ArbCom said no last week, and the only thing that has changed is we've gained a few more warned editors and one more editor is topic banned. This request is still not ripe for ArbCom manipulation. If ProGG brigade can make a bulletproof case that the rules of Wikipedia are being broken and not being dealt with by the sanctions on the AntiGG brigade, but at current I see only the same tempest in a teapot that we saw last time. Reccomend a speedy decline of this request with a censure of The Devil's Advocate as a participant in the previous request. Hasteur ( talk) 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Addendum I explicitly challenge those who claim that the GS are not working to make a significantly compelling case for the GS to be applied to the editors they feel are suppressing the narrative using actions that are post sanctions being authorized and post these editors being notified. If you can make a compelling argument that an uninvolved Administrator sustains by applying sanctions, you've proven your point. If the administrator declines, take it to AN or ANI to have the community decide. This shrieking that WikiInsiders are using wikiprocess to suppress you only shows your ignorance and externally motivated agenda. Want to defeat these wizards of wiki process? Beat them at their own game by getting an uninvolved administrator (or the community at large by reasoned consens (i.e. not a Mob Vote)) to support your view. Hasteur ( talk) 14:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Halfhat AGF is not a suicide pact. If new editors show themselves in their first edits of appearing to use the same playbook as previously sanctioned and removed editors it is no stretch of the imagination that they are working as an externally coordinated activity. It takes but one notice to arm the GamerGate general sanctions on any editor. In theory by being notified they will behave themselves, but if they don't uninvolved administrators can levy whatever sanctions are necessary to prevent disruption. There is a difference between disagreeing with the opposition and being disruptive. Hasteur ( talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- And so the long con of those endorsing and abetting the fringe viewpoint is being rewarded. By making a hydra like press on any and every avenue of complaint to get the entire community talking about their interpertation of the issue ("It's about ethics") the fringe attracts more attention and disrepute on all parties involved. The living people who are being attacked will permanantly have the stigma of scandal attached to them and the anonymous attackers can jettison the names at will and start fresh. I invite the committee to pass a motion only indicating that the community sanctions are appropriate, that behavior with respect to this subject has been significantly lacking, and that the gloves are coming off with respect to conduct. Hasteur ( talk) 15:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore with the establishment of Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement we have a relatively neutral ground for presenting cases for sanctions being applied much like ArbEnforcement. Of course this pre-suposes that those who are claiming biased enforcement will actually put their money where their mouth is and use the venue to get sanctions applied... Hasteur ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Statements like this are exactly the playbook that the enablers/SPAs/etc are using to discredit and claim that there is an Grade-A EMERGENCY for ArbCom to wade in and force a content decision when it is the conduct of the SPAs deliberately trying to invalidate independent editors from expressing a viewpoint. I was uninvolved in the dispute because I made no edits to the subject area prior to proposing the sanctions, I have been uninvolved in the dispute in suggesting that all the requests to force arbcom to deal with it are forum shopping (as I still haven't edited the affected pages), and I still remain uninvolved because I still have to edit the page. See how nicely that is tied up. Now if Thargor Orlando wanted to actually speak from facts instead of their prejudices they would have seen that RGloucester created the page. But hey because it's GamerGate and it's about ETHICS we can sling whatever accusations we want. The only thing that we are gaining from this is more entrenched positions on both sites. I implore the committee and their clerks to start forcably redacting out of order statements. Hasteur ( talk) 23:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ Carcharoth: I endorse TheRedPenOfDoom's assertion (to this point) as to what has happened since the last case was declined. Somewhere between the last case being declined and now the "advocates for the movement" realized that if they stir up enough drama to get those who are upholding wikipedia policy/practices/standards to be sanctioned/banned/banished they could have free reign on the page and the talk page. The problem with "the encyclopedia anybody can edit" is the minimal level of engagement means the anonymous hordes of advocates can burn as many pseudonyms as they want to get the established editors banned from the space. Hasteur ( talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom said no last week, and the only thing that has changed is we've gained a few more warned editors and one more editor is topic banned. This request is still not ripe for ArbCom manipulation. If ProGG brigade can make a bulletproof case that the rules of Wikipedia are being broken and not being dealt with by the sanctions on the AntiGG brigade, but at current I see only the same tempest in a teapot that we saw last time. Reccomend a speedy decline of this request with a censure of The Devil's Advocate as a participant in the previous request. Hasteur ( talk) 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Addendum I explicitly challenge those who claim that the GS are not working to make a significantly compelling case for the GS to be applied to the editors they feel are suppressing the narrative using actions that are post sanctions being authorized and post these editors being notified. If you can make a compelling argument that an uninvolved Administrator sustains by applying sanctions, you've proven your point. If the administrator declines, take it to AN or ANI to have the community decide. This shrieking that WikiInsiders are using wikiprocess to suppress you only shows your ignorance and externally motivated agenda. Want to defeat these wizards of wiki process? Beat them at their own game by getting an uninvolved administrator (or the community at large by reasoned consens (i.e. not a Mob Vote)) to support your view. Hasteur ( talk) 14:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Halfhat AGF is not a suicide pact. If new editors show themselves in their first edits of appearing to use the same playbook as previously sanctioned and removed editors it is no stretch of the imagination that they are working as an externally coordinated activity. It takes but one notice to arm the GamerGate general sanctions on any editor. In theory by being notified they will behave themselves, but if they don't uninvolved administrators can levy whatever sanctions are necessary to prevent disruption. There is a difference between disagreeing with the opposition and being disruptive. Hasteur ( talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- And so the long con of those endorsing and abetting the fringe viewpoint is being rewarded. By making a hydra like press on any and every avenue of complaint to get the entire community talking about their interpertation of the issue ("It's about ethics") the fringe attracts more attention and disrepute on all parties involved. The living people who are being attacked will permanantly have the stigma of scandal attached to them and the anonymous attackers can jettison the names at will and start fresh. I invite the committee to pass a motion only indicating that the community sanctions are appropriate, that behavior with respect to this subject has been significantly lacking, and that the gloves are coming off with respect to conduct. Hasteur ( talk) 15:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore with the establishment of Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement we have a relatively neutral ground for presenting cases for sanctions being applied much like ArbEnforcement. Of course this pre-suposes that those who are claiming biased enforcement will actually put their money where their mouth is and use the venue to get sanctions applied... Hasteur ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Statements like this are exactly the playbook that the enablers/SPAs/etc are using to discredit and claim that there is an Grade-A EMERGENCY for ArbCom to wade in and force a content decision when it is the conduct of the SPAs deliberately trying to invalidate independent editors from expressing a viewpoint. I was uninvolved in the dispute because I made no edits to the subject area prior to proposing the sanctions, I have been uninvolved in the dispute in suggesting that all the requests to force arbcom to deal with it are forum shopping (as I still haven't edited the affected pages), and I still remain uninvolved because I still have to edit the page. See how nicely that is tied up. Now if Thargor Orlando wanted to actually speak from facts instead of their prejudices they would have seen that RGloucester created the page. But hey because it's GamerGate and it's about ETHICS we can sling whatever accusations we want. The only thing that we are gaining from this is more entrenched positions on both sites. I implore the committee and their clerks to start forcably redacting out of order statements. Hasteur ( talk) 23:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ Carcharoth: I endorse TheRedPenOfDoom's assertion (to this point) as to what has happened since the last case was declined. Somewhere between the last case being declined and now the "advocates for the movement" realized that if they stir up enough drama to get those who are upholding wikipedia policy/practices/standards to be sanctioned/banned/banished they could have free reign on the page and the talk page. The problem with "the encyclopedia anybody can edit" is the minimal level of engagement means the anonymous hordes of advocates can burn as many pseudonyms as they want to get the established editors banned from the space. Hasteur ( talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)