| Revision as of 06:25, 28 November 2014 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Evidence presented by {your user name}← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:21, 24 October 2016 edit undoKs0stm (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,726 edits fix |
| (799 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Casenav|case name=GamerGate|clerk1=Ks0stm|clerk2=Sphilbrick|draft arb=Roger Davies|draft arb2=Beeblebrox|draft arb3=David Fuchs|active=14|inactive=5|recused=0||}} |
|
{{Casenav}} |
|
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
{{notice|1=If you wish to submit evidence, please (or in your own section, if you have already created one). '''Do not edit anyone else's section'''. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the ]. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.}} |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=] |text= This page has been ]. The contents of this page can be viewed in the . <!-- Template:Courtesy blanked --> |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. '''The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 ] for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users.''' Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the ]. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations. |
|
|
|
|
|
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a ], an editor's contributions, or a ] for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the ] if you are not sure how to create a page diff. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions '''in your own section''', and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in ] on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at ], which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page. |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Retartist== |
|
|
===Tarc Ignores the ] pillar=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The above links are tarc removing warnings (which he is allowed to do) of people warning him for uncivil behaviour |
|
|
:The following diff is of tarc claiming that ] can be ignored. |
|
|
== Evidence presented by Tstormcandy == |
|
|
|
|
|
To preface, I would like to point the Committee to precedent set at ] which states that ArbCom can and will consider certain off-Wiki activity as part of final decision principles and findings of fact. Disclaimer: I will be linking to less traditional or trusted external sources, but only because there is no other way to display the evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Involved editors have been targets of deliberate harassment=== |
|
|
Some of the users listed as involved parties in this case have been specifically targeted by external forces for additional scrutiny and potential harassment. Though this does not excuse user actions it may help explain some of the stresses and behaviors displayed in other evidence and should be taken into account as state of mind of the editors. One very recent example is seen here. This is a thread on a forum sympathetic to the goals of other parties listed as involved in this case. There are others but I do not wish to waste space. |
|
|
|
|
|
Found as another extension of an off-Wiki forum is this ] file, detailing how persons should complete an "operation" to "dig through" post histories and summaries of particular users for the sake of gathering obstructionist evidence for collection and reproduction, with ] mentioned specifically which was later done. In this one case, users ], ], ], ] and ] are singled out as "The five horsemen of Misplaced Pages". |
|
|
|
|
|
===Off-wiki collaborating is disrupting the Encyclopedia=== |
|
|
This direct quote states some named parties specifically. It discusses a matter that should be occurring within this case. |
|
|
''"Best result includes ] desysopped, ] desysopped, ] banned from wikipedia and general sanctions against WP:Feminism for brigading articles to promote their viewpoint."'' |
|
|
Users ] and ] are singled out frequently, with screen captures of some of their discussion edits posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
The task of collaboration and research resulted in many edits at incident boards and even on the talk page of ] (as the text file instructs) many times; among others. A short list of AN, ANI and other incident reports can be found in the case examples of previous resolution methods attempted. |
|
|
|
|
|
By extension of the suggested collaboration and cases of users following through with it we get a large amount of ] happening in these matters. Once again, there is an abundance of these external examples. Such bullying must not be permitted on Misplaced Pages and editors should feel safe in the process of following standard Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines without being threatened. I implore the committee to not "let the bullies win" in this case via their collaborations off-site disrupting normal activities. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 23:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Here's another offsite thread that was created merely to warn people that I had used the first link to as evidence of offsite collusion. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 05:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Masem== |
|
|
===Ownership and refusal for consensus development=== |
|
|
(''I will be proving diffs to support this in next few days'') |
|
|
There is no question that Gamergate is a troubling situation for WP, due to the fact that the "proGG" side have been trying to significantly influence the article, administration, and this case, though not always in a malicious manner, just clumsy and/or unworkable. It should be clear that the coverage of GG is predominately against proGG (there are few RSes that give a leaderless anonymous online effort any time of day particularly as the proGG efforts include criticizing and attacking those RSes, in addition to the fact that there is the harassment/threats of female figures attached to the situation - no one really is ready to give them any positive coverage). There's little we can do while staying within reliable sourcing policy like ] and ] and ], so there is no way that the GG article can be (at the current time) very favorable of the proGG position, and hence the need to enforce some decorum on the behavior of ]s and unsigned editors who can't contribute towards that. |
|
|
|
|
|
That said, these same facts have been used by a number of editors who have refused to engage in efforts to build consensus as mitigate the ''tone'' of the article and engaged in ] behavior to maintain their version; these include (but not limited to) Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC. I believe they have very strong feelings against the proGG side of the story (aka sympathy for those who were harassed), which itself is not a problem until it gets in the way of constructive editing, as their edits and behavior to the article have clearly tainted the approach of the article and has made it difficult or impossible to work with. They early on established a ''persona non grata'' approach to the proGG SPAs trying to influence the article, and continue to claim that all that the article needs are methods to deal with SPAs (see associated case statements). This has been their excuse to refuse to participate in other dispute resolution methods, including formal mediation . |
|
|
|
|
|
There's probably many other problems with the article from other contributions, but this group of editors have been the largest contributors to the article (outside myself), and while they are adding material w/ sources and the like that meets the base WP polices for V, NOR, and NPOV, they have used a structure and language that I and other editors believe is far from the impartial nature that ] demands for an encyclopedia article. While this starts getting into content-related issues which I know ArbCom generally does not comment on, understanding what issues that I and others have seen is part of the behavior problems: |
|
|
* Part of the issue is the nature of the press's role in Gamergate, in that they are involved parties, moreso at the video game and tech sources since proGG are trying to directly impact their ad funding. As such, the press has every reason to be negative of the movement, and many have flat out called the movement as a whole "misogynistic" due to the nature of the harassment. I want to stress this doesn't invalid these as sources, but we have to understand the difference between facts and opinions expressed in these These editors want to have WP's article call the movement out as misogynistic in WP's voice instead of stating it as the widestream press's opinion. This has been argued through ''many'' times, pointing that other articles for strongly-disliked groups by the public, like ] and ] put all such criticism in the approach non-WP statement instead of in WP's voice, but they shut down and refuse to accept this distinction, claiming that what the RSes state is absolute. |
|
|
* There are some neutral statements about the proGG's stance on their desire to change ethics from good reliable sources, as well as the nature of this being a "movement". But these editors focus too much on the press's stance that because of the harassment issues, that there can be no "movement" or their "ethics" cries are false fronts; as such they reject attempts to write sections of the article in a different structure or a more impartial manner to present these points without ridicule. |
|
|
|
|
|
A key part is, 90% of the article, in my opinion, is fine in light of what the sources give - there's good proper sourcing, and telling the story per ]; it does need trimming, some smoothing of what are now minor points (it does suffer from ]), some ] edits, which most agree to, and could use a re-organization in light of these. But the impartialness, also a requirement of ] can be fixed, in my opinion, simply by reworking some language order, word choices, and general article structure without loosing any of the key points or verving away from the net impression that the GG side has been broadly condemned by the VG industry and public at large, but I and other editors cannot convince this small group to go in this direction, because they seem unable to separate their strong feelings against proGG from editing the article, and reject these changes or refuse to accept that the article is written as an attack article towards the proGG side in WP's voice. This has led to long-standard conflict over the article that needs arbitration, as to assure that we actually have processes to get better consensus, and if possible (as that is more content related) on what WP's stance should be on writing impartial articles in light of the issues Gamergate presents. --] (]) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by NorthBySouthBaranof== |
|
|
===Gamergate supporters have attempted to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to attack their opponents=== |
|
|
There has been a long-term campaign by Gamergate supporters to use Misplaced Pages's articles related to the controversy as a platform to further their movement's harassment and smear campaign against, among others, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu — in defiance of reliable sources, the Biographies of living persons policy and human decency. This has involved the insertion of unfounded, illegitimate and false allegations about those people, vulgar and vile slurs, insensitive treatment, etc. and has resulted in dozens, if not hundreds, of revision deletions and Oversight requests from both articles and talkspace. (As a result, many of these edits are now inaccessible to non-administrators.) This has required a major response from previously-uninvolved editors to prevent unsourced and poorly-sourced claims about living people from appearing in the encyclopedia. Almost all of these articles have had to be placed under long-term semi-protection due to libelous attacks from unregistered and new editors. In particular, ] showed an utter compulsion to find any way possible to depict Zoe Quinn in a negative light, making their topic ban from the issue incredibly well-deserved. |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
* This history page for the article and are instructive — both ] and ] inserted a wide array of allegations, claims and attacks which have since been revision-deleted, including an entire section entitled "Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct" and using edit summaries such as "removed biased wording painting Quinn as a victim and masking what she did." |
|
|
* — On the talk page, ] refers to Zoe Quinn, the subject of the biography, as "a scandal attached to a person." |
|
|
* — On the talk page, Titanium Dragon makes an array of poorly-sourced or unsourced gossipy, salacious, negative and irrelevant statements about Zoe Quinn. The user proceeds to after another editor removes them on BLP grounds. |
|
|
* — ] and ] insert poorly-sourced allegations that Quinn is responsible for DDoS attacks and bribery. |
|
|
* — Titanium Dragon removes sourced statements by Zoe Quinn about her own experiences, with edit summaries stating that "Zoe Quinn's integrity is at the heart of the GamerGate nonsense" and "It is Zoe Quinn making statements in order to cast herself in a more sympathetic light, which is generally unacceptable." |
|
|
* — Three more rev-deleted harassment edits. I don't even know what they say, but they're bad enough that an admin removed them from public view. |
|
|
* — ] attempts to bring into the article entirely-unsourced statements about Quinn's name, and when their proposal is rejected, . |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
* — An IP editor inserts into Wu's biography the weasel-worded and entirely-unsourced claim that Wu doxxed herself. |
|
|
* — ] removes cited material on threats against Wu with an edit summary accusing Wu of doxxing herself, and later . |
|
|
* — ] inserts the patently-libelous allegation that Wu faked death threats against her, sourced only to a Gamergate message board. After being reverted, with the addition of a blog. |
|
|
|
|
|
====] and ]==== |
|
|
* — An anonymous user vandalizes her biography with unsourced attacks, accusations of untruthfulness, etc. |
|
|
* — ] inserts something so offensive that it has been rev-deleted. |
|
|
* — ] inserts the unsourced insinuation that Sarkeesian has been untruthful about reporting death threats against her, and after it was objected to, with an edit summary accusing her of lying: "It's debated whether her tweets are truthful." |
|
|
* — ] inserts YouTube-sourced claims that Sarkeesian "lied" and generally attempts to discredit her. |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
* — Titanium Dragon persistently inserts unsourced and poorly-sourced accusations against Zoe Quinn and other living people on the talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate== |
|
|
===Ryulong has repeatedly made egregiously POV and inflammatory edits=== |
|
|
* numerous unnecessary quotes of insults made by a single person towards GamerGate to reinforce narrative about a gender bias in harassment. |
|
|
* "noting" when referring to several inflammatory opinions about GamerGate, thus presenting them as fact. |
|
|
* massive paragraph accusing GamerGate supporters of copyright violations based off a single source. |
|
|
* nearly a paragraph worth of material based off one in-depth source suggesting the unofficial mascot of GamerGate references what the source suggests is a depiction of rape. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ryulong has engaged in POINTy behavior to push a POV=== |
|
|
*Anil Dash material |
|
|
** for excluding mention of alleged harassment of GamerGate supporters using a mocking heading. |
|
|
** "poor sourcing" for above allegations warrants mention of allegations against named person. Asks about including several serious criminal accusations against named individual based off much weaker sourcing, including tweets from a critic. |
|
|
** certain mentions of harassment, including reliably-sourced details about female and minority GamerGate supporters receiving rape and death threats or being fired for supporting GamerGate. |
|
|
**After the material , Ryulong against a BLP subject to the article. Initially mild, he later to include allegations of a potentially criminal nature (bribery). |
|
|
**When I , he and to a section on "support for charitable efforts" apparently on the basis that the "bribe" claim concerned a charity donation. |
|
|
**After I , noting the BLP concern, and it is , Ryulong to the section with a caption containing the potentially criminal accusation. |
|
|
*GamerGate diversity material |
|
|
** reliably-sourced material about women and minorities supporting GamerGate with the rest attributed as opinion, claiming it is to hold "pro-GG" content to the same standard as "anti-GG" content. |
|
|
**Subsequently from an image caption mention of Christina Sommers stating the gaming generation is much less prejudiced than previous generations. |
|
|
**Acknowledges in his attributing mention of the existence of female and minority supporters as though it were opinion, despite acknowledging it as fact, was due to the alleged misogyny of GamerGate not being treated as fact based off similar sourcing. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ryulong has inserted BLP violations=== |
|
|
* listing several prominent supporters, including ], who the material states "have had nothing to do with video games", despite the source not stating this about him. Even after Halfhat noting he has been heavily involved in video games previously (numerous voice-acting roles), Ryulong . Subsequently, he amends it to say article author "pointed out" statements "by the various people . . . derisive of gamers" prior to GamerGate implying Baldwin had made such statements despite this not being said in the source. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ryulong has repeatedly and flagrantly breached 3RR=== |
|
|
*9RR (seven listed are significant) - |
|
|
*9RR - Additional instances not mentioned in report: . Attempts to close a discussion over lede wording. Eight of these reverts occurred after by Titanium Dragon. Ryulong discussing it, stating this is because TD "should still be banned from editing the page." |
|
|
*12RR - ]. At least seven were significant POV reverts: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence presented by Mr. Random == |
|
|
=== Ryulong has been edit-warring in a controversial article despite an acknowledged COI === |
|
|
|
|
|
(This has already been presented at , but it was closed as a "frivolous, baseless and misplaced/forum-shopped request" - by an involved administrator, no less - despite the evidence I am about to provide. I will leave commentary on that, if any, to other users.) |
|
|
|
|
|
A user on Reddit named "ryulong67" ran an AMA ("Ask Me Anything") titled on r/GamerGhazi, a subreddit for those opposed to the GamerGate revolt. To do this, the user had to confirm that he was ], which he did by adding a to . The subreddit later a GoFundMe donation drive under the name "Ryulong" - connecting it to ryulong67 - prompting ] to . (<s>I can provide more substantial proof that the donation drive is his, but I fear it may violate ], as it involves a connection between off-wiki accounts; however, I will post it if requested to do so by an arbitrator.</s> Never mind - confirmed by Ryulong below.) He has since , despite having received money from a group with a known anti-Gamergate agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by LoganMac== |
|
|
===Ryulong recieved $370 by a known anti-GamerGate subreddit=== |
|
|
Ryulong recieved $370 by a known anti-GamerGate subreddit after having made an AMA (ask me anything) that same day. He admits that any further edit would be a conflict of interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Said Reddit thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Ryulong is asked by anti-GamerGate subreddit to add the string "2mj5ds" to his profile |
|
|
|
|
|
He does so here confirming it's his account |
|
|
|
|
|
The user who donated most of his goal is a known anti-GamerGate person |
|
|
Ryulong tried implying that "anyone could donate", and that the GoFundMe would be posted "on a another pro-GamerGate subreddit". No such thing happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
His fully founded GoFundMe page |
|
|
|
|
|
He confirms on his public Twitter page that the GoFundMe was made by him (this is not doxxing, he has admitted that account it's his, I came to learn of his account when HE himself asked me to "learn to fucking read" on that account) |
|
|
On this same account, he further admits of a conflict of interest, hence "quitting" yet he came back less than a week later |
|
|
|
|
|
He breaks his self-imposed topic ban by editing the article draft on multiple ocassions |
|
|
|
|
|
He even says "I'm going to regret doing this later" in his edit summary |
|
|
|
|
|
He continues to do so in the ] article, adding a POV and notability tag , and after gettnig deleted, adding a POV tag again |
|
|
As well as multiple suggestions on its talk page about the article being biased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was even asked by Jimbo to step down of the article but he refused |
|
|
|
|
|
Ryulong shows an extreme case of ], has time and time again violated ], has demonstraded a heavy bias, not only on-site but off-site as well. He seems to take pride in angering userbases and fandoms. Constantly reverts people instead of making suggestions to change an user edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
This only further damages the image of Misplaced Pages, like Auerbach of ] own encounter with Ryulong, or notable scholar and multi-published feminist ] criticism . |
|
|
The article should be dealt by completely new uninvolved editors. And as Masem noted, should be written in a disinterested voice. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Ryulong== |
|
|
|
|
|
===Refutation of The Devil's Advocate's evidence=== |
|
|
None of the diffs presented by TDA are actionable. I may have added poorly written content that did not gain consensus afterwards (and several attempts at reaching consensus were made before adding some of the content) but he is taking things out of context in order to paint me in a negative light. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly every edit he has listed is simply those that he disagrees with because he is actively advocating for Gamergate on the article, and is one of a small number of established editors in all of this who has been acting as such. His dislike of my contributed content and his false claims that people negatively mentioned in reliable sources and then those reliable sources are used on Misplaced Pages constitute a violation of WP:BLP. BLP does not say "do not write negative statements about people". It says "make sure everything is verifiable and neutral". The constant claims that the word "bribe" constituted an accusation of violating a crime in the content regarding ] was thrown out or dismissed by everyone other than TDA and Tutelary. ] is an archived discussion at ] where I attempted to get outside input and editors disagreed with the statements TDA is making now that Tutelary made then. I made multiple attempts to better incorporate the content, but TDA has refused it each time, citing a vague prior consensus against it. Just because TDA doesn't like what the sources say (as is evident from every single diff he has pulled out to cast me in a negative light) is not a reason I should be punished for anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, his claims that I was "edit warring" over a caption is ridiculous. I trimmed because there were complaints about ''all'' of the captions, and then that led to me re-trimming the caption again. Not to mention that . |
|
|
|
|
|
TDA has been actively advocating on behalf of Gamergate onsite and offsite. He has constantly edited the article and talk page in a way to ensure that any negative material is demoted to being an opinion of a writer while actively pushing that anything supportive of Gamergate gets treated as a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Refutation of Mr. Random's evidence & clarification of my claimed possible conflict of interest=== |
|
|
I am ryulong67 on Reddit. I have never made this a secret when I began actively participating on Reddit. I also operate the account @ryulong on Twitter. The reason I chose "GamerGhazi" (a board consisting of people critical of the reasons behind Gamergate) is because several weeks ago, a friend of mine notified me that they were discussing me and the harassment that I had suffered onsite and off due to my involvement in the article. I posted there because of that reason. My post went semi-viral and turned into an informal question and answer session or an "AMA" thread or whatever they call it there. I also posted to the Gamergate advocacy board "KotakuInAction" and also head a minor informal question and answer session (responding in one of the many threads critical of me). During the course of the discussion at the "GamerGhazi" board, I mentioned my finanical hardships regarding a loan from a friend and it was at this point that someone suggested I start up a donation campaign seeing as I did not owe my friend terribly much and they wanted to help me out. I thought about this for a day, and then contacted one of the forum's mods for assistance and advice. I was told that if it was to be posted at all on the forum, I would have to make a public statement that I was no longer involving myself in the article. I agreed. I posted a link on my personal blog, and never directly posted anything regarding it to Reddit. I went to sleep and during the night one person donated all I had asked for (another person donated a smaller portion of the money). I removed all articles and discussion pages (except for arbitration) from my watchlist. |
|
|
|
|
|
A week passed when I saw ] had been created. I contacted the moderator at Reddit if contributing to that page was okay, and he/she (I'm not sure) said that they saw no problem as far as they were concerned. The following is a timeline of what happened at that article: |
|
|
*, I make the post on my user talk |
|
|
*, first tags |
|
|
*, talk page thread started to begin discussion on neutrality and POV |
|
|
*, POV tag removed by Pepsiwithcoke |
|
|
*, notability tag removed by Loganmac |
|
|
*, notability tag re-added |
|
|
*, removed again by Pepsiwithcoke |
|
|
I also saw a brand new editor was disrupting ], an unofficial sandbox version of the main article to allow for general work on the page while it is fully protected. I reverted a total of 3 times, requesting that the editor bring it up for discussion as well as informing him on a user talk page he was editing regarding the issues at hand (). This caused Tutelary to open a thread on me at ANI claiming I was violating ] and my voluntary break. That thread as it was opened up at ] where ] but there is overwhelming support for me rather than any actual condemnation of my actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have also been in email contact with Jimbo regarding the money I received and all he has asked of me is that I not further involve myself in anything, even though I am constantly assailed offsite. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Refutation of Loganmac's evidence=== |
|
|
I've been supported in the incident concerning David Auerbach by other editors on Misplaced Pages. Actions I take off the website in completely unaffiliated channels should not determine anything. Loganmac's evidence impinges on actions made by others rather than myself. Issues concerning the draft page and any potential conflict of interest have been established in the prior section. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Off-site canvassing and harassment=== |
|
|
Several editors involved with the Misplaced Pages article who have made edits advocating on behalf of Gamergate have been actively fomenting histrionics and drama offsite, including at least two actively enabling harassment towards myself. The editors involved with these actions and evidence relating to offsite behavior will be presented to the arbitration committee for analysis if requested. |
|
|
|
|
|
===BLP violations by The Devil's Advocate=== |
|
|
by The Devil's Advocate intentionally toes the line of a BLP violation where he uses the article's talk page to make statements about the subject's past that are not reliably sourced, are generally irrelevant, and regard the subject's private life. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Harassment by Tutelary=== |
|
|
Tutelary has focused their attention on eliminating me from the article several times. Tutelary has never reported anyone to any ] or related board other than me. None of these threads have ever resulted in any action against me. |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
===Other evidence to come=== |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Silver seren== |
|
|
===Notice of possible meatpuppetry=== |
|
|
I am still debating whether I want to get involved with presenting a full set of evidence in this case, as I really don't want to have to deal with SPAs harassing me and the like. But, for now, I just wanted to make a simple notification that anyone involved in this evidence page that uses Archive.today as a link, such as Mr. Random and LoganMac up above, likely have personal involvement with Gamergate as they are the only ones involved in using such links. Furthermore, the evidence presented just above by both has already been dismissed by the community as not an actual case of COI or a concern, as seen in . And the exact evidence links given by them are also something that is currently, as I write this, being compiled in an 8chan thread and has been since this Evidence page was opened, so that is likely where the two above have been getting their sources. Again the use of Archive.today is a rather blatant showcase for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the fact that the same 8chan thread is discussing having Misplaced Pages editor insiders who will ferry their wanted evidence along implies enough itself (and one of the commenters there implying '''they''' are a Misplaced Pages editor). And, yes, I have screenshots of this, which is necessary since they often delete or change comments in order to pretend certain things were not said. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also I should note the removal was done by the poster after collaboration with the users in the same 8chan thread I mentioned before. Also, apparently they are working together in an IRC chat in addition to the 8chan thread in order to facilitate the meatpuppetry. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's also this acknowledgement. |
|
|
:"''Again, If you guys can, just delete my entry and I'll leave it to the pro editors with the long-standing accts on the gamergate.me side edit / present evidence.''" |
|
|
:. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by TheRedPenOfDoom== |
|
|
|
|
|
===User:Titanium_Dragon has an inherent conflict of interest=== |
|
|
User:Titanium_Dragon self identifies as and therefore has an inherent conflict of interest in editing gamergate articles, since gamergate is ostensibly about wide-spread collusion between game designers and journalists. -- ] 06:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
|
|
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' |
|
|
|
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|
