Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:General sanctions | Gamergate Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:18, 13 November 2014 view sourceRGloucester (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Torga: fix← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:47, 14 November 2014 view source Lankiveil (talk \| contribs)27,123 edits closing caseNext edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	==Torga==		==Torga==
			{{hat}}
	<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>~~		<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 Torga===		===Request concerning Torga===
Line 60:		Line 62:
	<!-- Use {{hat\|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->		<!-- 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>		<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>

			'''Blocked''' for 72 hours. Pretty much an open and shut case. I acknowledge that ] took responsibility for their actions, which is a positive and led to be more lenient than I otherwise would have been. I would suggest that now the user is aware of the scope of the ban, any future violations of the topic ban would justify a harsher response. ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
			{{hatb}}

Revision as of 01:47, 14 November 2014

Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been superseded by an Arbitration Committee sanctions regime. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For more information about Arbitration Committee sanctions, see this page. For the specific Committee decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see WP:ARBGG.

Video game journalism

Matter resolved. 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Video game journalism article is currently under attack by an anonymous IP repeatedly inserting discredited and specious claims about a living person related to the controversy, while refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. Needs semi-protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) User blocked by Drmies. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Matter resolved. 01:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Video game journalism article is currently under attack by an anonymous IP repeatedly inserting discredited and specious claims about a living person related to the controversy, while refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. Needs semi-protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User blocked by Drmies. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that if this wasn't resolved in the manner that it was, the IP could not have been sanctioned as they have not been noticed of general sanctions. (Unsure where to put this as there isn't a talk page for this sub page) Tutelary (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

NBSB didn't request that IP be sanctioned, only that the page be protected. However, it is all moot now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Torga

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Torga User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Torga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13 Nov, 2014 Post #1 to Talk:Gamergate controversy 13 Nov, 2014 Post #2 to Talk:Gamergate controversy Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 27 Oct, 2014 Notified of discretionary sanctions. 11 Nov, 2014 Topic-banned from Gamergate for 90 days. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 Nov, 2014 by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 Oct, 2014 Additional comments by editor filing complaint I think it's pretty straight-forward; user continues to post to the talk page of Gamergate controversy after a topic-ban was handed down. Hopefully this all comes out right, I have never filed one of these before, and cribbed some of the lines from WP:AE, as what's at the top of the talk page wasn't easily copies here in wiki-markup. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. Discussion concerning Torga Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Torga Yes i take the blame here. I misunderstood and thought it was the gamergate article that it was about. I did participate in the discussion, and if that was also under the sanction i apologize. This a reason and not an excuse and i take the responibility of the action used here --Torga (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Torga This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 72 hours. Pretty much an open and shut case. I acknowledge that User:Torga took responsibility for their actions, which is a positive and led to be more lenient than I otherwise would have been. I would suggest that now the user is aware of the scope of the ban, any future violations of the topic ban would justify a harsher response. Lankiveil 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Torga

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Torga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate :

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

13 Nov, 2014 Post #1 to Talk:Gamergate controversy
13 Nov, 2014 Post #2 to Talk:Gamergate controversy

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

27 Oct, 2014 Notified of discretionary sanctions.
11 Nov, 2014 Topic-banned from Gamergate for 90 days.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 11 Nov, 2014 by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 Oct, 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think it's pretty straight-forward; user continues to post to the talk page of Gamergate controversy after a topic-ban was handed down. Hopefully this all comes out right, I have never filed one of these before, and cribbed some of the lines from WP:AE, as what's at the top of the talk page wasn't easily copies here in wiki-markup. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Torga

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Torga

Yes i take the blame here. I misunderstood and thought it was the gamergate article that it was about. I did participate in the discussion, and if that was also under the sanction i apologize. This a reason and not an excuse and i take the responibility of the action used here --Torga (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Torga

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Blocked for 72 hours. Pretty much an open and shut case. I acknowledge that User:Torga took responsibility for their actions, which is a positive and led to be more lenient than I otherwise would have been. I would suggest that now the user is aware of the scope of the ban, any future violations of the topic ban would justify a harsher response. Lankiveil 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Categories: