Misplaced Pages

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)

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27 Oct, 2014 Notified of discretionary sanctions.
2. 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 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

137.111.13.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

• Soapboxing about Gawker media and a commentator, misrepresenting their position as "20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny""
• Soapboxing on the arbcom case, promotes conspiracy theories, referred to Gawker as "encouraging domestic abuse under the guise of "feminism" or whatever" and their authors as "sick bullies on their payroll". Dramatically exceed the word limit despite admin notice .
• Soapboxing on the Arbcom case, claiming that Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are more neutral than the WP article
• Soapboxing on Gamergate discussion page, equating feminism with fearmongering against men ""All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum""
• Making nonsensical proposals on talk pages eg, using unsourced images from the internet
• Violates WP:CIVIL, referred to User:Tarc "It's only because your No True Scotsman BS"
• Again, soapboxing, referring to a source as "trite from a known troll".
• On RS noticeboard, claimed that all Gawker sources should be blacklisted, and that they're nothing but clickbait.
• Soapboxing about OpSkynet, refers to Gawker and GG critics as promoting an echo chamber and censorship
• Reposted BLP violating material on his talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Warned about sig policy violations
• Warned by uninvolved admin for edit warring
• Indirectly notified for violating WP:FORUM

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

• Warned about GG sanctions Oct 28

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DungeonSiegeAddict510's edits largely involves Gamergate , and judging by his edits, he is far interested in pushing a pro-GG POV. foremost He spends a large amounts of discussion soapboxing and aimed at attacking particular editors, such as Ryulong, than work towards the improvement of the article. His edits largely violates WP:CIVIL, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, and WP:COMPETENCE.

I'm sorry, but to blow me off just because I have no desire to create an account is bizarre, and basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines aren't that hard to grasp with a quick read. Furthermore, the vast majority of DSA's edits began on September 23, and has barely editing anything outside of Gamergare.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510

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 DungeonSiegeAddict510

I see they've started to harass me anonymously on Misplaced Pages too. As if the drama tosay on IRC involving my dox wasn't enough to deal with. I refuse to comment further on these cherrypicked claims. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist

Note, ip user is registered to Macquarie University Retartist (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Avono

I would request the Admins to be aware of the following sock puppetry policy before making an enforcement

Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

However the IPs claims are legitimate and DungeonSiegeAddict510 should be warned to be aware of WP:FORUM and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Avono (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I endorse the statement by Avono. The familiarity of the IP address with mineuta of policy suggests WP:BADHAND and potentially evasion. Suggest delivering the official GS/GG notice to the IP since this type of nitpicking is the type of behavior we're trying to curtail. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

It should be remembered that the context of this complaint includes a protracted conflict which is being openly orchestrated off-wiki, and in which the publicly-stated aim of one faction has been to acquire damaging information regarding their wikipedia opponents, including five specifically-named editors. It should be further the remembered that the same faction named three primary "targets" for their movement -- Zoe Quinn, Aninta Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu -- that official police investigations have been initiated into credible threats against all three targets, and that two of the three have been forced to leave their homes for their own safety.

We have here, it is true, a complaint that is carefully drawn up and documented by an IP poster. Had the complaint not been drawn up with great care and thorough documentation, it might well have been dismissed out of hand. Indeed, it might have evoked a strong WP:BOOMERANG as, in the nature of things, a badly-drawn complaint will often appear to be less than civil, to fail to make the appropriate ritual gesture toward AGF and DONTBITE, or simply seem to be a personal attack or an effort to venue shop a conflict dispute.

I also point out to admins the real possibility that this page (and satellite pages such as those for notable Gamergate targets) may well be subject to particularly close scrutiny in the future from both the mainstream press and the research community should Gamergate investigations result in one or more prosecutions. In many Misplaced Pages subject-matter conflicts, we can let things play out, confident that the acrimony will eventually settle. Here, however, it is likely that anything more than transient BLP violations -- even if only on talk pages, project pages, or edit messages -- could subject Misplaced Pages to very stern censure or worse. We all fervently hope this does not arise, but if it did, the whole world will literally be watching -- and looking through the edit histories to see how well sanctions were handled. Even if the IP is a sock, she may merely be lodging on anonymous complaint at the place specifically set up for that purpose, and her preference for anonymity might well be prudent and even necessary. That so many pro-GG commentators above do not anticipate this is a shame. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hustlecat

I just wanted to say I was planning to make this same request and am very glad to see someone has done it, and done it well. The behavior of the user in question should not be overlooked just because it is a potentially questionable IP user who has posted the request. Hustlecat 18:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510

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

• Comment While I've noted a tendency to soapbox or digress by DungeonSiegeAddict510, I regard much of what's been posted as either stale or below the threshold at which sanctions might be imposed, and I'm very reluctant to act on the basis of a report from an IP with little in the way of involvement in the topic, given the level of off-wiki activity. I advise DungeonSiegeAddict510 to be careful about soapboxing and against speculation that might be misconstrued . Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Acroterion. Though it is hard to see DungeonSiegeAddict510 as making valuable contributions to this topic area, there is no obvious smoking gun. When an IP with no record makes the complaint, you can't rule out that it's actually a participant in the dispute who is trying to avoid scrutiny. I would close this with no action except the warning suggested in Acroterion's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)