Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

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Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been superseded by an Arbitration Committee sanctions regime. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified.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 For the specific Committee decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see WP:ARBGG.

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 Sidaway

Today 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).

After a lot of bickering in edit summaries, Ries42 (talk · contribs) had the excellent and praiseworthy idea of actually discussing the topic on the talk page. Unfortunately what actually happened, instead of a simple critique of content, was this highly personalised ultimatum, which predictable escalated into an interpersonal squabble.

I intervened early, removing the attack and using the user's talk page to explain why I did that, and inviting the user to rewrite his comments without the personal attack.

That seems to have been ignored and the attack was reverted. More bickering commenced.

Seeing the way this was going, I took extraordinary measures, removing all personal references from the discussion. The discussion then got back on track, at least to the extent that people were no longer discussing their interpersonal problems and were instead talking nearly entirely about the topic.

Some editors are now complaining about my editing of their comments.

I think Ries42's instinct to take the discussion on the topic to talk was great, but he should make far more use of user talk and other dispute resolution methods to resolve interpersonal issues. Trying to do both at the same time is messy.

I'm sorry I edited people's comments; I hope the intention of my intervention was clear, and that the results speak for themselves. We have had amazingly little interpersonal bickering, from all parties, after my intervention. I would have preferred for all parties to not go into attack mode, but I understand why we all tend to get into that when we feel attacked.

Some of us (possibly me) need a good trouting. Take it away, Herr Trautmaestro! --TS 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Second thoughts: even after the discussion got back on track, Ries42 does seem to have made several attempts to personally bait people on the talk page.[1][2]

I think those who do this on the talk page of an article subject to sanctions probably need a bit of a talking to about bad habits. Ideally we can discuss the article content without personal references at all, let alone attempts to isolate and attack each other personally. --TS 02:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "I was annoyed" is an adequate justification for cluttering a talk page with material that belongs in dispute resolution. --TS 03:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

I would like to thank TS for attempting to de-escalate personal attacks on the article talk page. @Ries42: 's response to that attempt here [3] is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ries42: The troubling issue is not your question. Its your attempt at justification: "I noticed that Tony did this earlier and was very upset. " that 1) you show no comprehension that there was an effort to quell personal attacks /or you blew it off that attempt completely and 2) that you were angry that someone was trying to de-escalate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Weedwacker

Firstly 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 removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack Comments addressing an editor disagreeing with most other editors on the matter is not a personal attack. If they are uncivil comments, you still do not have permission to remove them per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL unless they are obvious trolling or vandalism. The edit you made to my own comment changes the meaning of my statement and attributes an opinion that is not mine. I take offense to your editing of my comment, but I accept your apology, and urge you to take greater care in the future and only edit others comments if they are clear-cut violations, as the policies state. Weedwacker (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ries42

14:18 RedPen made a questionable edit.

14:31 I reverted the important language back, specifically, the removal of the term "movement" which has ample support within the article and the reliable sources for its existance.

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.

15:31 My question to Strongjam, expressing my frustration with RedPen's failure to discuss on the talk page and asking advice on how to proceed.

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 is was unrepentant about doing so until he was directly challenged about it. This is not just inappropriate, it is very much a betrayal of good faith at its core. TS's actions are, in my opinion, are the worst incident that occurred today.

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 NorthBySouthBaranof

In response to Super Goku V, this noticeboard can also be used to request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to these sanctions. I don't think TS is seeking sanctions per se against a specific user, but rather is seeking administrative assistance in nipping a particular escalating problem in the bud before specific user sanctions might become necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: As has been repeatedly suggested, if you believe there are "worst offenders" here, it would behoove you to file a sanctions request against them citing specific evidence of the transgressions you are alleging. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

I am uninvolved in this current conflict. From reading Ries42's diffs, this seems to have started by POV-pushing (sorry. was cautioned to never use this term without evidence) by TPRoD. Ries42 was understandably upset by that and then after that, the changing of his comments by TS. I urge Ries42 to calm down and stop posting too "strongly worded" posts which are also personalized. I urge TS to not remove or edit comments unless there are WP:BLP violations. Ries42's first thread on TPRoD was personalized, yes, but that does not warrant removal. And I urge TPRoD to step away from the article. I'm even willing to mirror that move if TPRoD does so. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

The 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)

@HJ Mitchell: respectfully, my point was solely to note that the tone is set and that nothing has changed. I am fully aware that I can raise any concerns here if I wish, but pointing out that there are piles of evidence for uninvolved administrators to look at in the context of this request is meant to be helpful, not disparaging. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I disagree that it's not relevant (I'd argue it's extremely relevant), but nothing I say here will convince you otherwise. Your commendation of the behavior that inflamed this situation while condemning my actions as not "collaborative" is a problem, as is much of the behavior that has been glossed over in the past. Want to crack down now? Great, but let's go after the worst offenders first. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I remain of the opinion that we should be waiting for ARbCom. I know that is not shared by everyone. That does not change the rest of the broader point, and noting that there is bad behavior is not against any rule or "best practice," but longstanding tradition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I won't comment on this specific case again, as to not bog down the important bits of this with our back-and-forth. The evidence is significant over at the ArbCom case, and if there wasn't a case ruling imminent, I would likely pursue some of it with more recent events in mind. I can only point over that way so many times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SinglePurposePartier

There 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 page

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

• I've blocked TRPoD for 48 hours for edit-warring and hostility. He's not solely responsible for the deterioration of the discussion, but he's a significant contributor to it. I'd welcome opinions on whether admin action is needed against any other parties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Thargor Orlando: Please don't be ridiculous. Admins at this board will not adjudicate on material that has been presented as evidence in the arbitration case (though having read every word and every diff on that page, describing some of its as "evidence" is a stretch), and as for 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, file an enforcement request, with dated diffs and I'll look at it. But alas, telepathy is not among the many powers vested in admins, so you can't expect us to do something unless somebody tell us there's a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at diffs now. Will post response soon. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In no particular order:

• I concur with HJ Mitchell both in that the hostility exhibited by User:TheRedPenOfDoom is inappropriate and that he is far from the only offender. I should add that I admonished TRPOD earlier this week on this page for matters regarding WP:CIVIL.

• @Tony Sidaway: your efforts to diffuse talk page conflicts should be commended and I encourage you to continue to do so and to continue to redact uncivil comments. I think you realize that altering the text of comments of others instead of redacting them was a very boneheaded move, though it was obviously well-intentioned. I really do not want to see any more rewriting of others' comments, from you or anyone else.

• @Weedwacker: In my experience I've found that those who complain the loudest about redacting comments are those whose comments are the most troublesome. In this case, you are not an exception. Your contribution to this matter was to participate in a revert war and post unproductive comments directed at TRPOD. While others like Ries42 also participated in the revert war and posted troubling comments, they also took positive actions that can be considered mitigating circumstances, and I see nothing to mitigate the circumstances in this case. As a result, you are formally admonished to conduct yourself in a civil manner when posting comments directed towards other editors, and that sanctions are in order if we see similar behavior on this page again.

• @Ries42: Some troublesome comments by you have been noted here, so troublesome that I consider them sanctionable. I hope that you realize that they are not compatible with collaborative editing, including the inflammatory header calling out another editor. I understand that you are annoyed another person edited your comments (that would certainly annoy me as well), but your response to that well-intentioned mistake is way over the top. However, I do commend your willingness to take the matter to the talk page (despite your poor choice of header and tone) and your willingness to take advice and step away from the matter temporarily, so for those reasons I will not consider sanctions at this time.

• @Starship.paint: the casual way insults like "POV-pusher" are thrown around has to stop. The next time I see that phrase used here by anyone outside of the presentation of evidence in a case specifically for alleged POV-pushing, I will consider sanctions.

• @Thargor Orlando: I understand you are frustrated with this matter. I am frustrated with this matter. But that does not give you license to use every page in sight as a forum to air your grievances. Your comment here is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, as is your talk page comment removed by User:HJ Mitchell. I would like you to voluntarily restrict your comments regarding GamerGate to ones about proposed edits for the near future, as I do not believe you are using these pages in a way that encourages an atmosphere of collaborative editing. I believe you are a well-intentioned editor and as an experienced Wikipedia editor you could serve as a model for the many new editors who share your opinions about GamerGate to follow, but it is in no one's interest, including your own, if you continue to also serve as an example of what not to do.

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

I had hoped to avoid bringing anyone here for enforcement but this is getting out of hand.

• 19:22, 17 January 2015: It started with disparaging comments about Nathan Grayson, and linking to unreliable and self-published sources with negative material about living persons, which were redacted with a warning by User:NorthBySouthBaranof.
• 21:19, 17 January 2015: more disparaging comments about Nathan Grayson based on a source that mentions neither Grayson nor Gamergate, and inserting the same link to Breitbart.com, which were hatted by User:Strongjam per WP:FORUM.
• 01:55, 18 January 2015: more about Grayson, again based on the source that says nothing about him or Gamergate, for which he is admonished by User:SinglePurposePartier and User:Strongjam who extends the hat and redacts everything to be safe.
• In the midst of this, DHeyward was reminded about FORUM and BLP by User:Strongjam and his reply was "te,plating users? go troll elsewhere".
• 03:13, 18 January 2015: more discussion about the source that doesn't mention Gamergate, for which he is told to find a source that mentions Gamergate by User:Tony Sidaway
• 03:54, 18 January 2015: still discussing that source, says the "link is as obvious as the conclusion about Grayson"
• 03:56, 18 January 2015: linked to an op-ed negatively discussing another living person

• DHeyward was notified about GG sanctions on 30 November 2014.
• DHeyward was notified about this section at 04:33, 18 January 2015.

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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 DHeyward

In 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 [4]. Further complaints regard a totally different current event [5]. 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 NorthBySouthBaranof

What 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)

It actually is sanctionable activity to make wholly-unsourced and synthesized claims about a living person's behavior on a talk page. Either the person is proposing to rewrite the article to include such material, which indicates that they do not understand sourcing requirements for claims relating to living people, or they are using the talk page as a general discussion forum about the subject, which indicates that they do not understand the purpose of an article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm afraid that it doesn't matter what you believe to be "obvious" about Grayson — it matters what you have reliable sources to support. Either you have sources which compare the two situations in the way that you claim, or you don't. If you don't, then neither the claim nor discussion of the claim belong on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I submit DHeyward's latest reply as evidence that he is not here to write an article about Gamergate based upon reliable sources, but rather to use the article talk page as a platform to discuss his entirely-unsourced and unsupported original synthesis ideas. His repeated declamations about things he believes are extremely obtuse or not very hard to see are based on nothing more than his own personal opinions, not on any reliably-sourced analysis comparing the two situations he is claiming to be comparable. This is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SinglePurposePartier

It'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 Woodroar

DHeyward, 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 DHeyward

This 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)

• Support this action. I've was very unimpressed with this user's behavior reported here on January 8 and it appears now it is part of a recent pattern of combative and unproductive behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 18 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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning More hatting/unhatting

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Sidaway

For 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.

Okay, that's out of my system. I think the reversal shows that the hatting can work to the benefit of all. If a hatting is perceived to be too heavy-handed it gets reviewed and may be overturned. People who hat have to show good judgement. Thanks to Thargor Orlando especially for bringing this to enforcement. --TS 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning More hatting/unhatting

I'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)

Ries42

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ries42 (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

• 17:19, 22 January 2015 Responds to a straight-forward request to explain where content violates a policy by accusing me of "Wikilawyering" and "being pointy."
• 17:36, 22 January 2015 Repeated.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• NA

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

• [6]

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. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Ries42

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 Ries42

This 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.

My first comment, asking RedPen a question about WP:Synth and whether it would be an issue here or with his statements.

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.

My response to Hipocrit, effectively offtopic from my question, but in good faith, trying to explain myself and my thought process.

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. 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. Ries42 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@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 wp:wikilawyering is described on that page. Ries42 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: How does my response to his initial question not answer it then? My original response to Hipocrit talks about the lede sentence I was concerned about. Ries42 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrit's latest outburst simply proves my point. He is being uncivil and pointed. Ries42 (talk) 20:12, 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.)

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. --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

On reflection, not adding anything that admins need to know. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If either of you feel your discussion is not being productive just WP:LETITGO. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ries42: not suggesting you ignore the request. Just that both of you let it go on the talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi

I 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 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. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand (After I posted the above), this reply shows extremely poor and unwelcome behavior for a talk page by Hipocrite. --MASEM (t) 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. Hipocrite (talk) 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 - [8], [9], 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. Hipocrite (talk) 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. Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 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 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[10] after the problem was explained here [11]. 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 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 While I believe no such breach [in ethics] 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. --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Ries42

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

• At first glance, my impression is that Hipocrite was being a bit prickly towards 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". Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @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. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @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. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @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. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)