan to "supor-vote" anything that's your own made up fiction, I explicitely asked him to provide a photo since it was already another user's idea, while doing so he could clarify that his site doesn't allow pedophilia, which is a serious accusation. It wasn't Brennan's idea neither like Quinn asked her picture to be changed because she didn't like it, and was replaced by a cellphone pic instead a professional looking picture at a gaming event for what she's known for. It was several editor's approach, he took like a week to reply and didn't seem that interested, I had already given up. Also lol I didn't ask where to post it, you really think I asked to disrupt the ArbCom and my evidence just to piss you off, where's your source on that? ] (]) 17:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:One could point out though that reliable sources (, ) seem to hold a point-of-view opposite to that of the website owner. ] (]) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Are you really going to accuse a living person of running a pedophile network based on a DAILYDOT article? In any case my problem with the article was the wording, "pedophilia-related boards" reads like there's boards that allow pedophilia, which is tendetious, it should be "discussion of..." like it was on the 8chan article, which does a good job of presenting the matter "Boards have been created to discuss controversial topics, among those pedophilia, though the sharing of sexually explicit photos of minors is against site rules" ] (]) 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::When the fuck did Daily Kos become a reliable source?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Manners, TDA. I see no direct discussion of the Dailykos in the , and note that it is quite extensively-used in at this time. ] (]) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::The use of what normally are okay reliable sources like Daily Dot or DailyKos in other non-controversial articles is fine, but we have a controversial topic and we should avoid sources that are not the most reliable or more expert in this article, as we have discussed before on the talk page. Particularly when it comes to claiming a whole group - even if no specific person is named - as having a highly negative and potentially criminal interest (as per the previous BLP Discussion) from a weak source like that. --] (]) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Good lord, man, stop enabling these people. Daily Kos is a shit source. It is to The Huffington Post what Destructoid is to Kotaku. Individual posts could be used as sources of opinion provided the author is somehow qualified as a commentator or as primary sources when it is published by the subject, but otherwise it is worthless. That someone who advertises himself as a defender of BLPs would suggest using a pseudonymous self-published Daily Kos blog post to make incendiary attacks against a living person says all you need to know about the nature of his convictions.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'm agreeing with you, that for the GG article, DailyKos should be avoided as a weak reliable source. If we were taking a article with no controversy, like say, some discussion about a video game, it's not a great source but can be used in the lack of others, as long as we are avoiding any BLP issues related to that. --] (]) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::I think someone here needs a cup of ]. I'm not proposing it for inclusion in any article, I was just rebutting Mr. Loganmac, whose source has obvious primary & conflict-of-interest issues, to demonstrate that some in the media see this website in another light. ] (]) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

== We require more minerals ==

Okay, so, yeah, would it be possible for me to get a 25% boost to my evidence limits (2,500 words and 250 diffs). There are several important issues still in need of being addressed and it does look like I will have a hard time getting it all in there without some allowance to go over the current limit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 11:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:You've had a week of extra time to do this and it's now a new issue?—] (]) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::I actually floated the idea above under the "Cuchullain's evidence" section about a week ago, but got no response.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 11:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

*I haven't discussed this with the other drafters, but my feeling is that the answer is going to be no. We've already doubled the limits, and with so many participants submitting evidence there is an incredible amount of material that needs to be analyzed. If this case is going to move forward at even a close approximation of the set schedule we have to stop granting more exemptions and extensions. Maybe you could trim some of the other stuff if you need to squeeze more in, but I would also remind everyone that this phase is scheduled to close today. ] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
**Just as a comment and why I've been avoiding any of this myself - there is a LOT of people bringing up accusations directly related to the discussions of the ArbCom case, and when these come up, those accused or that feel they need to respond will respond, and cause those that made the initial accusation to add more further, making it a cycle. While certain events likely have happened between the onset of the case (that is, when the evidence page was opened) and now, I would think that we should be cautioning editors from getting into these petty squables on the evidence page as to reduce the need for people to keep adding more. The case should be resting on what happened ''before'' arbcom took it up, not since. --] (]) 18:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
**Honestly, an expansion of just 250 words might be enough for me to cover the main issues I still wanted to cover with a little extra trimming. I have not addressed the situation with Gorman (several have raised it against me by contrast), Tarc's edits, or the creation of the enforcement page. All of these are vital in their own way.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
***TDA, despite the 8channers fantastical inclusion of me as one of the fabled "horsemen", I have on the balance of it all had not a lot of actual input into the topic area, and what evidence there is on the page now by some of the SPAs is the epitome of ticky-tacky nitpicks. I've already had 3 SPAs lie about what actually means, for starters. It's tiring, and I'd rather not have to refute yet another pile of tiring nothings. Save some of your proposed +250 for someone else, if you would. ] (]) 19:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
****Don't be so modest. You've played a big part in this dispute. At any rate, perhaps I will just go ahead and add the evidence against you, at least. I should be able to make room for that much.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*****I've kept BLP-violating material pout of the article, single-purpose-accounts at bay, and am primarily responsible for stopping the abuse and misuse of the NPOV template in article-space. I stand behind every GG-related action taken, so, have at it, but you're wasting your time. ] (]) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
******Okay, as you wish.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|Unproductive. Let's not, please. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)}}
*TDA, once you've finished trimming your section, I will look at the evidence you trimmed and see if I want to add it to my section, because I think I still have some space. ] (]) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Beeblebrox}} This is the kind of shit that should not be allowed. Cla68 is '''''once again''''' proclaiming that he will not be adding his own evidence but allowing other people to store evidence in his relatively empty section.—] (]) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
*::Actually, I'm willing to post ''anyone's'' evidence in my section for a small remittance, let's say, $370? ]. No, let's make that $371. I'm a little more expensive. ] (]) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*:::Oh come on, .—] (]) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:*I just went ahead and added pretty much what was left of the evidence I felt was necessary to present. Seems to be just under my requested limit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::*Definitely done. Please let any people I named to respond even though the deadline just passed. I ain't no ].--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

== General behaviour past months and state of the article ==

Through an Twitter-notice I got redacted to first KiA on Reddit and then here. So... it finally is taken a bit more serious.<br />
My thoughts here (while I could bring a few minor points I notice a couple of them already are adressed by others - and other points are buried between that much old posts and archives, I'm not even sure I can find them back).<br />
1) The article always has been one utter mess with a lot of RSes which are biased and/or ill informed. The information stream started to become bigger when the 'Gamers are dead articles' hit on Gamasutra, Kotaku, IGN etc - and any information afterward in those weeks was posted by those same magazines, which have and had an vested interest in painting 'GamerGate' as an misogynistic movement. The few mass media who checked up on GamerGate, just about straight copied&pasted from the gaming media or had articles written by those who were also responsible partially at least for writing the gaming media articles. Only in-depth look that is used as a continuous RS (and which is still being disputed at times if I notice the edit page) is Forbes in the person of Erik Kain. In the meanwhile Breitbart is blocked as an RS, and while I readily admit they're likely doing it for the clicks and for political warfare and have made... strange... articles in the past, it's as reliable as e.g. Gawker and other quoted media.<br />
2) For some odd reason despite as far as I am aware repeated requests to the admin board to take a closer look at what can be considered an RS while in the case the media themselves are under scrutiny, I've never heard about feedback from the admins. Nor an explanation why any reaction is not given.<br />
3) Several mistakes are made by allowing long-term contributors to use the terms 'SPA', 'troll' etc way too easily. I won't name names here for the sake of this topic, but 'Don't bite the newbie' (what was the WP: code for it again?) was way too loosely enforced - if at all. Plenty of people have been flamed and driven away.<br />
4) Original alignment of Portal:Feminism with the page. It allowed an torrent of controversial edits from an portal that has and had nothing to do with the ongoing page.<br />
5) Discutable admin discussions. Several people have been banned after they got flamed, insulted and more by others, and when they reacted angry, they got banned by an certain admin. <br />
6) A lot of flaming, insulting etc has been pushed back and forth between the two 'sides' - only thing I can do is compliment User:Masem as someone neutral during that first 2 months who sought out sources and argued constructively. ] (]) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:This page is not for general discussion of Gamergate, it's for specifically discussing evidence entered into the arbitration case. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As you did ] by trimming parts of the heart of the controversy away you mean? ] (]) 14:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

== Titanium Dragon ==

I touched upon this in my response to his evidence but it bears repeating. .—] (]) 20:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:I hadn't even read any of his submission til now, but seriously? Arbs, TD is essentially re-arguing 3 months worth of Gamergate debate points...there's a paragraph devoted to calling Zoe Quinn's claim of harassment a lie, to undercutting Sarkeesian's claims as well, Gawker losing advertisers, etc... This has nothing to do w/ arbitration. ] (]) 20:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::I have advised TD to strike their ill considered statements. -- ] 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, more of the same aspersion-casting and suggestive remarks — "a story about a rape was retracted, therefore SJWS ARE ALL LIARS WHO CAN'T BE TRUSTED," "Zoe Quinn has a history of making unverifiable claims therefore she can't be trusted," etc. It's rather exemplary of exactly why that user was topic-banned in the first place. ] (]) 21:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, those of us who volunteered to handle this case did so with the full knowledge that we would be swamped with evidence, and that a lot of it would probably not be anything we could use to formulate a decision. That's exactly why two of the three drafters are outgoing arbs. We will be stepping away from most other arb business in order to give us the time to go through all of this material and find what of it is actually relevant. As of now we have not rescinded any pre-existing topic bans so there shouldn't be any problems out in actual articles. ] (]) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:But the issue here is that Titanium Dragon is using the evidence stage to say the exact same things he was banned for saying in the first place.—] (]) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for the response, B, it is encouraging. ] (]) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::It seems that Ryulong has no faith in the Arbs. If Titanium Dragon is really spouting things which are ban-worthy, surely the Arbs will recognize that and appropriately respond. ]] ''']''' 01:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::He's doing stuff he was originally banned for. Is this not something to bring forward?—] (]) 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Just let the Arbs judge, that's their role. You already "touched upon this" in your evidence. I think this discussion has ran it course. ]] ''']''' 01:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

== Still? ==

Two people have used this page to make baseless attacks against me in the past 24 hours. Why is this being allowed to pass?—] (]) 01:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*It would only be "baseless" if you didn't receive $370. ]] ''']''' 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*:It doesn't matter how much money I got. It shouldn't be something to harass me over.—] (]) 01:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And Cla68 .—] (]) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

—] (]) 02:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

== A day late, but... ==

I feel it is critically important to call attention to the actions of The Devil's Advocate today. Editors have been working in good faith for over a month in draft-space while the main article was under full-protection, and when protection was lifted and those changes added, TDA has resumed the same level of bad-faith and tendentiousness as before, even declaring that the drafted changes had "no consensus". This is the type of behavior we've been putting up with for months now. ] (]) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:The argument is that moving the draft had . ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|Ks0stm}} or someone, shouldn't the evidence have been closed by now? ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:I provided evidence against several parties right at the end, many of them not listed as parties. Giving them time to respond would be desirable and I will go ahead and notify them now in case they are interested. Preferably, Arbs would allow people time to respond to evidence that was presented at the last minute.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

== Clerk/Arbitrator request ==

We are now 48 hours past the due date for the evidence phase to close and there have been several non-trivial additions to the evidence since the due date. I request that the Evidence mainpage be fully protected and off topic sniping (or requests to insert more evidence) be strongly curtailed on this talk page. At some point we have to draw the line in the sand and say "No More". If we keep letting parties and interested rubberneckers continue manipulating their evidence submissions it will only delay the case further. ] (]) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed - there's a lot of petty details being added continuously to the evidence that aren't helpful to the overall case now. --] (]) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::The most significant contribution in the past day has been Gorman's response here and I feel that is acceptable since I had added my evidence against him and various other editors right at the end of the deadline. Others were notified and only TarainDC's response is outstanding. It is only fair that she should be allowed the opportunity to respond if she so wishes. My only contributions have been to fix my existing evidence.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|The Devil's Advocate}} - TaraInDC since 12 November 2014, after frequently editing in October and November. Surprisingly to me, almost every one of TaraInDC's last 500 edits (which stretch to June) pertain to GamerGate. I'd say it's time to close. ]] ''']''' 05:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, if she does feel like responding I would not want her to be unable to defend herself with evidence in the evidence section. I suppose they could lock the evidence page and leave her a note on her talk page telling her what she should do if she chooses to address any allegations made against her, but whatever they do I would want everyone to have a chance at speaking in their own defense.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:21, 24 October 2016

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
Shortcut Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Sphilbrick (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Beeblebrox (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.


This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The contents of this page can be viewed in the page history.