If an incident occurs that you feel the Arbitration Committee needs to know about as it will affect the proposed decision, please post a short, neutral summary above.

• About arbitrationTalk
• Arbitration policy (CU/OS)
• Guide to arbitration
• Noticeboard + Talk
• Search archived proceedings
• Ban appealsReport

• All open requests
• Case requests
• Clarification and Amendment requests
• Arbitrator motion requests
• Enforcement requests

• Contentious topics (Log)
• General sanctions
• Editor sanctions

• Discuss+
• Contact
• Members
• Procedures
• ElectionsTalk
• History
• Clerks+ Talk
• Clerk procedures
• Conflict of interest reports

• Talk
• StatisticsTalk
• Reports (pre-2016)

• v
• t
• e

1

For the record, as there had been evidence submitted regarding a "Logan_Mac" on Reddit, but the dumb outing policy says identifying that account with any editor going by a remarkably similar username is outing unless the Misplaced Pages editor identifies as the Reddit member, I figure we should note some facts. While @Loganmac: has avoided identifying as the Reddit user, he did identify as the operator of a Twitter account under a similar handle. In this thread Loganmac reported Ryulong for, among other things, this tweet saying of the tweet that "he told me on social media to 'learn to fucking read'", which obviously identifies Logan as the Twitter user. In a conversation on Twitter, the Logan account there linked to a comment by the Logan account on Reddit two minutes after it was made. In a later tweet the Logan account plainly identifies as a poster on KotakuInAction. Logan clearly identified as the Twitter user and the Twitter user clearly identified as the Reddit user. As such, I do not believe it is outing to state Loganmac here is Logan_Mac on Reddit. Do with that what you will.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The account to which Ryulong sent me that tweet has been deleted https://twitter.com/loganmac91 I don't get how is this relevant to anything, no evidence was against me that wasn't accusation of SPAs by one editor at most. An Arb already said this is irrelevant Loganmac (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The account provided here to which Ryulong sent me that tweet it's not the same as the link provided by TDA here the WP:OUTING policy prevents us from everyone judging what's "obvious", for example are you this user that identifies as "The Devil's Advocate" on Twitter? or any of these? or what's there to stop me from making an account called The Devil's Advocate and admit on the account I'm a Wiki editor and post as you? Again in any case this was already deemed irrelevant even for self-admitted cases Loganmac (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All this proves is that you changed your Twitter account name seeing as that first tweet is under the new name (archive comparisons: ).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you changed names on Twitter. That is why someone @replying to @Logan_910 was shown @replying to @LoganMac91 and @Logan_910 responded back to that tweet. Stop being so silly. For instance, Quinn was originally @ZoeQuinnzel, but changed names to @TheQuinnspiracy so her current handle shows conversations with @ZoeQuinnzel. You identified as @LoganMac91 who changed names to @Logan_910 and who identified as Logan_Mac on Reddit. I have only identified myself as operating the accounts at Wikia, Wikipediocracy, and The Escapist. That is the distinction. Off-wiki conduct has not been dismissed as irrelevant, though comments off-wiki are not necessarily something that is going to get a user sanctioned. However, your off-wiki activity should be just as much subject to scrutiny as that of any other party and not be excluded due to some bizarre new technicality in the policy. It's only fair.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts as "new evidence", but worth pointing out. 8chan's editing efforts are extending beyond Gamergate. This case is ridiculously long, but a key component seems to be the extra-wiki coordination that is amounting to disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As of this minute, they are targeting Cultural Marxism, Punishment, and White supremacy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

/pol/ is not Gamergate, the only one of those articles that's been argued as linked to Gamergate is cultural marxism, which has already been deleted and redirected. If you are concerned about the other two articles, request protection for them. Weedwacker (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur with weedwacker. This has nothing to do with gamergate but with /pol/. A clerk should close this. Avono (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet 8chan and Gamergate are related to /pol/ much like reddit is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes let's make broad generalizations about users of sites. Weedwacker (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The first is a bit minor, though I think it is worth noting. HJ Mitchell imposed a topic ban against Kitsunedawn. Mitchell imposed a topic ban on any edits or comments "connected to GamerGate or any person involved in GamerGate anywhere on Misplaced Pages" as opposed to a basic topic ban from any edits related to GamerGate. To me that seems overly vague and unduly broad given that it could arguably apply to any edit connected to any person who has been noted as involved in GamerGate on either side. Furthermore HJ suggests that any violation of that topic ban would result in a "permanent block" of the editor. It is just another in one of several unduly aggressive actions against other editors. Note that Kitsunedawn has been editing Misplaced Pages every month since October 2013 so we are not talking an SPA or a "zombie" account.

More noteworthy is an incident involving Gamaliel. After Baranof requested sanctions on me for undoing his redaction of a Breitbart link on the talk page, Gamaliel argues strongly as an uninvolved admin that my restoration would be disruptive stating it is somehow a violation of BLP to link to Breitbart even though it was not being suggested for BLP content or even necessarily for a statement of fact. Myself and another editor noted his clear involvement in contentious discussions regarding the very issue of using Breitbart as a source even in generally acceptable cases such as a source of opinion. Despite this, he closed the discussion with a statement that essentially implied linking to Breitbart in itself is a BLP violation and thus a cause for sanctions. His involvement regarding Breitbart is really beyond obvious and his actions effectively dictate the handling of a source that has been generally favorable to GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The (non-)"issue" regarding my actions was discussed on the workshop talk page, where I explained my rationale at some length. I know you don't like it when people you agree with get sanctioned, but I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that I've sanctioned editors on the other side. The arbs are quite welcome to review the RevDel'd edit and judge for themselves whether they think a topic ban is an "unduly aggressive" response to accusing named individuals of criminal activity. Personally, I thought it was a relatively mild response given that they'd previously been warned about BLP, but I thought a topic ban was sufficient since they have edited constructively elsewhere. Oh, and it's courteous at the very least to inform editors that you're slinging mud at them on arbitration pages, though poor Gamaliel (although I think his judgement has been sub-par) is probably used to it by now. @Gamaliel: FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the kind of thing that could be resolved by the community on appeal at WP:AN? If the ban on Kitsunedawn stands, I don't see what issue exists with respect to adminning. Admins are editors, and like other editors they are allowed to have opinions that other editors may disagree with. --TS 13:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree with that. If an admin wants to express their own opinion or write articles or participate in talk page discussions, that's fine, but they do so as ordinary editors. They can't then come back and act as an uninvolved admin because no matter how objective they are or think they are, the side that disagrees with their opinions is going to accuse them of bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If we're at the point where people seriously consider someone to be "involved" merely for expressing an opinion on the application of the BLP to certain sources, I think this arbitration may be needed more urgently than I thought! How could BLP-related ban ever be imposed, if the decision on the merits cannot be considered for fear of being "involved"? --TS 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You should examine the diffs from my comment on the enforcement page as Gamaliel's comments regarding Breitbart go well beyond simply questioning the merits of citing Breitbart: . His statements about a named Breitbart editor would seem to be BLP violations as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, I only see three sanctions of yours logged at the sanction page, are there ones we have missed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for un-hatting this. The hat was done in good faith, but was a little premature imo. Gamaliel should have a chance to respond to the accusations and I'm perfectly happy to reply to your question.

The three sanctions I've logged there are the only ones for which I've invoked the community-authorised general sanctions, but I've made several other actions related to gamergate as ordinary admin actions. For example, I indef'd ReynTime, I briefly blocked Ryulong for restoring unsubstantiated allegations on the evidence page, and I blocked and later unblocked DungeonSiegeAddict510. I've also blocked several disruptive single-purpose accounts, sockpuppeteers and sockfarms (notably Torga), and several accounts that were created to harass Ryulong, though most of these came to my notice at AIV or SPI. Other than that, I've previously protected the main article and one or two related articles as result of RfPP requests (which is also how this whole mess came across my watchlist in the first place), and I've RevDel'd a handful of serious BLP issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to respond to. I closed a stale discussion, and making a policy call that TDA disagrees with does not constitute "involvement". Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the diff and it does indeed contain serious accusations of criminal activity. This is exactly why we have a BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I closed the discussion because the discussion was stale for a week. I was not going to impose sanctions on The Devil's Advocate for the reasons I stated there, no other admin expressed interest in doing so or was even participating in the discussion at all, so the enforcement request had already long since been denied and there was no purpose keeping it open. The sanctions enforcement page is not a forum for an open-ended pile-on to engage in frivolous complaints about me or an echo chamber for aggrieved partisans to complain to each other. It's very simple: The sanctions enforcement page is for sanctions enforcement, it was determined that in this case there would be no sanctions, the case was closed. Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kitsunedawn is lucky not to have been blocked for a gross BLP violation: a topic ban is about the mildest measure available. As for Gamaliel's closure without action, I assume this is an objection to Gamaliel closing the sanction request against TDA without action, rather than someone else? TDA seems to be asserting any action of any kind is foreclosed if TDA has at some point disagreed with said admin, no matter how routine or uncontroversial the action may be. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are suggesting Kitsunedawn should have been blocked indefinitely then I think this attitude exhibits part of the problem. Kitsunedawn is not some single-purpose account, but someone who has been actively contributing to Misplaced Pages for over a year, though not really on any BLP articles. This material was not added to articlespace, but to talkspace where the application of BLP is not as widely understood and more often violated even by well-established editors. My issue is not that action was taken, but the type of action. A vague and broad restriction such as a ban on "any edits connected to any person involved in GamerGate" with threat of a permanent block for any violation is not the proper response to someone who likely does not even fully understand our increasingly complex policies.

Personally, I believe the best approach would be to calmly and civilly engage the editor to inform him or her of how the comment violated policy. When I see an editor's talk page filled with templates and wikilegalistic threats and that editor is not engaged in vandalism or sockpuppetry then I feel this is a mark against those engaging the editor at least as much as a mark against the editor. The defense that "this editor did something bad" is not really sufficient to justify a lack of civil engagement regarding that editor's actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA is simply trying to take attention away from him by drumming up little to do about nothing issues regarding others.--MONGO 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

With no more respect to The Devil's Advocate, this shadow theater of "You're involved because you've applied sanctions against someone I support" nonsense must end. The evidence phase closed nearly two weeks ago and the workshop phase closed several days ago and still we have unnecessary posturing, evidence introductions, rebuttals, and some of the worst rudeness I've seen in a long time. Clerks and Arbitrators, please take a more active role in enforcing the purpose of the Proposed decision page as the continual breaking of Arbitration procedure is only serving to enbolden all viewpoints to continue the battleground mentality. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Mitchell's sanction occurred right around the end of the workshop phase and I didn't notice the sanction until soon before I raised it here. Gamaliel's close of that discussion took place just about a day ago. The issue with that, to be clear, is his closing statement: "After a week, there is no evidence of continuing insertions of offending material, so there is nothing sanctionable here. All parties are reminded that talk page discussions must be compliant with BLP." His close given his original statement seems to treat the restoration of a link to Breitbart as a BLP violation even when it was supplied on the talk page of an article that is not a BLP and was neither being used nor suggested for BLP claims. Basically, Gamaliel has decided that any link to a Breitbart article that makes any sort of contentious claim about a living person is a BLP violation and should be redacted with the "offending" editor open to sanctions for adding or restoring such a link even on the talk page.

That Gamaliel has been heavily involved in heated discussions about the use of Breitbart is a matter of being involved and I don't think anyone reviewing the relevant evidence could come away with a different impression. For the record, I do not contend that Mitchell is involved regarding GamerGate, though I do think he was involved regarding the ANI discussion about Tutelary and Titanium Dragon hence why my workshop proposal mentioned his actions regarding that matter. If I have not explicitly accused an admin of being involved then one should take that as me not making such an accusation. That should go without saying, but it seems people wish to misrepresent any criticism I make of an admin as an implication of them being involved. Reality is that being uninvolved does not mean an admin is free from scrutiny.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA, just for clarity, for Gamaliel's Breitbart usage, you're referring to America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her, right? Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That is where relevant talk page discussions occurred.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is rather telling that this user has not posted a thing since the block, as that is generally a sign of a single-purpose or throwaway account; an editor who is truly here in good faith would be more likely to protest, post unblock messages, and so on. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you somehow suggesting Kistunedawn knew GamerGate was going to happen back in October of 2013 and prepared an account simply to edit the future article that at the time had no basis for existing?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking at least for myself, very little of this is going to help the arbitrators decide the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed my concern about the sanction here at ANI, and requested HJ Mitchell to reduce the duration of the restriction so that it does not affect the proposed decision or prolong the drama needlessly even at community level. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments regarding specifics of the proposed decision

Comments may be made on specifics of the proposed decision as it is written in the appropriate section below. Comments here may be related to how current proposals are written (such as minor changes to grammar) or short questions or suggestions regarding the evidence or justification for a specific proposal. Threaded discussion is permitted.

Proposed principles

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed remedies

General comments

General comments about the proposed decision should be made in this level one section. Comments here may be related to how a specific user is addressed (i.e. in both finding of fact and remedy) or suggestions for further proposals. With the exclusion of arbitrators, all editors must comment in their own section only.

Statement by {username}

Editors may make relevant statements addressing general aspects of the proposed decision (which are not related to proposal).

Statement by {username}

Editors may make relevant statements addressing general aspects of the proposed decision (which are not related to proposal).