Misplaced Pages

:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement: 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:General sanctions | Gamergate Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:03, 23 November 2014 view sourceRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Masem: minor bit of clerking. forgive me for doing this, but your comments go in this section.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:01, 25 June 2023 view source Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 editsm DS->CTTag: AWB 
(980 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box | box-width=13em | ], ], ], ]}}
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/header}}
{{soft redirect|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{clear}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<div style="text-align:center; font-size:x-large;">The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by a Arbitration Committee ]. No further edits should be made to this page.<br/>'''All enforcement requests should go to ]'''.</div>
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box | box-width=13em | ] }}
]


]

==Tarc==
{{hat|Trouts to everyone on both sides of the issue who edit warred without engaging in discussion. Claims of violating consensus are unfounded since there was no evidence provided of a discussion establishing consensus. Since a new discussion on the issue is now ongoing, there is nothing actionable here. ] <small>(])</small> 16:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Tarc===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Retartist}} 01:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tarc}}<p>{{ds/log|Tarc}}
====Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it====
#
#
#

====If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)====
{{user|Tarc}} – by ]

===Discussion concerning Tarc===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Tarc====
Whatever consensus may have existed in a weeks-to months old discussion is not binding in perpetuity, as ]. The sources cited in the passage in question predominantly use the word "rape" over the milder "sodomy". ] (]) 01:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

:I have nothing more to state on the merits of the subject matter itself, as my statement above is IMO sufficient. Admins, do note that Retartist is canvassing editors of a like-minded point-of-view and , and while this user will likely engage in excuse-making about only alerting editors that were directly involved, it is curious that Mr. Retartist failed to inform me of this filing; I only knew of it because i had the page watch-listed. This entire filing is nothing more than game-playing antics egged on by his friends at 8chan, the group which Retartist is the self-appointed Wiki-spokesman of, e.g. the page that is subject to the still-open ]. ] (]) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I will also say that at the time of the initial edit, I was unaware of any such prior discussion, and was only made aware...vaguely...by handwaves to some past discussion via the other editor's edit summaries. I made the change to make the text conform to the sources, which is precisely what Tuletary and the SPA were violating. I followed the policy of sticking to what the sources say and not cherry-picking what one ''wants'' them to say. ] (]) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|EdJohnston}}, {{ping|Gamaliel}}, note at the talk page by one of the complainants above, which IMO renders this affair rather moot. ] (]) 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Strongjam ====
There is limited discussion about the exact wording in the ] from what I can see, and no current discussion about it on the talk page. I'd suggest the editors involved try to resolve the content dispute there first. This request seems premature. — ] (]) 02:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by uninvolved RGloucester====
This request strikes me as odd. The user who submitted it failed to provide a statement, and has not said what action he'd like to be taken. I suggest that he make such a statement if he wishes for any action to be taken here. ] — ] 02:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by MarkBernstein====

This is simply an effort to escalate an edit war, hoping sanctions will squelch the opponent. Note that editors have been organizing at 8chan specifically seeking precisely this scenario. Moreover, on the merits, it appears Tarc is right. Application of WikiTrout may be ineffective, BOOMERANG would be advisable as complainant is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.] (]) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Retartist====
I submitted this request as i noticed that there seemed to be the start of an edit war occurring on the draft page. Tarc had reverted two separate editors without discussion on the talk page, and by his edit summary '''<big>"Consensus doesn't override the fact that it is describes as "rape" far more often in the 2 cited sources. Go start on the talk page anew if you think your WP:SYNTH-based argument carries the day."</big>''' Tarc knows that he was against consensus but still tried to change the text towards his pov. Recommend a block of appropriate time (with reference to previous if any blocks) for edit warring against consensus. Also this talk of a boomerang is absurd as i made no edits over this particular point. <sub>P.s. the submission form is difficult to use</sub> ] (]) 03:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{yo|Tarc}} Consensus can change but there was no discussion about it. The only consensus was in your head, or against your edit ] (]) 03:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:In reply to tarc, I forgot to notify you because the template was funny and i had class to get to, sorry. I only alerted the other editors '''AFTER''' you made your statement; they were the ones who reverted you so they should have a say in the edit ear discussion. And its interesting that you get all up in arms about not being alerted because the MFD you mentioned, You never alerted me about it and you filled it. ] (]) 11:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Tl;DR i filled this because i thought Tarc was edit-warring with two other editors and i thought it wouldn't stop unless i filled. But i am mad at other editors accusing me of being some sort of brigade leader for an illuminati of scary 8chan members, To put this to rest: I have not made many (if any) edits to the gamergate main page, i have only really participated in discussions, and the reports i have filled have been good-faith attempts to stop arguments and edit warring on gamergate, and the interaction with the 8chan members has purely been to collect wiki diffs for the arb-com case. ] (]) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Tutelary====
As the person who has reverted Tarc (and subsequently he reverted back), it's been evident that if they hadn't have been brought here for their conduct to be discussed according to sanctions, that they would've continued reverting. This was already have been discussed on the talk page in the archives and the fact that they're wanting to sling dirt into an issue already having been resolved is really telling. Tarc also did not go to the talk page when reverted, continuing to revert (and also manually editing the article so I wouldn't get that red +1 for the revert) and thus bringing an edit war. This is a failure of ], a well respected way to gain consensus on certain topics. Tarc evidently is aware of this but chooses not to follow this, preferring to reinstate his own changes rather than discuss them. Also, not to derail this reply, but MarkBernstein complaining about Retartist filing a sanctions request while subsequently wanting to get him blocked for doing so, when he just accused him of trying to get 'sanctions to squelch his opponent' is also quite telling. Check your words before you write them. In essence, Tarc should be remanded for this but the exact punishment--whether a severe warning or a small block I do not know. An admin telling Tarc to not behave in this manner may be warranted, but this behavior isn't new, so I don't know. ] (]) 04:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by DSA510====
Tarc is clearly trying to charge the article in a way that slanders TFYC, and supports a bogus claim. Its like the birther movement talking about Obama. They hold onto wild and baseless claims backed by pseudoscience and speculation. In an already biased article, more bias makes it worse. Quick note to MarkBernstein, I, the high czar of GamerHate (Sponsored by Doritos™), will reveal the true nature of the threads on hatechan. They were to make you go insane. But in all seriousness, MB's claims now are bordering on the absurd. --] ] 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:It should be noted that the "RS" that say green+purple=rape are relying upon the same fringe evidence, and pseudosciences utilized by the ceaseless whining of holocaust deniers, birthers, Frankfurt School theorists, and just about every other idiot from stormfront or /pol/ to grace the internet. Pushing for a fringe theory does violate ]. --] ] 00:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Cobbsaladin====
I don't have much to add that's not apparent in the revision history. Regarding which word is more correct: the second source is a "boing boing" summary of the first and in the first the author describes it as sodomy. He uses "rape" only in quotes and paraphrases from tweet and blog sources.

====Statement by Masem====
I cannot remember or find any prior section about the claimed "consensus" (though I do agree there's ways the wording needs to be given, a subject ripe for discussion). Even if there was a consensus, edit warring should not have happened - the reverters should have opened a new talk page discussion, saying "Hey, remember this discussion (with link)?" and reassure there was consensus. Mind you, Tarc should have already done the same but so should have those that reverted those, so I'd recommended trouts/warnings per the sanction that should that happen again, short term blocks be in place. --] (]) 06:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Super Goku V====
@EdJohnston - Mostly this is going to be about the consensus issue since I have little else to add. Since Tutelary has not made an amended statement, As for what the prior discussions that are being referred to is, searching for the colors and did provide a few results. The topics called ], ], and "]" seem to be the relevant discussions to the issue. --] (]) 07:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
Question: I thought the Draft page was set up for BOLD test editing to try and move the logjam while the article is locked down? I can see how BLP edits there would be sanctionable, or ] about the draft, but I am not seeing either one of those by Tarc. -- ] 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
: the only discussion of "sodomy" appears to be in the current discussion. -- ] 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Tarc===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
*In a recent edit summary, ] stated . Can anybody link to the 'discussion a while back in the archives' about rape versus sodomy? ] (]) 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

* In my opinion, for this to be actionable, we'd have to demonstrate that a consensus was established through a previous discussion and Tarc either refused to engage in that discussion or will not respect the consensus that emerged from it. As EdJohnston asked, where is this discussion? If there is no discussion, then everyone on both sides should be trouted and sent back to the talk page to start one. Also, if I am reading the complaint correctly, it seems to be a dispute over the terms "rape" versus "sodomy", but the sources cited feature the former word prominently in either the title or the lead. There cannot be a consensus to rewrite reliable sources. ] <small>(])</small> 06:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{hatb}}

==Request concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510==
{{hat|User topic banned for ninety days by ]. 21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|PearlSt82}} 12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}<p>{{ds/log|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}

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

Long ] screed

More ] stuff not based in RS

Comparing RS-based arguments to holocaust deniers

Comparing arguments to Obama birthers

==== Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any====

User previously warned with no action

==== If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) ====


==== Additional comments by editor filing complaint ====

Shortly after a request for sanctions was closed with no action resulting in a warning not to continue FORUM type behaviours, DungeonSiegeAddict510 has continued posting long rants not related to improving the article on the talk page and compared other editors and RS-based discussion to Obama birthers and holocaust deniers. This kind of battleground mentality is only causing disruption, and DungeonSiegeAddict510 does not appear to be able to contribute productively to this topic. ] (]) 13:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by DungeonSiegeAddict510====
I like to illustrate my points with things that would make an impact. If you are going to tone police me for trying to make as much of a point as possible, how am I to argue. Also, the filer fails to note that the POV pushers have also used the birther comparison. Nice double standards you got here Misplaced Pages. And, is being skeptical make me some evil misogynerd? It's already insulting that I get doxxed for trying to make the article neutral. --] ] 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Arcoterion}} am I not allowed to find the absurd humorous? I never knew Misplaced Pages was this draconian. --] ] 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
On visiting ] today I found that DungeonSiegeAddict510 had made 8 of the 14 edits to that page since midnight,
in violation of ], that is, without offering reliably sourced information or proposing actionable changes to the article. This editor is effectively turning the talk page into a forum for advocacy. In the circumstances and given the tone of the comments, there is also a ] violation. 14:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Thargor Orlando====

Contrary to the belief above, the question raised is not forum-like, but is actually exploring an aspect of the topic and seeking sources for inclusion. The continued removal of the information by Tony Sidaway and ] is inappropriate and bordering on disruptive. ] (]) 15:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As an added note, the discussion about finding sources was now hatted by ], helping establish the idea that discussion that might be unflattering to a specific side of the greater topic not be discussed. This is a common problem on this article that should be recognized regardless of where one sits on the topic as an issue. Contrary to what ] has posted, I have no opinion, declared or otherwise, on the topic itself, but would rather prefer the article be edited neutrally and properly and without the battleground mentality displayed here. Coupling me in with topics I have had no input in (such as the 4chan image topic linked) only serves to paint editors with an inappropriate brush, and it makes me wonder when, if ever, the ] will hit. ] (]) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Avono ====
I thought It was made clear in the previous enforcement that the ] were not actionable. This is unconstructive drama around a legitimate question if RS were available. Involved parties should be warned that this is not a ] and ] ] (]) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

{{reply|MarkBernstein}} ]. ] [[Internet Watch Foundation and Misplaced Pages|
before making further contributions to this topic]]. That discussion had to be taken place in order for us to be impartial (referring to the image). ] (]) 15:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by MarkBernstein====

] defends a long and speculative rant concerning the possibility -- raised on Twitter last night by a single individual -- that he might someday file a lawsuit on behalf of a client against a scholarly organization that linked to a well-known Twitter blacklist. No lawsuit has been filed, nor has any WP:RS covered the matter; as the threat was issued by one individual in the middle of the night, the absence of reliable coverage is not surprising. Allies of the person threatening the lawsuit and supporting Gamergate have, however, found time to broadcast twitter pictures of the dead sister of the (female) developer responsible. But DSA and ] want to us be sure to strain every nerve so that, should an arguably WP:RS appear, Misplaced Pages can use it to exonerate Gamergate. (If it does not exonerate Gamergate, the record makes clear, ], DSA, and ] will strain every nerve to soften the language: see ], yesterday’s extraordinary discussion in which ] claims no static image can really depict rape, Tutelary again proposes we use "sodomy" as a milder euphemism for "rape", and DSA argues that Boing Boing and Fair Company cannot possibly mean what they say because that would be making windows into men’s souls, or something. ] (])

====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
That is correct, I hatted a discussion which was clearly going nowhere due to its admitted lack of anything remotely resembling a reliable source. I myself have had discussions that I launched hatted — correctly — because of a lack of reliable sources. The solution is to... wait for it... reopen the discussion when and if a reliable source covers the issue. Misplaced Pages is neither a soapbox for DSA510's opinions nor a forum for them to initiate free-form discussion of an issue. When and if reliable sources (or even arguable sources) discuss the issue, it's not difficult to start a discussion which can actually go somewhere. There is no reason for an already-heated talk page to host discussions that can generate nothing more than heat without even a glimmer of light. ] (]) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Alanscottwalker====

User unable to "stay neutral" - -- ] (]) 15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
Contrary to Avono's interpretation that previous decisions had indicated that FORUM violations are not covered under the sanctions, the previous result actually was "[[Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Result_concerning_DungeonSiegeAddict510|
*Comment While I've noted a tendency to soapbox or digress by DungeonSiegeAddict510, I regard much of what's been posted as either stale or below the threshold at which sanctions might be imposed, and I'm very reluctant to act on the basis of a report from an IP with little in the way of involvement in the topic, given the level of off-wiki activity. '''I advise DungeonSiegeAddict510 to be careful about soapboxing and against speculation that might be misconstrued''' . Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*Agree with Acroterion. Though it is hard to see DungeonSiegeAddict510 as making valuable contributions to this topic area, there is no obvious smoking gun. When an IP with no record makes the complaint, you can't rule out that it's actually a participant in the dispute who is trying to avoid scrutiny. I would close this with no action except the warning suggested in Acroterion's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)]] " (emph added)

For the "forum-like" behaviors to continue after such advice/warning are an indication of a continuing problem that will at some point need to be addressed. -- ] 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

===Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510 ===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>

{{ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} in your statement could you link to what do you feel is a positive contribution or suggestion for an edit or article improvement that you have made on the talk page? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by TRPOD above, I specifically cautioned against digressions and soapboxing - in other words, forum postings. I will not act at the moment: I will be away for several hours and will review when I have some time to respond appropriately. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:In passing, I saw that DSA posted this at {{user|Two Tune}}'s talkpage on 11/13 in response to this edit by Two Tune. I have imposed a 90-day topic ban on Two Tune for that edit and for BLP violations at ]. DSA's endorsement of the edit doesn't help his case.'''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
DungeoSiegeAddict510's to Gamaliel's question isnt' very persuasive. He is accused of engaging in ] posting. The best way to answer that is to show how your post will lead to actual improvement to the article. You should propose article changes or offer new reliable sources. is unlikely to help the rest of us and risks wasting the time of regular editors. I think we should be considering a 90-day topic ban for DSA. ] (]) 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:Agreed. When the only response to asking about positive contributions is an attempt to "work the refs", it seems to only bolster the case that this user is not a positive presence. The two links posted by Acroterion are particularly troubling. ] <small>(])</small> 20:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Here too. And since he's disrupting a thread again right now, I'm imposing this topic ban this moment. ] ] 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Topic Ban? ==

]: DSA apparently working with other pro-GG editors to source materials. At least has the appearance of topic-ban evasion; given extensive offsite collaboration and efficient tag-teaming in today's edit wars, leaves a poor taste. Ive no idea how or whether this ought to be reported; please reformat or adjust or toss as you see best. ] (]) 23:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:?????? "Both names work". What offsite collab, and what tagteaming? --] ] 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And ], though the latter can be seen as an informal appeal, my understanding is that topic-ban appeals should be conducted in a specific place and format. ] (]) 23:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:Not my problem if I don't find this little kangaroo court untrustworthy. --] ] 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And at Jimbo’s page ], apparently something to do with a prominent right-wing Gamergate Supporter. ] (]) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
:It says at ]: "''Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.''" Presumably DSA should take his appeal to ]. If instead he just goes around to complain at various user talk pages it could be considered a topic ban violation. Do it right or don't do it at all. ] (]) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

===Request concerning Masem===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MarkBernstein}} 17:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Masem}}<p>{{ds/log|Masem}}

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=634848471

Masem: “one static image cannot readily imply rape” and argues we must not follow the sources in this. In the context of a controversy over anonymous rape threats being sent to female software developers in order to persuade them to leave the field, this is clearly against policy though I'm uncertain precisely ''which'' policy forbids editors and administrators from edits that would bring scorn and ridicule upon the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=635058861&oldid=635058803

Regarding discussion of the sex life of one of the female software developers who received threats, at AN/I Masem writes that "You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=635088283&oldid=635082662

Later, he writes that “we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but '''we''' are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way...” (emphasis mine)

This regards a protracted edit war on the talk page over whether the discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life, which Masem had argued was indispensable, could be hatted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=634978574&oldid=634978105

In the discussion to which the AN/I comments above refers, editors had (moments after page protection ended) changed the heading "False Allegations Against Zoe Quinn" to remove "False". Masem wrote: "No, the claims, while based on weak evidence, has some foundation. But the claims have certainly be "refuted" by and large - the claims were made but the press has considered what the involved parties have said to be truthful so the claims were refuted."

This claim is unsupported by any reliable source.

==== Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any====
none known -- I don’t have any idea how to find these.
==== If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) ====
==== Additional comments by editor filing complaint ====
I submit this with a heavy heart and scant hope. I undertook to edit GamerGate reluctantly, having been scarred by ], but felt it was a necessary responsibility to my colleagues who were receiving threats of assault, rape, and murder in order to convince them to leave their profession. We’ve had endless hours of inquiry into the sex lives of blameless software developers, and Misplaced Pages is being used here to rehash every iota of scandal and insinuation. Here, we have insinuations that there are ''more'' scandals and insinuations to come (but Masem can’t tell us what).

In conclusion: please review the talk page for the past 72 hours. ] has been instrumental in leading this discussion and in insisting that it drag on and on, as well as in his WP:FRINGE theories that sending rape imagery to women who are receiving threats is somehow better if it's a joke or if the image might concern anal rather than vaginal penetration. That this discussion should be required here is shameful, and after a long night’s thought I conclude that, while I am far from the ideal person to file this complaint, I cannot say I fear any WP:BOOMERANG: if this sort of talk page discussion is what Misplaced Pages wants, then the heavier your censure the better I shall be pleased. ] (]) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Program Chair ACM Hypertext 97, ACM Hypertext 98, ACM Wikisym '08, ACM Web Science '13.

===Discussion concerning Masem===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Masem====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Masem===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>

Latest revision as of 23:01, 25 June 2023


Archives 
1, 2, 3, 4

Soft redirect to:Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
This page is a soft redirect.

The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by a Arbitration Committee contentious topics designation. No further edits should be made to this page.
All enforcement requests should go to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Categories: