Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 8 December 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been superseded by an Arbitration Committee sanctions regime. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified.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 For the specific Committee decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see WP:ARBGG.

Archives

Archived requests

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Avono

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Avono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ReynTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Avono linked to a "source" on the Gamergate talk page. The source in question is a opinion piece from a student newspaper that includes numerous clearly libelous statements about Zoe Quinn. I request that Avono be warned not to disseminate links to known libelous statements as "sources" for this article page. Avono is fully aware of the BLP issues involved here. Request a 24 hour topic ban. ReynTime (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Avono

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Avono

Then User:Carrite should be sanctioned as-well as the user linked to material making similar accusations. This is a bad faith request as ReynTime made no efforts to confront me first and instead went straight to this page, ReynTime should be reminded that this is not a battlefield; He has also not notified me. I made a explanation why I linked to the following material here . I never made any comments stating that these "libelous" statements were true. And I never said that the source should be used in the article, so stop misquoting me Avono (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Because I never used the link to express the concerns raised about Zoey Quinn. I used it in response to the assertion that the amount of GamerGator's not involved in the Harassment are insignificant. As mentioned above I would request you to stop making bad faith judgements about other users out of context. Avono (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And as per Defamation#Proving_libel I do not think that ReynTime has as standing/authority to make these claims (i.e attempt to do malice and lack of any research) Avono (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User also continues to imply unfounded legal threats after being told not to (with additional indirect accusation of canvassing) Avono (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And now ReynTime is grouping The Daily Caller together with the above two links... Avono (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)

While we may allow some new editors some wiggle room concerning these accusations, Avono is well aware of Gamergate sanctions and the libelous BLP violations that have infected the articles and the various Talk pages. Avono also knows that editors have been sanctioned by topic bans and blocks for inserting the same libelous accusations that they linked to. One would also assume that the editor read the article and knows the author must not have done any real research on the issue, and stating that they are trying to show the "amount of GamerGator's not involved in the Harassment are insignificant" by linking to such an obvious BLP violation is preposterous. I'm leaving in a minute and this will be my only comment. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I am in the camp that thinks a topic ban here is unnecessary, largely because Avono (thankfully) didn't actually repeat what the source claimed in talk or articlespace, but the point does need to be driven home that it is totally unacceptable to present student newspaper articles, pseudonymous blogs and web forum posts as if they're acceptable support for highly-defamatory allegations (bordering on criminal accusations) against living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that the article in question has been removed from the Amherst Student's website, which I believe we can take as proof that the newspaper's own editorial processes have judged it to be seriously problematic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Keeping in mind WP:AGF and the fact that Avono was not given the official notification prior to the disputed diff (though they was aware of the GS because they notified another editor of the GS), I propose that this request be closed with the official delivery of the notice and let it be at that. Obviously, if Avono does this again there will be significantly less good faith as they've now been notified. Of note, the actions of others does not excuse any individual editors behavior. Each editor is responsibile for ensuring each edit they make is compliant with policy. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ReynTime

This article has had repeated warnings to people about including, referencing, or citing material that violates WP:BLP and it does not appear to have sunk in. Until some action is taken, certain editors will continue to try to introduce this material and repeatedly cite "sources" that are blatantly unusable per WP:RS. Avono is aware of these issues and linked the libelous article regardless. If he is not sanctioned, then at least a statement should be made that this behavior will no longer be excused on the grounds of "I didn't know the source repeated those terrible lies." Editors need to take responsibility for not promoting BLP violations in WP in any way. Such responsibility-taking will not start to occur until there are consequences for failing to do so. ReynTime (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition: We now have another example of another editor, Willhesucceed, posting defamatory material about the main targets of Gamergate on the article's talk page, suggesting that the BLP-violating opinion piece he pulled the quote from be included in the article. Add this to Carrite's attempt to introduce a pseudonymous blog containing, yet again, BLP-violating material as a "source" and we have a pattern of recurring misbehavior that needs to be addressed in some fashion.

Statement by DHeyward

User:ReynTime should refactor all his comments that threaten or imply that an edit was illegal. There are at least two edits where he wrote that the article in question is illegal and the source will be sued (outside of Misplaced Pages). He then accused Avono of bringing illegal activity to Misplaced Pages. That is a legal threat. Since I doubt ReynTime has standing to make either a judgement or file a case but such accusations are chilling to collaboration. I suggest a sanction that he not be allowed to mention the legality of other editors post or the legality of sources within GamerGate article talk pages as they do not add to the discourse. Refactoring BLP violation is not the same as calling them "illegal" or threatening lawsuits. --DHeyward (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Second we need to at least be reasonable with facts and exactly what is wrong with sources. It is true that Grayson and Quinn had a relationship.. It is not a BLP violation to say that. It is true that Grayson has never reviewed Depression quest (ibid). It is also true that Kotaku, his employer, did review depression quest. And note the new ethics line at the bottom that was added on Oct. 31, 2014 by the Kotaku reviewer. The error on Misplaced Pages would be to claim Quinn exchanged the relationship for positive coverage by Nathan Grayson as we have no indication this happened. The violation is accusing Grayson of ethical misconduct (it's actually kind of insulting to claim that it's Quinn's choice of partner is the BLP violation when she has no ethical duty as Grayson does but misogynist tendencies are to blame the woman whenever sex intertwines with ethics). It's not a BLP to say she received positive reviews from journalists that she has personal relationships with (i.e. "friends" in this case). There is no indication it is quid pro quo but Kotaku and others have clearly adopted policies of disclosure and we need to be careful about redacting and dismissing information that is not, in fact, a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It does seem odd the remedy would be so much more severe than requested and the requestor seems to now be gone. Linking to an article from a site we would have considered reliable before its take-down doesn't appear to warrant a sanction so severe. We've published entire articles on falsehoods that were later disavowed and retracted by the media sources that wrote them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: what I am not following is the logic from the request "I request that Avono be warned not to disseminate links to known libelous statements" morphing to a 30 day topic ban. Your statement "under no circumstances should have been published by even a college paper, much less posted on Misplaced Pages" is arguably true if we presume that he posted it to[REDACTED] and that it was not a reliable source. But he didn't post anything as far as I can see, he didn't make any claims which was your first requirement for offense. He provided a link to a site on a talk page. A site I suspect is linked to in many articles. We've had links to a lot worse sites. He didn't quote or use any of the material. In fact our article highlights the exact same material in question as "Streisand effect" type items. This article for example, is cited in the main GamerGate article and highlights the same accusations excepts frames them as "alleged." (as an aside, the source we use directly links to the ex-boyfriends rant - are we accountable for links within sources too?) Everyone discussing the article knows what's alleged. Is it really that the story linked by Avono and never quoted or used is so egregiously bad because the author of the external piece failed to used "alleged?" This is rather an extreme position to take about external linking when BLP has link exceptions for talk pages and this seems like wikilawyer minutae as nothing is ever said in WP voice or space. You should not need copies of external, deleted articles to determine if someone violated BLP policies unless you are validating the source. No claims on Misplaced Pages=No BLP violation.

• WP:BLPTALK specifically allows such links; For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? It's very disheartening to see that the interpretation of policy appears to conflict with an exact example of how controversial links should be handled on talk pages.

 --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, if you are telling us that an article talk page statement "This link has serious allegations about about Zoe Quinn; should we summarize some pieces about Gamergaters from it?" and it used the Amhurst link is a BLP violation, I question whether you really understand BLP policy regarding WP:BLPTALK as it is a direct replication of what is explicitly allowed and recommended for such material. The fact that you actually needed the contents of the off-site link, and not Avono's own words/diffs, should have been a clue that you were using the wrong section about claims and content. --DHeyward (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Per WP:BLPTALK it is not always an automatic violation to include a link to contentious material about living persons; it is the context and use of the link in the course of discussing improvements/additions to the article that must be considered, among other factors. Arguably the quality of the source link is important - a link to a blog or forum that contains such claims would never be allowed; on the other hand, if a high reputable source like the NYTimes introduced a claim, we might have to consider and discuss that. Here was a student-run university newspaper which is very much on a cusp for this specific article; including the link isn't likely going to happen, but I wouldn't not immediately call the link bad. The behavior here seems like an completely earnest attempt to present some possible information for inclusion; more specifically they mention the article for other information it included; it just also happened to include some serious BLP claims that a student-run paper cannot readily be in a position to make. Redaction of the link after quickly seeing it as a BLP issue is reasonable, and caution should definitely be given to avoid such links in the future, but I'm not seeing any action here that requires much more than a trout. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Given Avono's recent efforts to imply that the allegations against living people have not been thoroughly debunked in the media (as they have been since the very first media reports), this additional lack of concern about carelessly spreading such allegations are cause for concern of a troubling pattern. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Okay, I looked at an archive of the article and, suffice to say, the issue is just the oft-repeated and discredited claim about Quinn gets stated as fact a couple times. In this opinion piece it even makes the false claim that the claim originated with Gjoni, when it was merely a confabulation of suppressed Internet discussions about the Zoe post. While an opinion piece in a student newspaper is not a reliable source, it appears Avono is merely guilty of citing an unreliable source that contained libelous claims as it was clearly raised to note an unrelated point about GamerGate that was not libelous. This article was raised on the talk page rather than used as a source for content. Avono should have paid closer attention to the source being cited, but it seems this was an error in good faith.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell blocked the filer of this request for being a single-purpose account, not to here to build an encyclopedia, and possibly a sockpuppet. Neither WordSmith or EdJohnston apparently bothered to look into the filer's obviously problematic history or extend even the slightest understanding to Avono. I think you should reverse your sanction immediately, Wordsmith. This process of coming down like a ton of bricks on long-term good faith editors for minor mistakes, or essentially nothing, while allowing rampant POV-pushing and other abuses to go on unabated is exactly why there is an arbitration case open on this matter. You both were apparently so concerned about finding an excuse to ding someone on one side of the dispute that you ignored what was staring you in the face. Even The Goddamn Washington Post has made egregious BLP-sensitive errors in their coverage and one such article is being used as a source in the actual article despite it still retaining the misinformation. This is an outrage.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wordsmith, the very editor who filed this report and sent you that archive link has been indeffed as a disruptive SPA and on suspicion of being a sockpuppet. I see no indication that Avono has tried to re-insert the link to the talk page after it was removed or that the BLP-violating claims within the article were being repeated by Avono on the talk page. Websites may contain things we cannot include on-wiki per policy, but that does not inherently mean linking to the site violates policy if that source could be reliable for other details. Indeed there is no indication in policy that such standards are expected of editors. Your initial instinct of no sanction was the correct one. The fact that your only other evidence is a rather dubious misrepresentation of Avono making an attempt at compromise and discussion over a long-running unsettled content dispute someone else rekindled only makes this more obscene.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages; it does not apply, to the best of my knowledge, to websites other than Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I am concerned that an editor can be sanctioned for just posting a link to a student newspaper, in that, if there was a BLP violation, it appears to have happened off-Wiki. If editors are sanctioned for posting a link to any external website which may contain contentious material about a living person, this is a slippery slope. Indeed, how can WP:RSN and WP:BLPN possibly function? Posting such links is not only a routine activity, it's integral part of their very existance. I don't think that it is desirable, or within existing policy, to sanction editors for simply posting such links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Avono

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

• The article is now gone. See http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/12/03/gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen. Presumably the Amherst Student has withdrawn the article. We can't tell if they had libel concerns or any other reason. There is even a comment on Reddit about the article being taken down, though whatever may be said on Reddit is not a reliable source. I have not seen the original. In the absence of the article, is there still an actionable complaint against Avono? EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem. The actual article has since been removed from the website in question, so I can't review its content to confirm that such claims were made. Google doesn't seem to have cached it, and without that, I can't issue a sanction. The argument that Avono has not been notified of the sanction is a specious one, since as Hasteur points out he has given the notice to other people, which does actually count as official notification. I've also officially notified him of WP:BLPSE. If there are further conduct issues, they can be brought either here or to WP:AE for enforcement. The Wordsmith 03:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've reviewed an archived version of the article in question that was emailed to me. It does indeed contain unsupported and likely libellous claims, and under no circumstances should have been published by even a college paper, much less posted on Misplaced Pages. Unless somebody can come up with a very good reason otherwise, i'm going to impose a two week topic ban on GamerGate and related articles, broadly construed. The Wordsmith 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support this, though topic bans of less than a month may not be worth it. Either a full month or just a warning would be my suggestion. Avono has already been mentioned in an earlier GGE thread. Previously in the Masem request I was unhappy about Avono making a change in the Zoe Quinn header, that he should have known was against consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I was mitigating it because it was his first sanction, but you're right. Less than a month isn't going help the topic area. I'm therefore imposing the following sanction: Avono (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any pages related to GamerGate controversy, broadly construed, or from making any edits in other areas that discuss the same, for a period of 30 days. An exception is made for participating at WP:ARBGG. The Wordsmith 20:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: and @The Devil's Advocate: The requested short-term ban would have accomplished nothing and been strictly punitive and not preventative. Also, before my retirement I had a reputation as a BLP hardliner. After reviewing an archived copy of the link posted, I have no doubt that it was a clear BLP violation and sanction was warranted. That said, I am not an unreasonable man. If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously, and that he'll make an effort to be much more careful going forward, given his contribution history and track record I would be willing to commute the ban. The Wordsmith 08:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward

• Obsolete Misplaced Pages community-authorised general sanctions templates
• Misplaced Pages general sanctions