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 15:08, 25 January 2015 view sourceFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Result concerning 09I500: topic-banned← 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 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/header}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box | box-width=13em | ], ], ], ]}} {{Archive box | box-width=13em | ], ], ], ]}}
{{soft redirect|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement}}
]
{{clear}}
<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The community general sanctions on this topic area were superseded by a Arbitration Committee ].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>


]
==Ries42==
{{hat|No formal admin action taken, but to all parties: please comment on content, not on contributors, and please bring conduct matters to this noticeboard (or to AE once the arbitration farce closes) rather than discussing them on talk pages. ] &#124; ] 16:26, 24 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>

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hipocrite}} 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ries42}}<p>{{ds/log|Ries42}}

;Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
* Responds to a straight-forward request to explain where content violates a policy by accusing me of "Wikilawyering" and "being pointy."
* Repeated.

;Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
* NA

;If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
*

;Additional comments by editor filing complaint
* I consider this a minor, but problematic development. When asked to explain in detail how some content violated a policy he alleged it violated, user responded by personalizing. Offered a second opportunity, repeated personalization. I request a final warning that future assumptions of bad faith will be met with immediate sanctions. ] (]) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

===Discussion concerning Ries42===
<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 Ries42====
This is absurd. If anything, this deserves ] because of Hipocrit's pointy and uncivil behavior and wikilawyering. Hipocrit should be reminded to conduct himself better and not force editors to repeatedly request he stop his bad behavior.


My questions were general, not making a specific argument. He responded very uncivilly and pointedly, but I assumed good faith at this point and responded as such.


It appears he wants me to specifically make a proposed section so he can attack that specific directly, instead of address my more general statement. This is wikilawyering. While I assumed good faith in his initial, if pointed, questioning, I do not believe it is necessary to continue to assume good faith when the editor in question effectively asks the same pointed question again, after I had answered it. Further, he is asking a question to a specific that I even mention that I'm not attempting to get into. This is uncivil and pointed behavior. ] (]) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)




He then opens this sanctions request.

Hipocrit is acting uncivil, pointed, and wikilawyering. He continues to do so by escalating at best a minor disagreement to sanctions. I thought about making a note on his user page if he continued with his uncivil and pointed behavior after my second request for him to stop. This is just as well. ] (]) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reply|Strongjam}} I wish to let it go, but I can't not respond to a sanction request filed against me. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reply|TonySidaway}} I tried to respond to the first request in good faith. His repeated requests despite receiving an answer is what I have issue with. ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reply|Gamaliel}} I use wikilawyering because of how he was going about asking, not what he was asking, and his insistence on asking the same question when I did not give him exactly the response he wanted.

His request was for a specific form of response, he wanted me to specifically challenge a part of the article as Synth. Despite such a challenge being completely offtopic for the section we were currently in. I responded that I wasn't talking about specifics, yet still used an example to demonstrate my point that "as I understood it," Synth may be at issue in the lede (the topic we were talking about). Despite my response, he ignored me and repeated the question. {{tq|I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics.}} What is the correct way to respond to this derailing of the topic?

He then began badgering me to answer in exactly the form he wanted. To point in fact, I did respond to his initial question, but not exactly in the form he wanted me to. ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{Reply|Gamaliel}} Perhaps, although I submit that it could be considered wikilawyering as well because of the technical form he was requesting, so as to abide by the letter or technical interpretation of the SYNTH policy rather than the spirit or underlying principals that it represents. My response was unacceptable (and thus, he repeated the question) because I did not answer in the technical form he wanted, not because I didn't respond, which is how ] is described on that page. ] (]) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:: {{Reply|Gamaliel}} How does my response to his initial question not answer it then? ] (]) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

* Hipocrit's latest outburst simply proves my point. He is being uncivil and pointed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reply|TonySidaway}} I am relatively new to WP (although its funny when some people have implied they think I'm either an old editor with a new name, or I think the term is "sockpuppet" and this is a different account from my "main".) With that being said, I do believe I answered Hipo's original question in my original response. If there was a deficiency there, and I may very well have made an error, I would appreciated a response more in line with pointing out the error and allowing me an attempt to correct it. What would just ignoring my response and asking same question again end up doing other than... well the issues shown. I feel like my asking him not to do that was the best response. ] (]) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reply|Gamaliel}} For your pleasure, Hypocrit's most recent talk page comments. and a new editor, respond that they both disagree with him.

* I am more than happy to move on from this. I feel it was absurd to have brought it here in the first place. I am more than willing to be able to work with Hipocrit following this so long as he is civil and does not direct a battlefield mentality toward me. I do believe he perhaps needs a temporary break from the article; however, I will leave that to the admins to judge and abide by their decision. ] (]) 21:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|gamaliel}} {{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, I hate to ask one of you to rule, but as there appears to be no other admins willing to... I'd rather not have this cloud above my head over the weekend. ] (]) 23:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
Actually I was just about to pop over to Ries42's talk page to say I thought they should respond to reasonable requests for specific and actionable criticisms of article content, as they seemed to regard them as impertinent and even wikilawyering.

While it may be a little precipitate to jump straight to enforcement without a visit to user talk to tackle what perhaps might have turned out to be a misunderstanding, I see no harm in a mild trouting for evasion and a lack of collegiate response in this instance.

In my brief experience Ries42 has shown himself capable of taking the basic confidence-building measures that enhance rapport on a talk page and reduce friction (for instance, their instant apology to a recent complaint by TheRedPenOfDoom, and their response to a request by me to hat the problematic section of the discussion.) This apparent lapse is a relatively minor one at this stage. --] 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, am I correct in my impression that Ries42 is relatively new to Misplaced Pages? Perhaps if so, it explains their apparent bewilderment at being asked to respond to a request to provide specific, policy-based and actionable criticism of the brief passage they're discussing. The importance of precision in such critiques may be difficult for a relative newcomer to appreciate. It takes time to understand that, without specifics, time is wasted by editors trying to guess what others are referring to and how it can be fixed. --] 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

At this stage I think both parties are being a bit ridiculous (but Hipocrite has far more experience and is setting a bad example). A warning to both against unconstructive arguing. --] 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Strongjam====
{{hat|reason=On reflection, not adding anything that admins need to know. — ] (]) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)}}
If either of you feel your discussion is not being productive just ]. — ] (]) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{reply|Ries42}} not suggesting you ignore the request. Just that both of you let it go on the talk page. — ] (]) 18:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

====Statement by Kyohyi====
I believe the lawyering comes from {{u|Hipocrite}}'s insistence that {{u|Ries42}} format his complaint in a specific way, and not engaging in the response that {{u|Ries42}} gave.

====Statement by Masem====
Way back I was cautioned on making personal issues within the scope of the GG talk page after one slip similar to this, and been careful to follow that. Tony sounds like he was about to give Ries the same type of warning, which is fair; I don't see this as any gross personalization/"attacking the editor" type thing, though the formal caution is proper. --] (]) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:On the other hand (After I posted the above), shows extremely poor and unwelcome behavior for a talk page by Hipocrite. --] (]) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

====Further Comment by Hipocrite====

I don't see how asking someone to describe in detail merely two times - how specific content violates a policy by referring to the specific requirements of the policy is badgering. If people are reading into my completely flat tone something that is not there then they should stop reading "tone" (you can read a sneer into those scare quotes) into the written word. ] (]) 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

: The standard I am being asked to uphold by Ries42 is dramatically different than the standard that Ries42 himself upholds. For instance, I refer to a specific policy, and outline what he'd have to show to show that content was in violation of that policy, but if I do that '''repeatedly''' (sneer implied in the bolding) then I'm using poor tone.

: I '''disagree'''. Repeating something that was obviously ignored is not "poor tone." However, R42 must obviously agree however, because otherwise, his complaint that I was "wikilawyering him, and being so pointy" would be completely without merit. Should we hold R42 to his own standards? He repeated his complaint twice - , , and was explicit that he was merely repeating himself for emphasis, as opposed to honestly believing that the person didn't fully comprehend the first time (I note that I do not repeat the 3 elements of SYN in my third comment, responding to the first accusation of wikilawyering and pointy behavior.)

:As such, There is '''absolutely no standard''' by which R42 can argue that anything untowards can be done to me that cannot directly and immediately rebound to him. He believes people who repeat themselves should be sanctioned? Then he has no defense for repeating himself. Period.

:I amend my request and ask that R42 be banned from Gamergate, broadly defined, for behavior that he, himself, believes was "wikilawyering and pointy," regardless of my personal belief that he was merely being sharp. ] (]) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

: I considered responding to DHeyward, but this is not the place to argue about article content. I asked R42 to explain the synth by showing me two sources, merged together, to state something neither stated. It wasn't a hard ask, but it was not done. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I readily admit that my tone did not have the desired effect, and I have determined that I just won't respond to R42 anymore. I think that should satisfy all of his issues. Moving on from that, do you see something slightly wrong in his tone, perchance? ] (]) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by DHeyward====
I don't see why Hipocrite ignored the reply that explained the synthesis and then continued asking the same question that was answered. That's badgering.

It's pretty clear that the "synth" is with the use of the word "but" in {{tq|Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics.}} to juxtapose two statements from multiple sources. That is a common "SYNTH" mistake and this edit is badgering after the problem was explained here . I had no trouble identifying the SYNTH concern even before reading the entire section, just the diff.

Second, Hipocrite starts off the defense of the lede {{tq|The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources....}}. That should be easily referenced with a source that says "false." That is not the word, however, I have found in reliable sources. It's synth to merge so many ideas into that single statement if for no other reason than Quinn is not a journalist and "ethics in journalism" don't apply to her in the slightest. It is very much "synth" to conflate them. Reliable sources don't conflate them. The first investigation by Kotaku was into journalist Grayson's, "possible breach", and their statement doesn't use false but rather the editor uses his own voice to say {{tq| While I believe no such breach occurred, I feel it is important for Kotaku readers who have questions to get clear answers.}} That is a far cry from saying it is a "false allegation." He outlays his opinion, then the facts and makes no conclusion about whether it was objectively ethical, only that the relationship was not followed by a review by Grayson. The question about synth and wording and juxtaposing multiple sources seems obvious and badgering over a clearly obvious and well described concern seems to be a battleground mentality by Hipocrite.

I don't see any problem with Ries42's question or response. They seemed pretty straightforward and it seems bringing it here is more of a battleground mentality by Hipocrite. --] (]) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:{{u|Gamaliel}} My comment can be distilled down to Ries42 seems to be reasonable while Hipocrite seems to be fostering a battleground mentality. Content and quality of input shapes that perception but it is not the content itself, rather it is the behavior of the two editors. --] (]) 04:37, 23 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 Ries42===
<!-- 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>

* At first glance, my impression is that {{u|Hipocrite}} was being a bit prickly towards {{u|Ries42}}. But, tone aside, asking how something violates a particular policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, and I'm puzzled how that can be interpreted as "wikilaywering". ] <small>(])</small> 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Ries42}} I don't think that's wikilawyering, I think that's just plain badgering. I also don't see how it is off topic, since the section is called "Regarding lead section" and you were asked about claims that a particular sentence in the lead violated SYNTH. ] <small>(])</small> 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Hipocrite}} In the future, can you just say "I don't feel you addressed the question" and leave it at that. Just repeating the whole thing will be seen as obnoxious badgering by the other party and will not encourage them to give a reasonable and polite response. ] <small>(])</small> 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Ries42}} In my opinion, that's a valid point to make if you are objecting to someone's conclusion or interpretation, but I don't think it's a valid excuse to avoid participating in a conversation. ] <small>(])</small> 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|DHeyward}} Matters of content are beyond the scope of this request at this point. The matter at hand is trying to get two editors to have a discussion about that content in a civil manner, so it's irrelevant which party may or may not taking the "right" stance on the issue. ] <small>(])</small> 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{ping|Hipocrite}} I am remarkably unimpressed by your response here. You have loudly declared that you can't see anything wrong with your behavior and then demanded someone else get banned for a mild offense? I am willing to believe that the initial conflict was a matter of misunderstanding, but the fact that you are unwilling to even consider that your tone might not have the desired effect is an indication not of an editor who wants to engage in collaborative editing, but one with a battleground mentality. ] <small>(])</small> 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==MarkBernstein==

<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 MarkBernstein===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Avono}} 16:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MarkBernstein}}<p>{{ds/log|MarkBernstein}}
; Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
A minor infraction in which MarkBernstein comments on a barnstar award that was related to a gamergate sanction.

MarkBernstein is discussing a gamergate related topic outside of arbcom proceeding thus violating his topic ban ] (]) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
;Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


;If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

===Discussion concerning MarkBernstein===
<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 MarkBernstein====

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

===Result concerning MarkBernstein===
<!-- 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 MarkBernstein for a month. My full rationale is . This is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban, and his edits since his last block (and indeed since the topic ban) have showed no intent to abide by the topic ban. I've also warned him that if he violates the topic ban again after a month, he will be blocked for the maximum duration permitted under general or discretionary sanctions, which is one year. ] &#124; ] 17:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

==09I500==
<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 09I500===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 11:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|09I500}}<p>{{ds/log|09I500}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require community sanctions enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
# - Adds "partially" to the unequivocal, well-supported statement that the allegations against Zoe Quinn which launched Gamergate are false.
# - Edit-wars to remove the word "false" entirely with a misleading edit summary, constituting ] about Quinn.
# - Continues the edit-war with this material.
# - Continues the edit-war again.
# - Yet again, continues the edit war.
# - Yep, again.
# - Yes, another revert.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
User is well aware of the extensive talk page discussion at ] which painstakingly explains and documents why we will unequivocally state that the allegations are false. User has made a number of other tendentious edits in the Gamergate space, including against arbitrator ]. ] (]) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:The user in question has responded aggressively and with hostility toward my to explain why removing the word false contravenes the reliable sources and violates ] as an unequivocal ]. ] (]) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:The user in question continues to revert. ] (]) 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning 09I500===
<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 09I500====
No, you are the one edit warring, not me. You, SouthByNorthBaranof are breaking all the rules. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors now, and are currently on trial for punishment by the arbitration committee. Leave it alone and use the talk page to reach consensus if you don't agree. You are in violation of ] consistently, you violate ] and ] also. As for the conflict of interest thing, I honestly still don't understand what I did wrong. I am a new user. I read the conflict of interest wikipedia policy extensively and nowhere did it say that it does not apply to administrators. GorillaWarfare obviously has a massive conflict of interest with Gamergate and should recuse herself from any feminist and gamergate related articles, sanctions, etc. I still stand by that opinion. '''You also didn't adhere to ] because you didn't try to find a solution first by discussion on my talk page first. Because you failed to do this, I see this entire sanction request as not legitimate.''' And I quote: ''The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available.'' But no, you had to open some kind of silly dispute thing. And for that, I will ask you, very civilly of course, to get off my lawn. ] (]) 11:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Strongjam====
There is an discussion on the ] page that {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} has used, and {{u|09I500}} has not contributed to. Consensus of that discussion is to use "false". Not only is important to per BLP to write with great care about the accusations, but as all the sources say "false" or "unfounded" then NPOV requires us also to ensure that the mainstream POV is presented. — ] (]) 12:37, 25 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 09I500===
<!-- 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>
*Topic-banned. I see a threefold form of disruption here: first, in the edit-warring and overall belligerent attitude, second, in refusing to join the discussion on the talkpage while loudly demanding of others that they should "gain consensus" (with him, presumably), and third and most importantly, in rehashing this whole issue while being well aware that the exact same question had already been debated to death on the main Gamergate talkpage. There is a very clear-cut status quo at the main article, after weeks and weeks of people bringing up this exact issue: nothing less than having the unqualified attribute "false" in the phrase in question is going to find consensus, in light of the predominant understanding of ]. Everybody there knows this. Taking this same issue and simply transferring it to another, less well watched article and raising the same kind of fuss over it again there, is just the kind of tactics of trying to wear opposition down down that has plagued the area so much. ] ] 15:08, 25 January 2015 (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: