Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate/Archive

Form
Can someone please add an actual form to General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement or at least something that can be copied and pasted? It's too complicated to start a new request. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 18:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very simple. As it says in the instructions, simply copy and paste the plain text, not the code, and then add the appropriate information. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When I preview it, pasting the bare text does not carry over bolding and creates a bunch of indentations, and no numbers.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Shirtstorm
Can someone explain how Shirtstorm is relevant to this? It has nothing to do with video games. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried talking to since they applied the notice?  While I agree that it's not really relevant to the "Video Games and Gender Issues" subject, I can see the 2nd level stretch on how they came to that conclusion.   Using this GS as a lever on that page is a real stretch.  Are you willing to have the GS notice removed from the page since this really doesn't apply, however because the BLP banner is in place, WP:NEWBLPBAN does apply and has the weight of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am willing to have the notice removed, --Retartist (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So enacted. Hasteur (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions log format
Can we please leave the sanctions log in a simple list format, like the way it's done in most Arb enforcement log sections? I find the table format extremely clunky to edit and without any real benefit for the reader either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Where best to request
I don't feel this project page is the best place to request uninvolved admin assistance that EditRequests can't readily cover (eg requesting closing of some talk page threads, or actions of editors that need TROUTing from an uninvolved at best and nowhere close to a full review of actions); is there a good place to include such statements? --M ASEM (t) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The enforcement page is perfectly acceptable for that purpose. If you'll read the top header, it says that one can request administrative action of that sort. In that case, one needn't use the form. There are a good deal of uninvolved administrators watching this page that are familiar with the sanctions. Just start a new section and describe what you want done and why. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

how the {ping|USER} works
In the past few hours there have been a number of mis-uses of the {ping} template on the project page. Pinging does not work unless you add 1) the ping template, 2)the actual username you want to ping AND 3)your signature - IN THE SAME SAVE. Going back to edit a ping template or add one will NOT send a ping unless you re-sign. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers
(sorry if I missed any admins) Does the Christina Hoff Sommers BLP fall within scope of the GG sanctions? Sommers is one of the most vocal supporters of GG. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Since we've already established they extend to people like Brianna Wu, I'm inclined to say yes in this case.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinked article so people can see better Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent closure
recently closed my request against Cla68 because Guerillero had imposed an interaction ban between the two of us. However, this interaction ban apparently only concerns the arbitration case when Cla68's behavior has been outside of that purview (note that the last one is in response to being topic banned). Am I supposed to reopen the request when I did not specify arbitration as the primary issue?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How to get more admins watching this page
It seems all the admins previously watching this page have stopped commenting except Gamaliel. What's the best way to get more watching this page without breaking WP:CANVAS? Would posting a notification on AN be alright? Bosstopher (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, posting to AN would be fine.  I'll do it for you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A proposal exists on Workshop to transfer enforcement requests to WP:AE on the basis that AE has far more eyes. It appears to have attracted arbitrator attention; NewYorkBrad recalled that the Committee did the same in the Global Warming arbitration. If successful, it may also tend to defang the perennial accusations of admin involvement. --TS 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There should probably be a central page for all community-based general sanctions, just as AE handles enforcement of all arbitration remedies rather than there being separate enforcement pages for, say, Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan or Scientology and Climate Change. That would get the attention of more admins. But I'll add this to my watchlist and continue to hope that ArCom get their finger out of their arse sooner rather than later. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests in the Archive
There are two requests still in the archive that haven't been hatted jet. Are they considered closed? Avono (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus language for measure
Following is the community consensus language for the measure on Gamergate general sanctions, from the Administrators Noticeboard:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

This morning, I changed the phrase "pages related to the Gamergate controversy" in this article to the actual language of the measure: "topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed."

Your edit comment when you reverted my edit today was: "language was perfectly clear and appropriate, no need to replace it with officious-sounding garbage like this." You weighed in on this measure when it was proposed, and expressed no difficulty with the language at that time, when it was passed with a 2:1 majority.

I will now change the article back, to reflect the consensus language. If you'd like to change the language to something less officious, please follow the procedure specified by the implementing admin, Jehochman: "Feel free to come back to WP:AN and request that it be removed or changed, based on specific incidents." Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No. I will turn this back to the clear, simple wording it has had ever since this page was created. Your actions here are nothing but senseless, useless trolling, creating disruption for disruption's sake, and I will block you if you continue. Unless, that is, if you could make a sensible argument that the two wordings are actually substantially different in meaning, which, obviously, they are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)a
 * Mr. Perfect, shouldn't you be making the argument that the two DO have a difference in order to change it? If the previous is the wording that was voted on and approved, why should it be changed to something else unless the change makes a material difference. And in that case, shouldn't the change be voted on? Ries42 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current language is easier to understand and has no material difference in meaning, and has been in place for some time without any issues. At this point if an editor has a serious problem with it they should take it to WP:AN instead of edit-warring with an admin over it. — Strongjam (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about to go into WP:LAME and WP:POINT territory. It has served its purpose for several months without problems in its slightly variant and tidier wording, please leave it alone.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I thought changes in language generally had different meanings. My mistake. Ries42 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget about WP:LAME: this exchange is beginning to remind me of the prologue of The Hydrogen Sonata! --TS 00:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take one more stab at this:
 * The two phrases have subtly different meanings. For example, the pages Doxing and World of Warcraft are arguably related to the Gamergate controversy, but they're not within the topic space of the Gamergate controversy -- even broadly construed.
 * The community consensus language from the Administrator Noticeboard uses the phrase "topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed", not "pages related to the Gamergate controversy."
 * Editors may be sanctioned, without warning, based on the language used here. Is it too much to ask that it reflect what was adopted by community consensus? Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me try to clarify things since I created this infernal page after closing the community discussion. Pages "within the topic area" or "pages related to" should mean the same thing. If the Gamergate controversy spreads to a previously uninvolved page like doxing by virtue of topics related to Gamergate being imported there, the sanctions can be employed there.  The community is tired of this conflict and want admins to stamp it out wherever it might appear.  Wiki lawyering about the specific wording of this page is a very bad idea. Jehochman Talk 05:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It didn't occur to me, until just now, that this will shortly (within a couple of days) become a moot issue, as the existing community general sanctions related to this page are going to be replaced by ArbCom imposed general sanctions.


 * Still, as a principle, the issue of concern to me was not whether the wording used here meant the same thing as the wording approved at WP:AN. The issue was community consensus. The community adopted the Gamergate general sanctions using specific language -- and that's the language that should have been used here in the first place. Even if there was a local consensus here to use different language, that wouldn't override global consensus. This is a matter of well-established WP policy. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just stop. As the proposer of the sanctions I can positively assert that the indended scope is The Gamergate controversy article, the BLPs that the supporters feel are supressing their right to enjoy games, the media publications that are reliably connected (i.e. Kotaku, Reddit, 8chan, etc)  to the gamergate dispute. All you're doing is annoying admins and editors prior to the conversion of the community authorized sanctions into ArbCom authorized sanctions.  Please note that ArbCom is effectively elevating ever sanction that is already in place to ArbEnforcement indicates that they found no significant problems with the wording as is.  Furthermore in the 4 months the sanctions have been in place, there's potential for consensus to have changed.  In short: This would be a very poor sword to fall on if you're determined to fall on it. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of pursuing the matter any further. Had it occurred to me earlier that the imminent ArbCom discretionary sanctions would make my concern about the language here moot, I wouldn't have made the edit in the first place. Of course, it didn't seem to occur to anyone else involved in this discussion to make that point!


 * Thanks for clarifying the intended scope. What you describe makes sense.


 * If you think I've been pointy, or have engaged in any misconduct here, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out to me. From my perspective, I made a good faith edit, discussed my point of view civilly, was responsive to other editor's comments, and changed my position based on new information. If other editors (or admins) are annoyed by my participation here, the reasonable thing for them to do is to post a message on my user talk page, and tell me why. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Badge?
None of my edits have anything to do with GG, but I'd like to express my disapproval of the recent sanctions. Is there a userbox and/or group for it? -- Frankie1969 (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I always wondered what happened to the Great Userbox Wars. Looks like common sense prevailed. --TS 19:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"ArbitrationGate controversy"
As the ArbitrationGate controversy page was created as a direct result of the ongoing ArbCom case, should that page become covered under the GG sanctions? Might be a good idea to have some admins monitor that page as well. --38.99.161.237 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it wouldn't be under the sanctions, and have added the notice to the talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not an admin. I just added the sanctions notice since it seemed pretty obvious and anyone who edits that page should be aware. — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. I just felt that it'd be better if a non-IP put it on there, before I decided on a whim to formally unretire. Had I unretired first, I would have put the notice up first and then posted about it here after. Still, thanks for putting it up, and hopefully admins will start patrolling and keeping things sane over there. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)