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 02:49, 15 January 2015 view sourceStarke Hathaway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,100 edits →Hatting / Unhatting← 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 
(200 intermediate revisions by 24 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The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by a Arbitration Committee ].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 = 2
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box | box-width=13em | ], ]}}
]


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

===Request concerning Tarc===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bosstopher}} 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tarc}}<p>{{ds/log|Tarc}}
'''Additional comments by editor filing complaint'''

Tarc has been engaged in gross incivility against editors he has been edit warring with. While reverting an edit by ], Tarc wrote in the edit summary "Single-purpose-accounts are not welcome in this topic area." This is an innaccurate statement, as most of Starke's edits have been to non-GamerGate related topics. Yet even ignoring this, Tarc's comment is an unacceptable attempt to pressure an editor he disagrees with out of the editing process.

Tarc has also accused ] of being in hysterics. Shii's so called "hysterical" actions were merely to revert Tarc's edit to the Draft claiming it to be against consensus, and noting that Tarc had not participating in discussion. How this could be considered hysterical I am not sure.

Per ] Tarc should not be accusing other edtors of being hysterical. Tarc should definitely also not be trying to pressure editors he disagrees with, out of contributing. ] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Tarc}} Starke's edits both inside and out of GamerGate have almost all been reverts. Classifying his non-GamerGate edits as "minor" when they are pretty much the same as his non-GamerGate edits is unhelpful. Starke also claims to have edited substantially as an IP editor in the past on his talk page. While the majority of his focus is on Gamergate, he is not an SPA. Also bringing up BLP violations as a reason why SPA's should be kicked out is irrelevant in this case, as the edit war in question did not involve BLP issues. Also also, none of this means you're allowed to tell editors they're not welcome. ] (]) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:@Ryulong, given that this was in response to the comments I was making about Starke, I have a feeling I'm the person who's not allowed in the Actual Editors club.
:@Tarc Starke's non-GG edits are in large part anti-Vandalism, which is usually not considered to fall into the "junk" category. Also it is unfair to compare him to Xander who is a completley different kettle of fish. Also Also regardless of all this, you cannot just tell editors you disagree with they're not welcome to edit a page. It's comes across very OWNy, as well as being uncivil.
:@TDA Proposed decision date has been pushed back again, no point waiting an eternity, especially considering this is regarding thigns that occured after the Evidence and Workshop submission deadlines.] (]) 21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::@Tarc I'm slightly confused here by the point you're trying to make with the Thalgor quote? Are you saying that reading it made you angry, and thats why you made rude comments to Shii and told Starke to get out? Or are you saying that I hold the same mindset as you think Thalgor does on this issue? If the latter, I must admit that I while I am waiting for Arbcom to ban a certain editor who cant be banned through any other means due to Wiki policy sucking, that editor most certainly isn't you. I just reported you because I felt telling people you're in dispute with that they're not welcome to edit crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to civility. ] (]) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning Tarc===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Tarc====
] are a plague upon this topic area, this has been well-noted and well-documented in the Arbcom case. Editors who are only here to advance a narrow point of view must not be allowed to disrupt a topic area rife with BLP violations.

*Look at ], a SPA returns to heap more abuse, and had to be re-blocked and banned from the topic area.

*Look at ], a SPA that just shows up to revert an edit. Account created Dec 3rd, has made minor edits outside of GG< the rest is stuff like this.

*Look at ], created Dec 8th, minor edits, including some vandalism to a random article. The a moment ago that Avono had placed an hour earlier.

These are the kind of games, pov-pushing, and agenda-driven editing we face day in and day out around here. ] (]) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:Enough with the pings, this page is watch-listed. As for reverts, there were only two; the initial edit does not count. As for Starke whatever, all of the account's edits in other topics are junk, and likely made simply to become auto-confirmed in order to edit semi-protected pages. Actual Misplaced Pages editors are well familiar with this tactic. ] (]) 23:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:What is this silly "I need days and days to dig for dirt!" catcalling? For allegations of incivility? In an encyclopedia project where the Arbitration Committee could not sanction an editor for referring to other editors as "cunts", civility enforcement is dead and toothless. I would certainly ''like'' it to be enforced, but when the rules-makers come out sand say boldly that some editors being more equal than others, civility becomes academic.

But really, anyone can peruse ] and see that my wiki-presence in GG has been rather sparse since the close of the Arb case. You don't need days, certainly not til the 12th, I'll help you our right now;

#Dec 30th ], a zombie account pops up citing an obscure essay arguing long-debunked GG talking points. I make 2 comments to this effect, noting the cotinued pattern of 8chan/reddit-fueled disruption. and egg on the zombie editor.
#Jan 2nd Per HJ Mitchell's note when closing the previousa Ksolway Enforcement, that , along with of same.
#Jan 6th ], the current kerfuffle. Shii's edit was awful; I reverted twice and told him to calm down when he started getting all hand-wringing about me not yet taking part in the discussion. The subsequent reverts, on the draft article and at my own talk page, by throwaway SPAs only make the whole affair worse.
#Jan 9th ], single post.

Number 3 is why we're here, and what the real locus is is (and a fe of the preceding ones), which let's not beat around the bush; it is a troll post. Not a Tolkien troll, not a pink-hair 70's troll, not even an urbandictionary troll, but an honest-to-goodness . Was I an idiot to take the bait? Yes, I guess I was, so a well-played tip-of-the-cap to T.O., it was a page form the 8chan and KotakuInAction playbook.

At the end of the day, ''this'' is why we keep coming back again and again to Arbitration and Enforcement pages, it is just like the Scientology wars of a few years back. The powers that be will have to decide who is here to further the aims of the encyclopedia in the general sense, and who is here to advance an outside agenda in a narrowly-focused area of interest. I sure as hell know where ''I'' stand. ] (]) 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Avono====
I also want to add that this user has been edit warning on the Draft Article while consensus was still developing in the talk page. .
I can't remember there being a consensus against SPA's editing in the Draft Article therefore this is also ].
] (]) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:{{reply|Tarc}} I count three reverts which justify the template. ] (]) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

{{cot|Discussion between editors and allegations without diffs are not particularly helpful. If you wish to present further evidence, please feel free to move your comments out of the collapse box. ] &#124; ] 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)}}
====Statement by Retartist====
This is just a small sampling of tarcs uncivil behaviour, tarc has demonstrated his unwillingness to engage in consensus building and deems editors that disagree with him to be unworthy of civility. --] (]) 06:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by The Devil's Advocate====
Given that the arbitration case decision is imminent, I believe requests such as these should be put on hold. It may be superseded by the case.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Loganmac====
It's just tiring that the ESSAY ] gets thrown around so easily. I would advise Tarc not to ] and ]. His ] is long documented, and even clearly shown in this case saying some editors are "a plague" ] (]) 10:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Weedwacker====
{{ping|The Devil's Advocate}} I think it would be unwise to hold off on all sanctions until the case decision now that the proposed decision has been pushed back another nearly two weeks. ] (]) 11:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Ryulong====
{{re|starship.paint}} Well you didn't create your account and make a bunch of edits in a row to auto confirm so you can be disruptive in a topic area known for trolling, while the same cannot be said for several new editors that Tarc is clearly referring to.—] (]) 12:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:That is not at all what you were highlighting in your statement here though.—] (]) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
]. The swarms of ] (and ] cannot be ignored. see all of the first edit revdels in the history of the articles and related talk pages. -- ] 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cob}}
====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
It is self-evident that, having utterly failed to convince any actual reliable source of the veracity of their allegations against living people — to the contrary, their allegations being roundly dismissed and reported to be factually false by those reliable sources — a wide array of Gamergate supporters have taken to attempting to present that POV in the encyclopedia, reliable sources be damned. By insinuation, lie by omission, anonymous gossip or outright fabrication, they've repeatedly attempted to present highly negative claims about Zoe Quinn, Nathan Grayson and others as something other than entirely discredited, rejected or unworthy of even mentioning in the encyclopedia. Observing and noting the onslaught of such single-purpose accounts cannot possibly be considered actionable misbehavior. It is merely stating a fact. ] (]) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:So in response to the direction from HJ Mitchell that evidence of *recent* issues should be presented, Starship paint has instead unloaded a laundry list of diffs which primarily date from as far back as September and of which I cannot find a single one more recent than November. I submit that Starship paint's submission is non-responsive. ] (]) 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:OK, but when you completely ignore specific instructions from an admin considering a request, you should probably not be surprised when the request is closed without the action you seek, and you should probably not then run around claiming that admins are "biased" or something. ] (]) 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by starship.paint====
{{cot|self-hat for now ]] ''']''' 04:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)}}
In Tarc's statement above, he writes that {{blue|As for Starke whatever, all of the account's edits in other topics are junk, and likely made simply to become auto-confirmed in order to edit semi-protected pages. '''Actual Misplaced Pages editors are well familiar with this tactic.'''}} This is another example of the unneeded snark contributing to a more toxic environment. I am afraid that I am not familiar with this tactic, so I must not be an actual Misplaced Pages editor. ]] ''']''' 12:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
*Ryulong, regardless of whatever the motives or actions of the editors Tarc was referring to as "advance a narrow point of view", there was no need for this snark from Tarc which I quoted, which seems to me to be targeted at everyone. ]] ''']''' 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Ryulong, I'm not inclined to argue further, my interpretation is what it is ... let us go contribute somewhere else. ]] ''']''' 12:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cob}}
*{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} - I am willing to search for and present evidence, if any, before 12 January UTC. I welcome others to search as well, but they might need more time. ]] ''']''' 04:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, I'm done... you'll have to read the edit summaries as well...

*different sockpuppet accusations without proof; users not blocked

*false SPA accusations 1, 17 Sept accuses

*false SPA accusations 2, 21 Sept accuses many; according to . therefore falsely accusing , and

*false SPA accusations 3, 6 Oct accuses

*false SPA accusations 4, 10 Oct (borderline case though)

*false SPA accusations 5, 26 Oct seems to be accusing and

*SPA was civil, but Tarc wasn't,

* incivility / name-calling / baiting (please also check edit summaries)

*reverting reminders to be civil / not edit war

*civility isn't a shield,

*"lucky" that another editor is a "community pariah ... and is pretty much ignored", 21 Sept

*general non-collaborativeness / snarkiness to generally civil editors

*rebukes editor bringing up many sources, 27 Sept which causes conflict with other editors

*seems to approve of the doxxing of editors he does not like, 12 Sept

*edit warring 1, 15 Sept in 24 hours, that the 4th edit was a revert in 27 hours in 48 hours in 48 hours

*edit warring 2, 19 Sept in 1 hour in 11 hours

*edit warring 3, 21 Sept in 7 hours

*edit warring 4, 23 Sept in 14 hours, last revert was of

*edit warring 5, 30 Sept in 4 hours

*edit warring 6, 10 Oct '''''' in 2 hours

*edit warring 7, 1 Nov see in 16 hours

*refused meditation, 14 Oct
As per {{u|A Quest For Knowledge}}, seems like "long-term conduct issues" to me. ]] ''']''' 09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*In response to North, I don't think Tarc has been sanctioned for any of this (all are welcome to prove me wrong on this). If you think no action is appropriate ... given the past behaviour, recent or not, ''regarding GamerGate articles'' and the current transgression ... then by all means, carrying on thinking that. ]] ''']''' 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*I started from the back, working my way until the opening of this case page. When I first read the stuff on "dig up some diffs", it was after AQFK had commented "long-term conduct issues", in the process, I missed out on "the last fortnight or so", and I am sorry for that, seems to have produced a lot more work for me, and now for HJ Mitchell or which-ever admin.
*I did not read Tarc's ArbCom case contributions, but since Tarc focused his efforts more on the ArbCom case in December, and less on the GamerGate page or its talk page, that is why there is very little (but not nothing) in December. January is already presented as per this enforcement request. I would hope that September, October and November are not ignored when considering "systemic issue with Tarc's conduct in the topic area". ]] ''']''' 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} - dates inserted. ]] ''']''' 04:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by GoldenRing====
Here's a sample:

* Tarc disregarding another editor because of a long break from editing
* Tarc making unsubstantiated allegations about another editor's motives
* Tarc claims "all this user does is edit-war to get a decidedly slanted POV into the lead" where the user has a clear history of sparse but consistent contributions covering 10 years+
* Tarc dismissing an IP editor out of hand because he's not an 'actual Misplaced Pages editor' (see the edit summary)
* Tarc trying to drive another editor away (see edit summary - related to the evidence given by others above, I think)
* Tarc appears to call Avono an SPA (edit summary)
* Tarc regards abiding by a ban as a clear sign of bad faith and an SPA, regardless of, you know, actual editing history (edit summary - ''the signs of a bad-faith editor are clear''. Also apparently confused between block and ban.)

These are not all GG-related, but are all since December 30 and I think show quite a disturbing trend. ] (]) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} I count five of the seven diffs as GamerGate-related; I'm not sure exactly how you conclude that "most of those aren't related to GamerGate." I'd note also that the text of the sanctions doesn't require that the misconduct be on GamerGate-related pages; merely that the editor has edited GamerGate-related pages, has been notified of the sanctions and displays repeated misconduct.
:I don't have any axe to grind here and I won't be taking the time to dig further through Tarc's editing history. I just happened to be nosing through ], was curious enough to look a couple of weeks back through Tarc's history and was fairly worried by what I saw. The most disturbing aspect, to me, is that Tarc doesn't seem to admit that there could be a problem; anyone who disagrees with him (at least about GG-related topics) is immediately written off as disruptive in some form or another and Tarc is immediately absolved of any requirement to be civil, AGF, debate in good faith, seek consensus etc. To my mind, that is clearly opposed to the goals of Misplaced Pages and should be sanctionable, even in the absence of GS. ] (]) 06:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:Looking further up, a prime example of this is given above. Thangor Orlando is labelled a troll, something which would be sanctionable in any other arena of Misplaced Pages; why not here? ] (]) 07:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

====Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge====
If there are indeed long-term conduct issues here, it may take some time to dig up diffs. Twenty-four hours doesn't seem like a reasonable time-frame. If the goal here is determine whether there are long-term patterns of misconduct, I suggest keeping this RfE open longer, by at least several days. ] (]) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Since I've been invoked here, my comment was not toward Tarc, and I have not seen any major incivility issues with Tarc to run up the flagpole. I regret that my comment was taken incorrectly, and I take responsibility for the lack of clarity in retrospect; having been called a troll for having the gall to hold a contrary opinion about how the article has been edited has resulted in , contrary to the incorrect claims that it was a "troll post" as Tarc asserts. ] (]) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Tarc===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
*I'm reluctant to evaluate broad conduct issues because of the arbitration case, and certain parties will attempt to impugn any action I take. So, based purely on what's been presented here, Tarc accused a few people of being SPAs and got into an edit war. Both are mildly disruptive, but without commenting on any individual editor, it's a statement of fact to say that the topic area has suffered from an influx of SPAs, and WP:SPA—though an essay—enjoys broad community consensus. Obviously an accusation that a particular editor is an SPA needs to be made in the proper forum and with evidence, not on an article talk page. Would anyone like to present evidence that either is a systemic issue with Tarc's conduct in the topic area? I'd be willing to consider substantive sanctions if somebody could show that this sort of thing has happened multiple times within, say, the last fortnight or so. If not, I'm tempted to close with a warning to Tarc to comment on content and not contributors. I'll leave this open for 24 hours; if somebody would like to present more diffs (and please note that it's diffs, not more accusations, that are needed) but needs more time, please make yourself known here and/or on my talk page. ] &#124; ] 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{Ping|A Quest For Knowledge}} if, within 24 hours or so (I'm not going to be fussy down to the minute), somebody expresses an intent to gather the requisite diffs but needs more time, I'd be willing to allow them a few days or maybe even a week. Obviously a balance has to be struck: Tarc shouldn't have this hanging over his head if nobody wants to make a case against him, but if somebody wants to build the case then we need to get to the bottom of it and impose sanctions if the evidence shows they're warranted. Should I take your comment as an indication that you're willing to dig up some diffs? Note that I'm perfectly happy for multiple editors to compile the diffs (it's he diffs I'm interested in, not the editor presenting them). I'll also waive the "edit only in your own section" rule if collecting all the diffs in one section would be helpful. ] &#124; ] 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Starship.paint}} Very well, I'll give you until the 12th to produce something.
**{{ping|GoldenRing}} Most of those aren't related to GamerGate. They'd be useful as background if sanctionable misconduct in the topic area can be proven, or you could take them to ANI, but they're not enough on their own to invoke GamerGate-specific community sanctions. I've promised to wait until the 12th for more evidence, so you have a little bit of time if you want to dig deeper (that is, this thread is not going to suddenly disappear before then). ] &#124; ] 00:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, <s>I haven't read all the diffs yet</s>, but based on what I've seen so far and assuming for now that they say what they're alleged to say, I'm thinking something along the lines of <s>a relatively brief (maybe a moth) topic ban or page ban and</s> an indefinite prohibition on personally directed comments outside of dispute resolution or enforcement mechanisms, which would <s>give everybody (including Tarc) a break and then</s> address the main issue. I'd welcome outside opinions. ] &#124; ] 13:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Starship.paint}} Having started to look through your diffs, I see that several of them are not at all recent. Please provide dates for all those diffs if you wish me to review any more of them. I still think there's merit to a prohibition on personally directed comments, but for anything more than that I need recent, dated diffs. Older stuff could be useful as background, but doesn't constitute a basis for sanctions. ] &#124; ] 17:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

==Bramble window==
{{hat|Bramble window blocked indefinitely. ] &#124; ] 17:09, 11 January 2015 (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 Bramble window===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would like to request that this user be topic-banned from articles or discussion relating to Anita Sarkeesian. The user's declared their intention to "fix the badly broken Sarkeesian articles" and by "fix," they meant "depict negatively." All of the user's contributions relating to Sarkeesian have been from and other unreliable sources, and has stated that not including more attacks on Sarkeesian is . The user has no substantive edits outside of Gamergate-related topics and disappears for long stretches, only to reappear in order to criticize Sarkeesian. The user recently reappeared after two weeks of inactivity to a discussion whose own initiator had closed it. I submit that existing for virtually no other purpose than to negatively depict a living person is an improper use of a ], that it is unhealthy for the encyclopedia to host an editor self-admittedly here to ] articles about living people, and that this editor should be encouraged to pursue other interests. ] (]) 01:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning Bramble window===
<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 Bramble window====

====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
Given the user's belief that there are "", a ban from all BLPs would likely be in order. -- ] 02:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*@DHeyward i am not sure how you can read " It seems that by "fix" they mean "discuss."" from and the crusade to give equal credence to SPS blogs / non reliable sources particularly about living people established in that first post continues to the very recent Boobfrequency advocacy. -- ] 14:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Masem====
While I do worry about someone that comes out to make a statement that they knowingly want to counter biases they believe exist due to and know they are tied to WP processes, it's about behavior and there's nothing here to clearly say they are here to be disruptive - the only disruption being the re-opening of the hat (though per the previous decision here, DonQ. should not have re-closed it unilaterately but come here for advice). The editor raises valid points that are not immediately signs of BLP issues (asking if WP should including information on a group that is critical of a person is not directly a BLP violation), but clearly the editor should be cautioned from heading down a battleground mentality. They have primarily only edited talk pages, so this is not disruptive to raise questions. --] (]) 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by DHeyward ====
Are the only examples from talk pages? It seems that by "fix" they mean "discuss." Topic banning for merely disagreeing doesn't appear productive nor do any edits appear to be BLP violations in and of themselves. There are legitimate criticism from notable topic experts that have observed opportunistic behavior and it's not at all disruptive to discuss that and the sources of criticism. --] (]) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by {{user|Tony Sidaway}}====
I haven't seen Bramble window around lately, having little time to browse the broader topic and related BLP articles. But Bramble window has pinged my radar, so to speak, due to their occasionally highly inflammatory mode of engagement on talk pages and their failure to assume good faith in disagreements (which are frequent, given their published views).

I in some detail on the subject of their war-like behaviour about a month ago. Seeing that Bramble window appeared to have limited experience and knowledge of Misplaced Pages culture and policies, I took care to avoid an officious or "bitey" tone, and leavened criticism with positive feedback.

The response was then became It's a problem for all of us in this particularly delicate area when a hostile editor dismisses good faith discussion of their conduct on their user talk page as "concern trolling." 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

This is effectively a tone complaint, as Bramble Window does not appear to have any edits to the article space. As discussion is the way we reach conclusions in this project, there's no reason to sanction. If it's that his language is harsh, we have a lot of people to line up in front of this user. ] (]) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Bramble window===
<!-- 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>
*I've blocked Bramble window indefinitely. I'd considered this on previous occasions and having now seen their response to concerns feel it is the only appropriate action. ] &#124; ] 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Hatting / Unhatting==
<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 Hatting / Unhatting===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|TheRedPenOfDoom}} 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : N/A

Per the general Admin consensus ] , is the unhatting of this content likely to result in productive discussion resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia? -- ] 00:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Hatting / Unhatting===
<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 Hatting / Unhatting====

====Statement by AndyTheGrump====
Suggest closing this as the ridiculous waste of time it clearly is. Suggest RPoD uses the time saved to look up 'metaphor' in a dictionary.] (]) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Starke Hathaway====
I post here only to acknowledge this request has been brought, and to point this out as yet another example of TRPoD's chronically uncivil and BITEy behavior. In addition to disagreeing that the hatted content was "bickering" or a "diversion," I thought it was obnoxious for Tony Sidaway to hat my question to TRPoD but leave his response unhatted. ] (]) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
: @Tony Sidaway I don't mean to throw your "It's my fault" in your face, but this "ugly situation in the making" had no edits made to it in the approximately 36 hours before you hatted it. And if you want to wring hands over BLP issues, I suggest rather than hatting a stale discussion in which someone has the temerity to ask whether a person actually meant the words they broadcast over the internet with a finger-wagging admonishment about "bickering," you take a look at the characterization of Eron Gjoni (a living person, last I checked) as "spewing allegations about your ex all over the web because she dumped your sorry ass" by none other than TRPoD himself. A final note: an incidental observation that an editor is behaving badly in discussion does not render the substantive discussion (viz. "do you have a source saying that Sam Biddle was saying something other than what he said?") nonexistent. I find TRPoD's attitude toward other editors reprehensible, and since the admins seem disinclined to do anything about the ensuing toxic atmosphere, I will continue to calmly and civilly point out bad behavior when I see it. ] (]) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
It's my fault. I saw what looked like an ugly situation in the making. The incident being discussed is well understood from reliable sources but has often been interpreted otherwise within the Gamergate context. There are also mild though substantive BLP implications in the edit being discussed: whether or not someone seriously advocated bullying. The parties here appeared in my judgement to be bringing the topic to the talk page rather than discussing the article. Sometimes I misjudge; anyone is free to undo such a hatting. --] 02:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Latest revision as of 23:01, 25 June 2023


Archives 
1, 2, 3, 4

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

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