MyWiki:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on MyWiki:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Tarc
| Given the age of most of the diffs, and that there is relatively little evidence of misconduct that is both serious and recent, I'm going to formally caution Tarc, but I see no case for substantive action at the the present time. This is explicitly without prejudice to a new enforcement request being opened should more diffs from within the last 30 days (at the absolute most) surface, or to an ANI thread if Tarc has misconducted himself outside of the GamerGate topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. Request concerning 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 User:Starke hathaway, Tarc wrote in the edit summary "Single-purpose-accounts are not welcome in this topic area." [1] 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 User:Shii of being in hysterics.[2] 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.[3] [4] How this could be considered hysterical I am not sure. Per WP:NPA 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. Bosstopher (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC) @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.[5] 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. Bosstopher (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TarcStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TarcSingle purpose accounts 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.
These are the kind of games, pov-pushing, and agenda-driven editing we face day in and day out around here. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
But really, anyone can peruse Special:Contributions/Tarc 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;
Number 3 is why we're here, and what the real locus is is this post by Thargor Orlando (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 Jargon File troll. 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. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by AvonoI also want to add that this user has been edit warning on the Draft Article while consensus was still developing in the talk page. [6][7][8]. I can't remember there being a consensus against SPA's editing in the Draft Article therefore this is also WP:BITE. Avono (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofIt 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint
@HJ Mitchell:, I'm done... you'll have to read the edit summaries as well...
2 Sept 3 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 5 Sept 7 Sept 9 Sept 9 Sept 12 Sept 15 Sept 19 Sept 19 Sept 21 Sept 21 Sept 3 Oct 9 Oct 9 Oct 10 Oct 11 Nov 13 Nov
6 Sept 9 Sept 10 Sept 21 Sept 23 Sept 10 Oct 18 Oct 20 Oct 1 Nov
3 Sept 18 Sept 18 Sept 18 Sept 26 Sept 27 Sept 28 Sept 29 Sept 4 Oct 5 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct, current article indeed shows culture war at this point 16 Oct 22 Oct 24 Oct 24 Oct 2 Nov 2 Nov 2 Nov 10 Nov 21 Nov 19 Dec
As per A Quest For Knowledge, seems like "long-term conduct issues" to me. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRingHere's a sample:
These are not all GG-related, but are all since December 30 and I think show quite a disturbing trend. GoldenRing (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved A Quest for KnowledgeIf 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Thargor OrlandoSince 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 exactly what I said, contrary to the incorrect claims that it was a "troll post" as Tarc asserts. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TarcThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Okay,
|
Edit warring at Draft:Gamergate controversy
| TRPoD blocked for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Tony SidawayThis war seems to have really bedded down over the past day or two. In a draft page this amount of reversion and shouting in edit summaries is quite worrying, when the draft itself is a result of page protection because of edit warring. [30] More trouting needed. --TS 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) |
Yet another contested hatting
| Comment removed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Tony SidawayIt was my impression that those contesting a hatting should undo and bring it to this page. That hasn't happened yet, so as the original (mad) hatter I'm bringing it here. Original hatting: 18:23, 17 January 2015 at Talk:Gamergate controversy. Edit summary: Follow dispute resolution. Hatting comment: Editors are reminded to follow dispute resolution to deal with use conduct issues. This page is intended for discussing the article. Formally asking the user to gather evidence and bring their complaints to dispute resolution: 18:21, 17 January 2015 at User talk:Thargor Orlando. Actually written before, but basically contemporaneous with, the hatting Hatting is reverted: 18:27, 17 January 2015, edit summary Undid revision 642938142 by Tony Sidaway (talk)This is a content issue. As further background, I've discussed Thargor Orlando's habit of casting bad faith accusations against unnamed other editors in the past, inconclusively, on their user talk page. My point is that this kind of unactionable complaint about conduct issues doesn't help, but hinders harmonious editing and if the editor has a complaint they should gather evidence and take it to dispute resolution. The editor has repeatedly and explicitly expressed an unwillingness to use dispute resolution. But first things first, is this hatting appropriate and useful? --TS 20:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
More hatting/unhatting
| Hatting overruled without any implication of misconduct or bad faith by either party. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning More hatting/unhatting
See this diff. On topic, relevant information again being hatted for unclear reasons. Discussion of relevant information in the article needs to be left alone for the sake of discussion and addressing the information in a responsible manner. Furthermore, the hatnote is not an accurate, fair, or arguably civil description of its contents, which is perhaps as important an issue to address here. Not seeking sanctions on anyone at this point in time. Merely acting in accordance with admin request here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tony SidawayFor what it's worth, I think attempts to underplay death and rape threats are highly irresponsible no matter what the venue. The authorities and the media both (correctly, in my opinion) take such threats very seriously; in my country typically a successful prosecution for Twitter rape threats may lead to a custodial sentence, in a country that doesn't like to send people to prison. The US FBI is involved in some of the investigations related to this case. Attempts to second guess the law and the authorities, to suggest that the reliable sources get it wrong, are essentially a type of foruming. We're not going to pretend that rape and death threats aren't serious, while every responsible source in the world is saying the opposite. The discussion was intrinsically unproductive. --TS 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Deep breath.
Result concerning More hatting/unhattingI'm going to overrule this hatting (FYI @Tony Sidaway and Thargor Orlando:), as the comments are directly related to article content. Discussion of the abhorrence of threats belongs elsewhere, you're correct on that Tony, but discussion of how threats should be covered in the article (and in that context how commonplace or otherwise threats are on the Internet) is relevant. Thargor, it would be helpful to provide sources for you claims that such threats are commonplace (it's not quite at the level of "the sky is blue", though if my experience as an admin is anything to go by...), though talk page comments do not absolutely require sources unless they negatively reflect on living persons and please do make sure you confine your comments to how threats should be covered in the article. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
General bickering on talk page
| TRPoD blocked for 48 hours. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for action against any other editors, but this is without prejudice to enforcement requests being filed as appropriate. Please don't bicker on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Tony SidawayToday some edit warring erupted on Draft:Gamergate controversy (yes, we've descended to edit warring over pages that might at some point contain material that is part of the history of a Wikipedia article).
Statement by TheRedPenOfDoomI would like to thank TS for attempting to de-escalate personal attacks on the article talk page. @Ries42: 's response to that attempt here [33] is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by WeedwackerFirstly just a comment, you should use the template provided at the top of the page for requests. After you've done so you can leave my statement in the proper place. Now on to the matter at hand. I think you had good intentions, but your actions were not good. Per WP:TPO you should not be editing others comments to talk page space without their permission, with some exceptions. The comments you edited you claimed were personal attacks. WP:RPA Statement by Ries4214:18 RedPen made a questionable edit. 14:47 Red makes another edit, which may be considered even more slanted than his first.' 14:53 This time a different editor directly reverted him (Weedwacker). 15:04 I created a strongly worded section in the talk page, insisting RedPen discuss the matter. This has been labeled a personal attack. I disagree. It is directed at RedPen, but it is not intended to attack him. My tone though, is lacking. I apologize for that. 15:11 TS deletes the entirety of the section. While he may be attempting to deescalate the situation, he is in fact escalating it immensely. 15:12 I revert TS's deletion of the entirety of my comments directed at Red Pen. 15:23 RedPen ignores the talk page, proceeds to edit "movement" from the draft a third time. 15:24 Strongjam renames the title of my section to not directly address Red Pen This act tends to deescalate the situation much more so than TS's claimed attempt. The title is not as important to the discussion I am attempting to have with Red Pen. 15:26 Strongjam continues to my talk page. As his renaming of the title is a much better deescalation, I decide to consult him. 15:33 I return the Draft back to its last form with "movement." 15:36 Strongjam suggests I take a break. 15:37 I agree. 18:12 Nearly 3 hours after this began, RedPen finally shows up on the talk page. 18:21 In what I feel is the absolute greatest issue of this whole situation, TS edits mine and RedPen's actual comments. He effectively changed what we both said. I am livid over this. Not only did he put words in my mouth, he His actions are so insidious, they were almost unnoticeable. He effectively changed what I said, and if I had not noticed the difference upon rereading the conversation his changes to what I said might still be there now. He says that his "results" speak for themselves, but his changes were unnoticed until well after they occurred. At least for me personally, they had no effect on my conduct, and I was most annoyed by the lack of RedPen discussing the issue. His coming to the talk page deescalated the situation, not TS's changes. I will admit, in some cases, I may have been a bit heated. The last diff is an example of that. I hope anyone who reviews this situation understands how I felt when I discovered what TS did. My language was inappropriate, but my anger was very appropriate. And with all of that being said, while we have a huge talk on the talk page about "movement" Red Pen decides to do this. Seriously. I can't make this up. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) RE: RedPen, my question in that diff is because I was upset, but I would not escalate this situation to enforcement unless it was actually a sanctionable offense. My hurt feelings are not sanctionable, and I would not want them to be. Ries42 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) As an additional note, Super Goku V reverted the original language back into the Talk page. He left a note speaking to this. TS decided to delete this as well. I'll not speculate as to why he felt it was a good idea. Ries42 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @Theredpenofdoom: That is speculation, and incorrect. First, I was not angry that he "tried to deescalate". That is a mischaracterization of why I was upset. I was upset by what he did, not why he did it. Second, I do not consider my requesting that you discuss your questionable edits as a "personal attack". It was directed at you, but not an attack. Ries42 (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Super Goku V@Tony Sidaway: This is less of a statement and more of a question to you. You appear to be opening a case, but you have not followed the form for requests that is at the top of this page. To start with: What user(s) against whom do you wish to request enforcement? I ask since you have not formally requested enforcement against any user(s). --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: Huh, I didn't consider that. I guess I will only add what would need to be added then if that is the case. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I am involved in this issue. At the time of when I became involved, most of what occurred had already taken place. When checking the history of the talk page, I noticed that one of the edits had a negative number of over 400 characters. Going through the diff showed that the user, Tony Sidaway, who had made changes to several comments made was not any of the users who had posted the comments in question (TheRedPenOfDoom, Weedwacker, and Ries42). Then, I proceeded to manually revert the edit by comparing the page as it was before the edit with the present copy and merging the two together due to WP:Talk Page guidelines. A note was left on the page due to a mistake I made in the summary, which was removed and reinstated in edits made by two of the named users. To note, there has been a discussion on hatting, where I made a comment about deleting vs hatting. If Tony Sidaway had an issue with the edits, I feel that they should hat them instead of deleting them. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofIn response to Super Goku V, this noticeboard can also be used to
Statement by starship.paintI am uninvolved in this current conflict. From reading Ries42's diffs, this seems to have started by Statement by Thargor OrlandoThe tone at the talk page was set many months ago, and it's no surprise that general exhaustion with the behavior and tone of those who are very clearly on the "anti-" side of the debate results in more heated and more uncivil comments in response. At this point as well, I'm sure many users expected the ArbCom ruling to have been handed down, and the continued delays are only fanning those flames. If uninvolved administrators have not seen any reason to sanction the worst offenders at the talk page now, they're not going to see anything new today to sway them. The evidence page at ArbCom is a great place to start if there is an administrator interested. There is a trend I'm seeing yet again of trying to silence voices that aren't conforming with a certain point of view again, but with the ArbCom ruling imminent, I'm still not interested in trying to seek out a solution to those issues in detail. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by SinglePurposePartierThere is most definitely an issue with bickering on the talk page, and I think it's come largely from some editors losing the assumption of good faith that forms one of the core values of the project. I believe HJ Mitchell's administrative action against TRPoD to be quite apt. I suspect the months-long slog of working on this page has gotten to them a bit, and a short break would do them well. Usually, when an editor ceases arguing points and starts arguing against people, a break is in order. I don't believe TRPoD is the only issue here, however. I've noticed Ries42 has taken a rather combative attitude toward those who disagree with them, and again, I've noticed a loss of the assumption of good faith that makes this project work. I wouldn't necessarily say their actions are worthy of a strident administrative action, I believe they're working to better the page as best they can, but I must admit I was dismayed by their reaction to Tony Sidaway's actions that brought this discussion to the front. I've, admittedly, had my own issues with Ries in my limited action on the talk page. When I shared my opinion on the representation of harassment on in the article, User:Masem responded with a good point about the direction of the article. Ries then joined in with a bit of snark seemingly directed at other editors. When I voiced my support for what Masem had written, wondering to what exactly Ries was referring, Ries adopted a rather hostile tone toward me, which I didn't really see fit to respond to. I think Ries has, for the most part, contributed a useful voice to the editing process, but does seem to have something of a short fuse when an editor disagrees with their opinion on things. I'll leave it to more experienced editors and administrations to decide if that's worthy of anything beyond a warning or a gentle prod to remember to WP:AGF. I would think it does not, but I'd suggest to Ries that some of the edit warring and hostility on the talk page is their own making, and it'd be helpful to the project for them to do what they can to help reduce that hostility.SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning General bickering on talk pageThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
In no particular order:
That's it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @Thargor Orlando: If you want to convince me that someone is one of the "worst offenders", put your money where your mouth is and post a case with diffs as evidence, as has been repeatedly suggested to you by multiple parties. At some point, you have to stop complaining you aren't getting what you want when multiple people tell you the way to get it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
DHeyward
| DHeyward blocked for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning DHeyward
I had hoped to avoid bringing anyone here for enforcement but this is getting out of hand.
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardIn each edit, I removed the objectionable pieces and tried to focus on the title of the subsection which was alternative views. I am not sure what the complaint about talk-page discussion is about. It's obvious from policy changes that the approach Grayson used prior to GamerGate would be not be acceptable today. We cover some of it in the article. PC gamer is the latest ethical policy change. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 18 JanuaBold textry 2015 (UTC) Also a question about a current event regarding Milo and Shanley Kane is on my talk page. This is being covered by Gawker. The Breitbart articles were referenxed on the talk page but were refactored and I did not restore them. On the talk page, I continued to refine the argument of "alternative readings" based on coverage of events that are not considered notable (this is reinforced be redactions and hatting of relevant viewpoints that are now being explored by multiple outlts). --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion regarding PC Gamer where the claimant erroneously states "more discussion about the source" is actually a new source from from "PC Gamer" that updates their policy [34]. Further complaints regard a totally different current event [35]. Keep in mind this is about talk page discussions regarding shortcomings in the draft article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC) A good trouting is in order for those that think contextual and sourced arguments on a talk page are sanctionable activity. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @NBSB, you refactored Grayson and I did not restore. I think it is obvious but respect that you do not. It doesn't change the fact that "PC Gamer" posted a policy much stricter than what Grayson claimed is ethical. the Breitbart article is covered by Gawker. --DHeyward (talk) Google "Shanley kane gamergate" and the news and you will see it isn't non-sequitur and is very relevant to viewpoints not covered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is gamergate and is certainly allowed for discussion. It exists and is ripe for discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I take input very seriously and strive to provide data that can be analyzed within policy. My edits consistently removed objectionable material and removed entirely or replaced with sources that make the claim. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @woodroar, if you'll note, I never unhatted material and each subsequent edit was to address previous concerns. The topic was "alternative viewpoint." It seems incredulous that a gawker piece supporting GG champions such as Milo is not relevant as an alternative viewpoint. I am not sure how this translates to the draft, whence the talk page discussion rather than another draft section. Per the concerns, I refined the talk page comments to eliminate the concern. In 24 hours I suspect more coverage beyond brietbart and gawker. Stifling good faith discussion is not within WP ethos. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @NBSB I ultimatey stated the changes at "PC gamer". It's extremely obtuse to state Graysons disclosure ex-post-facto would satisfy the changes at his or any other gaming journo. He met Kotaku policy at the time andf he kept his job. It's not very hard to see the same actions would be unacceptable at his employer or any other game journo publication. Say what you will, but the updated policies at virtually every game journo to make his actions against policy should not go unnoticed. That doesn't mean we call his in-policy response "unethical". --DHeyward (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @partier - note that the heading on the talk page is alternative viewpoints. It seems that you are complaing that sourced alternative viewpoints are being discussed in the alternative viewpoints section on the talk page and complaining that it is sourced alternative viewpoints. I've already written more here than on the talk page. Anyone willing to complain that my response on the sanctions page is sanctionable before we move to the twilight zone? --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofWhat DHeyward claims to be "obvious" about Grayson is not actually supported by any reliable sources, and the situation he claims to be analogous is not at all analogous, as I have discussed on the talk page. Absent any reliable sources drawing such a connection, it is prohibited synthesis to be creating from whole cloth new ideas or claims about a person's behavior. The Breitbart links, which amount to a vitriolic op-ed making vicious personal attacks on a living person, are obviously inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by SinglePurposePartierIt's just not clear what any of this has to do with the article. One needn't bring any diff's here, because the WP:FORUM mentality that's weirdly gripped the talk page has migrated over here. The conversation seems to have shifted away from how best to write the gamergate article and toward debating the intricacies of PC Gamer's ethics policy and the behavior of random Twitter accounts Gawker has chosen to write about. It doesn't seem to be particularly helpful on the talk page, and it seems even less helpful here. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by WoodroarDHeyward, the issue is that you continue to (a) comment negatively about living persons based on your own opinions as well as unreliable and self-published sources, (b) link to unreliable and self-published sources which make negative claims about living persons, sources which policy forbids us from using, meaning there is never a reason to link to them, (c) comment about living persons and challenge sourced content based on your own OR and SYNTH, (d) treat the Talk page as a FORUM, and (e) ignore redactions, hatting, and respond in an uncivil fashion when others point this out to you. Woodroar (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeywardThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I've blocked DHeward for 48 hours. I'll leave this open for a little while in case anybody wants to present evidence that there is a longer-term problem with DHeyward's conduct in this topic area which might necessitate a topic ban. Please address comments only to administrators: discussion between non-admins is not helpful to administrators in reaching a decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Ries42
| 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Discussion concerning Ries42Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ries42This is absurd. If anything, this deserves WP:BOOMERANG 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. Hipocrit steps in, not by helping explain why this might not be WP:Synth, or going over what may be misconceptions on my part, but by pointedly asking me to provide specific diffs. 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. Hipocrit ignores my response, and asks the same pointed question again. He is asking for a basically "lawyer" response. 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. Ries42 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I ask that he not wikilawyer me, and not be so pointed. He ignores my request, and continues with the uncivil, pointed wikilawyering. I repeat my request, asking him to stop being pointed and wikilawyering directed at me. 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. Ries42 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) @Strongjam: I wish to let it go, but I can't not respond to a sanction request filed against me. Ries42 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC) @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. Ries42 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) @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. 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. Ries42 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@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. Ries42 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: For your pleasure, Hypocrit's most recent talk page comments. Hipocrite threatens to close discussion unless he is given a "policy reason" not to within 15 minutes. Masem and a new editor, BlookerG respond that they both disagree with him. In one diff, Hipocrite asks them the same pointed question, askig for specifics. Masem responds. Hipocrit's response to Masem's response (Read it. I don't want it to be said that I in any way editorialized this response. It stands for itself.)
@Gamaliel: @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. Ries42 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tony SidawayActually 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. --TS 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I wonder, am I correct in my impression that Ries42 is relatively new to Wikipedia? 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. --TS 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. --TS 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam
Statement by KyohyiI believe the lawyering comes from Hipocrite's insistence that Ries42 format his complaint in a specific way, and not engaging in the response that Ries42 gave. Statement by MasemWay 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. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Further Comment by HipocriteI 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. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 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? Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardI 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 Second, Hipocrite starts off the defense of the lede 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. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Ries42This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
MarkBernstein
| Blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning MarkBernstein
[42] A minor infraction in which MarkBernstein comments on a barnstar award that was related to a gamergate sanction. [43] MarkBernstein is discussing a gamergate related topic outside of arbcom proceeding thus violating his topic ban Avono (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarkBernsteinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkBernsteinStatement by (username)Result concerning MarkBernsteinThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
09I500
| Topic-banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning 09I500
User is well aware of the extensive talk page discussion at Talk:4chan 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 filing a spurious complaint against arbitrator GorillaWarfare. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 09I500Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 09I500No, 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 WP:BATTLEGROUND consistently, you violate WP:ISNOT and WP:AGF 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 WP:Dispute Resolution 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. 09I500 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by StrongjamThere is an discussion on the talk page that NorthBySouthBaranof has used, and 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. — Strongjam (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 09I500This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|