Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

And an SPA has already messed up the page. Is only a clerk allowed to clean that up or what? Silverseren^C 02:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It had to be expected, I and several others took to his talk page already. Hopefully this will get cleaned up. Weedwacker (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the noobs people, people politely explained to him what he did wrong, it was fixed. It's OK now Loganmac (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I'm the one who fixed it's formatting before the editor redacted it. It still doesn't belong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryulong here, it doesn't belong as it's not relevant to the purpose of the Arbitration. Weedwacker (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silver seren, are we seriously entertaining the use of a webpage - one that's in Alexa's top 5,000 - as evidence of the POV bias of parties to the case? In that case, shall we also consider the use of, say, unusual rhetoric (such as "sea lioning", a term which I've thus far only heard from anti-GG and which in fact was coined recently while all of this was going on; or "reactionary", which seems to come directly from Marxist social circles)?

76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add in to this discussion of User:Silver seren's comments about archive.today (This may be better suited for a refutation within an actual evidence presentation on the main page, but I have not yet made one with new evidence to present that has not already been placed there). Associating the use of a website used for snapshotting purposes with a particular group and implying they should be disregarded for this is quite troubling. Also, quoting Silver: "And, yes, I have screenshots of this, which is necessary since they often delete or change comments in order to pretend certain things were not said". This statement proves the occasional necessity of archives, and they are more reliable than screenshots which are easier to manipulate. In response to comments on the exact evidence links posted having been compiled offsite and sourced for here, the archive links were mostly ones initially posted by myself on the ANI discussion, ones which I collected myself through either creating new archives of pages or using the archive website to select already made snapshots of pages saved on archive.today. These archives were also necessary for showing changes that had taken place on the pages in question, with relevant new things added and relevant old things that had been removed. Also, are you really making the accusation that a post on an anonymous board claiming to be an editor here should be taken seriously? Weedwacker (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's especially rich seeing as SilverSeren has been a recurring presence at the GamerGhazi subreddit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Problem? I haven't been discussing the Wikipedia article there, while that's pretty much the only thing you've been doing over at The Escapist. Well, that and also trying to dox/out a Wikipedian that doesn't edit anymore. Silverseren^C 06:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will only comment that it seems hypocritical in this case for you to point out other editors for personal involvementWeedwacker (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being a bit disingenuous on your Reddit activity regarding this issue, but I don't think anything you have done there is a problem just like I don't think anything I have done on The Escapist is a problem (saying a Twitter user who talks about having edited Wikipedia is, in fact, the same as a Wikipedia user with the exact same pseudonym does not constitute outing). It is only funny because you are going all "Muh collusion!" over the slimmest associations with 8chan.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your only reason for going after said user in the first place is because they make Storifys that detail the horrible comments made by Gamergate proponents. Unless you have an actual reason for doing so, other than that he is anti-Gamergate? Have you done as such for any pro-Gamergate people, several of which who have claimed to have edited Wikipedia? Silverseren^C 07:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they would find it interesting that a prominent member of GamerGate's opposition had such a colorful past here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I have already forwarded information to the arbitration committee referring to this, let me just tell you that you were entirely incorrect in the situation being discussed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect about what? If you are saying I am incorrect about the dude on Twitter being the dude here, then you are sorely mistaken and I would be happy to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt to the Arbs just so they can be assured I did not spread a false rumor about you. Also, why would you forward information to ArbCom about it? You got like five @replies over that whole thing and some of those were just because you kept palling around with the guy on Twitter, which is how I originally got turned on to this fact in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"saying a Twitter user who talks about having edited Wikipedia is, in fact, the same as a Wikipedia user with the exact same pseudonym does not constitute outing". Agreed. This is especially amusing to me in a context where both of you have implicitly accused each other of being the same user off-wiki (on Reddit and The Escapist respectively) and implicitly admitted each other's claims. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should clarify my earlier comments on why I think screenshots are an outdated and unreliable source compared to archive.today for the benefit of not only arbitrators watching this page, but also all involved parties. Screenshots can not only be manipulated through photo-editing software, but also through people manually changing the source on a web browser to alter the text that they then screenshot (not to say this always happens, but it can). Archive.today involves submitting a URL, which the website then looks at from their point of view and makes a snapshot of, eliminating any attempts by the user to manipulate the page. Archive pages are a more objective and reliable source. Weedwacker (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that off-site evidence should not factor into what happens on Wikipedia. There is no need to use archive.today on links found within Wikipedia. There's no reason to link to anything offsite that must be archived through a service in order to preserve it as evidence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this arbitrator post off-site evidence of accounts confirmed by editors on wikipedia to be theirs is allowable depending on content. Weedwacker (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Ironholds whether off-site evidence is "factored into what happens on Wikipedia". At least one Wikipedian was banned for contributing to an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on him. 2607:FB90:270B:65DA:5CBF:7324:3E3D:1C2B (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tstormcandy, could you please quickly clarify what you mean by "obstructionist" evidence, and explain how coordinating an effort to gather such evidence has anything to do with "deliberate harassment"? It looks to me from the pastebin like the intent is/was to turn up diffs - you know, the same standard of evidence that Arbcom demands - and present them with minimal comment for the consideration of the general public. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is meant to be more "big picture". I cited precedent of when ArbCom used off-site evidence in a similar situation, thus making it part of "standard evidence". There are literal how-tos and instructions on where and what to post given to users in the forums I linked, including block evasion discussion. As a WP:SPA IP user with mysteriously high knowledge of Wikipedia you are, ironically, a perfect example of what I'm talking about to where I wouldn't be shocked if you came up at WP:SPI eventually. Bluntly, you could be evidence. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hounding of those listed on the "Horsemen" pastebin after the date it was posted speak for themselves on incident boards and talk pages. I have no interest in commenting on this case further as I do not wish to display partisan bias. My only complaints are those against policy regardless of who committed them. I don't care who is being talked at or why. Only that it is damaging. signed as a separate comment ♪ Tstorm(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a threat, and also does almost nothing to answer my questions. Any knowledge of WP I have is the result of paying attention while reading these discussions and being a quick study. I've been around; I'm the "previously involved IP user" from the statements made in the case request. I assure you I am only "sockpuppeting" for myself, as my IP is not under my direct control.

That said, I don't really understand what your involvement here is. I can't say I recognize your username and you didn't make a statement in the case request. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to present evidence that commented on the offsite behaviour of editors, and the potential for serious problems their behaviour could have and has caused, would this be in violation of WP:OUTING? Bosstopher (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could easily be. Bearing in mind that we only rarely take off-wiki stuff into account, you should ask yourself whether such evidence has any probative use. Even so, best is to email the committee, using the email user function on this page.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case I'll email any parts of my statement relating to non-acknowledged accounts to arbcom instead of posting them here.Bosstopher (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of people here are angling to cite off-wiki stuff. Are there any general guidelines for what's relevant? I fear that arbcom is going to be getting a lot of email if everyone decides to take the "safe" route... 76.64.35.209 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We normally only take off-wiki stuff into account if it is serious (typically outing, threats of violence etc). We don't usually act on stuff about off-wiki cabals because it's very difficult to prove who the individuals are and what they're up to with any degree of certainty. Joejobbing is also not unheard of. Simply put, we are not law enforcement and we have no resources for dealing with stuff like:

• "User:XXX on ForumABC is probably WikiUser:XYZ and was talking on Forum123 with User:YYY (who could easily be WikiUser:Ynot on wikipedia) to say nasty stuff about John Doe, who probably edits Wikipedia as User:WWW. ArbCom therefore needs to ban them."

So, to cut a long story short, the less private evidence the better.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, would evidence of, say, paid editing be considered "serious"? But presumably not evidence of WP:POV? How about, say, conspiring to violate WP:BLP? Those seem to be the major categories of why people want to bring up off-wiki evidence, from what I've seen (apologies in advance if anyone feels misrepresented by that; that's just how it's come across so far). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.35.209 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one outside of Gamergate thinks I was paid for anything so quit accusing me of that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were not even named in this discussion, nobody in this discussion accused you of anything. You're very defensive about accusations of paid editing even when they don't name you. Weedwacker (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When most of the complaints about me from people off-site concern money I've received and there haven't, as far as I'm aware, been any other issues of any money going around anywhere, then occam's razor strikes again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It easily could have been about someone else Weedwacker (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for that screencap I posted on Twitter, I already apologized if you took it as a personal attack and not a general criticism of Wikipedia. Loganmac (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DSA, Bosstopher, please treat this seriously. Don't add anything to the main section header that is not your user name, and DSA, I think it has to be your full user name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go to their talkpages and add a comment if there isn't one already. HalfHat 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following users are blocked on Wikipedia who participated in the original case.

I propose a limited terms unblock for the both of them, ArmyLine topic banned to only ArbCom's namespace for this case for 5 days, and Tobascoman77 the same, indefinitely pending any result overturning his block as a final result of this ArbCom case. Tutelary (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC) See below. Tutelary (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — the sum total of TabascoMan77's contributions to this encyclopedia on this matter involve describing three Wikipedia editors as "white knights for Zoe Quinn" who he describes being "as notable as belly button lint" on a noticeboard, then repeating a number of false, discredited and poorly-sourced attacks on Zoe Quinn on that noticeboard until being banned by general acclamation. [1] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a proposal for this already in the workshop. Weedwacker (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck proposal, per the above. Tutelary (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarc, in reference to your statement "I will make no apologies for expressing empathy to victims of rape and murder abuse, nor for assuring them that the Wikipedia has strict policies against scurrilous tabloid material, and that they wiki-bios will be written fairly and neutrally. " - what are "victims of rape and murder abuse", exactly? I really can't find a way to parse that that makes sense. The most likely interpretation I can think of is that 'rape' and 'murder' are both intended separately as modifiers for 'abuse', but I don't really understand what "rape abuse" and "murder abuse" are supposed to be. Did you perhaps mean "rape and murder threats"? In which case, is the argument then that the recipient of a threat is ipso facto a "victim"? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "threats" would have been a better word choice Sorry, was in a hurry. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Do you have any evidence that Logan_Mac on reddit is User:Loganmac on Wikipedia? (Anyone can go create a reddit name that is similar to a wiki name and then act badly on it) I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, but just curious (maybe I missed it?). --Obsidi (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added some, going through his edit history to find more. --PresN 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Obsidi (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I add that it is exceedingly tedious that several editors on one side of this issue keep trying to coyly pretend that wikipedia users who make comments about reddit posts of theirs and Reddit users with the same screenname who make posts about their wikipedia edits are not, in fact, the same users. --PresN 23:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who is who on reddit (I almost never go on there). I'm not trying to "coyly pretend" anything, I just don't know. --Obsidi (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. looking over that thread (which I hadn't seen before) makes me kind of angry. To me it looks like Ryūlóng was WP:OUTING User:Loganmac when he says: "That account is definitely you and it's been established onsite already when you posted about that other person and you didn't deny owning the account then." per WP:OUTING you have not "established onsite" if you fail to deny that it is your account. That said, I am unsure of the policy now if Loganmac response confirms it, the policy gets a lot less clear. --Obsidi (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been a lot of talk about WP:OUTING now I have attempted a proposal about it in the Workshop. It's probably terrible but please have a look. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac and Logan_Mac are close enough in name and behavior to eliminate reasonable doubt. Just because he doesn't want to own up to his harassment offsite does not mean that this is a violation of outing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he has not "own[ed] up to it", it is WP:OUTING, as the policy page says: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." And as an example of "Personal information", it gives "other contact information (including any other accounts on any other web sites)", so unless User:Loganmac has done something on Wikipedia to say that account is his, it is WP:OUTTING to say that it is. (Not to mention that it is potentially inaccurate as anyone can create an off-wiki account with the same/similar name) --Obsidi (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor. Someone who has been heavily involved in Reddit's "KotakuInAction" board with the screenname "Logan_Mac" before Loganmac returned to editing Wikipedia has almost exclusively been posting about Wikipedia on the "KotakuInAction" board and often attacking me when I have been in content disputes with Loganmac on Wikipedia. "That might not be me mate" is not a valid defense as described at WP:OUTING either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are right (lets assume for the moment you are), that still violates WP:OUTING. Do you think it is ok to post the address/phone number of someone just because you are correct that it is their address/phone number? Clearly not, so being "right" that they are the same person just makes the WP:OUTING even worse. --Obsidi (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:, so I am looking at the on-wiki thread that you linked to. And he objects to any off-wiki accusation and then says "that account might not be mine mate", that seems to be what WP policy says to do when someone does that, per WP:OUTING: "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." And then Loganmac says: "And on the reddit account, silence doesn't mean admission". So can you, PresN, explain why you think that the WP user User:Loganmac identifies the user Logan_Mac on reddit as himself on that thread ? --Obsidi (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong given that you are highly involved in this, it's probably wise to let uninvolved users (preferably Arbs and Clerks) to decide how similar their behaviour is. HalfHat 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can make up my mind and inform the arbitrators about it and others. Besides, it is not my evidence in question here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an easy point-by-point rebuttal on his user page [2] I find him linking me to mocking mental retardation sickening. Loganmac (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you denying that the reddit user "logan_mac" is you, or not? If not, it is admirable that you've created a point by point rebuttal to defend this person. Parabolist (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to deny that the reddit user "logan_mac" is him. As long as he does not admit that it is him on WP, then the two accounts should not be associated on WP. --Obsidi (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, the rebuttal is to defend myself from accusations he made against ME, this Wiki account. Like me mocking mental retardation. And looking at how he got half the stuff wrong to accuse me with. Loganmac (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Loganmac is Logan_mac because a) both accounts refer to things that happened to the other account in the first person; b) Loganmac, even while claiming that Logan_Mac may not be him, still laughingly defends actions taken by Logan_Mac; c) Logan_Mac has implicitly claimed to be Loganmac several times and Loganmac has never denied such, even when it would make then look better, and d) I have more than two brain cells in my head- if the user in question was the president of a country they might have pretend stalkers, but this is a tiny, niche issue and no-one is pretending to be a different no-name user than they are. --PresN 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a shared username is "obvious" then it's hilarious you call yourself uninvolved when you're a member of GamerGhazi. Do you stand by your remarks that I laught at mental disorders? Loganmac (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What comment are you talking about? And do you have any proof that the Reddit user PresN is me, and that he was talking about you? --PresN 05:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This PresN guy still doesn't get it, he just added "Also, Loganmac has posted on my talk page arguing about my interpretation all the Reddit links I've posted below. Don't worry, though, he's just defending on wiki this other person who's pretending to be him on another website, without ever saying that they're not him, he's not saying they are him.", and this comes FROM AN ADMIN, don't you see how I and many others think certain people ruin Wikipedia's image? You still refuse to apologize or ammend your statements, if you had read ANYTHING, I was defending MYSELF, this wiki account, from the conclusions you yourself took, that I laugh at mental disorders, that I called ArbCom corrupt, this are your own conclusions Loganmac (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've lost your plot- all the links I posted are to Reddit posts by Logan_Mac. I didn't post any links to Wikipedia edits by Loganmac. Are you now saying that Logan_Mac is you? Because if you're saying that Logan_Mac is not you, you could have just said that, instead of a point-by-point refutation of my interpretations of Logan_Mac's comments, since that heavily implies that he is you. Because if he's not you, why would you care what I said about him? --PresN 05:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, but you were very explicit that you were talking about what you believed to be the same person, so they were accusations against both reddit user Logan_Mac and User:Loganmac. Secondly ArbCom has no jurisdiction (or power) to change reddit. --Obsidi (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Logan_Mac is the same as User:Loganmac. But all the evidence I posted was about Logan_Mac. If they weren't the same person, then all User:Loganmac had to say was that they weren't, that there was no proof, and that the evidence should be struck. But he didn't- he defended Logan_Mac point by point. Why? He has also now made claims that the Reddit user PresN is the same person as me, but with no more proof then a comment that Reddit user made. Why can you only link Reddit accounts to Wiki accounts when it's convenient for him? Finally, at no point have I asked for ArbCom to do anything at all on Reddit; I've only provided evidence that a user I believe to be Loganmac has been pursuing a long-term "vendetta" of sorts against Ryulong, keeping it off-wiki to avoid getting in trouble here. --PresN 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: You've now added "evidence" that is nothing more than an archived link to the reddit post history of a user "PresN". What proof do you have that that user is me? And what are you trying to prove, since you don't link to actual comments- that a user by that name exists? --PresN 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: It appears that PresN and Loganmac have both stood down here. You should remove the link as well. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's incomprehensible to me why we are all supposed to pretend as though we're complete idiots when discussing this issue. Is a user on another site whose activity, interests and username are the same as one on wikipedia? PROBABLY. I mean, come on. If the resolution to this kabuki dance is studied indifference, shouldn't we be worried about the epidemic of wikipedia users being impersonated by reddit users who post on KiA? Especially considering that many of the same editors are vocally devoted to "neutrality", we should worry about their good name being sullied by posts under an identical username in a forum devoted to harassing people. If someone using my account name on another service spent months stirring the shit, canvassing editors and riling up a community of people already angry about gamergate I'd want someone to at least tell me about it so I could clear my name! Protonk (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a user is doing something off-wiki that is so egregious that they need to be sanctioned for it here on-wiki, then feel free to email the Arbitration Committee evidence of it, that's why we have private evidence. If ArbCom thinks the evidence presents a potentially valid reason to sanction the user and there are real outing problems they can choose to setup a private hearing where the user can rebut the evidence against them in a private setting. (and if you really are just trying to notify the user, you are free to email them with the other account name, and they are free to post anything they want about it) --Obsidi (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING nuff said. Avono (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the policy, thanks! The reason why I've got my name and my accounts posted on my page is I was outed by Daniel Brandt years ago. But this is just dumb. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PresN is this Reddit user that has been arguing with Loganmac and other Wikipedia users about the GamerGate coverage on Wikipedia you? This three-year-old account certainly claims to belong to an admin using the username PresN on Wikipedia who had participated in the discussion about Quinn's photo. If not, should we contact the Reddit authorites so they can shut that shit down?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be asking him this (again see WP:OUTING). --Obsidi (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait . . . what the hell?! Whose brilliant idea was this change to the policy? According to that month-old version I just engaged in outing merely by asking the above question, but I refuse to consider this to be the case. It would be one thing if the account was under a different name and they weren't talking shit about Wikipedia, but in what universe is it "posting personal information" to suggest that someone using the exact same name as a Wikipedia editor, identifying as a Wikipedia editor, and discussing Wikipedia-related issues, might actually be that Wikipedia editor? Some people are really taking this whole "secret identity" thing all the way to Clark Kent levels of stupidity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't happen often, but for once I find myself in agreement with TDA. That addition to the policy text is pretty nonsensical. Discussions about off-wiki accounts like this are, and always have been, legitimate. Some more detailed thoughts on the matter here [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was claimed to have been done based on what WP:FUNC said. That "other contact information" a subset of which includes "any other accounts on any other web sites". If this was not changed based on information from WP:FUNC, I would ask that it be reverted (but clearly I don't know if that is the case or not). --Obsidi (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question: PresN on Wikipedia is just as much PresN on Reddit as Loganmac on Wikipedia is Logan_Mac on Reddit. Which is to say, unless God himself comes down and declares the IP address of both accounts to be the same, Logan will continue to smugly deny that they're the same, so there's no earthly way to prove that either/both accounts aren't smirkingly denying the obvious, so no. There's tons of people out there who think "PresN" is a great user name. I think I'm supposed to ban you now? --PresN 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that post has broken multiple rules, but if nothing else it's extremely uncivil. I'd suggest reconsidering what you just said. HalfHat 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which post are you referring to? If it's the one that you're replying to, well, saying that Logan is "smugly" and "smirkingly" denying the obvious may be pushing it, but I don't think that it crosses the line into uncivil, or else I wouldn't have posted it. The "ban" bit was a joke; I agree with the other commenters in this section that the new, narrow addition to the OUTING policy is too much. --PresN 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the ban comment. Attacking Lognmac here however, especially in a section where he hasn't commented, was totally unneeded. It adds nothing to the comments here. Further I'm sure he has said he is neither confirming nor denning it because it said in WP:Outing "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information", however that is just from memory. HalfHat 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference: PresN has just voluntarily confirmed, using their Wikipedia account, that they are that same user. Now, I haven't looked, but no matter how obvious the connection between the Logan WP username and the Reddit ID is we cannot verify it with any degree of certainty. So we cannot treat them as the same person.

This came up in an off-wiki matter the committee dealt with earlier this year, where a user who had just been blocked here was severely harassing another user via youtube, using the same username. I was personally 100% convinced that they were one in the same, and I believe most of the arbs were as well, but the user in question denied it was them so we simply couldn't consider the connection verified.

This is sort of like the wheel warring policy. It gives an advantage to the admin that reverts another admin. That first admin, no matter how much they just know that the second one is wrong, cannot revert the action back or they risk being summarily desysopped. Is that fair? Not really, but it is the best way anyone could come up with to stop wheel warring. The outing policy is the best way anyone has come up with to stop malicious outing or "Joe jobs". It is not perfect and it sometimes requires us to ignore our own observations in the absence of hard evidence. I should think that would be a concept any experienced Wikipedian could easily understand since it mirrors the verifiability policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing. Of course there are situations where hard-and-fast proof is difficult or impossible. But just like with sockpuppet investigations, Wikipedia "justice" doesn't go by judicial standards of evidence, but by what is best for the smooth functioning of the project. This is a far more apt analogy than your rather far-fetched one of the wheel-warring one: the "DUCK" concept applies for these off-wiki kinds of identities just as it does to sock investigations. "Joe jobs" may of course be a realistic problem in some situations, but they can be fairly safely excluded through simple common sense whenever both the on-wiki and the off-wiki account are clearly older than the dispute situation in question, and of course especially if the off-wiki account is older than the on-wiki one. Finally, and very importantly: it is one thing to warn (rightly) that off-wiki links of this kind may often be impossible to prove. It is quite another thing to claim (as was hinted at by some in this thread) that the mere attempt, the mere mentioning of a hypothesis of this kind ought to be treated as sanctionable misbehaviour. That suggestion is indeed outrageously against the best interests of the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether talking about off-wiki contributions count as outing, since Beeblebrox has made it clear that they won't look at Loganmac's off-wiki comments unless he specifically admits that it's his account, and Loganmac has made it clear that he will do no such thing, I've removed my evidence section from the page so as not to waster the arbs' time with evidence they won't be taking into account. --PresN 22:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we could work at an agreement, you were free to leave it if you wanted, I just had a particular problem with one of those conclusions, the mental disorder thing. Thanks, I will now delete the rebutal Loganmac (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you could work it out. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you guys could work it out as well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make some arguments that, while they don't directly point to anyone's wrongdoing, should provide important context for the claims of others. In particular I wish to argue about (a) the nature of specific claims made by individuals involved in Gamergate, as they relate to BLP policy; and (b) how the RS policy works/ought to work, and differences between talk page discussion and main page writing.

Is there a place for that on the evidence page? Would it be better on this talk page? I could probably find a few relevant diffs highlighting things that can be seen as undesirable editor behaviour in that context, but it would still mean writing a lot of argument and little actual evidence.

76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more explicit/general: Where exactly is the correct place to propose "findings of fact" that don't refer to any specific wrongdoings by users, but which should be agreed upon in order to be able to interpret evidence and arguments sanely? In particular, where is the correct place for assertions about what the (putatively) reliable sources actually say, and about how the guidelines for interpreting WP:RS should be interpreted in the specific context of Gamergate? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Per WP:BOLD I have added proposed principles to the Workshop that cover most of what I had in mind. The remaining portion is an argument regarding the truth/plausibility of specific claims that have been commonly made, separate to what the sources say (since my complaints have generally been about the talk page, where VNT is not directly applicable). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user of this IP address has constantly and falsely accused Wikipedia editors of putting words into the mouth of one of the people involved with the subject of the article when that has in fact never happened. I have responded to his proposed findings on the workshop page as I originally did regarding his original statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to evidence that, especially the 'constantly' part. I vehemently deny it. I did not even propose any findings on the workshop page, just principles; and that was certainly not a way of accusing anyone of anything. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, for those that were not aware it is a major holiday weekend in the U.S. right now. If you have a question or otherwise require a response please bear that in mind, and also that fact that on any given day we are still just volunteers who have other obligations in life like jobs, family etc. In other words please be patient.

• Regarding what evidence even is, and more importantly is not:

It is diffs of clearly problematic behavior on Wikipedia

It is clear, specific evidence that a specific Wikipedia user, who has tied an off-wiki identity with their WP username by (and this is the really important part) publicly making the connection known here on Wikipedia is co-ordinating or encouraging unacceptable behavior on other websites. Attempts to tie WP usernames with off-wiki identities without on-wiki supporting evidence are not acceptable, per WP:OUTING.

It is not your opinion without supporting evidence

It is not threaded discussion and back-and-forth arguments between the persons submitting evidence

It is not Twitter/Reddit/whatever posts where someone simply makes a remark you don't care for

We are obligated to read and evaluate everything that is submitted to us. What we are not obligated to do is to consider off-wiki name calling or rants with no evidence on the same plane as actual hard evidence. Please do not waste our limited time and resources by submitting such material.

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would my history on Uncyclopedia (.co) be taken into account? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been co-ordinating or otherwise encouraging disruption here from over there? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I felt the inclusion of the BoingBoing/Fastcodesign articles opinions that "purple+green=rape", was absurd, I wrote a parody article. But no disruption/coordination. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone on this case should be aware that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has reverted the previous edit to WP:OUTING as a change to policy without consensus. The previous edit was claimed to be under the authority of the functionaries. --Obsidi (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the edit in question Weedwacker (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies under WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 100% guarantee you that he did this just to permit some of the evidence against other editors. Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wont comment on his motives, but the change does not affect Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility_of_evidence. --Obsidi (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future is right on this one. The problem is that "outing" under policy carries with it the implication that any such incident should be oversighted and is grounds for an immediate block. No way do I think linking two accounts with the same name to each other is sufficient grounds for such action. Other aspects of the policy adequately cover abuses of that allowance, such as opposition research.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that, in this day and age screenshots are good, since the "F12" key exists, and so does Photoshop and MS Paint and Krita, among other image-manipulation tools. Perhaps actual links or, heaven forbid, an archive.today link, to eliminate the possibility of evidence tampering. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my own thoughts on this subject higher up on this talk page. Weedwacker (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that ArbCom are quite capable of deciding for themselves what they consider acceptable evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Weedwacker (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question of mine. Since parties involved in gamergate would be, well interested in the article about gamergate, and things related to the article, perhaps a temporary thing that should be done is to track the specific threads discussing Wikipedia matters. If there will be accusations of collusion, and evidence can be provided, my question is why not have the threads in question linked for all to see? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 00:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One theme that I'm starting to see in refutations/rebuttals/etc. on the Evidence page, particularly WRT alleged BLP violations, is "my supposed transgressions are unintentional if valid; my opponent's are clearly deliberate".

The validity is a separate issue. What I'm wondering is: (i) who is qualified to judge whether a violation of BLP rules was "deliberate" or not? (ii) in particular, what gives any ordinary editor the right to assume this about any other editor? (iii) Most importantly, does Arbcom actually care?

Honestly, it all looks like petty squabbling to me - the sort that, per the arbitration guide etc., is heavily looked down upon - and if it were up to me it'd all be refactored away.

Also, speaking of refactoring: can we hat the talk page discussions about the PresN/Loganmac situation now?

76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many edits made to the whole of Gamergate that have had to be expunged due to their inclusion of deliberate attacks on people or spreading of unsourced information. Meanwhile, most other transgressions that have been listed (at least those that concern edits I've made) have just been perhaps not the best writing, considering most of what had been added was sourced but negative rather than unsourced and negative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so extensively participating here anyway?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the same question. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not any of the people who've been asked this question, but does no one else find this arbcom case to be a fun and enjoyable pass time? Surely no deep and complicated reasons are required to be interested in this arbcom case? Bosstopher (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arb-com is fun. Retartist (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Wikipedians covered under WP:BLP? I forget. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone answer my question this time? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Often, ArbCom codifies this with a narrow "Casting aspersions" principle (example) but it applies to editors more generally too. That being said, in practice it is less rigorously enforced for editors than for article subjects. CIreland (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, what I'd ask if insulting a whole site demographic as "anti-semites" is a violation of BLP or not Loganmac (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows /pol/ turned into Stormfront 2.0 YEARS ago. From what my accomplice tells me, the far right idiots have been trying to co-opt GG since day 2. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request that an arbitrator or clerk redact the personal blog linked in this edit from the evidence page — the biographies of living persons policy does not contain any exemptions for Arbitration pages. There is no reason to permit, in "Evidence," a link to someone's personal blog which presents unsupported defamatory accusations against a living person — it cannot provide anything of value to this proceeding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It explains why a search for more reliable sources was justified. Further, a detailed reasoned argument is made, and the author is clearly credentialed. And if Boing Boing is a reliable source for the article, then The Flounce meets the same qualifications. Both are group blogs. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, The Flounce is not a reliable source. It is a group blog with no identifiable editorial structure or fact-checking system, no method of contact other than e-mail and fewer than 130 Twitter followers. It has no known reputation for fact-checking and editorial reliability. In short, it fails all facets of the reliable sources guideline. Moreover, the piece in question boils down to "I read something on the Internet where someone says a person is bad, and I think that person is bad too." It's an opinion of an opinion, with no evident effort to analyze or confirm the contentious and defamatory claims it repeats.

Your comparison to Boing Boing is misplaced, given the numerous differences. Boing Boing is a well-established blog with identifiable staff and editorial structures. More to the point, we do not use Boing Boing to make contentious claims about living people.

If you do not understand why and how we treat claims about living people differently and require more stringent sourcing for such material, you should probably review the biographies of living persons policy and familiarize yourself with its sourcing requirements, particularly the requirement that editors: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Flounce has an identifiable editorial structure and staff. I see no evidence of a "fact-checking system" for Boing Boing. It's just clickbait. And yes, you absolutely do use Boing Boing to "make contentious claims about living people", because you're using it to paint users of 4chan (who are living people) with a broad brush.

Your characterization of the piece in question is also absurd, given that it's a direct analysis of Gjoni's claims.

And again, I am not actually making the claims; I am supporting the assertion that the claims were and are worth investigation. Pray tell, how else could I possibly go about this? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to recognize that by repeating defamatory claims, you are making them implicitly because you are putting them into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not "investigate" things, it republishes what has been published in reliable secondary sources. The Flounce is not one of them, and if you disagree, the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not repeat the claims. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By linking to a blog which makes such claims, you are presenting the blog's contents as truthful — otherwise, why would you introduce it into evidence in this proceeding? Are you saying that you're introducing something into evidence which you don't believe to be true?

The way you go about things on Wikipedia, by the way, is to have reliable secondary sources to support all claims that you put forth about a living person. If you can't find a reliable secondary source to support the defamatory claim you want to introduce about a living person, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What I said was that the blog's argument is a reason to suggest that the claims may be true. I was not making a point about the claims; I was making a point about what happened during a discussion on the Talk page when it was proposed to investigate the claims. This is, therefore, supporting evidence for the notion that this discussion was not entirely frivolous. It is not intended to evidence the claims themselves, which I am explicitly not arguing about here. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a patently-unreliable blog source to support defamatory claims about a living person is no support at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of I was not attempting to support the claims, but only to justify that an investigation into the claims was merited do you not understand? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely suggest that you are on the wrong website. Wikipedia does not investigate claims. We are not a source of original research about unverified and unsupported claims of anything, much less claims of a highly-defamatory nature. With very limited exception, we republish only what has already been reported in reliable secondary sources. From Wikipedia's perspective, that blog does not exist and its claims are a nullity. We don't care what some random person said on their blog, and we don't accept defamatory claims about people made by some random person on their blog. We set higher standards than that, which is precisely the crux of this entire issue. GamerGate largely hasn't been able to get reliable mainstream sources to accept its claims, particularly those made about living people, and until and unless it does, Wikipedia cannot treat its claims about living people as meaningful or relevant, much less true.

tl;dr: If you don't have a reliable secondary source for it, don't put it on Wikipedia. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "investigate" I clearly mean "find reliable sources which support".

Incidentally, for a while, Quinn's Cracked article was used as a source on the main page. It made defamatory claims about Gjoni, since it characterized his blog post pejoratively, and also makes a completely unevidenced claim involving Gjoni allegedly coaching someone to make a video about something (for obvious reasons I am not going to give more detail). While it was used only to give Quinn's side of the story specifically with regards to her own experience, Wikipedia was definitely linking to that material, on an article page no less. So going by what you've been saying here, that was also definitely not OK. After all, that content bore no more relation to the article at that point, than Wyeth's claims do to my current argument.76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall Quinn's article on cracked ever used outside of her biography.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'll just have to track it down then and add it to my evidence, won't I. I likely misremembered, there's tons to sort through. Regardless, it definitely was used on Quinn's article, and as far as I can see, that would not pass the standards I'm being held to here. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're correct. It was used, briefly, in the main article, but after a discussion, consensus was established that it wasn't appropriate in that article, and that consensus has been adhered to.

It is used, appropriately, in Quinn's own biography, as a self-published source supporting Quinn's own statements about her personal experiences, which is a specific exemption permitted for self-published sources in biographies. That said, we have better sources for those experiences now, including her interviews with the British Broadcasting Corporation and MSNBC. We can (and probably should) replace it with quotes from those interviews. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butt wait! Christina Sommers was interviewed by MSNBC, therefore it must automatically be biased or something. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because TheDevil'sAdvocate's evidence exceeds the size limit, I've given him permission to post some of his evidence in my section. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the notes at the top of the evidence page: "If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so". I can't see how you are in a position to 'give permission' to anyone to get around this, or indeed how posting evidence in another contributor's section would actually do so anyway. If a person's evidence exceeds the length limit, it does so regardless of where it is posted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and should be outright forbidden. You're not a party to this case. You're not an arbitrator. You do not get to do this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to assume that it isn't forbidden already. "You must submit evidence in your own section" seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know why Obsidi was informing editors of the length limit. He is not a clerk or administrator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not assume good faith? Several evidence posts are over limit here. You don't need to hold a position to remind people of rules and limits. Weedwacker (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For such a sensitive thing as arbitration, I would prefer an air of officiality behind warnings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I let 4 people know they were over the limit. I'm sure the clerks would get around to telling you about it eventually. You are free to ignore me if you wish and wait for a clerk to tell you, my note was just a friendly reminder (not a warning). --Obsidi (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryulong and Andy on this, if TDA feels he has more evidence to post than can fit in his section, he should be asking the arbitrators for permission. Comment to Ryulong, even though what he's doing isn't allowed, him not being a party to this case has nothing to do with anything. Weedwacker (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once TDA's or anyone elses' evidence is placed in my section, it becomes MY evidence. ALL MINE!!!! And I will not be giving any of it back. [bronx cheer] Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a good way to ensure that nobody is going to take any evidence submitted in your section seriously... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A joke doesn't invalidate your evidence, I don't see why the arbs would think it did. I don't think these jokes are a good idea though. HalfHat 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said TDA should probably ask for extra space, I think he could make a pretty good case to do so. HalfHat 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the numerous accolades on his user page, I do not believe so readily dismissing Cla68 is very wise. AtrHB (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I don't think that judging people by the accolades on their userpages is very wise, but chacun à son goût. The fundamental assumption by all parties here seems to be that evidence is convincing in proportion to its length. I'd question that assumption. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It like seems decent as a quick crude check to me, though obviously far from perfect. HalfHat 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm:, @Sphilbrick:, this is something that seems to fall into your Clerking purview. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people present long evidence sections is likely because they're trying to lead the arbitrators towards agreeing with their conclusion that a particular editor is not operating in good faith. Therefore, it is believed that a long trail of diffs is needed to logically, inductively lead the reader to that conclusion. ArbCom has influenced editors to think this way by the manner in which they have structured the case presentation format, but then they've conversely tried to limit evidence sections, to the obvious confusion of participants. Anyway, any diffs I present in my evidence section should hopefully be helpful in assisting the arbitrators in deciding which anonymous editors here need to be sent to bed without their suppers. All you here who are taking this so seriously that you're willing to bicker about it on this and other pages and complain about attempts to joke about it are probably a little too emotionally invested in the outcome. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the limits are needed in that the goal is that if there is a dispute, then the users must summarize their issues and let ArbCom review the finer details as and when needed. I believe this is why there is more of an importance in citing difs than in posting words. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. This on top of your policing of Ryulong's twitter... surprised the arbs suffer your comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out of town with almost no internet access. Just walked in door, will look through soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If TDA needs more space than the usual limits, then a request to the arbs is in order. Posting evidence in someone else's section is not permitted.

I do see that some section are overly large, I will be addressing those issues forthwith.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I just want to finish adding my evidence and then evaluating whether I can trim it to a reasonable point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence from anyone on the evidence page which gets trimmed, but which I feel to be good evidence, I will place in my section. I will do it myself so as to not give the appearance that someone else is putting their evidence into my section, and therefore offending the procedural sensibilities of the process managers. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it would still be violating what Sphilbrick just said. An extension can be requested or the summary could be made smaller to fit the limit. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of WP's, nay the Internet's, greatest failings is not being able to display facial expressions to influence people who are talking past you. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PresN, as an active party to this Arbitration case, you should not be closing the discussion especially because you are not uninvolved. Especially because Loganmac started it and you just finished removing your entire speal about how he personally harassed Ryulong. If it needs to be hatted or stemmed, let someone uninvolved do it. You doing it is unacceptable. Tutelary (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thread is just arguing about other people's evidence, which is not what this talk page is for, and complaining about off-wiki behavior, which the arbs have made clear they don't care about. This talk page is to discuss technical matters about evidence, such as whether evidence A is admsissable or if statements B are too long, not if statement C is good evidence or not. Don't sit here wiki-lawyering about whether I can close an off-topic thread or not, especially since you're topic-banned from GamerGate on-wiki. --PresN 06:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the thread closure as an arbitrator, so it stands. Do not continue discussing here. AGK [•] 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the formal process for an extension of word count? I know I'm over by about 200+ words, and rather than purge, I'm wondering If I can get an extension in word count. Additionally, does my copy and paste of the GamerGate sanction text (that is on the WP:GS) page count against word count? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let you know about an overall length icrease. If you want to get it down, don't quote stuff in full. Links are fine. For information, words limits are the total number of words, including rebuttals.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An increase in the limit is in progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See three sections below: Gamergate evidence limits--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CIreland:, what we are looking for here is evidence of problematic behavior on Wikipedia. It's nice that the BBC has found the article useful but it is not relevant to the issues we are trying to address here, which are behavioral rather than content-related. Please either present relevant evidence or remove your submission.

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, what this evidence shows is that a venerable and trusted reliable source has vetted the project's article on the Gamergate controversy. We have has a small handful of editors who have argued vociferously that our article is garbage, is slanted, is biased, and all sorts of similar verbiage. This was evidenced by the edit-warring (which I will present as Evidence soon, as it appears that no one else has yet) and constant battling over the now-finally-removed POV tag. The BBC endorsement undercuts those attempts to gainsay the article's quality, and shows that we may have editors who are simply arguing for their person point-of-view to be heard, rather than airing genuine concerns with project policy such as WP:NPOV. Would you reconsider your request for removal in this light? Tarc (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox:There is a repeated accusation, both on the article talk page and at this arbitration, that some editors have controlled the article and engaged in POV-pushing, resulting in a biased article. That is an accusation of misbehavior. By rebutting the contention that the article is biased, the accusation of misbehavior is also thus rebutted. One may or may not find this argument convincing, but I don't understand why it is irrelevant. CIreland (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how WP editors are quick to ridicule any outside journalist who criticizes Wikipedia, but any outside article that finds that it likes something about WP is held in high esteem. Anyway, would the arbitrators like some evidence of editors who have exhibited good behavior, i.e. have made notable efforts to compromise and find a middle ground? Granted, there aren't too many who are involved in this article but there probably are a few. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the BBC: "there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Wikipedia, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity". I've contented the article is factually correct, but presents the material with inappropriate objectivity as maintained by a few editors in ownership. As such, what the BBC says doesn't say anything about the underlying behavior dispute. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of WP:OWN are inherently flawed, Masem. You are conflating preventing violations of BLP and NPOV and such from a vocal group of editors with ownership which is entirely out of the question. There's been little to nothing ever proposed by any number of Gamergate advocate editors to improve the article and it's all been complaints that it's biased against the Gamergate movement, when that is what every source out there other than the handful of Gamergate advocacy sources say. Sources full of polemic statements that violate BLP. Saying that editors are owning the article when it is to prevent the same attacks from being perpetuated on Wikipedia is laughable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have contended in the past that the article does not accurately represent the sources, and will continue to do so (WRT some aspects) in evidence to follow. This is important to the case and not simply a matter of content, because I intend to show that a BLP-violating narrative has thus been spun against Eron Gjoni. Anyway, making a (reasonably detailed) complaint that the article is biased absolutely is "proposing to improve the article", by removing or rewriting the biased wording. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so intent on saying he has been maligned in the article?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Why shouldn't I say it? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is only you saying it when everyone else is calling it unfounded or evidently not there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I find it at least interesting that the BBC's praise is being used to defend the article content, when two articles from the BBC are currently used to source a combined 14 assertions on the main Gamergate article. Is there not some kind of conflict of interest there, on the BBC's part at least? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can add here is, whether it remains submitted as evidence or not, I cannot foresee any circumstance in which the committee would consider it useful evidence that informs a final decision. However, there seems to be plenty of other submissions for which I could say the same of at least parts of them.

And that's the whole point, we've got two dozen plus users submitting mountains of evidence, to the point where we are probably going to double the normal limits. In order to even determine if it is useful or not we are obligated to review it all and we want this case to move forward as quickly as possible so I have been trying to discourage people from submitting unhelpful material but it has been somewhat of an uphill battle. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you want to take the opposite tack, then, and make people be more succinct in their filings? Why do you wanna read twice as much from all of us? :) Tarc (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I just noticed that you've redacted BLP content from NBSB's evidence statement. It occurs to me that in my own evidence, explaining the BLP violations I perceive sometimes requires a bit of effort, and it's particularly difficult to do this without direct quoting from the linked diffs in places. Guidance is appreciated. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, personal attacks and comments that are likely to cause distress to real people should be avoided, and should be redacted where present. It's a fine line to tread, I know. I won't RevDel anything unless it's absolutely disgusting, so anything I redact will still be in the history for others to review. We should probably courtesy blank the page once the case is over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case is so big, it could effect future cases though, so it's not an easy choice HalfHat 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As GorillaWarfare is recused on this case, I understand there is a limited mailing list being used for private discussion of this case. Is there a way to contact this list using the "email user" function as there is with the regular ArbCom mailing list? There appear to be a few sensitive matters that I would need to discuss privately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we use a secondary list or not depends on the reasons for recusal. For example, on the Nightscream case I was actually the filing party and therefore directly involved in the case so it was obviously not appropriate for me to be privy to those discussions. GorillaWarfare is recused in this case, but she is not an active participant in the case itself so far as I am aware, so you may contact the main arbcom list with any material that is sensitive. If for some reason you specifically object to her in particular being able to see it you may contact me or any of the the other drafters directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate:@GorillaWarfare:@Beeblebrox:My understanding is that GorillaWarfare is not recused on this case. She was, but changed status. GW, please clarify if I misunderstood. Obviously, no need for a secondary list if she is not recused.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is User:TranquilityRested, is he really an alt of User:Ryulong, and why is he editing the case pages when Ryulong is capable of doing so? And why is his user name similar to the blocked User:CensoredScribe sock User:Tranquility of Soul and a fake sock account made by another master to look like CS User:TranquilityResides? KonveyorBelt 17:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no alternate accounts. It is indeed someone's sock puppet but I honestly cannot remember who the hell it should be. Probably Wiki-star—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment I have blocked the account as an impersonation of you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely Wiki-star aka Dragonron. I'll file a check user when I get my notebook on because I have to go digging around for the actual case/sock master. Also, can we please semi protect the case page at this point? The only person it might affect is the IP editor but why is he being allowed to make such massive statements anyway? He is clearly someone heavily involved in this real world dispute rather than a concerned anonymous editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened this SPI for an editor that looked suspicious, and I think this all might be related? I see you've tagged Im back my frend! as a possible sock of Dragonron. — Strongjam (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is Dragonron and not "Im back my frend!".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies, Beeblebrox, and David Fuchs: I'll leave the decision over Ryulong's request to y'all, since the semi-protection might prevent sockpuppetry like this but would shut out the aforementioned IP user. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this certainly is an interesting development. I've honestly been going back and forth in my head on the issue of making an account. I somehow doubt that doing so would relieve Ryulong's concerns, but I assure everyone that I am not heavily involved in this real world dispute - I'm not even really clear on what "real world" means in this context (sending emails to advertisers?). Certainly I have formed an opinion (who hasn't?), but my involvement elsewhere has been much as it is here: attempting to legitimize that opinion. I have made no edits to the GG article, even when it was not semi-protected, and my edits elsewhere have been quite minor and not intended to alter expressed viewpoints.

If Arbcom requires it for my continued participation, I would be willing to create an account for the proceedings, verify that it's mine using a committed hash, and retitle my evidence section. In exchange, I would humbly request that I be added as a party to the dispute (I think my involvement has been adequately demonstrated by now, if only by the fact that Ryulong seems to object so strongly to my participation while nobody else seems to have a problem with it, except perhaps NorthBySouthBaranof), and for an end to all the various and sundry accusations of bad faith. It's especially frustrating to be told, in turns, that I don't know enough about WP policy and that I know too much about it. The reality is that I have been picking it up on the fly, and I'm a fairly quick learner.

As for my "massive" statements, I assure everyone that I have every intention of getting them within mandated limits by the end of the evidence period, and the log shows that I have already made several efforts at trimming. Just as I believe to be the case for all the other editors whose statements are currently on the long side. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with your participation. We disagree in a lot of places, but you've demonstrated good faith and that's all that matters in terms of participating here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Given that it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted, would it be a good idea to send out talk page reminders to parties who haven't submitted evidence yet? Also, have the proposed evidence length extensions been decided upon? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that the list of parties probably also ought to include those who have submitted evidence (and were also on the original list). Otherwise, the net effect is to penalize editors (by restricting their evidence sections to the "non-party" limit) because they haven't been accused of any wrong-doing, which seems wrong. But I see no reason to keep names on the list that haven't come up at all in the proceedings. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something's going out just as soon as a clerk is available. On your other point, being a party doesn't penalise anyone; it is a merely a formal way of telling them to watchlist the case pages and keep an eye on, and be ready to respond to, what (if anything) happens.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the extreme number of listed parties an issue that was sought to be addressed by the committee before the case was opened?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that extreme. We've had more. It just means the case won't be over particularly quickly. In any case you can't make an informed decision about parties until you've had a chance to go through the evidence (or lack of it).  Roger Davies ^talk 10:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again wasn't an expedited case what was desired?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we certainly will expedite it,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was misunderstood on the second point - what I'm saying is that being removed from the party list penalizes someone who has contributed, in that they don't get as much space to contribute. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more reading, particularly of previous Arbcom cases, it appears I've misunderstood the significance of being listed as a "party" to the dispute. Never mind the second point, then. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of parties, could we please add Xander756 to the party list? I believe evidence should be submitted against him (and may do myself if nobody else does) with a view to him being the subject of FoFs and remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xander756 is banned past the due date for the evidence. He should be able to defend himself if evidence should be used against him Avono (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He could present evidence by emailing it to a sympathetic editor or to to ArbCom. I would suggest copying it over from his talk page, but his access to that page was revoked because he used it for personal attacks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Will send him an email telling him to send his evidence to arbcom when he is added as a party. Avono (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to go via the Special:EmailUser function,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the clerks to add Xander756 pro tem. If nothing is posted in the meantime, he can come off the list at the review of the parties.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was banned through a peripheral dispute. Why should he be listed as a party now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because wasn't given a full ban block. Anita Sarkeesian is also under GG Sanctions. Avono (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was an indefinite ban but only a 2 week block or whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my evidence regarding a few of those against whom evidence has not been presented today I think after trimming my section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to contain diffs, and not just unsupported accusations. For example, the evidence against me contains an accusation, but no actual evidence. If the idea is you are saying that it's ok to link to an external website that in turn links to unacceptable sites, then you should explain that's your interpretation of policy. Also, you mention the block and the block reason, but it's unclear why. Are you saying it was a bad block? Again, evidence is required. As things stand, there isn't sufficient detail for a rebuttal. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This evidence I take as a direct personal attack unsubstantiated by the evidence/diff given, along the same lines that User:MarkBernstein had claimed against me here [4] which led to his indef ban on WP, and well beyond necessary to provide evidence. What would be the proper steps to address this. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""There is a necessary distinction, however, when it comes to the typical 4-chan mindset, and why we should be clear. Communities like that are aware of the cruelty of the physical action, but their online culture of anonymonity and separate from any victims, as described by many social reports on GG and the Internet in general, give them little idea of the consequences and repercussions of the use of "rape jokes" and the like particularly to those the target of those jokes. They don't see that being an issue (at least, until moderation steps in as was for the given 4chan image with the given color scheme" is a clear assertion that we should "understand" the 4chan "rape jokes". , and we have to be careful with the wording to avoid implicating something following those statement and following your assertion that a static image cannot depict "rape"[5] and evidence that it can and a request to clarify is a clear assertion that we should not treat a 4chan "rape joke" as a "rape joke" because , well you know, 4chan. If you meant something else, please explain more clearly here and I will strike. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime we have to discuss details that are squimish as to resolve an encyclopedic conflict. To resolve the edit war that no one else was taking an initiative to start a discussion on, I started the threat and explains how to describe the joke in an encyclopedia article so that we would not pass any judgement on that. I never said we has to "play along" with the joke, simply to understand it's origins as documented as to disengage the edit war and write something about it. And the "Thanks, doc" is clearly a sarcastic addition that was not needed, making you appear to imply that support the 4chan's use of their rape joke, which I never said, only trying to objectively identify the issue of the joke in light of the sources given. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind the issue over what I said was already discussed in the GG/GS page, and while I accept a trout that was issued for one aspect (about trying to clarify BLP issues a bit clunkly), there was no action over this part. So that issue was already resolved. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this is even worse. I never said anything along those lines, and you are purposely twisting my words in a very negative manner. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I was indefinitely topic-banned from GamerGate broadly construed, not WP. I have, rather, ceased to contribute to or support Wikipedia because no one should condone or countenance the blatant victim-shaming and rape apology epitomized by the excerpts above and by others I discussed at [[6]]. The quotations speak for themselves, as does MASEM's continued eagerness to find a construction, however far-fetched, in which he can excuse the so-called rape "joke" despite the unanimous agreement of the sources.

I regret that Masem felt the need to drag me into this again in order to make some sort of point, especially as this point will not reflect favorably on Wikipedia. It's difficult to denounce one editor's indefensible opinions, repeated and edit-warred indefinitely, without its being construed as a personal attack -- especially when those opinions consistently lend sympathy and support to those who threaten to assault, murder, and rape blameless professionals because they are women. That this is the most appropriate characterization of Gamergate is the overwhelming consensus of the most reliable sources; Masem and others continue to seek alternative characterizations somewhere -- anywhere -- and (as here and in the disgusting, hatted contribution below) to assert such characterizations in the absence of sources because, well, ethics!

Please note, also, that this debacle is spreading rapidly through the encyclopedia; see particularly the effective deployment of GamerGate off-wiki to induce Jimmy Wales to rescue Cultural Marxism, a content fork of a conspiracy theory that treats the fringe theory as true.

I had not intended to submit evidence here, as I can no longer support the project. However, if it is necessary for me to do so as a formality to justify this informal lament, I shall. I await advice on whether this is required from competent representatives of Arb Com, who in any case have my email address in evidence necessarily submitted off-wiki. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again MarkBernstein has made unfounded accusations of canvassing towards another editor [7] Avono (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Avono: The edit you link does not show any accusations by Mark. Further, it's already been established that there's a lot of off-wiki coordination occurring. That is not a stretch. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are reading what I said in that discussion in a completely wrong, emotionally-attached way. There was an edit war going on of whether to call the 4chan image that is claimed to have inspired the color choices of the GG logo/image as "rape" or "sodomy" (I was not involved in this editing). No one was discussing it, there was some claim I think at an ANI post that there was consensus for something but I never saw it, so I opened a discussion to discuss objectively how to resolve the nature of the image within the sources in a completely detacted manner. That doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I support the "rape joke" culture of 4chan like people are insisting; the thing is - that rather unkind culture exists, we cannot bury our heads about it, and we have to be accurate in a neutral position in discussing the nature of the image on the article even if you morally object to the image. That is how I attempted to present my arguments in the discussion, not in any way in a manner that WP is supporting 4chan's culture, but only documenting it. We are neither sympathetic or judgemental, and I am getting tired of taking crap for trying to resolve an edit war over something that is morally questionable and having my words taken out of context to say I am a "rape apologist". --MASEM (t) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see particularly the effective deployment of GamerGate off-wiki to induce Jimmy Wales to rescue Cultural Marxism Is an unfounded accusations until links providing these coordinations are provided, off wiki discussions dont count, there have to be links substantial showing that editors are coordinating off wiki. The diff I provided shows Wales saying he contested the move on his own regard Avono (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation, yes. Personal attack? No. No names have been specified. Users are allowed to state conspiracy theories if they wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: was named. WP:WIAPA states Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Saying that Jimbo Wales was influenced by an outside group is a serious Accusation when done without evidence. Avono (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(4th consecutive edit conflict-- good grief!) That Jimmy Wales claims to be unaware of canvassing is not evidence of whether canvassing exists or not. The simultaneous appearance of numerous zombie and SPA accounts on the page might be evidence. The existence of extensive off-wiki canvassing, as reported by experienced and respected editors, probably does constitute evidence. However, in my remarks here, I did not suggest that this particular editor, or that Avono, took part of that effort. Rather, GamerGate's coordinated activities -- activities which have been abundantly well documented -- are now spreading to infect parts of the encyclopedia which, though contentious, do not appear to involve either video games or the sex lives of independent software developers and game critics. That development is likely of interest to people who still hope to salvage the project, and as I have no ill-will for those people, I believe their attention might reasonably be directed to those quarters. If you must have links, see [[8]] or Google "Cultural Marxism Restored" or just browse 8chan or KotakuInAction.

This matter, though alarming for the future of the project (if it has one), is largely irrelevant to the issue raised above. If Avono wishes to pursue this question, he or she might start a new section, and perhaps ping RGloucester and other editors who have followed Cultural Marxism and its discontents. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided does not make any mention of "hay edit this page for me!". Off Site Discussion != off site canvassing since no one is apparently complaining about http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/ Avono (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Email and tweet Jimmy Wales, make your voices heard...A list of journos who might be interested in picking up the story: [redacted]" [9]. Fish in a barrel. Are we done now, Avono? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing WP:CAN, as it has not been linked to editors. Also Mark for someone who spends half of every other edit talking about how they no longer contribute to Wikipedia, you sure do spend an awful lot of time contributing to Wikipedia. Weedwacker (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, I responded here to a personal attack which happened to be false. Previous edits since my resignation have been (a) a note of sympathy to another discouraged editor, three days ago, and (b) a response to a question on my talk page, the day my final post. I believe my final post to article space was 22 November. You remember 22 November: that was the day when, after an eight year hiatus from Wikipedia, interrupted by one-day of editing on hip-hop, you returned to being editing the Wikipedia article about 8chan and then to engage in a very great deal of work on this arbitration case. WP:NOTHERE is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, there's no need for personal attacks on a subject about them. Weedwacker (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose for a moment that we could establish unambiguously and without disagreement that it's "a rape joke". Then what? It's clearly also an in-joke; the reference is obscure even to people within the culture. In fact, from what I can make of it, the entire point of the "meme" is to make references to the original GIF be as obscure as possible. Is that really supposed to "trigger" people or something? It honestly looks to me more like a sign of not taking things seriously. It certainly can't reasonably be described as "misogynistic" because, in the original gif people are talking about, both parties are male cartoon characters.

But I really don't see how we can call it "a rape joke" in Wikipedia's voice. The two IMO-not-very-reliable sources - one of which is essentially just quoting the other - get the "rape" wording from Twitter and Tumblr commentary by people like David Futrelle, who apparently feels entitled to assign a "manic pixel [sic] dream girl" personality to Vivian James based on absolutely nothing and in contradiction to the explicit personality description "Low-affect, grumpy, perpetually fed up and tired" given to TFYC and evident in the body of fanart. In the one place where the actual GIF is described, the term "sodomizing" is used, because that's what's depicted. There's no reasonable way to argue for non-consent between cartoon characters in an animated GIF - as commenters on the Fast Company Design article pointed out.

In short, I perceive the whole thing as a WP:COATRACK smear campaign. There's no reason to mention it except to allege things that are obviously not true.

BTW, regarding that "Thanks, Doc!" line - "I see what you did there". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above by 76.64.35.209 were previously hatted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and then un-hatted by an account with no previous edits, which challenged whether TRPoD had standing to hat. I have no idea whether or not TRPoD ought to have hatted or ought not to have hatted, but someone might want to hat it before it further embarrasses the project (no longer my concern, I admit, but still) and because TRPoD had a point: this isn't the place for content disputes. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED nuff said, have you seen the mohammed image jet? Avono (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is referring to the assertion that the purle/green discussion embarrasses this project Avono (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{Just throwing in my 2cents, see WP:TROJAN which seems to be happening with the purple/green. Retartist (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

(e/c) Not an issue of censorship at all, (and claiming such nonsense is pushing the disruption line) its an issue of FORUM - claims about presenting and analysing content in Wikipedia's voice have Zero place on talk page of an Arbcom page. If you want to further demonstrate that you are just here for the disruption, go ahead. But the Arb Com has made several comments about such actions not being taken lightly and you can push for such disruption at your own will but this section was already headed that direction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen, are you an ArbCom clerk on this case? Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you wish to engage in debating the wording and content of the article here, that is your choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You objected to Masem's approach to the disputed content. I clearly explained why I feel you're expecting something unreasonable of Masem. Simple as that. From my perspective, you're the one trying to argue in favour of the material. This is an important issue because the dispute over this content clearly has led to disruption in the past, to the point that we actually have discussions about sending rape imagery to women who are receiving threats (how, exactly - by using Vivian as a Twitter avatar? I never understood exactly what the logic was here) and accusing editors of apologizing for that behaviour. Arguments about the content are a necessary underpinning for arguments about how editors have conducted themselves WRT that content, if only to demonstrate the absurdity of the motivation for their actions. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Exactly what do you find "disgusting" about my contribution? I am making factual observations based primarily on the sources used for the article. Do you disagree that both Piccolo and Vegeta are male? Do you disagree that the sources are only sharing opinions about what is depicted in the GIF? Is there a specific aspect of the GIF that leads you to conclude non-consent?

And suppose that we agree that canvassing is going on; in the absence of evidence connecting it to one or more specific editors, exactly what do you expect Arbcom to do about it? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that there was a push for this case to be expedited due to the topic and now all of the evidence and workshop stuff has been pushed back a week? What's up with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's being expedited. We still have a responsibility to examine the dispute thoroughly.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have my evidence posted today or tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were never a party or an uninvolved person when the case was opened. You specifically opened up your evidence section as a means to allow The Devil's Advocate to post more than was necessary as already discussed on this page. Why are you being allowed to present anything now when it's just a means to break the rules of this page again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Please handle this considering we've already been through a half a week of discussion on Cla68 intending to disrupt these proceedings with his original "evidence" section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will second this as Cla68 should not be suggesting taking evidence from other users and allowing it to be placed in their section as their words. I feel it would be tantamount to allowing users to exceed their allotted space without discussion through an arbitrator. @Ryulong: To answer your original question, I would assume it is to give everyone enough time to adjust their sections for the increased limits and so that everyone has adequate time to attempt to do so if they should want to. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 is not going to just re-post evidence I have already presented. I suggested he could present evidence regarding the history of one of the admin parties and he has plenty of his own evidence to present on that front.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: According to what I have read, "Because TheDevil'sAdvocate's(sic) evidence exceeds the size limit, I've given him permission to post some of his evidence in my section." That implies that Cla68 was originally planning on allowing another user, yourself in this case, to take evidence directly off of your section and load it into their section without a discussion by an arbitrator. There are reasons for these restrictions and Cla68 has shown intent to ignore them. At the moment, I believe the best solution is at least a talk with an arbitrator about why this should not be suggested for the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing that, however. He can do whatever he likes with his evidence section, but as far as I know he is going to be presenting his own evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you have done nothing from what I have seen and they can post what they want to. However, I am not sure if the evidence presented by Cla68 will be their own. Especially since you seem to believe that they might also re-post evidence already presented in addition to what evidence they have. @Cla68: Since I have not asked yet, will you at least reassure me that you were not serious or at least that you will not take any action to submit evidence from others in the manner that is being discussed? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this bickering. If there is important evidence we want to see it. If there is unimportant evidence don't waste your time or ours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my evidence section. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the spirit of the above conversation, which I found to be unintentionally hilarious, I'm not claiming that the evidence in my evidence section is "my" evidence. I'm generously donating that evidence to the community. It belongs to everyone! You're welcome. LOL. Cla68 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: I do not see much where it is funny, but I digress. My issue is that it appeared that you were acting outside of the established guidelines. I hope that I can take it that you claim that the evidence presented is at least in your words, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could entertain myself by keeping this discussion going for awhile longer, but I know by experience that if one messes around too much on the ArbCom case pages, the Members and clerks may start to get a little tired of it. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain has provided a large amount of evidence against me regarding the Sarkeesian article. I am already slightly over the expanded limits and while I am intending to trim things down some more to make room for additional evidence, addressing this evidence would probably not be possible. Most of the discussions detailed are not directly related to GamerGate. So I am wondering if Arbs think I need to address all of that and if I should get an extension as a result.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeze, dude. Reading through it- I think you've posted enough evidence! AFAIK the new limits are a lot stricter, too, given that they've doubled (?) the standard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this affects the case in any way, but there appears to be an effort to remove certain editors from Wikipedia in order to push a POV. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That actually started and was mentioned on-wiki soon after the request was filed. As far as I can tell, it has had no discernible effect on the proceedings, except to serve as some sort of boogeyman to feed people's paranoia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't worry about it. SPAs and trolls are found quickly enough. Paranoia? Don't be silly. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Feed the Trolls Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can link this to specific editors this is pointless, in any case said operation only seemed to revolve around looking at people's contributions, the same thing everyone here did. Loganmac (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: I'm mainly bringing this up because i'm genuinely curious what evidence your investigation uncovered to formulate this statement: "The Vivian James cartoon, On the surface, the cartoon seems harmless; but investigation finds that the drawing was created as an attack on Zoe Quinn." [10] Or an explanation on how colors are associated with rape?: "The image has visual elements that are degrading, including colors and patterns referencing rape (Quinn has been subjects to numerous threats of rape)." This seems rather silly to me, I don't think I've ever seen genuine evidence backing up these claims. Weedwacker (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have this discussion have it somewhere else. Like somewhere not on Wikipedia at all. Whatever the character is or is intended to be is not pertinent to this case, whose purpose is to review the behavior of Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, this does concern the behavior of Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia. This cartoon image has been reasoned as being a BLP violation and attempts have been made to remove it, and i'd like to know how a cartoon not representing a real person can be considered a violation of BLP because of it's association with a poisoned well. Weedwacker (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way: unless there is evidence that someone acting in their capacity as a Wikipedia editor created that image specifically to be some sort of rape joke/attack image here on Wikipedia, it is not going to be relevant to this case. I haven't done a thorough analysis yet but I am guessing there is no evidence that is the case so it's not going to be considered relevant to the eventual decision. So less of a poisoned well and more the fruit of the poisoned tree.

To put it yet another way: this is, at its core, a content issue and therefore not really something ArbCom is going to rule on regardless of what answer TDA may have to give to your query. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the clarification, you can feel free to hat this. Weedwacker (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Dreadstar seems to be engaging in a bit of revisionist history. His phrasing of "I deleted then supported deletion because it was a BLP violation" is implying that he deleted the image because it was a BLP violation, when the deletion rationale he cited was "unambiguous copyright violation", which does not apply to reasonable claims of fair use. When I pressed him on that front, he tried to argue that the caption for the Vivian James image was the basis for the fair use claim. After I pointed out that there was an entire paragraph of criticism serving as a basis for the claim he cited the F7 rationale. Only after the NFCR was opened did he start trotting out the BLP claim as a cause for deletion. It was all an attempt to cover for a bad deletion. Should Dreadstar want to claim BLP to retroactively support his original action then he should give a decent explanation for how it is a BLP issue. As far as I can tell, his claims about the image are not supported by any reliable source.

Mind you, the fair use thing is just a technicality. I seriously doubt any of the people on 4chan who were responsible for creating the character have any interest in claiming copyright on it and TFYC considers the character to be public domain. Only reason for claiming it as fair use is because the image was not formally released into the public domain by those who created it and thus cannot be legally considered public domain.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you treat WP:COPYRIGHT as fecklessly as you treat WP:BLP? given that they are the only 2 cited exceptions to 3RR, i have to say, that gives me pause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't treat either policy fecklessly. Like many people, I think copyright laws can be pretty absurd at times.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" I seriously doubt any of the people on 4chan who were responsible for creating the character have any interest in claiming copyright on it" is in fact treating COPYRIGHT fecklessly as COPYRIGHT requires actual verified release of copyright and not your assertions that the copyright holders probably dont care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I uploaded it as fair use. I thus freely acknowledge that it was not formally released on a free license or formally released into the public domain. My point is more that we are probably the only ones who actually care about the copyright status of Vivian James.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to allow this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are Questioning his identity @FredrickBrennan: should forward his reply to arbcom-l (at) lists.wikimedia.org from the 8chan domain or either make a statement from his website. Avono (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible I did not understand LoganMac's request, maybe he wanted me to make my own section. Blame him and not me, he did ask me to add to the page though. I can confirm my identity rather easily though:

service@8chan-sql:/srv/http$ echo yes ryuulong i own User:FredrickBrennan>wiki.txt

https://8chan.co/wiki.txt I would make the joke that you do it for free like the 4chan janitors but you accepted $370 :^) FredrickBrennan (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am questioning why he should be allowed to participate in the 11th hour and in someone else' section at that. It just seems to be some sort of means of cutting the Gordian knot of my edits to the latest article to be complained about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hotwheelzchan should not be posting such things in Logan's evidence section. Though, I suppose it makes sense given Ryulong's questionable editing of his BLP that Monsieur Wheelz would make a comment about the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the case but is instead to do with the article. If he wants to clarify something about the article the talk page is where that goes. This proceeding is not for every single external party to have their go at turning this into a kangaroo court.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should he be allowed to make the same personal attacks in this very thread some IP address got censured at ANI for doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he's got evidence related to the case, that's valid evidence. The Arb's I don't think mind who's it coming from, as long as it's evidence that can be adequately construed to be relevant. A blog post by someone claiming to be Ryulong I don't believe would be allowed. But he just came here to confirm that another user contacted him about an issue. I believe that's perfectly fine. But uh, Wikipedia is a more collegial atmosphere and I do think that he should refrain from making innuendo or inside jokes on the talk page. Other than that, he's free to contribute. Tutelary (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's only here because Logan Mac emailed him to super vote in a stupid content dispute over how to describe criticism of him in his biography but for some reason decided to tell him to post here instead of the talk page. The evidence is supposed to close today and his edit doesn't add anything other than play into making the content dispute bigger than it needs to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "super vote"? Fredrick Brennan (ayy lmao) 11:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fredrick. What do you think of how your bio article (BLP) is being treated? Wikipedia has a troubled history with its BLP subjects. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I view Wikipedia as the bureaucratic capital of the internet. I mean, I pretty much knew that my edit was wrong (I did not, however, think that Ryulong would show up so quickly and get so mad over it) because it's almost impossible to make correct edits to pages in the Wikipedia namespace unless you read a ten page manual. I totally understand what's going on with my article, and I think I even get Wikipedia's source policies (we can only paraphrase what's in the sources, it doesn't matter if the sources are biased in certain instances so long as they are generally trustworthy) and think that there is probably no better way to do things. I'm just helping a Wikipedia editor who also requested I upload a free photo, which I did. So long as the article is not full of crap sourced on someone's Tumblr (just as an example) and sticks to the sources, there's nothing else you can really do in terms of neutrality. It's also pretty amusing to me that Wikipedia editors are duking it out over an irrelevant cripple who runs an imageboard, so there's that. Fredrick Brennan (ayy lmao) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You on a boat.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His presence here also leads me to believe I am probably being heavily investigated in his website, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, have you taken any actions on his BLP which could be considered as negative, attacking, or pejorative? If so, do you feel that the target of those actions should be allowed to come here and confront you about it? Or, should editors who edit BLPs be shielded from answering to the people whose BLPs they have edited? Cla68 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote nothing that wasn't in sources already on the article for it to matter. People were arguing with me over the inclusion of a mention of Gamergate in the lede and wording of criticism of his website and his stance on it. Also this should not be allowed. We do not need to be making this a massive circus where everyone in his chat room shows up to disrupt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another instance of Ryulong biting noobs WP:BITE, you should have waited for a clerk to revert it and move on. I didn't ask Brennan to "supor-vote" anything that's your own made up fiction, I explicitely asked him to provide a photo since it was already another user's idea, while doing so he could clarify that his site doesn't allow pedophilia, which is a serious accusation. It wasn't Brennan's idea neither like Quinn asked her picture to be changed because she didn't like it, and was replaced by a cellphone pic instead a professional looking picture at a gaming event for what she's known for. It was several editor's approach, he took like a week to reply and didn't seem that interested, I had already given up. Also lol I didn't ask where to post it, you really think I asked to disrupt the ArbCom and my evidence just to piss you off, where's your source on that? Loganmac (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could point out though that reliable sources (#GamerGate's multifaceted 8chan problem, 8chan, the central hive of Gamergate, is also an active pedophile network) seem to hold a point-of-view opposite to that of the website owner. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to accuse a living person of running a pedophile network based on a DAILYDOT article? In any case my problem with the article was the wording, "pedophilia-related boards" reads like there's boards that allow pedophilia, which is tendetious, it should be "discussion of..." like it was on the 8chan article, which does a good job of presenting the matter "Boards have been created to discuss controversial topics, among those pedophilia, though the sharing of sexually explicit photos of minors is against site rules" Loganmac (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the fuck did Daily Kos become a reliable source?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manners, TDA. I see no direct discussion of the Dailykos in the RSN archives, and note that it is quite extensively-used in article-space at this time. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of what normally are okay reliable sources like Daily Dot or DailyKos in other non-controversial articles is fine, but we have a controversial topic and we should avoid sources that are not the most reliable or more expert in this article, as we have discussed before on the talk page. Particularly when it comes to claiming a whole group - even if no specific person is named - as having a highly negative and potentially criminal interest (as per the previous BLP Discussion) from a weak source like that. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, man, stop enabling these people. Daily Kos is a shit source. It is to The Huffington Post what Destructoid is to Kotaku. Individual posts could be used as sources of opinion provided the author is somehow qualified as a commentator or as primary sources when it is published by the subject, but otherwise it is worthless. That someone who advertises himself as a defender of BLPs would suggest using a pseudonymous self-published Daily Kos blog post to make incendiary attacks against a living person says all you need to know about the nature of his convictions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with you, that for the GG article, DailyKos should be avoided as a weak reliable source. If we were taking a article with no controversy, like say, some discussion about a video game, it's not a great source but can be used in the lack of others, as long as we are avoiding any BLP issues related to that. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone here needs a cup of WP:TEA. I'm not proposing it for inclusion in any article, I was just rebutting Mr. Loganmac, whose source has obvious primary & conflict-of-interest issues, to demonstrate that some in the media see this website in another light. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, yeah, would it be possible for me to get a 25% boost to my evidence limits (2,500 words and 250 diffs). There are several important issues still in need of being addressed and it does look like I will have a hard time getting it all in there without some allowance to go over the current limit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 11:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've had a week of extra time to do this and it's now a new issue?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually floated the idea above under the "Cuchullain's evidence" section about a week ago, but got no response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 11:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't discussed this with the other drafters, but my feeling is that the answer is going to be no. We've already doubled the limits, and with so many participants submitting evidence there is an incredible amount of material that needs to be analyzed. If this case is going to move forward at even a close approximation of the set schedule we have to stop granting more exemptions and extensions. Maybe you could trim some of the other stuff if you need to squeeze more in, but I would also remind everyone that this phase is scheduled to close today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a comment and why I've been avoiding any of this myself - there is a LOT of people bringing up accusations directly related to the discussions of the ArbCom case, and when these come up, those accused or that feel they need to respond will respond, and cause those that made the initial accusation to add more further, making it a cycle. While certain events likely have happened between the onset of the case (that is, when the evidence page was opened) and now, I would think that we should be cautioning editors from getting into these petty squables on the evidence page as to reduce the need for people to keep adding more. The case should be resting on what happened before arbcom took it up, not since. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, an expansion of just 250 words might be enough for me to cover the main issues I still wanted to cover with a little extra trimming. I have not addressed the situation with Gorman (several have raised it against me by contrast), Tarc's edits, or the creation of the enforcement page. All of these are vital in their own way.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • TDA, despite the 8channers fantastical inclusion of me as one of the fabled "horsemen", I have on the balance of it all had not a lot of actual input into the topic area, and what evidence there is on the page now by some of the SPAs is the epitome of ticky-tacky nitpicks. I've already had 3 SPAs lie about what this comment actually means, for starters. It's tiring, and I'd rather not have to refute yet another pile of tiring nothings. Save some of your proposed +250 for someone else, if you would. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be so modest. You've played a big part in this dispute. At any rate, perhaps I will just go ahead and add the evidence against you, at least. I should be able to make room for that much.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've kept BLP-violating material pout of the article, single-purpose-accounts at bay, and am primarily responsible for stopping the abuse and misuse of the NPOV template in article-space. I stand behind every GG-related action taken, so, have at it, but you're wasting your time. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, as you wish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• TDA, once you've finished trimming your section, I will look at the evidence you trimmed and see if I want to add it to my section, because I think I still have some space. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beeblebrox: This is the kind of shit that should not be allowed. Cla68 is once again proclaiming that he will not be adding his own evidence but allowing other people to store evidence in his relatively empty section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I'm willing to post anyone's evidence in my section for a small remittance, let's say, $370? Righteous bucks. No, let's make that $371. I'm a little more expensive. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just went ahead and added pretty much what was left of the evidence I felt was necessary to present. Seems to be just under my requested limit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely done. Please let any people I named to respond even though the deadline just passed. I ain't no dick.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through an Twitter-notice I got redacted to first KiA on Reddit and then here. So... it finally is taken a bit more serious.
My thoughts here (while I could bring a few minor points I notice a couple of them already are adressed by others - and other points are buried between that much old posts and archives, I'm not even sure I can find them back).
1) The article always has been one utter mess with a lot of RSes which are biased and/or ill informed. The information stream started to become bigger when the 'Gamers are dead articles' hit on Gamasutra, Kotaku, IGN etc - and any information afterward in those weeks was posted by those same magazines, which have and had an vested interest in painting 'GamerGate' as an misogynistic movement. The few mass media who checked up on GamerGate, just about straight copied&pasted from the gaming media or had articles written by those who were also responsible partially at least for writing the gaming media articles. Only in-depth look that is used as a continuous RS (and which is still being disputed at times if I notice the edit page) is Forbes in the person of Erik Kain. In the meanwhile Breitbart is blocked as an RS, and while I readily admit they're likely doing it for the clicks and for political warfare and have made... strange... articles in the past, it's as reliable as e.g. Gawker and other quoted media.
2) For some odd reason despite as far as I am aware repeated requests to the admin board to take a closer look at what can be considered an RS while in the case the media themselves are under scrutiny, I've never heard about feedback from the admins. Nor an explanation why any reaction is not given.
3) Several mistakes are made by allowing long-term contributors to use the terms 'SPA', 'troll' etc way too easily. I won't name names here for the sake of this topic, but 'Don't bite the newbie' (what was the WP: code for it again?) was way too loosely enforced - if at all. Plenty of people have been flamed and driven away.
4) Original alignment of Portal:Feminism with the page. It allowed an torrent of controversial edits from an portal that has and had nothing to do with the ongoing page.
5) Discutable admin discussions. Several people have been banned after they got flamed, insulted and more by others, and when they reacted angry, they got banned by an certain admin.
6) A lot of flaming, insulting etc has been pushed back and forth between the two 'sides' - only thing I can do is compliment User:Masem as someone neutral during that first 2 months who sought out sources and argued constructively. MicBenSte (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for general discussion of Gamergate, it's for specifically discussing evidence entered into the arbitration case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you did here by trimming parts of the heart of the controversy away you mean? MicBenSte (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I touched upon this in my response to his evidence but it bears repeating. He's using the evidence page to make the same claims he did on Zoe Quinn that got him banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even read any of his submission til now, but seriously? Arbs, TD is essentially re-arguing 3 months worth of Gamergate debate points...there's a paragraph devoted to calling Zoe Quinn's claim of harassment a lie, to undercutting Sarkeesian's claims as well, Gawker losing advertisers, etc... This has nothing to do w/ arbitration. Tarc (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised TD to strike their ill considered statements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more of the same aspersion-casting and suggestive remarks — "a story about a rape was retracted, therefore SJWS ARE ALL LIARS WHO CAN'T BE TRUSTED," "Zoe Quinn has a history of making unverifiable claims therefore she can't be trusted," etc. It's rather exemplary of exactly why that user was topic-banned in the first place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, those of us who volunteered to handle this case did so with the full knowledge that we would be swamped with evidence, and that a lot of it would probably not be anything we could use to formulate a decision. That's exactly why two of the three drafters are outgoing arbs. We will be stepping away from most other arb business in order to give us the time to go through all of this material and find what of it is actually relevant. As of now we have not rescinded any pre-existing topic bans so there shouldn't be any problems out in actual articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue here is that Titanium Dragon is using the evidence stage to say the exact same things he was banned for saying in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, B, it is encouraging. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]