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 14:48, 27 November 2014 view sourceThargor Orlando (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,066 edits →Discussion concerning Ryulong: pulling my comment out, it's directly relevant to a question asked. Please stop hatting my comments.← 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 
(727 intermediate revisions by 59 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The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by a Arbitration Committee ].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 | ] }}
]


]

== Topic Ban? ==
{{hat|Editor warned. Appeals must be done at ]. Comments at other talk pages could be considered a topic ban violation. ] — ] 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}}
]: 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)
{{hab}}

==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.

<hr>

As the question of "righting great wrongs" has been raised, perhaps I might be indulged with an opportunity to explain the wrongs that, in my view, ought to be righted, on ].

===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====
There is nothing at all actionable against the sanctions here. There may be statements MB doesn't like, but that's not anything under sanctions or that we would censor or block per BLP.
# On the 4chan image: There was an ongoing edit war of how to describe the 4chan image, but no one was discussing it on the talk page. I took initiate to open it. Now, you can agree or disagree about my statement, but that's the whole point of ''discussion'' to establish what the proper wording should be. So unactionable (and actually needed to be done to stop the edit war and get a consensus on the matter).
# On other allegations: There are allegations that the proGG have made that I am aware exist that when proGGs talk about this WP article, they are concerned this article doesn't reflect those. These are '''not''' allegations I have about her, nor do I believe any of the proGG allegations. There are no sources to even include those, much less talk about the details, but knowing they exist without making any claims is absolutely not a BLP violation. In fact we have to be aware what other articles - if they become targets of offsite editing pushes, need to be watched due to these allegations. </br>In addition, we have to discuss in the article, and how to present it, the core allegation that launched the GG "movement", and the series of attacks. It is not a BLP violation to discuss this and ''how to word it properly'' given that every mainstream source on GG has discussed the basic accusation, naming all parties involved. It very much helps that there is general full agreement in the press that the accusation is refuted. BLP does not prevent talking about accussations, but requires that the best possible sourcing must be in place to avoid any implications created by WP or weak RSes, and that's exactly the case here. Again, we're supposed to be working to develop consensus instead of edit warring the page or the draft.

There is nothing actionable here on Mark's claims. On the other hand, Mark's claim that I'm coordinating a brigade of offsite proGG editors without any evidence (among other statements made as well as twisting/misquoting me) is definitely a personal attack against me --] (]) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
:To add to these, Mark has engaged in off-wiki personal attacks against me: . (I strongly contest the idea I'm a "rape apologist". I'm trying to keep WP's voice neutral, neither sympathetic nor critical; I'm just as upset as most about the harassment aspects, but that is something we can't write to in WP's voice). --] (]) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Misplaced Pages is not here to right great wrongs. We are supposed to be neutral, meaning we're not supposed to be taking a side. Trying to use the GG article as a platform to support that were harassed and condemn those that did it is absolutely the wrong use of WP. --] (]) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
''(replies moved to ] to stay w/in 500 words, not critical to above statement)''

====Statement by Thargor Orlando====
Please boomerang this onto MarkBernstein. With DSA topic banned, MB is the only person left with significantly bad behavior at and surrounding the GamerGate article, as opposed to Masem's reasonable (albeit line-toeing at times) comments that took care to discuss the topic appropriately.

Compare Masen's edits to MarkBernstein's, who dove right in with repeatedly mentioning specific allegations he also considers a BLP violation () and attacks on myself () Masem (), and others/in general () with no basis in fact (such as claiming editors are "pro-GG" or anything similar).

For someone so concerned with BLP, his willingness to misrepresent a notable living person as "right wing" in a pejorative manner () goes part and parcel with how he's treating editors he disagrees with. If the sanctions are truly for ''everybody'', MarkBernstein needed a topic ban 24 hours ago. He clearly cannot edit the article within the parameters of BLP or civility due to the emotional investment he declares (). It's long overdue. ] (]) 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding ]'s misleading claim, . I don't want to believe this (or or ) were left out by Aprock on purpose.

Yes, I believe an article should reflect what is actually going on. If that's a crime, this article is even further beyond hope than I thought. ] (]) 12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Gamaliel}} you say you're concerned about that edit, and you fail to explain why, unless you're arguing that we should assert evidenceless-claims without question. Regardless, an examination of the thread figured out the problem between the claim that is disproven and the claims that are simply unfounded, and was and the article conflates the two for reasons I don't care to speculate on. I am still troubled by the comparative lack of attention to MarkBernstein's edits, of which there are literally dozens of problems. It would be good to see some resolution on that, as this has gone far too long without being addressed, a simple warning implies he would be unaware of what's going on here. ] (]) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|EdJohnston}} this is "running out of steam" because many of us are waiting to see when the sanctions are going to be used on the bad behavior of those that have been detailed here. ] might say he's no longer contributing, but that doesn't seem to be true given his actions of the last 12+ hours in , which certainly isn't true for me at least. Again, I ask you how much more of this we should be tolerating. These sanctions have been enacted on users for much less, but somehow Mark should be immune to them why? You don't have to do the digging, we've done it for you. Please act. Please show that the sanctions are for everyone. ] (]) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Avono ====
This is a frivolous request as There was never a discussion about Zoe Quinns sex life taking place, we were discussing the fact that she had a friendship with Zoe Quinn which was confirmed by Reliable Sources, Hell even Quinn herself admits in a Tweet that Grayson was a beta tester on Depression Quest.
The discussion about the 4chan Image had to be taken place because of a previous edit war that was discussed in this enforcement page (are we really having the discussion that a set of colours can represent rape?).
MarkBernstein was warned by Multiple Users to stop making personal attacks and continued to make unfounded accusations of Canvassing. I request That this enforcement is to be boomeranged onto MarkBernstein because this was a bad faith request (he has also baited <s>numerous Users</s> me and Tutelary to make an enforcement request on him ,) ] (]) 18:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


{{reply|EdJohnston}} Apparently that was me, but only because I failed to consult the Archives before making that edit; Yes I should be trouted about that, but that is not enough to assume I maliciously did it. I will happily in the future consult the talk page first, but that is sadly pointless now as It was completely locked down again. ] (]) 09:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{reply|EdJohnston}} I already explained why I did the "Unproven" edit here and as I previously said I will consult the Archives first in the future before making any edits to the mainspace article. ] (]) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Tutelary====
I don't see any violation of the remedies here. MarkBernstein seems to be trying to say that Masem arguing against his points is therefore a violation of the sanctions. MarkBerstein's hands are also not clean, as evident by all of the diffs of baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims of others culminating off site. A boomerang would be appropriate, in this instance. Masem's edits do not violate any of the remedies. You can also see in his own reply and other diffs that MarkBernstein clearly cannot be neutral in this conflict and is in effect advocating for the accused, something he has stated incessantly. This is incompatible with ] and ]. ] (]) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Since they've asked for diffs, here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ] (]) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
*
* . (Diff added 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

] (]) 22:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
'''Addendum''' MarkBernstein also has a website, which has linked from his userspace. It's revelations are astounding, ranting about the administrator Masem, having emotional appeals and support of the people involved in GamerGate, the whole lot. The fact that he filed this report trying to get Masem sanctioned correlates with his comments on his website and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Link: http://www.markbernstein.org/ ] (]) 22:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
This request has the makings of a case for soapboxing on BLP matters, though I'm not sure Masem is the worst offender. The message here is that the talk page and all related discussions need to be watched. This article should not be difficult to edit because there are many reliable sources. Editors who want instead to dredge up long-settled BLP matters in this way should be gently (or not so gently) dissuaded. --] 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Ed Johnson asks for clarification, I offer reopening of a long settled BLP discussion in which the irrelevant matter of somebody's private life is openly discussed on the talk page. The editors involved are Avono, Thargor Orlando and Masem. That link is an on-page snapshot and it's been hatted. If you want diffs, they are as follows: , , and . This is the start of a pointless barrage of BLP-sensitive discussion from mostly unreliable sources. It's difficult to see how anyone would want to reopen this discussion which was long ago settled by reliable sources, now reflected in the article, declaring the allegations of journalistic corruption involving the principals false.

Assuming good faith (and I see no reason to doubt this), these editors seem to need some guidance in appropriate editing on an issue of public interest where the privacy of individuals is also a priority.

The main problem here, though, is soapboxing. The reliable sources settled this weeks ago so delving into people's private affairs in search of material to write about in the article, or merely for gossip, is terribly inappropriate and suggestive, I hate to say, of carelessness. --] 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement re Masem by TheRedPenOfDoom====
The pretty version of this with excerpted quotes is trimming to the 500 words will leave just diffs and interpretations

Masem's ] to implement some bizarre application of NPOV is probably deserving of review.
*We can start with his initiation of ] speaks for itself.
*In this section particularly starting with his comment about the sources :
**"" In Masem's comment and the discussion that follows he is pushing the idea the the passing comment about GG must be given the same weight as all the other content about GG that the sources provide.
** Masem is again insisting that we do not follow the sources and give excessive weight to a portion of the GG.
**also from another reply in the same post --MASEM asserts that we cannot follow the mainstream sources because it is "bias"
** more assertions that the mainstream media are bias and so we cannot their overwhelming conclusions and must give specific voices under GG more value.
*then there is this section in which he repeatedly argues that we cannot put the mainstream interpretation first because somehow that will "bias" against the GG's claims.
**"
*one of the many NPOV discussion sections
**" again, Masem never specifying where any "impartial " language in the presentation actually is, merely that it somehow exists by following the sources.
* after presenting a proposal for re-phrasing the lead
** --MASEM presents his proposal for the lead to which TaraInDC appropriately responds "Your proposed lead para is distinctly parial (sic) in that it gives undue weight to an aspect of the 'controversy' that has essentially no reliable sources.... -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "
*then here
**... an explicit directive to edit the article contrary to what the reliable sources say.
-- ] 02:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
<s>{{ping|masem}} while edit warring to insert bizzaroworld interpretations of policy would have been worse, the ] to ] a version where where we discard the ] and actively subvert ] to "give an 'impartial' view for GG" is ]-- ] 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|masem}} that there are multiple users spewing the "per Masem" spin on your upside down view of RS and UNDUE is perhaps less a sign of your non-disruption and more a sign that you are leading and stirring up disruption. -- ] 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)</s>
{{ping|masem}} To claim that you are not pushing a "well the reliable sources x but we should say y" is belied by your numerous postings pushing exactly that logic - as per your RfC for one: ] -- ] 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement Pudeo====
Nothing wrong done by Masem. I agree with other editors who think this could boomerang onto MarkBernstein. It seems he's here only to participate in drama and culture wars. His user page is a personal essay how Misplaced Pages is doomed to end (''The Coming End Of Misplaced Pages''). That is clearly ], and definitely not a helpful participant in sections related Gamergate sanctions either.--]] 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Starship.paint====
So MarkBernstein wants Masem banned for ... civilly discussing and presenting arguments on the talk page? Regarding MarkBernstein's first diff, Masem was arguing to use "rape joke", which was what the sources present. () Regarding MarkBernstein's fourth diff, Masem is right to say that the claims against Zoe Quinn have "some foundation", from the ] article itself, '''Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship''' - Quinn was claimed to have a relationship with a games journalist and that claim is true.

I'd just like to make known that MarkBernstein might be too close in real life to targets of GamerGate, this might influence his editing here. He twice admits that it '''his colleagues''' have faced threats of rape from GamerGate, with being more explicit. ( and ). I think this has led MarkBernstein getting too emotional - he freely admits he is getting '''angry'''. ( and ).

Perhaps this anger has led to MarkBernstein openly accusing editors of collusion (implied to be with outside forces), serious allegations indeed. Here he claims that Masem '''was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned.''' () Here he starts attacking editors who have not even participated in the discussion yet - '''Next, the three remaining un-topic-banned editors and their admin will arrive''' () Later, he essentially accuses me of being a meatpuppet commanded by offsite coordinations. '''really interesting that starship shows up a few minutes after another user, one who makes the same arguments in the same tone, is topic-banned ... we all know they've been coordinating offsite''' - () These personal attacks on editors' integrity without any proof should cease and be retracted immediately. ]] ''']''' 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Protonk====
* Posts about the "journalism pov" causing systemic bias in sourcing against GG:, including The full quote notes that this is marginal on sources like NYT, but everyone is indicted at least a little.
* This 11 November ] includes a back and forth between Masem and several involved and uninvolved editors as they try to explain masem's strained application of FRINGE.
* A 15 November
All of this is after a ] regarding "bias" arising from reliable sources agreeing. Masem is a prolific editor and has contributed to many talk page discussions about GG. I could find a half dozen diffs like this tomorrow, and the day after that. In almost all cases (save for a recent period when they admitted "but ethics" was a fringe view, a position which has since changed I believe) the push will be the same, even if the content under discussion is different.

Some of this is legitimately a content dispute, but it trends away from that when an editor has been strenuously arguing for weeks to effectively invert FRINGE on a particular article. ] (]) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|EdJohnston}} The problem is this isn't acute. We could go back 30 days or 45 and find the same issues: Masem pushing a peculiar form of NPOV which validates GG's FRINGE justification for the movement. ] (]) 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Cobbsaladin====
Articles should be dispassionate presentations of fact. The Gamergate article is anything but. Masem appears to be one of the few editors striving for neutrality. Further, he's maintained patience and civility throughout. He's an exemplary editor who's done nothing to warrant sanctions. ] (]) 04:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by The Devil's Advocate====
Personally, I have found Masem to sometimes make bad arguments, but the one thing I have found is that he makes them on both ends. He does at least try to be neutral and takes fair consideration of the concerns of both side, even if his arguments and conclusions are not often very good. Basically, he is trying to be me and is failing at it. You are not me, Masem. . In summation, 7/10 would not topic-ban. The fact Mark, Red, and Protonk, apparently want to ban one of the more neutral editors on this issue should tell you something about them, rather than Masem.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, Avono did not in fact make the original change to the heading. That was Tellstar in and . While the first was sloppy and disruptive, I don't think sanctions against Tellstar would be appropriate given the editor made exactly two edits to the article before any notification was given and none afterwards. From my perspective, any qualifier in the heading is inappropriate because the allegations go beyond just the idea of Grayson writing a review for Quinn. This is alluded to in the section, but efforts to elaborate on some of those other allegations based on coverage in reliable sources have met with significant resistance. Either way, the statement in the heading should be taken as referring to all the allegations, rather than just the one that has been proven false. In that respect it actually is not in compliance with NPOV to have such qualifiers in the heading.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@North, the whole quote from that source:

{{quote|A jilted ex-boyfriend of hers posted a nearly-10,000-word screed that accused her of sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false, set off a wave of outrage that eventually escalated into a campaign against all the designers and critics who have argued for making gaming culture more inclusive.}}

First of all, ''The New York Times'' piece makes the demonstrably false claim that the allegation of "sex for reviews" came from Gjoni, when that is not the case. Other sources do get that point correct, but this one does not so it is already a cause for concern about this specific piece. Secondly, and more importantly, the quote above does not in any way contradict what I just said. The claim that is noted as false in ''The New York Times'' is the claim of Grayson giving her positive reviews. As I said above, that is the false allegation. Other allegations have not been found false either because they are actually accurate or because no one has bothered to investigate them. The heading does not accurately reflect this fact.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
:North, what you are saying is simply wrong.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
::Other allegations have been covered in reliable sources, just not as much.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Aprock====

Reviewing the hatt'd section, it's not the behavior of Masem that stands out, but rather the behavior of Thargor Orlando, who argues ad nauseum that wikipedia use the unsourced phrasing "unfounded" to describe the false alegations:

* ''''
* ''''
* ''''
* ''''
* ''''
* ''''
* '''': This example (emphasis added) is a particularly egregious diff, with Thargor Orlando acknowledging that the reliable sources characterize the accusations but false, but wikipedia should use unfounded instead.
* ''''

This tendentious editing against sources over a single word, to transmogrify "false" into "unfounded", speaks to a spectacular zeal for introducing distortion into the article. ] (]) 06:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Halfhat====
On the subject of righting great wrongs. You seemed to have missed the point of the policy entirely, I ask you step away from the article voluntarily, because that is not why you should be here. It's just as problematic as if a Pro-GG editor came here because they thought Kotaku acted wrongly. ]] 09:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
:I simply wanted to make a point about WP:Policy. ]] 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Bosstopher====
Haven't been paying much attention to this article at all lately but from what I can gather this really needs to boomerang. The sort of comments Mark is making about other editors are unacceptable. ] (]) 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark has since shown ] (]) 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
{{ping|EdJohnston}}, there was never any consensus to change the word "False" to begin with —neither "unproven" nor "unfounded" correctly sum up the conclusions of reliable sources, which effectively unanimously declare them to be factually false. the word out as soon as the protection was lifted, . No attempt was made to discuss this major change , wherein Avono demanded that his radical shift in the tone of the heading be treated as the default. The article should be administratively returned to describe the allegations against Quinn as "False" which was the longstanding consensus and ''status quo ante''. ] (]) 23:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
:The Devil's Advocate's claim that there should be no qualifier in the heading is absolutely absurd. The allegations against Quinn have repeatedly been denounced as '''false''' by mainstream reliable sources, most recently by nothing less than ''The New York Times'' — . Describing false allegations of wrongdoing against a person as anything but false is an unacceptable violation of ]. ] (]) 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{tq|Other allegations have not been found false either because they are actually accurate or because no one has bothered to investigate them.}} The only allegations which have been discussed in reliable sources (which means '''they are the only allegations we are concerned with and the only allegations which exist for our purposes''') have been determined, repeatedly, to be false. ] (]) 03:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
::The Devil's Advocate, what you are saying is simply wrong. See, I can write a declaratory sentence too. Except mine is actually true. If an "allegation" against a person is not discussed in reliable sources, then we don't care about it. It does not exist for Misplaced Pages's purposes. ] (]) 05:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Bilby====
The first diff raised by MarkBernstein isn't actionable - Masem started a discussion as a result of an edit war which he was not party to. It is a difficult topic to discuss, but it needed to be raised, and Masem wasn't unreasonable in how he handled it. In going over the discussion, though, I am surprised to see MarkBernstein saying that Masem argued "we must not follow the sources in this". In the discussion, it is pointed out that both of the sources used employ the wording recommended by Masem.

In regard to the second issue - the allegations against Quinn - I disagree with Masem's conclusion, but I don't feel that he handled the issue badly. This was (once again) the basis of edit warring in the article, and it is an issue that hasn't gone away. I wish it would, but Masem was attempting to navigate a core issue without violating BLP, and as someone who has also tried to engage on the same issue, it is a tricky thing to word. I don't think that Masem needed to make reference to the other allegations - as they are never going to be in the article I'm not convinced that they need to be raised at all - but he was trying to provide context by acknowledging their existance without describing them. I don't see anything actionable there, either - just a difficult topic that I really wish we could leave behind, but is too central to the GamerGate discussion to ignore completely.

Generally, Masem is trying to take a middle ground, but the difficulty with sitting in the middle is that both sides tend to view you as part of the opposition. It is a difficult topic to manage, and part of the problem is that there are so many allegations, and so many consipracy theories, that the whole thing is a BLP minefield. Masem has been in a frustrating position, and like anyone Masem may not have always used perfect wording or said the right things, but I honestly can't see anything serious enough in the diffs raised to warrant sanctions. - ] (]) 00:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Kaciemonster====

I'm not sure Masem has done anything sanction-worthy, but I do have some serious concerns about how he determines that content from reliable sources should be treated in our article.

When multiple sources state something that he disagrees with adding to the article, he argues that it can only be included if it's cited as the source's opinion.
*] - "The problem is that while "severe" harassment can certainly be supported without quotes (we have plenty of reliable documented facts about this), "misogynistic" can't be - that's how its been characterized widely, certainly, but it's also an observation"
*] - "That is the press's wide opinion, but only opinion. There is no factual evidence of what started GG."

When it's something he agrees with adding, he argues that it should be included because it was written in reliable (press) sources.
*] - "It is not appropriate to trivialize how GG is described as a movement by some high quality RS, like Time, the Age, and the Washington Post"

These are just the most recent ones I've seen, and I'm sure I could find more if needed, because he's been making these arguments for a while. He's also previously said that a scientific report or a legal document is needed to cite something as fact, and the press can only be cited as opinion.
*] - "100% wrong per NPOV. It is claimed the ethics issue is a front, but there is no fundamental statement (like a scientific report or a legal document) that supports this. As such we will continue to treat that claim as a popular opinion in the press, but absolutely not as fact."

The way he treats the reliable sources is inconsistent, and depends on whether or not he agrees with the point that's being sourced. ] (]) 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

====Clerk note====
*I want to remind everyone here that statements should be limited to 500 words. This is not a place for endless bickering back and forth, but for substantive evidence. Please make sure that you adhere to the 500 word limit, if at all possible. ] — ] 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

===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>
*The poster of this request, ] and ] have provided diffs. If the other people who have commented want to have their views taken seriously they should also provide diffs. In particular ] should clarify how MB "baited numerous Users to make an enforcement request on him". It is hard to disagree with ] but your comment is too vague. Who are the editors who 'want to dredge up long-settled BLP matters'? ] (]) 22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

* My first pass through the diffs some things jump out at me.
**Many of these statements, particularly ones by ], ], ], and ], do not provide diffs or useful information and seem to only serve as a way for editors to state their opinion about which side they are on. If we are going to sort through this wall of text, we're going to need useful, actionable evidence and we will need to begin removing non-compliant statements, if only to reduce clutter.
**I find by ] absolutely appalling and will remove it and warn the user. We should discuss whether or not this deserves some sort of sanction as well. On the one hand, we certainly want to put a stop to this sort of behavior, on the other, if we go down this road, I suspect we'll have to sanction half the people on this page for uncivil behavior.
**I am particularly troubled by by ] and ] respectively which indicate a disregard for ].

* I'd like to hear from some other admins (such as {{ping|EdJohnston}}, {{ping|Acroterion}}, {{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}, {{ping|Dreadstar}}) about these and other matters before diving in further. ] <small>(])</small> 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

*Gamaliel, thanks for your post. I haven't had time to consider the new items you mention, but here is what I concluded after seeing the complaint here and viewing the talk history. The diffs so far don’t add up to a convincing case against ]. Looking at the last two talk archives, there are a number of hatted sections. Generally the hats were due to problematic posts. Tony Sidaway made reference to one of them here: “.” When hatting the section, Tony's closure was .

:*The reason for opening the now-hatted discussion was presumably that ] made where he changed a section header in the article from "''Unfounded allegations against Quinn''" to "''Unproven allegations against Quinn''". ] opened the talk section and was joined by ]. ] then explained why the claims about Quinn can be said to be ‘refuted.’ Masem made that is hard to disagree with, about the BLP significance of having this kind of claim in the article. Now right after this, ] restored one week of full protection, which seems correct to me. There was enough BLP concern to justify the full protection. But in the hours before that, there was a confused sequence of events and we might be asking if what happened on the (briefly unprotected) article and on the talk page is enough reason to sanction any particular editor. In the few diffs of ] that I checked, I didn’t see any problems. In fact, Masem gave some good reasons why we shouldn't be playing around with the header about the Quinn allegations: {{quotation|The fact the accusation has been the major point of discussion of sources - and that all key parties have clearly stated that these are not true - means that from a BLP standpoint, it is acceptable to include the high-level nature of the allegations, as long as it is 100% clear that they have been refuted by the specific parties and by the press at large. This has been determined waaaaay in the past. Now there are other claims that have come against Quinn based on Gjoni's post, but which the press have generally ignored, but we are absolutely not including those per BLP. --] (]) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}
::This does not raise any alarms for me. Considering the posts by all the parties we might be more concerned with the edits of ] in this episode. His first edit after he merged the draft article was to change a very high-profile section header about Zoe Quinn. Can he have reasonably thought he had consensus? I'm assuming that the people named here have been around the article long enough to be aware of past discussions. ] (]) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
:::This complaint is running out of steam. ], who opened it, has been leaving saying he will no longer contribute to Misplaced Pages. I didn't find it very easy to follow Mark Bernstein's arguments, but what ] said was more clear. If the complaint won't proceed unless I or other admins do a lot of digging, nothing much is likely to happen. Viewing the talk page, you can find a lot of intemperate comments by various people but hardly ever by ], who is diplomatic. The only angle I see as having any merit is that Masem might be obstructing or slowing down a consensus that would otherwise emerge. Masem is the #2 contributor to the ] page with 1199 edits, second only to ] with 1558 edits. If you were seeking evidence of obstruction, you would probably want to look at the wording of : {{quotation|Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage? --] (]) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) }}

:::A first impression might be that Masem was inviting people to ignore the reliable source policy to tilt the article to be more favorable to the Gamergate movement. But it's hard to say that offering such an RfC violates any Misplaced Pages policy. (It's very similar to ). Generally it is up to the consensus of editors how RfCs ought to be worded. In my opinion, the time could have been better spent creating smaller RfCs about specific wording. For example, the section header "Unfounded allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment." Somebody could have opened an RfC to decide once and for all how to word that heading (unfounded, false or whatever) and then progress could move on. There's also a possibility that some of the article wording might have a partisan tone. that the wording of our ] article describes how various sources describe the church as a hate group but don't put that in Misplaced Pages's voice. If you want to pull out particular sentences for review they could be discussed in smaller RfCs. There is a huge amount of discussion here that seems inefficient, and seems not to make progress. As to whether Masem is dragging down the article by his persistence, and thus guilty of tendentious editing, I don't think there's enough evidence in this complaint to get any conclusion on that. ] (]) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree with you Ed, I'm not seeing anything actionable regarding Masem at this point. In the various comments and in the RfC by Masem linked to above, I do see a need for Masem to review ] and the other content-related policies; as well as gaining a greater understanding of how to phrase an ], particularly the section ]; that is neither neutral nor brief. ] <small>]</small> 03:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Recent edits by ] leave something to be desired. Zeal in the defence of BLP can go too far. ] already took note of which seems to accuse another Misplaced Pages editor of being a supporter of raping and beating women. The tone of Mark's complaint against Masem (above) is so indignant that it's hard to get a clear focus on what the problems are. What looks to be a personal attack on ], posted on MB's blog, raises questions. In a post dated 21 November and titled "You've GOT To Be Kidding" he says "...I guess you can accomplish great things with the aid of a rogue administrator", referring to Masem. I wonder if anyone can suggest proper wording for what we should say here. Mark has stated he is leaving Misplaced Pages but he still commented below in another thread at 05:38 on Nov. 26. ] (]) 18:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

==DungeonSiegeAddict510==
{{hat|No action. Resumption of this behaviour may result in a block. ] — ] 18:18, 24 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|Hasteur}} 03:22, 24 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 ====
# ] - With Great Sound and Fury, DSA510 makes unfounded accusations at AN/I in a poorly construed attempt to overturn a previous GS/GG sanction while at the same time making some very serious accusations of corruption in the Misplaced Pages corps
# - At the ArbCom case request page, DSA makes further accusations of being Doxxed and being conspired against.
====Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any====
# - '''''topic-banned''' from all edits and all discussions related to the Gamergate controversy for a period of 90 days''
#
==== Additional comments by editor filing complaint ====
The conduct of DSA510 has not improved since the 90 day topic ban has been enacted upon them, but instead has escalated. The user requested a week block, but the serious accusations that lead to a near fatal ] at AN/I indicates that the user is so wound up in the GamerGate topic area that they've become a Single Purpose account for righting great wrongs with respect to the topic. I suggest a co-terminal block (20 Feburary 2015) to encourage the user to take some time off and re-evaluate their purpose for editing wikipedia. ] (]) 03:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
:Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
===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====

====Statement by Tutelary====
Cool down blocks are not permitted. This request also seems to be more punitive rather than preventative. The user has withdrawn such an action at WP:ANI, apologized for it, and requested themselves a week block (which wasn't given) to take time off. I don't see what disruption this would prevent. I encourage them to look at wikibreak enforcer rather than blocking, but otherwise, I don't see anything actionable here. Hasteur, also note that no one can 'become' an SPA. You're either one, or you're not. And with the ArbCom case thing, administrators have deliberately declined to enforce a topic ban there because that's ArbCom's authority there. Other topic banned editors were allowed to post and add their statement for ArbCom. I see no reason to single out DSA here. ] (]) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Hasteur====
{{Reply to|Tutelary}} Responding in order to your absurdities
# Blocking an editor to prevent further disruption of AN/I and the ArbCom request page is not punative, but preventative of causing more drama in an already drama filled subject.
# DSA510 was given a topic ban against all edits and discussions related to the subject for a period of 90 days. Assuming good faith that their abortive attempt an AN/I was trying to appeal the sanctions, their further landing on the ArbCom request page with the exact same claims (that they later retracted on AN/I) shows that they're unable to follow the topic ban, therefore the ban must be enforced with a block.
# I long suspected that DSA510 was a SPA, however per Assuming Good Faith, I did not voice my suspicions previously. DSA was acting as a coordinator for the external communities only to go off the deep end and assert that they were doxxed too (just as the opponents of the GG movement were). That burned the last shreds of good faith I had, so it was come down to me asking for them to be blocked.
# It's clear that the Clerks and arbitrators are asleep at the switch, but that does not excuse DSA's behavior with respect to willfully violating the terms of his topic ban in open discussion to stir the drama pot more for the express purpose of getting an ArbCom case.

For these reasons, blocking DSA is preventing them from disrupting wikipedia further and not punishing him for statements he's made. ] (]) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====

===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>
*A thread about this was at ]. It was by ] as "The claims have been withdrawn". That ought to be enough for now. Thanks to his colorful remarks DSA has recently got a lot of admin attention. If he makes any further posts about Gamergate that contravene his ban a new request at this board may not be needed. It's my guess that admins will reason with him directly. In my opinion this can be closed with no action. ] (]) 17:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
* I agree. If the behavior resumes, then appropriate action will be taken. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 17:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==RE: 8chan, DungeonSiegeAddict510 and Loganmac==
{{hat|This is not the place for this. This page is for requests for enforcement of the GS/GG sanctions only, not for threaded discussion. If one wants to submit a request, follow the procedure. ] — ] 05:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)}}
I moved this here because this is unrelated to Masem's case where it was originally posted. ]] ''']''' 04:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: I disagree and this was not my choice of title, but I have more urgent things to do. obviously. ] (]) 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry. You can change the title when you are more free. Stay safe. ]] ''']''' 04:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by MarkBernstein====

(placed here because I'm in a hurry: may need to call police right now. Refactor as needed)

Just received 8chan thread from one of the GamerGate victims of planning for Arbcom proceeding in which I appear to be a target for retribution -- of what '''precise'' nature is not immediately clear. . I have an archive in case it's sanitized, and have sent excerpts to Arbcom. Cursory examination indicate that at least <strike>two</strike> three participants in this discussion are reporting its success to 8chan and planning further triumphs, to with "Logan" and "DSA". I'm not accustomed to being targeted in this way; excuse the lack of decorum. ] (]) 04:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Discussion====
*Reading through the posts by "Logan" (ID: 89d6e6) and "DSA" (ID: 9886fc) - seems to me that it's highly likely they are indeed the editors on Misplaced Pages. But "Logan" and "DSA" don't seem to be conspiring to do anything. DSA: {{blue|I just decided to swing by here today to see what you guys are like ... I could work on the}} {{blue|'''wikia''', but due to the doxxing I won't. I'll be editing KDE articles ...}} The one post by "Logan" is equally harmless. ]] ''']''' 04:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

*Is there a request here, or is this just an off-topic, misplaced set of comments that needs to be hatted? Not to give any leading questions, but...] <small>]</small> 04:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

: I didn't put it here. hat away; if something bad happens, maybe you'll read it then. I'm done with wikipedia. Checking if I need police. ] (]) 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::I'm sorry you're being threatened, but unless there are threats on Misplaced Pages, there's nothing I can do about it here. If you're being threatened on Misplaced Pages, then yeah, I'm right there. I was asking Starship Paint too, is there an actual, potentially actionable request here? . ] <small>]</small> 05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything actionable. I just moved the post. ]] ''']''' 05:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Second edit conflict. :: you might conceivably want to know about the collusion, since I'm accused above of having invented it. I posted this as an extension of my statement; starship moved it here. Oh, and if something does happen -- unlikely as that is -- maybe you'd be interested, but other than that, I WAS here from 1987 (yep, that's right) to build an encyclopedia, but mark me wp:NOTHERE. (Sorry if I got the indent wrong or starship put this in the wrong place or if I don't remember the right acronym right now. (What's WRONG with you people?)] (]) 05:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)≤
:How can you have been here from 1987 when Misplaced Pages did not exist until over ten years later?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

:::because some people built hypertext in order to make wikis possible. We talked about stuff like this at ACM ht 87, though we didn't forsee the disaster it's become. ] (]) 05:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Hmmm, I think accusing other editors of being part of plans to rape and beat people without a scintilla of evidence is hardly making things better. Do you really find it that shocking people would say mean things about you in response?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== In regards to involved editors closing/hatting discussions ==

Would hatting sections by clearly involved editors, such as this one , be appropriate? I'd have no problem if one called to ask an uninvolved admin to close it out, but when the user is involved and consensus is still developing, that's not helpful. (There will be obvious IAR cases to close discussions, but this is not such a case IMO). It would be helpful to establish if such closures should be left to uninvolved admins in requests on this page. --] (]) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:Indeed, this needs to be settled. It's not only that thread, but see the two directly above it closed as WP:FORUM? They were actually deleted by an involved editor and , before being restored by yet another editor as closed topics . I really don't think involved editors should be doing this, it's stifling discussion, preventing improvements and favouring the status quo of the article. ]] ''']''' 23:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Starship.paint}} The reason that I closed them was because I disagree with deleting the edits and believed that the other editor should have closed them if they felt that it was a violation instead of taking action to removing them permanently and preventing them from being archived. I feel that hatting should be used as little as possible, but I do not believe that both sections and the edits in them be completely removed in the way that they were in this case. --] (]) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Super Goku V}} - Frankly, your edit was a net positive, thanks for restoring the comments to the page. The previous edit which deleted the comments was the more serious edit I was targeting. ]] ''']''' 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

==Request concerning Ryulong==

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Dwavenhobble}} 22:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

==== Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it ====
Recently you may be Aware Ryulong was asked by {{userlinks|Jimbo_Wales}} to step away from the page temporarily.

However as can be seen in the edit logs <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&action=history</ref> Ryulong has returned to editing the page again.

However since during his absence he undertook discussions with members of one side of the present edit wars going on <ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/</ref>

Further to this he has been in contact with the moderators of said area and is said to be actively working this them including having them promote a funding effort on his behalf.<ref>https://archive.today/PEKH2</ref> This funding effort to be precise.<ref>http://www.gofundme.com/hhqw0c</ref>

While {{userlinks|Ryulong}} is known as being a competent editor evidence suggests that he is no longer neutral on this topic and has received monetary compensation in kind from one side. I would suggest {{userlinks|Ryulong}}'s talent s be better spend on articles where there is no such conflict of interest present.
{{reflist-talk}}

==== Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any====
Official enforcement of sanctions against {{userlinks|Ryulong}} to prevent him from editing this article.

===Discussion concerning Ryulong===
<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 Ryulong====
I edited an unofficial sandbox version of an article today (and engaged in discussion at another the other day) after I had announced I would possibly considered to have a conflict of interest after I made a donation page to help me pay back a friend I owed money to as I would not know where the money came from considering that my blog is watched by both sides of the debate (my blog is the only place '''''I've''''' provided a link to). The only thing I've done is break my promise to stay away from the topic area. Because adding two tags to an article, bringing up a discussion on its talk page, and discussing the article offsite are not violations of any on-site sanctions.—] (]) 23:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

People here are almost exclusively off-site evidence to show I've violated some official rule onsite.—] (]) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac's timeline on my behavior on {{la|8chan}} is flawed.
*, I make the post on my user talk
*, first tags
*, talk page thread started to begin discussion on neutrality and POV
*, POV tag removed
*, notability tag removed
*, notability tag re-added
*, removed again
—] (]) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac, that's directed to your audience and not yourself or Pepsiwithcoke.—] (]) 00:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: there have been far too many pile-on "comments" by involved parties from both sides in this thread, just as in the one about Masem above. Everybody, please take note: These requests are not for voicing your opinions on each other, support or oppose each other with pile-ons, or engage in further debate between each other. Please only add a statement here if you have some substantially new, factual observations to make about the specific case at hand that are needed for the uninvolved administrators to come to a proper conclusion. People who make unhelpful comments in these kinds of threads will be blocked in the future. (Not saying that ''all'' the below sections are unhelpful, but the volume has become so high I don't see a lot of alternatives to throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.) ] ] 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|Mostly useless quabbling collapsed. ] ] 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)}}
====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
{{ping|Dwavenhobble}} Its interesting that you are aware of Ryulong's substantial history of being a competent editor. Have you been following his work on Misplaced Pages before you created your account earlier this month? -- ] 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:To those who have asked, I will point them to the top of this page in the big red box where it says: "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, ]." -- ] 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|Dwavenhobble}} could you please point to any change in Ryulong's edits that would be reflective of this alleged payment having any impact on Ryulong's editing? -- ] 01:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dwavenhobble}} i am having trouble following your logic, but are you are saying that from content that was sourced by several sources which is evidence of editing that was biased because of a donation that occurred after ? that seems more than a little stretched to me. -- ] 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|Dwavenhobble}} You have a fundamental misunderstanding. Misplaced Pages ''editors'' may not use primary sources like tweets as a basis for ]. We require ''the reliable sources'' to do the interpretation and analysis. Once a reliable source has made a determination, then we follow the source. ] applies to US and OUR analysis, not to the experts published in reliable sources. -- ] 05:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dwavenhobble}} so you are actually claiming that , , '''and''' have all not done proper analysis and are nonreliable bias sources? -- ] 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Zakarum====
I'm sorry, TheRedPenOfDoom, but being a competent editor or being here longer doesn't prove you are impartial in a specific issue. --] (]) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Helester====
For having been paid by the Anti-GG side to push their narrative. ] (]) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Retartist====
{{yo|TheRedPenOfDoom}} What are you getting at? ] (]) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:There seems to be another thread ] ] (]) 23:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
{{yo|Masem}} the complaint here mainly revolves around paid editing. ] (]) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (my alt)

====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
This is an incoherent mess. There is no prohibition against editors discussing things off-wiki; indeed, if I don't miss my guess, such a prohibition would result in topic bans on '''all of the above complaining users''' as well. ] (]) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Loganmac}} You can't keep poking at someone on-wiki and off and then complain when they respond with a bit of relatively mild invective. Your carrying on this campaign against Ryulong has the strong scent of ], but rather to continually stoke drama. ] (]) 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by 92.142.2.237====
This isn't about discussing things off-wiki, this is about taking money from a clearly biased group and then keeping pushing that group's agenda on the article despite previous suggestions by Jimbo to refrain on further edits. -- 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}} How is that relevant to the conflict of interest displayed by Ryulong? Don't try to discredit his claims by investigating his history, get some real arguments please. -- 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Starship.paint====
It seems like Ryulong has received a donation of $350 from FishFox Nuro, a self-described "SJW Lunatic" (essentially equates to anti-GamerGate). This seems like ] to me, if he has returned to editing GamerGate topics, which he has. This was echoed by Ryulong himself, as per his comment after opening the GoFundMe ]] ''']''' 23:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
*Update: I concur the statements made by Obsidi and Weedwhacker (at the time of this post). In addition, I'd like the deciding admin to clarify whether any future editing the draft article of GamerGate would count as a violation of WP:COI. ]] ''']''' 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Masem====
There's nothing to enforce here: there is no weight in Jimmy Wales' requests to Ryulong stepping away from the page, or even Ryulong coming back after saying he wouldn't. (The only thing close I could even consider this would fall into is something like Right to Vanish and then coming back to edit, which can be a matter of some admin action, but that's not happening here). None of the actions seem actionable under sanctions. --] (]) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Retartist Even aware of that, nothing ''yet'' screens a paid-editing problem; there's a potential, but nothing yet that I can see actionable. --] (]) 00:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Weedwacker: There is the basis of the necessary elements that in the future Ryulong may end up doing that in the GG area, but all that depends on what and how he edits. And we need to AGF until that time; the evidence here is not for that. --] (]) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Loganmac====

This isn't the only time he's edited GamerGate related topics, he has added a notability tag and a neutrality tag to the ] article, twice . After getting reverted, he vented on his personal talk page about it. I ask admins to see this for what it is, it's paid editing, even if unintentional. The subreddit GamerGhazi is a self-admitted forum in opposition to the subject in question. He has recieved $350 after having made an AMA on their forum, in an obvious display of gratitude, and I'm SURE if any so called "pro-GamerGate" editor as Ryulong has called some, had been caught in this, he'd be, not topic banned, banned site-wide. Jimmy Wales, for what it matters, has referred to this on multiple occassions on both Misplaced Pages and his personal Twitter page and advised him to back down, not only for this but because it has according to him caused him stress since he's taking this into a personal matter. Ryulong then proceeded to say Jimmy Wales was "retweeting conspiracy theories" and then proceeded to delete his tweets. It doesn't matter if the money was for editing or buying some clothes or whatever, an anti-GamerGate forum wouldn't give a random user money if it wasn't because they saw it as a way to thank him, and if he had admitted this conflict of interest, it would have been left at that, but this is now outrageous that he keeps his constant behaviour, a behaviour that has been noted ad nauseum yet he refuses to take advice from the community, and moderators refuse to even reprehend him ] (]) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sookenon}} What are you implying? I for once wasn't implying anything, I refreshed the page, saw my comment was gone, saw it was deleted by Ryulong, found it hilarious and reposted it, mentioned it. It obviously wasn't intentional and I never implied this, you should assume good faith ] (]) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:Ryulong has now told me to "eat shit" and has called me an idiot if this isn't ] I don't know what is ] (]) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Weedwacker}} expresses exactly what I think ] (]) 03:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Sookenon====
{{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}} Agreed:
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=author%3ALogan_Mac&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all ] (]) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Bosstopher====
{{ping|Loganmac}} This is yet another case in a long history of you misrepresenting the actions of other editors on reddit (especially Ryulong) thereby inciting hatred against them. This is in especially poor taste given the harassment Ryulong is currently undergoing. Further evidence regarding this can be seen in my ] ] (]) 00:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by AndyTheGrump====
Having stayed largely out of this whole GamerGate mess up to now, I regret having getting sucked into the latest drama over at WP:ANI: . However, now I'm in, and since it is obvious that nothing concrete can possibly be resolved in that particular exercise in mutually ignoring the point, and arguing in circles, I may as well comment here. As far as I can see, the suggestion is that Ryūlóng has received funds in relation to some forum or other involved in the GamerGate controversy. Ryūlóng seems to acknowledge receiving funds from someone for something, but the connection between these funds and any edits made seems to me at least to be as yet unestablished. And unless and until it can be shown that there is a verifiable causal link, assertions of a COI seem premature. Furthermore, I think that it can be taken as read that Misplaced Pages can't sanction someone for voluntarily 'topic-banning' themselves, and then changing their mind - it wouldn't be voluntary if we could. Accordingly, I have to suggest that those claiming that Ryūlóng's editing has been influenced by financial gain have, per burden of proof, to ''demonstrate'' this, rather than merely assert it, and failing that, either withdraw the assertions, or accept that they may face sanctions themselves. ] (]) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Dwavenhobble====
@TheRedPenOfDoom I have previously edited wikipedia using the IP based system long ago before creating an account and have seen and heard others talk of him and his work previously. Unfortunately I do have a dynamic IP so showing those edits before I had an ID will be difficult not least due to them being many years prior to creating this account. The edits surrounded Dr Who entries on Cyberman and the webcasts Pyramids of Mars and Scream of the Shalka. Additionally I did add further detail on characters in ]
] (]) 00:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@] I'd suggest this points to some level of bias <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=635547322</ref> due to an editor investigating the sources provided by the linked sources. The sources themselves according to the user had no sources themselves. Essentially the source being allowed to be submitted was itself being used as the entire source. I believe this would come under X reporting on X. As Misplaced Pages itself doesn't allow mere twitter post speculation to be used then the sources being linked here to make the claims would be invalid. Hence the suggestion can be made that the events should be detailed as alleged. I refer you therefore to "If it's written in a book, it must be true!"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#.22If_it.27s_written_in_a_book.2C_it_must_be_true.21.22</ref> As such the source isn't verifiable itself as the source is becoming in this case the source of it's own information which cannot be verified by checking said source.
{{reflist-talk}}

::{{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}} Well yes citations. firstly and foremost to verify the claims that it was gamergate doing the harassment. Otherwise the same arguments could be levelled at other such groups (some of whom have been shown the be intent on editing biographies here). If Misplaced Pages will not allow Tweets as then the sources themselves are the only evidence as the sources they used are not verifiable under wikipedia's guidelines.

:::::{{ping|TheRedPenOfDoom}} However from Misplaced Pages's page about a source being verifiable "There are examples where material should not be reported in Misplaced Pages's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate." <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#.22If_it.27s_written_in_a_book.2C_it_must_be_true.21.22</ref> thus without Reliable sources in this case which have done the primary analysis and use verifiable sources which these do not verify the claims made. A Citation proving the claims is required or an adjustment to the statement to show said claim is an allegation not fact. What would be fact would be Felicia Day having her address posted. What is not fact is who did it, that for the most part in every article is speculation. The only verifiable thing is the source expresses that view not that the source is correct.
{{reflist-talk}}

====Statement by Obsidi ====
I have mostly stayed out of the gamergate controversy except when it gets to AN/ANI, but given this issue blew up at ANI I thought I would post my comments on it. First thing is to establish that the user ryulong67 at reddit is Ryulong on Misplaced Pages, , combined with shows that reddit user ryulong67 is Ryulong. Then post by ryulong67 shows that he believes he received (and choose to accept) the money from a user at /r/GamerGhazi. /r/GamerGhazi is a site with an explicit POV on gamergate. As such Ryulong has now accepted money from someone with a direct interest in promoting a POV on gamergate. This to me shows that Ryulong has a COI on gamergate. Now as to this specific instance, I do not believe he violated ] interest policy as the edits were not to a mainspace article and/or not controversial. So I would ask that the result be a declaration of a COI for Ryulong on gamergate going forward but no further action taken.
(PS. I have no problems with closing this because the ANI thread, but I figure one of these two will get closed on the merits and wanted to make sure whichever one it was my views were considered.)
--] (]) 00:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:Now that the ANI thread was closed for forumshopping, this is the only thread on the subject. --] (]) 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Super Goku V}} Editing of any "pages related to the Gamergate controversy" are subject to the general sanctions, to me that includes the draft article. --] (]) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Ivanvector====
I wasn't going to post here per a request from {{ul|Tutelary}} (via ANI) but since Andy and Obsidi have, I feel I should as well, thus I apologize in advance for going against Tutelary's stated desire for this not to be posted here (a sentiment I respect though I don't understand it). I have no horse in this race; like Andy, I've gotten into ] against my better judgement. There has been an allegation that {{ul|Ryulong}} has received compensation for edits made to Misplaced Pages, and evidence has been suggested in the ANI thread (I'm not going to cross post the links) but in my observation that evidence fails substantially to establish that Ryulong is being paid to edit Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, such an allegation requires definitive proof, and throwing around such unfounded accusations is a direct violation of our harassment policy (]). In the interest of ] (one of the ], I'll remind you) editors should refrain from this behaviour, though I don't hold out much hope for civility in this topic area any more.

There has also been extensive reference here and at ANI to Ryulong's "self imposed topic ban", referring to to having been accused of COI because an off-Misplaced Pages attack article mentioned their username. Please read ] for full context. The user ''volunteered'' to step away from this topic area with a prediction that their future involvement would cause further drama, but that's far from an enforceable topic ban - it is no more than a voluntary absence, one that obviously can be revoked at any time, and it is certainly not an admission of conflict of interest. ] (]) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{yo|Gamaliel}} Ha! I spent a large part of today whinging that ANI shouldn't consider this because there was already an open thread here. Maybe there really is no appropriate venue. ] (]) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by Weedwacker====
If we're all going to come over from ANI I might as well join in too. I am going to have to agree with {{ul|Obsidi}}'s reasoning behind the subject. Ryulong accepted money and thanked those responsible from a site with a POV on the topic at hand. Whether or not it can be directly shown that he accepted money for editing, the fact is that he accepted the money and opened himself up to receiving it by posting the funding campaign to his blog connected to his editor name. I cannot in good faith directly claim he used his editor name in the crowd-funding campaign for nefarious purposes, but it does give the appearance of requesting money of those that agree with him as an editor. I am going to be less harsh in my calls than I was on ANI and suggest that no action be taken related to his recent edits, but that he should be barred from future edits on the topic. It has become clear that self-imposed bans have not been effective. ] (]) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:I take significant offense to Gamaliel's comments in the result section. Calling the editors who are raising disputes "kids" is demeaning and far from ]. Also: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." He is clearly not an uninvolved administrator at this point.] (]) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:@{{ul|Resolute}} this topic is hardly about only the self-imposed topic ban.] (]) 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@{{ul|Masem}} I understand your points, but do you think that there is a ] at play here that should be considered for future edits? ] (]) 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Comment by Resolute====
Mostly just endorsing AndyTheGrump's statement in whole. The idea that someone should be sanctioned for "violating" a ''voluntary'' self-topic ban on the basis of allegations that do not appear to have been demonstrated as true is rather silly. ]] 01:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Statement by former editor and uninvolved (MarkBernstein)====

Ryulong has been working to improve Misplaced Pages since Feb 2006. It appears I arrived the following September, at the urging of ] who convinced me this was not as ,such an impossible as I had supposed. Aaron was a convincing fellow: he was wrong in this case, but here we are. My candid impression is that Ryulong and I have crossed swords at times, and agreed at other times. His is a familiar name to me, as to many of you. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know him.

As of late I've been alternating farewells and recrimination here, I'd like to leave Misplaced Pages with a proposal for what I believe to be a better solution.

** '''We owe Ryulong a debt''' for long and loyal service. We owe him collectively, even if he has sometimes opposed us, and even if he currently opposes us.
** '''Ryulong has found himself in an awkward position''' having just moved to a new continent, changed institutions, jobs, whatever.
** '''Some people have offered to help out.''' There is nothing wrong with that; this is what friends and people of good will do.
** '''This help presents, to some of us, a suggestion of impropriety.''' I agree with AndyTheGrump above. I think that this suggestion is ill-mannered and ill-conceived but clearly some people (for whatever reason) hold it.

'''THEREFORE''', we have a problem over which we've just spilt a whole lot of ink in lots of places. But we can fix it -- easily.

1. Ryulong will return the $350 given to him from the source which is objectionable to certain editors here. If they wish, he will provide them or a trusted Administrator (see below) evidence that this has been done, within (let's say) 90 days.

2. We will pass that hat here. In the 18th century, we would '''take up a subscription''' for Ryulong. I or my firm will pledge a significant fraction of the sum, conditional on others subscribing for at a total of at least $350. Subscriptions will be capped at a total of $1000 and will be confidential with the following exception on which my contribution is contingent: at least three contributors should be drawn from the ranks of the editor who nominated this request for enforcement or from those who, before this posting, supported it.

3. If total subscriptons do not exceed $350 within 14 days, this proposal fails without prejudice toward any other proposal, sanction, or other action.

4. A designated agent will be chosen to administer the subscription. I'd suggest Gamaliel, or EdJohnston,, or AndyTheGrump; plenty of other people would be entirely suitable. The agent will announce an address, post office box, and/or PayPal account to which contributions may be sent. The Administrator will announce, within (let's say) 90 days, that the requisite sum has been collected and disbursed, that the $350 has been returned, and that the subscription has been wound up. The Administrator will provide receipts or try copies of receipts to donors upon request. Expenses of up to $50 may be reimbursed by the subscription fund; otherwise the Administrator will receive our thanks, but no further financial reward, for his or her services.

5. Additional regulations for the collection and use of the fund are at the sole discretion of the Administrator; in the event of any dispute, the determination of the Administrator will be final.

Summary: this removes any trace or taint of a conflict of interest; none existed, but we'll extinguish here any appearance of conflict and also place Ryulong on what we hope will prove a firmer foundation while restoring his books to him.

I do not expect this to be endorsed -- I expect, in fact, a storm of protest and vituperation -- but I’d like to leave Misplaced Pages on an amicable note and I think this best accords with the better angels of our nature and with what Ward Cunningham originally termed The Wiki Way. ] (]) 03:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

====Request by Super Goku V====
I do not believe that any action should be taken right now against Ryulong, but this request has made me request my own. The Draft Article is currently a way for those who want to edit the article to do so as a suggestion on how to improve the article. Currently, the Draft talk page is a redirect to the main talk page. Considering that the Draft talk page does not mention anything about the general sanctions due to this, is it alright to assume that it is still subject to general sanction? I believe that it should, but I want to make sure that this is the correct interpretation. --] (]) 06:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|}

====Statement by Thargor Orlando====
{{ping|EdJohnston}} you shouldn't close it as no one knows where to put these anymore because the issues aren't being dealt with in either area. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
====Statement by {username}====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Ryulong===
<!-- 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>

* Why should we even consider this when there is an open ANI thread on this matter? Also, where do you kids get all this energy to keep arguing about GamerGate all day? I envy you. ] <small>(])</small> 04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

*There doesn't seem to be a case for action against ] here, at least not on grounds of COI editing. This complaint should be closed. I'm noting that there are not enough admins active here to keep up with the volume of complaints. ] (]) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:*The same complaint about Ryulong was also . That thread has now been closed by ] with no action. His closing comment was . Can anyone think of a reason why this one shouldn't be closed as well? ] (]) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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: