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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]