Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Roscelese

False accusation of rape placed under a page-level restriction (wording slightly different to what was discussed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Padenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Roscelese_restricted : specifically "making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert" and failing to "discuss any content reversions on the pages's talk page"

2) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. She is:
indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;

indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

Passed 8 to 2 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

22:23, 3 May 2015 "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" This reverted a week and a half's worth of contributions, over 70 edits total. There is no discussion with SY86 pertaining to this, on the talk page, or on either user's talk page. Even so, there was absolutely no attempt by Roscelese to explain the reasons for the mass revert, every explanation claimed there were previous explanations provided, yet previous explanations have been addressed and un-responded to.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None that I'm aware of

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Not applicable. User is under restrictions from previous arbcom case above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Between April 26th and May 2nd, EllieTea made several good faith edits to False accusation of rape. While the bulk of the changes were fine, there were a few reverts by other users, including Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and SonicYouth86. After seeing these reverts, EllieTea made an effort to discuss them on the talk page: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Actually, every section in the current revision of [1] has EllieTea attempting to explain and discuss his/her edits. Maybe a little overkill in the number of sections, but nothing too bad.

During this time, Roscelese's only responses to EllieTea were:

[2] EllieTea responded here: [3]

[4] (more uncivil "blatantly nonsensical", "I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources") EllieTea responded here (showing sources and asking for an explanation): [5]

And so forth... Every section in the talk page goes on like that. With EllieTea providing sources, quotes, etc. while Roscelese and Sonicyouth generally ignored rebuttals and sources provided.

Finally, Roscelese reverted the page back over a week (with the first diff I listed above). At this time, the only explanation she provided was "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" (in the edit summary), and on the talk page: "I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved." I was unable to find any such discussion, and even then I found Roscelese unilaterally reverting the entire article to a week before a bit extreme given all the attempts by EllieTea to discuss it. I reverted the change "Undid revision 660693403 by Roscelese (talk) WAY too large a revert. You owe it to EllieTea to go through and carefully revert the edits that are bad, not just flip the table. WP:REVERT" and left a response on the talk page Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Revert. My revert was later undone by an editor who had never been involved in the discussion and did not get involved in any discussion (but from the Arbitration case, has a clear history of helping Roscelese). This discussion went on for a while between myself, Roscelese, Sonicyouth, and EllieTea. EllieTea and I repeatedly asked for Roscelese and Sonicyouth to explain what was wrong with the bulk of the edits, all requests for specifics were refused with WP:IDHT accusations and refusal to even link the section where it was discussed. ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While putting this together, a related ANI was opened, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_User:Roscelese_and_User:Sonicyouth86 ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to discussion

[6] @Beyond My Ken: That is correct. I do not know much about other incidents involving Roscelese, but judging from User talk:Roscelese it seems like there may be more if someone is interested in looking into it. Regarding the second question, there was nothing for her in the Enforcement log for the arbcom case, so I don't believe so. ― Padenton|✉ 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I would respectfully disagree that just because an edit summary was provided that the revert was properly explained. There is no explanation here as to what the problem was with the edits, and there were many good non-controversial edits that were reverted in this en masse rollback despite improving the article. All previous explanations had been addressed, and some of the changes by them were discarded. Yet these explanations do not apply to the revert in the diff above. I do agree this is not clear cut. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonicyouth86: I do not and have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues, and that they were rightfully reverted. What we are discussing here is the revert en masse of all of EllieTea's changes to the article, with no discussion and no explanation. As for SPA and "Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic." that is blatantly false. If we look at the analysis, only little over 1/3 of EllieTea's article namespace edits have been in articles remotely related to the topic of rape. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no presented evidence to support Sonicyouth86's ridiculous accusation that "it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign." I give permission for a CheckUser to examine my email logs. The only email I received, related to this, was an email from a user un-involved in the dispute on 5/4 informing me of Roscelese's sanctions. This request is not out of malice intent towards Roscelese. As for the timing of this arbitration enforcement request, that is unfortunate, but I was too busy putting this together (and you can look at its initial length) to notice that an ANI was filed while I was working on it. However, I quickly mentioned and linked the other discussion both here and at ANI, which is easy to verify, so that point is moot. I would have gotten to opening an AE last week, but I have been busy with a lot of final projects and papers for university the past few weeks. ― Padenton|✉ 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If any uninvolved admin feels I have acted wrongly in attempting to resolve this dispute on the talk page and eventually bringing it to Arbcom enforcement to discuss whether Roscelese's actions violate previous arbitration committee decisions, I will happily accept a warning (as suggested by Sonicyouth86) for my actions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I categorically deny any involvement in canvassing (as accused by Roscelese "Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA") as I have never edited Cubancigar's talk page.~~ (misunderstanding, redacted 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)) The only editors I notified of this discussion are those that saw my linking of it in the ANI, and those I linked above.(Roscelese herself as well, of course, as required) The supposition that because I asked Roscelese to provide more of an explanation for her en masse revert, that I am somehow in cahoots with EllieTea is absolutely ludicrous. I simply feel that EllieTea put in a lot of work, most of which improved the article, and should not have been reverted in its entirety, especially with no explanation provided, nor other attempts at dispute resolution. ― Padenton|✉ 20:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicyouth86: I'll try to respond to all of these.

Regarding SPA: You can't really count talk page discussions (nor this meta-discussion) as being part of the rape topic. That is why it's best to discuss article-namespace edits when discussing whether someone's an SPA. It is true, that many of the recent edits EllieTea has made in Article namespace are on these related articles, however, I do not agree that they are all problematic, and SPAs usually have much fewer edits, never reaching even 100. It is common, and understandable that editors may have a specific interest in a broad topic which leads them to direct their work to those topics. There are plenty of experienced editors that I have a lot of respect for that do so in articles related to rape.
Regarding support of EllieTea's edits: As for my first comment in this dispute (where I said I had no problem with EllieTea's edits), it should be read as there being no significant policy issues with the edits as a whole, not that they are not up for discussion, and it was following a comment earlier that day by Roscelese threatening to revert EllieTea's edits wholesale. Try not to think of me as defending EllieTea's edits, I do not agree with every single one, some were rightfully reverted as they happened, others could use a few additional un-involved opinions (perhaps by RfC or DRN), but there were also a fair number of non-controversial edits which improved the article. My point has been that more explanation and more discussion on both parts would have been fair, and a mass-rollback such as what took place here is rarely called for, nor the solution.
Regarding "no discussion": You are correct that there was discussion, from all parties (Except Binksternet), though incorrect that I have said that there was no discussion. What I have said is that the concerns were discussed and EllieTea attempted to address them, in some cases dropping the change and moving on to others. But for many of the changes, EllieTea made multiple attempts to bring them up for discussion, which he/she is allowed to do, though these attempts were ignored. And when the rollback came, no explanation was provided.
Regarding timing: I'm not really sure how the end of the protection could have been the trigger for the ANI or AE, I haven't checked the time the protection ends, I've been busy all week. I forget who it was (I looked earlier) but the protection was requested by some random editor who hadn't been involved in any of this. ― Padenton|✉ 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Part of this seems okay to me, I note you recently struck the exception of non-controversial maintenance. Could you explain why this was struck? Note: before seeing it struck I went and alphabetized the see also list (something non-controversial per MOS:SEEALSO that was bothering me and was undone with the revert above) Willing to self-rv, wasn't intending to sneak it in or whatever. I'm not sure warnings about being banned from the article and it's talk page are warranted, though I would have no issue with standard discretionary sanctions notices. I agree with OccultZone's additional solution of an edit notice though.

Perhaps this whole thing would work better as a talk page notice of the sanctions and an editnotice cautioning any editors seeking to make changes, and standard ARBGG discretionary sanctions notices for the editors in the listed group. If I am to have a warning on my talk page by an admin explicitly saying that my future editing could lead to a ban from an article, I'd prefer to know exactly what I've done wrong here so I can do differently in the future. Also because I've had people dig through my talk page and bring up irrelevant warnings/notices I've received in Deletion Reviews and AfDs I've been involved in. Such a warning would provide context of my actual actions, and not actions of the group.

For example, this AE request has already been mentioned by the article creator of an AfD I nominated claiming that it shows evidence of my collusion with an editor that isn't even mentioned anywhere in this discussion in a conspiracy to harass him and his articles. A more experienced editor went on a similar rant against me in a deletion review. No objection to cautions in general or handling future changes through RfC/WikiProjects/DRN/etc. I really need to walk out the door now, I may add some more later today. ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicyouth86 Let me go through this latest comment of yours:

"EllieTea, the reasons were stated, but you ignore them." Show me a single discussion in the talk page where EllieTea did not respond and address your concerns.

"Some of your additions like your overlinking [7][8] were merely unhelpful rather than harmful but still."

Regarding these 4 wikilink changes you are now criticizing 1&2 and 3&4, they were good edits, your 'overlinking' claim is ridiculous :

One of them (the top change in the '3&4' link) was retargetting to the correct disambiguation article, and was not already linked elsewhere.

The remaining 3 were all inside References, which are footnotes (See H:FOOT), and are therefore explicit exceptions to the overlinking style guideline.

"I asked you to post your desired changes on the article talk page so that we could discuss them and get consensus but you kept restoring your edits and ignoring the BRD cycle." The talk page shows clear proof that EllieTea made several attempts to discuss these changes. You can see the long list of talk threads where EllieTea attempted to discuss the changes at the start of the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section.

"Your comment shows that you have no intention to change your behavior, you don't even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with your editing." Let's be fair here, yours do as well. ― Padenton|✉ 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicyouth86:

"EllieTea and you have claimed here and on numerous other occasions that no reason was provided for opposing and reverting EllieTea's edits. This claim is obviously incorrect, as a glance at the talk page shows. The reasons were stated many times, but ET refuses to WP:HEAR the explanations because they regard them as "bogus"."

They were at the beginning, and then responses that attempted to address yours/Roscelese's concerns were ignored, as has been stated many times now.

"I shouldn't have mentioned the overlinking because it allows you to detract attention from the persistent mirepresentation of sources, POV editing and edit-warring, but alright."

You shouldn't have mentioned it but you did, and when you do, the other side is allowed to refute them. You don't get to just make a false accusation and then claim that any response to it is irrelevant. I answered everything in your comment.

The talk page shows that I and other users demonstrate EllieTea's original research, and EllieTea declaring all objections invalid. For example, here ET was given quotes from one of the sources which directly contradicts their assertions. Here ET starts a new section to discuss the same issue, provides some pretty fancy original research ("the other records were apparently lost"...), and continues to insist that their interpretation is more valid that the source's.

I see EllieTea attempting to discuss the changes, and your claims of WP:OR fail because of WP:CALC. Different editors are allowed to disagree on topics, as well as interpretation of sources, that is why we discuss them and attempt to reach consensus on articles.

Furthermore, the revision history shows EllieTea restoring their edits multiple times against consensus, that is, not following the BRD cylcle.

I see you both violating the WP:3RR rule between April 30th and May 1st, but that does not justify the later mass rollback of all changes. In fact, you violated WP:BRD yourself, whatever your intentions were. Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss says:

If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.

Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset.

I might consider changing my behavior if you show me how I violated Wikipedia policy. But you know that I didn't, and neither did the three other editors who reverted EllieTea's edits.

See above. WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. ― Padenton|✉ 21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicyouth86::

I believe that your comments have become repetitive and that my earlier responses already address your most recent claims.

The problem here is you keep repeating yourself without addressing my claims.

If you feel comfortable with EllieTea's interpretation of sources (216/2643≠9% --> WP:CALC?), it's your decision and your credibility.

I already said that EllieTea's changes had both some good and some bad, several times. And your misrepresentation of what EllieTea said just isn't right.

For future reference, not following the BRD cycle looks something like this: bold edit -> first revert -> re-revert to preferred version -> second revert. EllieTea usually restores their bold edits at least once without consensus.

You're correct, it does look like that. But what I said was that you both violated WP:BRD, not just EllieTea. As quoted above, WP:BRD says "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." This is actually said several times in WP:BRD. The WP:BRD-NOT section says "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." and "BRD is never a reason for reverting."' It later says "If you encounter BRRD (bold, revert, revert...), do not escalate the situation to BRRRD.". While EllieTea is a new editor and not likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of WP:BRD, you are far more experienced, and surely knew of the many other avenues to resolve the dispute. You are also the one that brought up WP:BRD in the first place in your edit summaries. A better course of action would be to take it to WP:DRN or WP:RFC. ― Padenton|✉ 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here to proposed sanction ― Padenton|✉ 05:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [9]

Discussion concerning Roscelese

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 Roscelese

I was just going to ignore the wall of text at ANI, but now that the same dispute has been dragged here for no apparent reason, I suppose I ought to leave a sentence or two. In brief: The offending user's refusal to acknowledge my explanations of why their edits violated policy repeatedly != my violating my sanction by not explaining my reverts. Moreover, "the source does not contain that statistic or anything approaching it" is not remotely personal, and "that editor is an SPA" is obvious from their edit history. Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA, too: [10] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, clearly I don't agree that my editing here was sanctionable; I reverted a few of the most ludicrously bad edits on EllieTea's part (false accusations are just like lynching, courtesy of a pay-to-print publisher; bizarre number juggling) but left the rest sitting during discussion and didn't wholesale revert until several days later, after discussing the issues with EllieTea on the talkpage, confirming that EllieTea either is unfamiliar with or doesn't care about WP:NOR etc., and running the idea by other users. Discussing the situation with Sonicyouth, I had initially recommended not pursuing action under the Gamergate sanctions, because I didn't realize how broad they are. So whatever else happens, I think an edit notice or talkpage notice indicating that the page falls under sanctions (Gamergate and/or MRM) could be useful. However, again, I don't really see the point of warning me or Sonicyouth personally: we have been making sincere good-faith efforts to discuss the edits with an obvious single-purpose account and point out why their edits (eg. 8 of 52 accusations are false) or fundamental assumptions (any report not proven true is false) were factually wrong, under the evidently mistaken assumption that this would result in the person amending their behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Padenton by Beyond My Ken

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are reporting is essentially a single incident between Roscelese and EllieTea, is that right? And the AN/I report you cite is about the same incident as well, not an additional incident, yes? Do you have evidence of any other incidents besides this one?

Also a general question to whomever can answer it: has Roscelese been warned or sanctioned for violating this restriction before? I see nothing in the Enforcement Log. BMK (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sonicyouth86

As I stated at ANI, EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. All that Roscelese did was discuss those edits, explain how they violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and revert some of those POV pushing edits together with other experienced editors like EvergreenFir and Binksternet. I think that it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign. I listed some examples of EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, and POV pushing on the ANI noticeboard. Padenton has clearly been unhelpful in the topic area, claiming over and over again that I and Roscelese have been uncivil to EllieTea or accusing me of refusing to discuss, which is demonstrably false. I suggest a warning for Padenton and a topic ban for EllieTea who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. --SonicY (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: You keep trotting out this myth that EllieTea's edits were reverted "with no discussion and no explanation." Even a cursory glance at the talk page reveals that your statement couldn't be more incorrect.

As for the SPA thing, EllieTea made 222 article edits since registering their account in June 2009. More than half (134) of their article edits were made this year, and of those 134 edits almost 100 were about rape, campus rape, rape charges against an NFL player, false rape accusations. If we exclude the 13 edits to the Leila Araghian article and 6 edits of the article about a bridge designed by Araghian, all other non-rape related edits this year were minor like adding wikilinks [11], changing the date format [12], italicizing text [13], small copy edits [14]. With the exception of one edit in 2013, all of their article talk page edits had to do with rape [15]. So it's more than fair to say that the vast majority of EllieTea's edits and especially all of their substantial edits are limited to one topic area which is (false accusations of) rape.

You claim that you have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues. But you actually did say that you see no issue with EllieTeas edits to the article. Your contribution to the discussion was to a) post blanket approval of EllieTea's extremely problematic additions (see previous link), and b) defend EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources like here. You have actively enabled EllieTea's disruptive behavior and persistent original research. And here you are, requesting sanctions against an experienced editor whose only "mistake" was to engage with an SPA and explain over and over which edits were problematic and why. --SonicY (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: I didn't mean to imply that you received emails from EllieTea or that you coordinated your complaints against Roscelese off-wiki. What I meant to say was that you were the only other editor who supported the same POV and same content as EllieTea, and you defended even the most obvious misrepresentation of sources. So I regard it as no coincidence that you and EllieTea would request sanctions against Roscelese after the article protection expired and after I mentioned that I intended to take ElliTea and your behavior to ANI or AE. --SonicY (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: Short reply re your second and third point:

Yes, there were significant policy issues with the edits as a whole. You just basically repeated your blanket defense of EllieTea's problematic contributions. There were persistent OR and NPOV issues with the edits as a whole. Actually worse than OR, blatant misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation that corresponds with EllieTea's stated POV.

EllieTea refused to follow the BRD cycle, restored their edits without consensus and while discussion was ongoing (e.g., [16][17][18]). Even when EllieTea participated in discussion they refused to listen on many occasions, simply repeating their original research even after it was conclusively demonstrated to them with long quotes from sources that their edits misrepresented the sources (e.g., discussion -> refusal to listen). --SonicY (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions – the GamerGare ArbCom case does. I intended to request sanctions against EllieTea under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions and I made the mistake of mentioning it to Padenton, and he took it to AE first. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions apply to "any gender-related dispute and controversy" and probably cover the false accusation of rape page. Should I start a separate AE request? --SonicY (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I see no evidence that Roscelese was aware that the GamerGate discretionary sanctions are in force for the false accusation of rape article. And I don't see how Roscelese could have possibly violated those terms by sticking to 1RR and by removing original research and POV. The editor who is aware because they received a DS alert and whose behavior has been problematic is EllieTea. --SonicY (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Nobody would be allowed to make any edit unless it is supported by consensus. So, no bold edits. I don't understand. Why should users who reverted bold edits that had no consensus, i.e. users who followed your proposal of not editing without consensus, be warned about not making bold edits without consensus? A warning not to edit without/against consensus implies that I and the other editors who opposed EllieTea's edits actually edited without consensus on that page, but that didn't happen. It's like warning a user who didn't demonstrate conduct X to not demonstrate conduct X. At least one more user edited the page between April 26 and May 5 and would receive a warning just for reverting one of EllieTea's clearly disruptive edits. Please clarify: If an IP user or SPA or someone else edits against consensus, are editors allowed to revert the edits or is the revert itself also considered a "bold edit"? Prohibiting editors from removing edits made against consensus would open new ways to game the system. Another thing: EllieTea's edits extent to other articles and sections about rape. For example, here they added a cherry-picked quote from a copy of a legal document. Does the "no addition of content without consensus" extend to other articles? @Callanecc: Re balancing out the issue. Warning editors who reverted edits that violated our content policies and that were made against consensus, doesn't balance out the issue. If it creates balance, it's a very false balance. I (and other editors except EllieTea and Padenton) didn't try to add content against consensus, I didn't add content at all. It's disappointing that EllieTea's disruptive editing and my evidence seems to have been ignored. --SonicY (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EllieTea keeps claiming that no reason was given for reverting their edits. EllieTea, the reasons were stated, but you ignore them. It has been explained why withdrawn and not prosecuted accusations aren't the same as false accusations, why opinion pieces and tales of personal experience aren't the same as statistics and research, why it's not a good idea to attribute opinions to a "reference work" that really isn't a "reference work" at all, and so on. You believe that there's nothing wrong with your additions. Others disagree and have demonstrated on numerous occasions that many of your additions consist of inaccuracies and original research. Some of your additions like your overlinking [19][20] were merely unhelpful rather than harmful but still. I asked you to post your desired changes on the article talk page so that we could discuss them and get consensus but you kept restoring your edits and ignoring the BRD cycle. Your comment shows that you have no intention to change your behavior, you don't even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with your editing. --SonicY (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@74.12.93.177: Wow, you're on a roll. What might seem like "an obvious fact" to you and men's rights types is far from obvious to everyone else. But your support for EllieTea's kind of editing is duly noted. --SonicY (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: EllieTea and you have claimed here and on numerous other occasions that no reason was provided for opposing and reverting EllieTea's edits. This claim is obviously incorrect, as a glance at the talk page shows. The reasons were stated many times, but ET refuses to WP:HEAR the explanations because they regard them as "bogus". I shouldn't have mentioned the overlinking because it allows you to detract attention from the persistent mirepresentation of sources, POV editing and edit-warring, but alright. While a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, I see no reason to repeat the wikilink in the same section [21], especially when the link already appears in the text and references [22]. I only mentioned it to say that not all of EllieTea's edits violated content policy, some edits were merely unnecessary, but not harmful. The talk page shows that I and other users demonstrate EllieTea's original research, and EllieTea declaring all objections invalid. For example, here ET was given quotes from one of the sources which directly contradicts their assertions. Here ET starts a new section to discuss the same issue, provides some pretty fancy original research ("the other records were apparently lost"...), and continues to insist that their interpretation is more valid that the source's. Furthermore, the revision history shows EllieTea restoring their edits multiple times against consensus, that is, not following the BRD cylcle. I might consider changing my behavior if you show me how I violated Wikipedia policy. But you know that I didn't, and neither did the three other editors who reverted EllieTea's edits. --SonicY (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: I believe that your comments have become repetitive and that my earlier responses already address your most recent claims. If you feel comfortable with EllieTea's interpretation of sources (216/2643≠9% --> WP:CALC?), it's your decision and your credibility. For future reference, not following the BRD cycle looks something like this: bold edit -> first revert -> re-revert to preferred version -> second revert. EllieTea usually restores their bold edits at least once without consensus. --SonicY (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Do you mean any type of edit that they restored without consensus or a specific type of edit? If you mean the former, then the last time EllieTea restored their preferred version was here. If you mean the kind of edit where they remove sources that say that false accusations are rare and/or incorrectly summarize sources to say that false accusations are more frequent, then the last time they restored such an edit was here (it's not marked as a revert but it's a follow-up partial revert to this bold edit). --SonicY (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EllieTea

If I have understood this discussion, an important issue is whether Roscelese justified the mass revert of my edits. Roscelese did give an explanation for the mass revert, on the Talk page.[23] That explanation states that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR.

Consider the diff between before and after the mass revert.[24] Roscelese should be able to specify some aspect of the diff that shows a violation of VERIFY and some aspect that shows a violation of OR.

I ask that Roscelese be required to specify such aspects. EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___________________

The second part of the restriction on Roscelese is “indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert”. If Roscelese made a rollback-type revert and provided an explanation, but the explanation was bogus, surely that would count as a violation of the restriction. I believe that that is what happened with her revert of my edits.

The explanation that Roscelese gave in her edit summary and elaborated on in Talk asserted that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:OR.[25] Yet Roscelese has failed to show any aspect of the before–after diff[26] that violates those policies—or indeed any WP policy. That is, it seems that the “explanation” was just some words to allow her to claim that she was not technically violating the restriction. If the claims in her explanation were valid, she would be able to show such.

EllieTea (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no valid explanation for the rollback-type revert by Roscelese. In particular, Roscelese’s “explanation” suggested that there is something in the before–after diff that violates WP policies, and yet Roscelese has not specified any aspect of the diff that does so, despite my repeated requests.

Sonicyouth86 (May 12, 22:46) has now specified something in the diff that supposedly violates WP policy: my alleged overlinking. The alleged overlinking is for the journal Violence Against Women. Yet the main text of the WP article only wikilinks the journal once. There are other wikilinks for the journal, but they are within cite–journal templates—in the footnotes or the Further reading section. My interpretation of WP policies is that wikilinking a journal in those places is acceptable (and it is helpful for readers). Even if I have not interpreted the policies correctly, though, is this justification for a rollback-type revert? Sonicyouth86 can apparently find no other alleged policy violations.

Roscelese has specifically suggested that something in the diff violates VERIFY and NOR. I ask, again, that she specify something in the diff that violates those policies. If she continues to fail to do so, then it should be clear that her explanation for the rollback-type revert is bogus, and so she has violated the restriction on her.

EllieTea (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

I agree with the suggestion of EdJohnston, however, I just believe that this kind of rule should be officially imposed on this article for everyone else. Restricting these few editors is likely going to introduce some trouble, there is clear possibility of having any other editor who would edit against consensus. We can solve that problem, by installing a editnotice on the article, Template:Editnotices/Page/False accusation of rape, and it should warn against making any major edits without consensus. Whoever would edit against consensus and refuse to self-revert might be reported here or to any admin who wants to keep a watch in this area. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc: Edjohnston is busy and it should be taken into consideration, that's why I still think of editnotice since it is going to remind without much efforts. Whole article should be put under 0rr restriction because 1RR promotes tag teaming. Allow only those edits that have consensus. Edits having no consensus should be reverted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicyouth86 When it was the last time that EllieTea restored such a edit without consensus? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicyouth86 Indeed that is what I had asked for, thank you for the diffs. In fact some of your concerns sounds fair, it is not just about the content but also about the usual conduct, and we will have to observe if there are any chances to solve them with the help of this board. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal of Callanecc. They don't address cure for bludgeoning , misrepresentation of sources and some other disrupt signs at first sight, but a deeper look would. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)

Was just going over the page and felt the need to point something out, in response to @Sonicyouth86: ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. That is not "POV"; it is an obvious fact. The way that a rape accusation becomes "known to be true" is a guilty verdict in a court of law, because that is the only venue where the accusations are both (a) tested and (b) held to an actual standard of proof (as opposed to "preponderance of the evidence"). Guilty verdicts at court are greatly outnumbered by accusations; both sides of the discussion around rape (particularly campus rape) and false rape accusations agree on this. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I'm on quasi break, but if I'm named in a AE like this, it would have been nice to be notified of it.

This whole thing seems fishy. The page was protected by MusikAnimal on May 4 so the content dispute could be resolved. This request was filed 4 days later and the edit in question was from May 3. The talk page for the article was last edited by anyone mentioned here on May 5. So why the delay? Smells like sour grapes to me. This filing deserves a trouting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

This complaint may be closed unless it identifies exactly where Roscelese broke the Arbcom restriction. The three parts of her restriction are:

indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

I don't see a complaint here that Roscelese broke the 1RR. And nobody has presented diffs showing Roscelese reverting with no edit summary. The only clause where you might have a case is the third one, about casting aspersions or personalizing disputes. What I can see is Roscelese using some harsh language, but there is intense disagreement about how to interpret some of the sources about false rape allegations. There is some indication that more than one party is descending into minute analysis of sources that may violate WP:NOR. Charges of misreading sources are not exactly aspersions if there is good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sources. As yet, this does not add up to a clear case against Roscelese. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a set of people who appear to be ineffective in finding consensus. In lieu of sanctions for this complaint, I think we should consider a period of full protection of False accusation of rape. That would require editors to reach consensus on the talk page before an admin would change the article through the {{Edit protected}} process. The alternative of topic banning all the people whose collaboration is deficient isn't available to us because this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions. The only person in the current complaint who can be sanctioned is User:Roscelese because she has a specific restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use discretionary sanctions, you can invoke WP:ARBGG, which authorised DS for "any gender-related dispute or controversy" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions).

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the pagelinks for the article:

False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let's assume that WP:ARBGG is applicable and gives us the authority for page bans, I'd be tempted to close with warnings to all the people who reverted at False accusation of rape between April 26 and May 4. That group would include

The warning would be a caution about their future editing at False accusation of rape. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of WP:DRN or any other recognized method of WP:Dispute resolution. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit ~~that they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus unless it is routine text editing or uncontroversial maintenance~~ unless it is supported by consensus. So, no bold edits. Of course, only those who choose to make further edits to the article would be risking anything, and the only parties to be warned at this time are those in the above list. I invite comment on this strategy from the parties, admins or anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. It balances out the issues and doesn't assign blame. I'd suggest just saying that all edits (except obviously uncontroversial text editing or maintenance) to the article must be supported by consensus as that avoids the wikilawyering around "they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus" and what "routine text editing" is. Good idea Ed! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: If others show up to revert the article after this request closes I'm prepared to give them individual notices of the same thing. It may also be worthwhile adding an editnotice to the article, as you recommend. @Callanecc:, I revised the wording of my proposal in light of your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed, I'd probably add in something about uncontroversial maintenance though. You could also impose the restriction on the article as a whole (as you would 1RR for example) and just specifically warn/notify the people above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: This restriction on the article is basically 0RR except that you can't make any edit (whether revert or not) without consensus. However if someone breaches the restriction they get blocked and/or page banned and their edit can be reverted to return to the status quo until their is consensus for the change the sanctioned editor made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and warn them, Ed. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Callanecc, do you want to take care of this and close the AE? If you want other admins to agree on the wording first, then you can give a final proposal and I assume we will sign off, since we have the same idea. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanction

Under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions False accusation of rape is placed under the following sanction (that is, it applies to all editors of the article):

No edits (apart those those which are blatantly uncontroversial) may be made to the article without first being proposed on the talk page for at least 24 hours and a consensus in support of the change.

Enforcement will be through blocking or other sanctions as normal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Callanecc that this page-level sanction is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom

Closing with no action, but also no review of the actual complaint, see closing notes for detailed explanation Zad68 14:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ~~168.1.75.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)~~ A dynamic IP editor using AT&T and geolocating to the NY/NJ area, see here. Amended by Zad68[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom_admonished :; "TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."

Additionally: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Recidivism :; "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings

24 February 2015 Argues that wikipedia is in fact a battleground
12 March 2015, Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
13 March 2015, Defense of Nazi analogy
16 March 2015, Further criticism, note closing comment: "Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"

Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page

23 March 2015, Evidence of battleground mentality

Continues battleground behavior

9 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, unconstructive hyperbole
11 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
17 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
21 March 2015, Battleground; Insults multiple fellow editors
24 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
26 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
30 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
24 April 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor (Responds with "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" to an editor who posts "[I am] a Pro-GamerGater [but] I am not a troll")

In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior

24 April 2015, "This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."

Continues despite reminder

1 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Aims to offend
2 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, BLP violation (Sommers)
5 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
8 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
8 May 2015, continued

Additional

26 February 2015, 26 February 2015 Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
16 March 2015, 8 May 2015, 10 May 2015 Repeatedly uses a mocking term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
17 March 2015 Alleges without substantiation that editors Masem and Thargor Orlando are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While these linked edits are the most recent and problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling of contributions since the official admonishment.

In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption.

I expect arguments in opposition will focus on my status as an IP editor rather than the substance of my filing, suggesting the message is less important than the messenger. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly.

I expect secondary criticism for not constructively engaging on the editor's talk page prior to filing. Please note the editor's pattern of dismissing or ignoring rather frequent criticisms on their talk page from more respected editors, across a broad range of topics, then consider the likely effect an IP editor's comments would have. 168.1.75.18 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

@MarkBernstein: Your allegation of "off-wiki planning" is baseless. Either provide evidence or redact the claim. 107.77.70.115 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Both the article page and talk page are protected. I'm unable to post to either so there are no actions I have to be held accountable for. My concern is this editor's interactions with other editors who deserve to be treated civilly. I find it difficult to rationalize the position that because I'm an IP editor these editors don't deserve to be treated civilly. 107.107.56.133 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: I'm not sure why you'd mischaracterize my situation when you're aware of the details. My internet connection is a mobile hotspot, not a mobile phone, and the IP changes frequently. I had two choices to keep my postings consistent: (1) register a new account, which would raise questions as to its authenticity or (2) post through a proxy as I chose to, so the IP address wouldn't change. For some reason you found it necessary to block that proxy almost immediately, not because it had been used for vandalism or to harm Wikipedia but because rules are rules and proxies aren't allowed. I can accept that. But now when I submit a perfectly rules-complaint filing you (and others) argue first: we should ignore the rules the reported editor's broken and secondly we should make new rules to prevent my filing. WP:IAR for the good of the encyclopedia. The onus is on you to explain how allowing a tendentious editor to continue participating in a contentious topic furthers the good of the encyclopedia. This seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 107.107.56.189 (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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 TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by PeterTheFourth

It seems far more likely that this IP editor is treating Wikipedia as a battleground than TRPoD is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the IP who claims to be the same IP as that which originally posted this request did not register an account (or, perhaps, use their original account) because they were worried that they'd be blocked.

Statement by MarkBernstein

Clearly without merit, this appears to be mere sour grapes in a familiar content dispute. What is interesting here is the apparent tactic of coming to AE from a phony or hidden account with no history; instead of “throwaway” accounts used in the past, this time we seem to have a true Teflon account which cannot be sanctioned. If that’s true, it’s yet another example of how Gamergate is publishing a roadmap that can be used by more professional and resourceful organizations to subvert the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- and calling down the sanction hammer for referring obliquely to sea lions, not to mention the concerted off-wiki planning carried on in plain sight of all -- would deserve plenty of trout, has the complaining party not taken steps to appear here wearing a trout-proof raincoat as a disguise. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starship.paint

Is anybody actually reading the diffs as they are explained now? Try focusing on the message and not the messenger; an offense is the same no matter who reports it. The diffs show me a consistent history of inflammatory comments, of which some seem to be written in anger. We need to lessen the heat in this area. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I am very concerned about grievances brought to this venue by an IP who cannot in any way be held accountable for their actions, or even be easily identified from moment to moment. I know this is not the place to discuss it, but I would be in favor of not allowing dynamic IPs to participate here unless they create an account. BMK (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GregJackP

I do not believe that a dynamic IP should have standing to file this complaint. Especially since the articles in question don't allow editing by IPs. Let them create an account if they want to file. GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)

@Beyond My Ken: @GregJackP: @Zad68: I cannot believe what I am reading. Shame on you all for suggesting such absurd, unjust, perversions of policy and the very fundamental principles Wikipedia is based upon. Is this or is this not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"?

"Setting a precedent" is irrelevant. That IPs haven't brought action before is no reason to suppose there is any prohibition against them doing so. I see no such regulation. The default assumption is that IP editors can do anything that editors with accounts can do - that is why pages are "protected" against the IP edits that are possible by default, not "opened" to editing by IPs. If Wikipedia doesn't like this then the WMF should stop pretending to run an open encyclopedia and require an account for any modification.

The question of the filer possibly avoiding scrutiny is an obvious and pointless distraction. Even if it were immediately evident that the filer had done something wrong, it would not reflect on any judgment of TheRedPenOfDoom. The idea that "standing" is required to bring a complaint is also absurd. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and pointing it out should not require being directly affected by it. As for contacting TRPoD directly to "address the behaviour"? Have you looked at how many diffs there are? Have you considered that this is in the aftermath of an Arbcom proceeding where "battleground behaviour" was explicitly one of the issues examined? How many times do people need to be told to behave themselves? Besides which, the IP already illustrated that someone else attempted this in the interim.

74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

As a very recent editor, I thought I'd give impressions from a slightly different perspective. First of all, the bar to getting an account on Wikipedia is astoundingly low. It is not a great injustice to ask that a person be minimally responsible for their actions when they try to adversely affect someone else's rights. Being the encyclopedia anyone can edit does not mean that Wikipedia should be institutionally blind to the relative merit of contributors. Allowing anonymous third parties to bring enforcement actions, especially based on "battleground conduct," is to invite chaos. I'd go so far as to say "Battleground behavior" complaints should be limited to those who allege they have been directly affected by said conduct, but that's not the question here. Standing is a useful concept for a reason, and I think it is utterly lacking here. But I will of course defer to the wiser wikipedians among us! Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by zzuuzz

I am only tangentially involved through the block of the filer. I find the IP editor's credentials lacking. The reliance on a proxy then a mobile phone is unconvincing. Perhaps we could say to accuse someone of battleground behaviour you need to first be in the war. This resembles the behaviour of a blocked or banned user who has been in the war and is trying to evade something. I think IP editors are entirely entitled to lodge complaints, however I do not believe at this time that this unregistered user is an IP editor (we have ways of classifying dynamic IP editors). A new account will not be convincing either. This complaint, which I have no intention of reading, will need support from someone else if it is to stick, in my opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

Without any regard at all concerning the merits of the actual complaint, I am concerned about setting a precedent for allowing this sort of AE filing by a dynamic IP editor with no provable history of editing alongside the named editor, especially in this particular topic area. There's a surprising number of topic-bans, IBANs, editors with relevant block log entries and histories of bad behavior.

I have gone through the AE archives and reviewed the last dozen pages of AE filings, about 3+ months worth, 75 cases. Not a single one of them was filed by an IP, and I found at least two cases where the filer was a very young account and the case handling was colored against the filer for that reason. Points raised were that it was impossible to tell whether the young-account filer was a sock of a blocked or topic-banned user, or had created an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of their own edits.

With this filing by a dynamic IP, the same issues apply: How can I tell whether the IP is being operated by a topic-banned or IBANned editor who would have no standing to bring this complaint? Would allowing this case to move forward set a precedent that would encourage those with "unclean hands" in this area to start filing cases as IPs?

What's worse is that not only is the Gamergate controversy not editable by IPs, Talk:Gamergate controversy itself isn't editable by IPs. And I don't see any IPs from the filer's range attempting to address the issue with TRPoD on their User Talk page.

This is really too much for me to believe that this IP editor is simply an innocent bystander who happened to notice something and bring it to AE's attention. I am very strongly leaning toward closing this without action, but without prejudice against having an editor with standing of bringing a complaint. Zad68 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Zad68. This request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this request as No action due mainly to the particular circumstances and characteristics of the request, which are a combination of:

The editor is trying to open and comment on the request using a series of dynamic IPs with no demonstrable history of involvement with the named editor or the topic area
Neither the article nor the article Talk page can be edited by IPs
The very high number of topic-bans and IBANs in the area that would disqualify an editor from bringing this request here, but there's no way to tell if the editor operating the IPs is affected by such a sanction
The subjective nature of this request, which isn't looking for action on a "bright line" infraction like a 1RR violation but rather over whether there is battleground behavior, which requires interpretation and is context-specific
Concerns over setting a precedent for allowing IPs to file this kind of AE request, which might encourage editors with named accounts and "dirty hands" to file requests as IPs to avoid scrutiny

I understand the argument "Who cares how the request gets filed, just look at the diffs" but that ignores the real concerns of opening up AE to misuse, which would degrade the usefulness of the process and lead to damage to the encyclopedia. I note in this closing that the actual merits of the complaint have not been reviewed, this is a procedural close. Zad68 14:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines

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 Darkness Shines

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

12 May 2015 tendentious editing. Reappears on article talk after three weeks to make a declaration that he will be inserting the image yet again when he has been told by multiple editors that it is against consensus, and does it immediately.
13 May 2015 You're obviously an idiot. non constructive to say the least.
13 May 2015 And what the fuck is that fo? Edit summary: dick.
27 April 2015 When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? He is told in ani: Request has no merit but he continues it several times all over the place. Exemplary assume bad faith over an extended period.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15 May 2014 Darkness Shines is blocked for two months and topic banned from WP:ARBIPA related pages.
8 December 2012 Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

His tendentious editing, assuming bad faith, and uncivil comments discourages collaboration acutely. He has been advised to avoid these multiple times before and in the light of the fact that he just returned from an indefinite block and still repeats similar behavior recklessly is a serious concern in my opinion.

@Kingsindian: The diffs and case evidence presented is entirely of Darkness Shines and is related to his interaction with McClenon as well as Fut. Perf. It is his attitude that is disruptive. Wikipedia is not therapy. Making tendentious edits, assuming bad faith and being uncivil towards Fut. Perf. and McClenon is entirely on him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Messaged on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Darkness Shines

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 Darkness Shines

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This is actionable under three different provisions at once: as a breach of the civility parole imposed under the BASC unblock, as a matter of WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, and possibly under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions too. On the civility side alone, I'm finding a 72h block as imposed by Callanecc remarkably light, given that Arbcom prescribed a block sequence for infractions that should escalate to indef in at most 4 steps [28], and given the long history of prior blocks and recidivism for the same issue. DS has had more than 30 distinct blocks, not counting the indefs for his various sock reincarnations, and the latest few NPA blocks among these were of 7 days (at least three times) and 14 days respectively. In addition, this most recent outburst is the immediate continuation of the pattern of hostile edit-warring and tendentious misuse of sources discussed only a few days ago at ANI, in a thread that unfortunately sank into the archive without action, but where at least one uninvolved admin observer (User:Akhilleus) opined that the pattern of disruption was enough to justify a reimposed indef ban.

In terms of WP:ARBIPA, keep in mind that DS is already indefinitely topic-banned from all India/Pakistan topics and that the article Female infanticide in India is merely an exception, granted for him to try to bring it to GA status. At the very least, this exception ought to be rescinded at this point. Reasons:

In the seven weeks since his unblock, DS has in fact done nothing to improve the quality of the article at all. Every single edit he has made to it was a hostile revert to his old version [29][30][31][32][33][34][35]; he did nothing to address any of the quality issues noted in the GA review. (In fact, you will find that he has barely done any constructive content building anywhere else either; virtually all his mainspace contributions since March have been reverts.) This: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] is the total of his contribs to the talkpage during the same time; it shows constant hostility and refusal to address other people's concerns.
As a result, the GA push has effectively failed. The GA nomination was rejected [46], and there are no signs of resuming work on it anywhere.
In the specific matter of the image in question, he has conducted a slow but persistent edit-war, reinserting it 7 times since March [47][48][49][50][51][52][53] (plus at least twice before his block [54][55]), against a growing consensus of pretty much everybody else on the talkpage (at least four other editors having spoken out against its use).

Frankly, I can't see any reason why DS was unblocked in the first place; the project will clearly be the better off the sooner his inevitable reimposed indef will come. Failing that, for now, a block of a duration commensurate with his prior block log and a scrapping of that topic ban exception should be the minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:: it is hardly for me to say, as I'm obviously involved here, and it's commonly known that if it was up to me DS would have been indef-banned years ago, but it's my impression that for clear-cut violations of restrictions that come up at AE standard minimum block lengths start somewhere around 2 weeks. That would also be the minimum kind of block length that would follow logically from the prior block record. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:: it is of course true that the arbs have specified a progression to indef in several steps, implying several further chances, but that's the provision for infractions that are just one-off lapses in civility. What we have here goes significantly beyond that. It's a pervasive, structural pattern of disruption, involving low-quality content editing, source distortion, inability or unwillingness to constructively engage with other editors over content problems, and long-term edit-warring, with personal attacks coming just as the icing on the cake. Ed is spot on in saying that short blocks seem of little use here. Surely, the BASC decision cannot be construed as protecting DS from sanctions that admins would be justified in imposing on any other editor under comparable circumstances? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedural fairness, could somebody give DS a talkpage note that this is still open and sanctions beyond the present block are being considered? (I'd do it myself, but he doesn't like me posting there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Can we get some action here soon-ish? DS is back from his 3-day block, and is immediately back to exactly the same behaviour in yet another case: edit-warring [56][57][58] to reinsert an image that's apparently been misattributed to the wrong historical situation (explanation here: [59]). Again, DS uses blanket Twinkle reverts, without any effert at all to engage with other people's arguments, in fact without even a word of explanation. (Note that this is now no longer in ARBIPA but in ARBEE territory, another area from which he has previously been topic-banned.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I am uninvolved in this matter, but I have had interactions with DS in WP:ARBPIA (mostly disagreements). While Fut. Perf. was of course within his rights to edit any article which he wishes, and DS does not own any article, it seems a bit strange for him to focus on DS's edits so much. The disagreements with DS on many articles are not straightforwardly changing "wrong" edits. The picture at Female Infanticide in India is a good example. While I am of the opinion that the picture shouldn't be included, I can see DS's argument that it is just an illustrative picture, and is not meant to show actual female infanticide. It seems to me that DS has become exasperated by Fut. Perf's perceived following of his edits. Surely, Fut. Perf. can give the guy a break, though he is of course not required to. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

Recent block has likely increased the chances of further blocks. That's why I think that the requirement of 3 blocks before indef is still fair. Maybe he has some plans for better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: DS has not contributed to any WP:SPI since his return, and last SPI contribution goes back to November 2014,[60] but given that sockpuppetry is on a rise, I think that we should wait for his statement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.perf: I have notified him.[61] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

Uninvolved but have commented on DS at AE and ANI.

ARBIPA. Still reading/digesting diffs, Female infanticide in India, and GA review. Absolute population sex deltas in FiiI (25, 35, 50 million) are very troubling; saying infanticide is underreported (male+female infanticde is 111 per year) gives implication of 50 million female infanticides. Article on India's population, Demographics of India#Neonatal and infant demographics, gives more neutral view and states, "These [female infantcide] claims are controversial. Scientists who study human sex ratios and demographic trends suggest that birth sex ratio between 1.08 to 1.12 can be because of natural factors, such as the age of mother at baby's birth, age of father at baby's birth, number of babies per couple, economic stress, endocrinological factors, etc." Compare also Female foeticide in India. The FiiI article could have a much better PoV, but I don't believe DS is the one to bring it. The interaction between DS and FPaS clouds many issues (see Kingsindian), DS has some traction (OR for sex deltas on years rather than sources), but I continue to get the sense that DS edit wars without understanding the underlying issues (see, for example, Talk:Female infanticide in India#Why do you keep edit warring OR into this article? where infanticide not related to sex is not addressed). As I understand it, the article was an exception to the TBAN. I'd remove the ARBIPA exception because the GA failed, DS did not significantly improve the article, and DS said he would no longer edit the article.

I read clause 3 as applying only to civility blocks. The grant allows DS to be rude three more times, but it is not a license for (slow) edit warring or going against consensus. Three days may be light given the history, but the block length under clause 3 is not an issue for me. There can be an advantage to starting with a short duration: 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and done would keep the civility issue current.

There are significant problems with DS's editing: neutral point of view (WP:5P2), civility (WP:5P4), understanding, edit warring, and consensus building. Twenty-two blocks in 3.5 years. I'm sympathetic to an indefinite block but this venue seems wrong, and there was little interest at ANI. Glrx (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't like this 'editing under restrictions' thing because it rarely works. It is relatively easy for the other side in a dispute to take the editor to AE and, given the tendency on Wikipedia is to look unfavorably toward any editor who is under arbcom sanctions, sooner or later the restricted editor ends up banned. For example, the complaint filed by AmritasyaPutra would likely have got little traction on ANI but here it resulted in an immediate block. (I also don't see why there is a civility restriction on DS when his ban was for socking. Ideally, the only restriction that should have been placed on DS is "one sock and you're out". And, as OccultZone points out, DS has been a consistently good sock finder but is barred from filing SPIs. Go figure that one!) There is also the history between FPAS (who, imo, in every non-DS matter is an excellent admin) and DS that colors any interaction between the two and I suggest not giving excessive weight to FPAS's opinions about DS.

As Girx identifies, there are significant problems with DS's editing, which doesn't fit the mould of polite non-commitalness that we're constructing through various arbcom rulings. But, this tendency to be draconian toward anyone who doesn't fit the mould comes with a cost and particularly impacts editors like DS who take (as Girx identifies) a 'blitzkrieg' approach toward editing. An approach that involves throwing a lot of stuff at an article and then fighting anyone who tries to clean it up. On the face of it, this sort of editing is troubling but, from a larger perspective (the 'forest' so to speak), it is actually quite good for the encyclopedia, particularly if it does not come from a single well-defined POV (and, while he may push certain views in specific articles, it is hard to identify DS with any agenda). We get a lot of material on subjects that are only peripherally covered, if at all, in other encyclopedias and we have something to prune and refine and shape into something encyclopedic. Unfortunately, when we toss these sort of editors out of Wikipedia, we end up tossing out the baby as well. Meanwhile we are left with the polite POV pushers who collect enough fringe sources to make their material look mainstream and, because they are polite and do not attract block ready admins, they are very hard to combat. (I know, none of this is appropriate here. But it seems to me that we're continually fighting the wrong battles on Wikipedia!--regentspark (comment) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest report by FPAS and the comment by User:Heimstern exactly illustrates my point above. DS reverts FPAS once. FPAS comes running to AE. and Heimstern says "edit warring - let's indef block". This wouldn't even merit a blink in the normal course of editing. At least for content focused editors (as opposed to wikispace focused editors). --regentspark (comment) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:. Reviewing the sequence I can see that your block was actually independent of the AE report so I stand corrected on that point (and, under the conditions laid down, is probably a warranted block). But, the larger point is still valid. Most of what DS has done would not be sanctionable (or even worth examining) in the normal course of editing (particularly FPAS's last report). --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I am with RegentsPark on this. A big part of the problem here is FPaS, who seems to be stalking DS, and other people are piling-on for what are often very minor things. The Heimstern example given is a classic: I wouldn't have survived 5000 edits if that was applied to me. Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand and if someone was stalking me as FPaS has for a long time been stalking DS, I would react very similarly to DS. In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Darkness Shines

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

Was already in the process of blocking for this edit when I saw a note on their talk page about this. Blocked for three days per item 3 of BASC unblock conditions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally closed this however I've been asked to reopen it on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely Callanecc's 3-day block is the minimum that should be considered. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you want to propose an alternate duration? Based on on what you have said, I assume you must be thinking of a month or more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now read some past discussions and have reviewed Darkness Shines' block log. Between November 2014 and March 2015 DS was under an indef block. On March 26 the BASC accepted an appeal under a set of conditions that he has now violated. (More details were in the April 26 ANI). I recommend that the indef block be restored. Short blocks (say from 1 day to one month) usually are issued in the hope that the editor will take note and return to editing with a different approach. It seems to me that short blocks have no power to motivate DS one way or the other. Either we accept his presence, and put up with the constant stream of problems that seem to follow him inevitably, or issue an indef block. After 30 blocks and the failure of the last reprieve it appears that the time has come for an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The unblock conditions said after 4 offenses the block becomes indef so he gets a few chances (I wouldn't have had it that way but it's not m call). We could impose three blocks with long durations, however my approach would be (and is) that instead we impose three blocks (no more than 1-3 months) in the hope that they'll get the point if they don't then it's indef with appeal to BASC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - My reading of the unblock conditions would be that the four blocks rule is a floor, not a ceiling. That is, if DS makes an edit judged to be grossly uncivil or a personal attack, he is definitely going to be block, and a fourth instance of such will definitely result in an indefinite block. I don't read it as prohibiting harsher sanctions if the need arises. Since this request shows a pattern, rather than a single instance, I wouldn't read Ed's proposal as out of accordance with the unblock conditions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - As one of the drafters of those restrictions, my personal view is that they apply to blocks for incivility/personal attacks only - a second block for such must be longer than the first, a third longer than the second, and a fourth indefinite. They do not specify the starting duration, other than it may not be indefinite, nor do to they preclude blocks (of any length or number) for reasons other than incivility, should the community feel that justified. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So, everyone, do we have any sort of consensus here about what should happen? I'm tending toward Ed's view of reimposing the indef block based not so much on DS's incivility as his slow edit warring as shown by FutPerf. Alternatively, I would favour a lengthy block, at least a month, plus seeking consensus for the topic ban exemption to be rescinded. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I also agree with Ed that restoring the indef is appropriate. We should also remove the topic ban exemptions. T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        With the case DS's return to edit warring, I believe the case for restoring the indef is now solid. @EdJohnston:, @Callanecc:, do you have anything to add at this point? If not, I plan to go ahead with the indef. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I still don't think an indef is necessary. I'd rather (re?-)ban them from ARBEE, and remove the ARBIPA exemption for Female Infanticide in India. Plus possibly also looks into other sanctions (such as 0RR or 1RR (per 7 days maybe)) as I agree that they are still a useful contributor they just have problems working with others. I'd like to hear from Darkness Shines though - perhaps if it was a binding, through blocks, voluntary restriction to get a consensus before reverting (except for WP:BANEX). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to removing the exemption/s to the TBAN but I can only (unilaterally) remove the SPI exemption the exemption for Female infanticide in India needs to be removed by consensus if we want to go down that route. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Darkness can report socks, that's one of the exemptions I gave them to the TBAN I imposed and I don't see that there is a need to remove it. I disagree that if taken to AN or ANI it wouldn't have resulted in sanctions, I would have blocked for personal attacks whether the restriction was there or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom, second filing

Filing by topic-banned editor rejected Zad68 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Retartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom_admonished :; "TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."

Additionally: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Recidivism :; "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings

24 February 2015 Argues that wikipedia is in fact a battleground
12 March 2015, Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
13 March 2015, Defense of Nazi analogy
16 March 2015, Further criticism, note closing comment: "Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"

Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page

23 March 2015, Evidence of battleground mentality

Continues battleground behavior

9 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, unconstructive hyperbole
11 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
17 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
21 March 2015, Battleground; Insults multiple fellow editors
24 March 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
26 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
30 March 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Insults journalist
24 April 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor (Responds with "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" to an editor who posts "[I am] a Pro-GamerGater [but] I am not a troll")

In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior

24 April 2015, "This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."

Continues despite reminder

1 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral; Aims to offend
2 May 2015, Battleground; Non-neutral, BLP violation (Sommers)
5 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
8 May 2015, Battleground; Insults fellow editor
8 May 2015, continued

Additional

26 February 2015, 26 February 2015 Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
16 March 2015, 8 May 2015, 10 May 2015 Repeatedly uses a mocking term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
17 March 2015 Alleges without substantiation that editors Masem and Thargor Orlando are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

"While these linked edits are the most recent and problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling of contributions since the official admonishment. In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption."

Reposting the Ip's thing because people only focused on the fact that they were an IP, so im reposting it because i dont give a flying fuck if i violate my ban or not because lets face it: i lost the will to edit due to GG. I suspect that this too will be ignored because i'm topic banned and ill probably get sanctioned because of it. ~~If you do that, don't forget to block my other account (that i never use other than mobile).~~ I don't have another account pls ignore ;)

@PeterTheFourth: none of those diffs have me calling TRPOD a "fag", also nce speed, you collect diffs on everyone that you dislike? And i Dont care if i get banned. Retartist 10:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=662281028&oldid=662259524

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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 TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by PeterTheFourth

See here and here for actual battleground combat by the filer of this request e.g. calling TRPoD a 'faggot'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant question: is a topic banned editor eligible to file requests for the sanctioning of other editors based on what happened in that topic area? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lukeno94

I have no stake in this case, but I find it rather troubling that Retartist has refiled the case that was originally filed by a dynamic IP, and made very few changes to it. The fact that the case has been filed in almost an identical manner raises questions about Retartist, who shouldn't be filing this case anyway as a topic-banned editor in my opinion. Given that Retartist apparently doesn't care about their fate, I suggest a block for their topic ban violation, and declining this case with extreme prejudice. And before you accuse me of being "one of the bad guys", Retartist, you should note that I was one of those who strongly objected to MarkBernstein's return. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

I too have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda.

As to Retartist's re-filing of this, then I commend him for that. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (even with all the collateral damage that brings to articles) and we start restricting that over politically sensitive topics like this at our peril. I believe that those trying to quash enforcement action here, when there is so clearly a case to answer, are acting awfully close to hushing up a case because they're defending the editor involved, and not through the claimed reasons for why IPs aren't now allowed to raise cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Retartist is 'indefinitely banned from "any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed" for inserting BLP-violating external links after having previously been offered guidance on such' (11 February 2015). Reposting what is obviously the work of an editor seeking to avoid scrutiny is never desirable, and it is particularly unhelpful given that the request for enforcement concerns claims of battleground behavior.

Upon examination, the shotgun diffs do not live up to their claims. The February/March diffs are old and tame—the excited description of "Nazi" is entirely incorrect because the mention of superior orders was with regard to the well-known "I was just following orders" defense which is a criticism of a line of reasoning, not a "you're a nazi!" attack.

The 5 May 2015 diff ("the THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position") is entirely appropriate when read in context and is certainly not "Insults fellow editor". Would admins reviewing this request please browse the section concerned: Talk:Gamergate controversy#Topic Shift: to hat or not to hat (and the Topic original can go archive) (permalink). Complaining about TRDOD's response misses the point that the entire section (particularly given the thirty six pages of archives!) is a misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page, but to a degree that the isolated incidents that I observed would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But ignoring the issues with how this case was filed (and if it is a meritable filing), the total sum shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus a possible COI with editing the article.

To take what Johnuniq has pointed out, I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision.

Whether this is actionable at this time, I really don't know - as fully engaged, I have not reached a point where I felt a ArbCom request like this was necessary - but if we're going to leave this request open for comment, this seems like the right place to mention these issues. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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

I find myself largely in agreement with Johnuniq above. Given that Retartist's filing of this case was a clear breach of his own topic ban, and given that he was coming here with unclean hands himself (having most recently insulted other editors in the field with "faggots" [62] and "fuck you all" [63]), I have blocked Retartist for a month. I'll leave this open for a little while to allow for input from other admins, but unless there are objections I am minded to speedy-close this fairly soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filing by topic-banned editor rejected. Masem if you'd like to draw up your own request, feel free. Zad68 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom, third filing

500 edit/30 day minimum account qualification applied to Gamergate controversy article and Talk page; no further AE action Zad68 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom admonished: TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Additionally: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Recidivism Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

22 March 2015 comment on other editors i take it as a sign of how poor the american education system is.
1 May 2015 inflammatory, battleground? we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them.
8 May 2015 inflammatory, comment on other editors it is whining campaign by people who want think the wikipedia article should not represent the reliable source coverage of the subject. We are not here to be their therapists and listen to them whine.
24 April 2015 cautioned about battleground behaviour after
24 April 2015 insulting another editor qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent (Translation from Latin: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas)
3 May 2015 BLP violation? Has Sommers used this quote, or called anyone a feminazi? This seems to be the most actively that Sommers has indicated her affiliation with GG. In the past it has always been ... a full throated "Those feminazis are bad bad bad for trying to take the games away from the boys."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17 January 2015 blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and creating a hostile editing environment at Draft:Gamergate controversy

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am doing this third filing, because the first was rejected as a dynamic IP's (not me) filing, and the second was rejected due to a topic-banned editor filing. I believe that TheRedPenOfDoom is still creating a hostile editing environment, adding heat to the already controversial area. My last edits to the GamerGate article and talk page were in March 2015. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68 and EdJohnston: - I am immensely disappointed that even this third filing has been hijacked, driven off course by the 500/30 thing. If you could close this and let me open a fourth filing exactly the same as this one, I would be much obliged. Otherwise, please weigh in on TPRoD's behaviour. Also, Zad68, you commented on MarkBernstein's dog innuendos, but took no action. Perhaps you are unaware, MarkBernstein has been previously topic banned for disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing, as well as blocked for using insulting innuendo during an enforcement request. These dog innuendos are clearly repeated disruptions that do nothing to improve the project. I implore you to act. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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 TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by Andy Dingley

To repeat the filing above: I have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda.

As to the closures of this, and the month-long first block of Retartist, then they would have been egregious, except we're getting used to that sort of behaviour on WP. They are both far too close to appearing as an attempt to avoid criticism of a friend, rather than a justified closure because the filing was invalid. This is just the same shoot-the-messenger tactic that Future Perfect used for so long to defend his colleague Betacommand when it was obvious he'd returned as Werieth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)

I'd just like to contribute some diffs here that I discovered while reading the current talk page, encountering an editor name I didn't recognize and looking through that editor's history for context.

The new editor in question, Mythiran, cited existing, well-source page content and proposed that it called for a balancing edit to the lede (as it ignored part of the story entirely despite the weight given to it in the RSes). Less than 4 hours later, TheRedPenOfDoom collapsed the discussion, claiming that there is nothing here to discuss, using an edit summary noting the same lack of supporting materials. Which is to say, the substance of the argument, directly pointing at claims already in the article supported by multiple reliable sources, was completely ignored.

But I want to go a little beyond that, for essential context. It's worth looking at the replies that Mythiran got before the discussion was collapsed. Almost immediately, PeterTheFourth misrepresented the argument (as Mythiran had not claimed the "gamergaters" to be completely blameless), arguing that it "seems like it might be undue weight". MarkBernstein subsequently argued that Mythiran's claim has nearly no support in reliable sources, despite having just been shown the considerable support in reliable sources. This was followed up by explicitly marked sarcasm from Dumuzid, further misrepresenting the argument (as Mythiran's claims were well sourced).

That we keep seeing names like MarkBernstein and PeterTheFourth in situations like this is unsurprising to me, and I think that there is a clear pattern of behaviour here that should be of interest to the arbitrators. Seemingly every time any kind of objection to bias in the article is raised, it gets shut down with a similar combination of mockery, dismissiveness, strawmanning, and general failure to consider the argument. Whenever any view contradicting the tone of the existing page is proposed, it is treated as "undue" because only a few sources are presented at a time; meanwhile, the existing reliable sources are summarized in a way that discards all nuance and overstates their claims, and then this distorted version is held up as "proof" of statements being "untrue" (note the wording of PeterTheFourth and MarkBernstein's comments). In my mind, it's clear that the page is being treated as a battleground by a small group of editors who agree with each other - just as things stood before the Arbcom case. They are apparently a small minority of the people seeking to edit the page, yet they demonstrate a compulsion to keep out other views of the situation, and even points about the content of the existing reliable sources in the article. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Dumuzid: I find it a little suspicious that you were the one to immediately respond to my take on policy (and the common-sense interpretation of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" branding) in the first attempt to file this request; turned up in that series of diffs on TRPoD's side of the discussion; and seem to have a particular interest in the Gamergate controversy and Zoe Quinn pages in spite of claiming a primary interest in Ancient History, law, some music, and some geographies on your user and talk pages. I am pretty sure that the history of the Gamergate controversy cannot properly be called "ancient", except perhaps in a colloquial, Internet-specific sense. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Are you going to provide any meaningful citation for your claims, or demonstrate the relevance of the Hugo awards? Or are you just posting a bunch of dog puns in order to show contempt for the process? How does the addition of a CN tag constitute an argument for ignoring the sources? How does vandalizing a BLP page constitute a death threat? If someone were to vandalize a BLP page by claiming that the subject was a rape victim, would that be a rape threat? 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have repeated your claim about off-wiki coordination without evidence, and in fact doubled down, claiming that recruitment and training at 8chan, reddit, and elsewhere [is] glaringly apparent. Again I ask you to support your claims with something factual. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: If you want to avoid the appearance of WP:TAGTEAM, you could probably do better than to emulate MarkBernstein's dog-pun schtick.

@Bosstopher: They're inflammatory for the same reason that it's been inflammatory in previous Arbitration actions when MarkBernstein has seen fit to reply in sonnets, haiku etc. or just plain obfuscated language. Like I indicated above, it suggests contempt for the process.

@Cmatrix4761: This is fundamentally the same request - note that the diffs are the same. All that's changed is that the request is finally being brought by someone who can't be dismissed on procedural grounds. As others have noted, that it's taken this much effort to get arbitrators to even entertain the case, in spite of the quantity and quality of diffs presented, is concerning.

@Newyorkbrad: TRPoD was already formally admonished, and as far as I can tell, that decision was based on the same behaviour being presented here. Am I to understand that "counsel" constitutes an "increasingly severe sanction" vs. an "admonishment"? Or is there a more subtle distinction being made here? Is TRPoD perhaps allowed one "freebie" of every possible way of insulting other editors?

74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

Administrators may be interested to know that off-wiki planning of a campaign to reclaim Wikipedia for Gamergate have been especially active and ambitious in recent days.

This complaint calls for The Red Pen Of Doom’s efforts to defend Wikipedia from ongoing, coordinated attacks by Gamergate supporters to be cur-tailed. It it true that TRPoD has doggedly upheld Wikipedia policy; as the last of the Five Horsemen not banned in ArbCom's infamous debacle, TRPoD has been hounded on-wiki and off by sad puppies of Gamergate longing for further sanctions. (They don't like me much, either.)

TRPoD is now accused of using Latin ~~dog-~~ tags in the course of discussion, perhaps in emulation of the heinous Benjamin Franklin, who famously used the proverb.

TRPoD has shown the patience of a saint -- Saint Bernard? -- in the face of endlessly rehashed insistence from a parade of dormant and throwaway accounts [[64]] that the Gamergate pages should disregard the sources, the media being ~~bias~~ lapdogs of social justice. That administrators have done so little to enforce policy and to restrain Gamergate is deeply unfortunate, but of course ArbCom handed them a dog’s-breakfast.

[No question] is ever settled in this world where “new” accounts appear at uncannily regular intervals to re-raise the same propositions, to dog-whistle on sexual innuendo or insinuation of fraud that might be shoehorned into one of the articles, or simply [to play with hats]. Here we are again, chasing our tails; it’s enough to drive one barking mad.

The only way TRPoD could satisfy Gamergate’s proponents, as we know, would be to allow them resume the use Wikipedia to punish their targets. It is worth remembering that one of the first Gamergate threats to the life of Zoe Quinn was delivered by writing an obituary into her Wikipedia article. TRPoD has resisted countless efforts to use Wikipedia (and Wikipedia talk pages) to smear Gamergate’s intended victims and deserves your -- and our -- support and assistance. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: Yes, of course: the very worst of the “battleground” behavior complained of is that TRPoD borrowed an apposite proverb from Poor Richard’s Almanac. As to being insulting, at the outside I'm insulting to ArbCom -- but I’m not saying anything they haven't heard from me already, and I expect they're having too much fun with the Lightbreather case just now to worry about little old me! I’m critical of administrative inaction, true, but that's hardly insulting. I'd have mentioned that the whole point here is to get you all looking at TRPoD and not at actual policy violation, but I couldn't quite find the right image for that particular [Three_Bags_Full|canine behavior]. I forebear for the moment to mention "sea lions" as leading to a mixed ~~menagerie~~ metaphor, but of course we can take that as read, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: complains that pointing to 36 pages of previous discussion is unkind to “new” accounts who have just arrived at Wikipedia and who coincidentally want to revisit questions that have already been discussed many times as great length. There’s the brand-new editor just today who wants to rename the page -- a question discussed many times before. There’s another brand-new editor yesterday who wants to apply the NPOV tag, a question discussed many times before. All this might be more convincing if the “new” accounts were themselves more convincing, or if their recruitment and training at 8chan, reddit, and elsewhere were less glaringly apparent. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: The term “sea lion” is widely used in discussing Gamergate to describe a pattern of passive-aggressive hijacking of discussion by seemingly well-intention interlocutors. It's been a central Gamergate tactic from the inception of the movement. [[65]] [[66]] [[67]]. See PeterTheFourth below for precisely how this plays out on Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous: for details of the use of Wikipedia to deliver death threats to Zoe Quinn, see the feature story in this month’s Boston Magazine. For the Hugo Awards, a pair of Gamergate-affiliated groups called the "sad puppies" and the "rabid puppies" exploited a voting loophole in this year’s nomination process; in consequence, it is likely that many of the 2015 Hugos will be awarded to No Recipient. "Sad puppy" is also an image conjured by Gamergate off-wiki regarding their unjust treatment at the hands of Wikipedia, the press, and public opinion. And yes, I'm suggesting that treating a 16th-century chestnut about the hazards of unsavory associates as "insulting" and meriting stern punishment is silly. The appropriate response to the ridiculous is, sometimes, ridicule. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: The 500-edit 30-day requirement is worth trying, but might merely shift the mix of “new” accounts back toward the (re)use of dormant accounts, an approach which was characteristic pre-Arbcom. It’s conceivable that the use of fresh accounts indicates that Gamergate ran out of disused or "zombie" accounts to repurpose, but after Arbcom called for fresh voices, Gamergate may have decided to shift tactics to accommodate them. As you say, the Gamergate pages are a terrible starting point for new or “new” editors, both because they feature more than a million words of fresh backstory and because they are an invitation to BLP violation -- especially for people coming from the Gamergate forums and steeped in "facts" about the sex lives of Gamergate victims. My personal opinion is that intense moderation by active administrators who will tolerate no BLP violations and countenance no further time-wasting WP:FLAT or WP:FORUM posturing is the only solution, but your proposal might help. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re requests from anonymous editors demanding proof of offsite recruitment for Gamergate brigading: evidence is well known to the administrators who have previously been active in this area. Relevant boards are not hard to find -- a new subReddit was launched for this purpose just a few days ago -- but these cannot be linked here. Note, too, the number of brand-new editors who have rushed into Gamergate, violated BLP, received topic bans, and promptly vanished from the project; again, the passage PeterTheFourth quotes is pertinent. Note the number of Gamergate supporters on this page with sophisticated knowledge of WikiLaw and sparse editing histories. The use of demands for proof of offsite collaboration was, in fact, boasted of offsite by a (prolific, now-banned) Gamergate editor as a valuable tactic for Gamergate because answering such demands can then be used to complain of WP:OUTING. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that RfA has become, in the view of some, an onerous process, but I'm surprised to see AllMyEasterEggs, with six edits under their belt, participating in here as an administrator. And uninvolved administrator at that. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

Hi! I got pinged here (although that editor may be barking up the wrong tree), so I may as well make a statement. There's an ongoing effort to drive particular editors out of this topic area by making it a less pleasant place for them- I posit that TRPoD is not engaging in driving people out so much as he's being targeted for expulsion. Perhaps a statement from José Antonio Zapato, the blocked sock of EmonyRanger (seen here attempting to create a page for 'GameJournoPros', a gamergate talking point) would illustrate things more than I could:

"Ha! Implying you or one of the other "usual suspects" wouldn't love the opportunity to decline it. Not here for your enjoyment, sorry bub. This account is done and that's cool, it was more a question of when than if. I'll be back in a bit with another dozen, same as the next guy and the next. We're not trying to "win" the way you define it, we're trying to waste your time (score!) and make wikipedia an increasingly unpleasant experience for y'all. How's that going?

What you don't seem to get is this is asymetric warfare, mostly in the sense that for you all every loss is significant (hai Dreadstar!) - for us "loss" is expected but we can afford it. Every little victory or nuisance makes it just that much less pleasant here, just that one fewer editor/admin - and bit by bit the ratchet clicks. Click click buddy :) Talk soon. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Source here. Hopefully these continued efforts to drive editors such as TRPoD out of Wikipedia bear no fruit here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

(Note that this is taken partially with some edits from the previous closed request that Starship.paint notes.)

As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page; from my own recollection, it was only to a degree that the isolated incidents would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But the total sum of the diffs shown above shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus exhibiting a possible COI with editing the article.

One example of this attitude is this diff [68] which in context is a reply to an editor that wanted to keep unhatting a talk page discussion. I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision.

It also doesn't help with attitudes like Mark to make humorous posts when Poe's law readily applies to such discussions that have been mistaken as serious issues on the GG page. It's a mocking attitude that contributes towards the battleground situation. Humor is fine once in a while but not when its used insultingly. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: It doesn't matter if there's 36 pages of archives and FAQs to look through, civility says that we should at least give new voices to the conversation to opine. What has been done: asking "do you have anything specific you want to change to the article" and/or pointing to the FAQ when a new editor comes along complaining on POV is perhaps blunt but civil, and in most cases, this results in no return statement, and thus allowing the thread to be closed effectively. But when people come along with actionable ideas and that have not participated before, closing down those threads just because its claimed the ideas were discussed in archives and you don't want to talk about it any more is very much a battleground mentality, the exactly same that Ryulong and the others exhibited at the time of ArbCom. This is contributing poorly to the current decorum of the GG talk page in general that makes it hostile to any new voices, when in reality, that's what we need the most including what ArbCom asked for. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, if we are dealing with someone that is clearly coming to be disruptive and making inactionable suggestions, shutting that down quickly can be done with the aid of an uninvolved administrator. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68 : I would have no issue with having a higher qualification of contribution to use the talk page (30 days seems fair) at the present situation. I will admit there are people coming on as editors to poke at the discussion without any intent of helping to improve, so that should be fine. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

Given that tRPOD has not edited in a few days, it would perhaps be best if we pause this until he returns, instead of carrying out a trial in absentia.Bosstopher (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I hardly see what's inflammatory about these dog puns (but maybe it's because I dont get what they're a reference to). The atmosphere has improved tonnes since the constant Effing and Jeffing of the pre-Arbcom days (but stil admittedly has issues).Bosstopher (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

I've been called "suspicious" by an IP! I feel like a real Wikipedian. Just a note with regard to that, if I may indulge: I AM interested in the gamergate business, and I AM occasionally sarcastic, though I try to be fairly gentle when so. What I say on my talk pages also happens to be true. I hope that doesn't mean I am subject to recurrent arbitration enforcement attempts. On to the business at hand. In my experience, TRPoD can be acerbic at times, certainly, but it always seems to be in reply to something that appears to be offered in bad faith; e.g., the same suggestion for the umpteenth time. I suppose he or she could be more decorous, but I am still in the midst of getting a sense for how much toleration WP has for sharp elbows. Count me as one who would think it unfortunate should anything drastic happen to someone I consider an otherwise good editor.

Statement by (anonymous two)

As a person who has been following the internet drama known as gamergate, I too had encountered a hostile attitude back when IP's were allowed to edit the talk page of said topic, when I suggested, I guess as anyone who is following the issue up-close noticed, that the wiki article seemed not reflecting the reality. Granted, at first my "it's biased, fixed it" attitude was not good, but that was not because I was writing it in bad faith, I did not know the correct procedure, later when I suggested specific changes,(after being familiarized with policies) I was shut down by what I now see was the stock answers like, undue weight, not representing the majority of RS'es etc. When I contested and further argued my point, they said HORSEMEAT, SOAPBOX, NOTAFORUM etc, from the sheer hostility of the talk page, mind you I did not even edited the article itself, I decided to drop from the discussion. This was my first experience with editing wiki, i did edit before, to and fro various topics, but never even needed to communicate with fellow wikians. After this, I watched the talk page, and saw almost every time people that came to that talk page treated like me, if not worse, by the same users, TheRedPenOfDoom is the chief among them. I also see that people using the term "sealioning" which refers to a cartoon with an ill conceived humor that can be considered racist. But I believe, ironically, it really represents their way of thinking, which is "I can assert anything, however baseless it is, but when you ask for evidence, I don't have to provide any! And you being polite is somehow wrong, go away!" 195.174.183.35 (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I never said they are using it to make racist points. The cartoon itself is, as I said, ill conceived and depicts someone telling he doesn't like sea lions out of the blue, then a Sea lion rightfully questions this baseless opinion, as he is a Sea lion, he has every right to do that. The obvious interpretation of this allegory is someone telling a racist thing like I don't like Hispanics. Then neither trying to defend his statement nor acknowledging the error of it. But I think it would be far fetched to think that the cartoon can be used to illustrate "a type of aggravating behavior of a person interrupting a productive discussion other people are having by incessantly asking questions and demanding that people pay attention to you." All I can see in that cartoon is someone saying some idiotic thing without any evidence and knowing it will be contested/inflammatory (e.g gamers are sexist) then refusing to give any evidence to support that claim. And to top that treating the opponent's politeness as disingenuous and somehow wrong. I believe it is just a weak attempt to quash any criticism by using a buzz word that don't even make any sense. And as it is used, it's a good candidate for a new type of fallacy, just not the way you think. As for your decision to address the only part in my comment that can be used as a straw-man, it was a bit tacky. 195.174.183.35 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (cmatrix4761)

This is getting silly guys. This is the fourth arbitration request regarding battlefield editing and most of the complaints have involved Red Pen in some way. It's starting to spill into social media and you're even getting criticized by outside sources. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the editors for letting things get this far. Stop using op-eds as "reliable sources" when it comes to libel and personal attacks and stop letting editors treat these hallowed servers as their personal turf wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmatrix4761 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 May 2015‎ (UTC) Note: This is the first edit ever made by this account Zad68 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Original IP Filer

@PeterTheFourth: Examining the contributions of the editor and sock you mention as examples of the behavior TRPoD has to contend with (EmonyRanger and José Antonio Zapato) - out of hundreds of edits between the two accounts I only found one tangential relation to Gamergate (GameJournoPros) and no interaction with TRPoD whatsoever. We all know sock puppets and bad actors exist. Do you have examples relevant to this case, for instance sock puppets focused on the Gamergate article/talk page (the scope of this filing) or TRPoD (the subject of this filing) ? 107.107.60.14 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: Although I appreciate your attempts to keep MarkBernstein on topic do you have any comments on the merits of the case or potential resolution?

In terms of a broader solution, while there's merit to your suggestion it focuses on the symptom. The root cause of these new (and unhelpful) accounts is the poor state of the article which isn't the result of new accounts but established accounts. Address the POV editing, TAGTEAMing, BITEing and incivility (demonstrated in other editors' comments) and you'll remove the impetus for most of this disruption. That's not to say treating the symptom isn't also appropriate but this should be in addition to not instead of treating the cause. I'd like to hear suggestions to that end.

I'd also suggest an addendeum to your 500 edit hurdle - the edits must be in areas unrelated to Gamergate. I'm not sure whether that would best be construed narrowly (i.e. Gamergate and directly related: Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian, etc.) or broadly (progressive/conservative, anti-feminism/feminism, etc.) but the goal would be to discourage editors from registering just to push a POV, encouraging more moderate and uninvolved voices. 107.107.62.221 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: I'm not admin but it seems trivial for an admin to click the "500" link in an editor's contrib history to see if the overwhelming majority focus on Gamergate. Am I missing something? Keep in mind this would only be necessary in cases where the editor has more than 500 edits, which hasn't been the case at all so far. It takes a while to rack up 500 edits so at most we're talking once, maybe twice per month which I can't reconcile with "too hard to enforce."

As it is your new rule effectively says: "New single purpose accounts in this space are forbidden, but old single purpose accounts (whose 500 edits come from gamergate) and who've most likely contributed to disruption in this area are just fine!" Is that really your intent? 166.171.185.192 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

RE: "if the editor is a SPA behaving badly throughout 500+ edits, bring them to AE and it should be easy to see" -Zad68

This enforcement had to be brought 4 times in succession before it was finally addressed, new rules were created to prohibit the previous 3 and thus far between 3 administrators and 10 comments not a single one has addressed the substance of the filing. The outcome is leaning towards a caution to behave better if anything at all. So when you say "it should be easy to see" perhaps, but as this filing demonstrates it's been made exceedingly difficult to enforce.

Meanwhile, contributions like this [69] made minutes after your last edit continue and are surprisingly encouraged by at least one admin (Liz.) Such comments are chiefly responsible for the disruption and battleground attitude but nothing you or anyone else has suggested will have the effect of addressing them. Instead we've fixed the minor annoyance of new accounts whose contributions are hatted shortly before they're banned. Well done. 107.107.62.96 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ColorOfSuffering

I've had several interactions with TheRedPenOfDoom, and in my mind this user has done the most to foster a hostile environment on the Gamergate Controversy talk page. It's clear that this editor seems to be more interested in the battle than the resolution, ostensibly due to a steadfast belief that there is some dedicated, persistent off-site campaign to destabilize Gamergate-related articles. Consequently, every incoming editor with a dissenting opinion is treated as a member of this supposed campaign[70]. New editors are viewed with suspicion and silenced[71][72][73][74], while established editors are shouted down; sometimes literally [75][76][77][78] (if capital letters, large fonts, or bold text for emphasis count as shouting) or they are accused of beating a dead horse if they so much as bring up what is perceived to be an already-discussed topic [79][80][81][82][83][84].

This behavior is not helpful, it is not productive, and it is clear-cut intimidating behavior which is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. These are troubling actions, especially for a user who has been previously admonished by ArbCom for battleground behavior and creating a hostile editing environment. There are enough stewards and watchers on the Gamergate Controversy page to prevent even the tiniest value-based word change (see this productive discussion as an example of how difficult it is to change even a single well-sourced word in the article space) much less widespread disruption. Does this unfounded and paranoid belief that there's some ongoing, nefarious cabal trying to undermine the sanctity of the Gamergate Controversy article give certain editors carte blanche to ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL? Is this a good precedent? Would this behavior be tolerated (even endorsed) on any other article talk page? Enough is enough. If editors like TRPoD do not stop treating this article like some kind of fortified bunker under ceaseless attack, then it's time for them to take a step back and consider that there are, quite possibly, some valid issues being raised by the new editors. If they can't do that, then administrative action needs to be considered. The ArbCom decision specifically requested "knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles" to come and review the article. The behavior exhibited by TheRedPenOfDoom is chasing those users away. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:The fact that this article has 37 archived pages is completely irrelevant, unless you'd like to quote some kind of policy which links the two unrelated points. Gamergate controversy is a contentious article that's been through ArbCom, so it's been the subject of a lot of discussion. Using that irrelevant fact as a justification to shut down discussion is battleground behavior. Writing it in large font is rude. Using vulgar language in that context is uncivil. Further, discussing the article's perceived bias with new editors is not compulsory -- it's just as easy to ignore these requests as it is to collapse them. Unless there's an exception to WP:5P4 that allows for editors to delete and hide recurring topics of discussion (and if there is such a section, by all means point it out) this is nothing more than battleground mentality at best, and intimidating behavior at worst. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

@Zad68: That sounds like a good solution. This article, and those of people associated with Gamer Gate, have suffered from newly created accounts that pop in to the talk page and yell, "This article is BIASED!" If I had a dollar for every time this has happened in the voluminous talk page archives, I could probably pay off the last of my student loans. The situation isn't as bad as it was in November or even January but this additional safeguard would ensure only experienced editors could work on the page. Whether or not the talk page should also have this restriction, is another question. That page is the site of the most personal and divisive disputes over the past 9 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ColorOfSuffering: There are 37 archived talk page for an article that has only existed 9 months. When I was a closer watcher of this article, the same questions were continually brought up again and again but the GG situation hasn't changed. I do not think it is rude to refer to previous discussion on the same topic rather than fill a page rehashing the same arguments especially when there has been very little new information to add to the article. The entire GamerGate situation has fallen off the radar of most online news sources so it is a matter of polishing up the article and preventing vandalism. If there were new developments occurring, I might agree with you but it was an event that happened and, aside from posts on message boards and reddit, it's over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@195.174.183.35: The idea that "sealioning" is a racist reference is among the biggest red herrings I've seen on Wikipedia. The sealion cartoon illustrates a type of aggravating behavior of a person interrupting a productive discussion other people are having by incessantly asking questions and demanding that people pay attention to you. It is a tactic or strategy to wear people down that is independent of any particular point of view, gender, race, political party or nationality. I will say that it is definitely not a compliment but any person can sealion or be a victim of sealioning behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScrapIronIV

@Zad68: Begging your pardon, but there are plenty of new and decent users who have never touched that article and would be affected by that sanction. While I am relatively inexperienced and try to stay away from controversial topics, there may come a time when I have the confidence to do so. I don't think that newer users should be automatically sanctioned. How this committee handles these situations has already appeared to generate a lot of controversy. The focus needs to be on problematic editors, not on special rules for individual pages that will impact a subset of users. Scr★pIron^IV 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the "account creation date" sanction in that comment. I actually support the idea of a minimum number of edits for controversial pages. That is a milestone that an editor can eventually overcome. A fixed date for account creation can never be met, as it is set in stone. Scr★pIron^IV 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AllMyEasterEggs

Sorry to hop in ex-post facto, but on the 500 edit+ 30 day rules requirement, is there any precedent for this? Is it going to be the case that if enough editors with gaming knowledge try to edit the page going forward that these increasingly draconian measures will be escalated without limit? Will there be a 5000, 300 day requirement? 50000 edits, 3000 days? Are there precedents, and do ones to this level really need to be set on account of the Gamergate page?

This restriction is simply not needed given the already firm level of control of the article by the editors and admins involved already, as evidenced by its current state. I doubt anyone point to a single case of a user who actually managed to successfully insert material contrary to the wishes of the controlling group. Their control is all but absolute.

The purpose of this seems to be sooley to spare the controlling editors the embarassment of having to actually contest their position. I'd like to hear about previous applications of pages restrictions of this magnitutude, in order to compare whether the issues faced by this editing group are really so dire as supposed in comparision. Without any, this measure simply serves to spare a clique of editors the overhead of even achieving consensus. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Monkeyfoetus

@MarkBernstein: Note the number of Gamergate supporters on this page with sophisticated knowledge of WikiLaw and sparse editing histories.

Are you implying that knowing Wikipedia's rules is evidence of off-site collusion/meatpuppetry? Because that seems like an awful catch-22. Anyone doesn't know the rules can't successfully argue for or against a change to an article, nor defend themselves when accused of a rule violation. Meanwhile, those who can make successful arguments demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's rules and bureaucracy, which is then held as evidence of ban evasion, sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, on the basis that the only way one could know enough about Wiki-law to rebut the arguments of an experienced editor is through counsel by another experienced editor (meatpuppetry/off-site collusion) or by her/himself being an experienced user (sockpuppetry/ban evasion). Nevermind that the rules and principles are explained clearly and concisely on their associated pages, which are frequently linked in talk-page disputes. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

500/30 - Yes, please. This isn't a breaking story or an article that requires frequent updates so Wikipedians with some level of experience should be able to keep up with and evaluate new material. A specially crafted restriction would help ensure users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, not just to advance a POV on a very specific subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side-note: I did this as AllMyEasterEggs has been checkuser blocked. I assume a clerk or admin should strike out their section if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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

MarkBernstein I'm sorry are you just having fun with a running dog-related joke or are you actually hinting at or pointing to something or some editor with the dog allusions? Zad68 15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just riffing on this? Zad68 15:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MarkBernstein yes, the request is to look at tRPoD's behavior, relative to the ArbCom remedies in place. This request is well-formed and we're supposed to do that. What do sea lions have to do with anything? If this is some other jokey metaphor can you please drop doing it. Zad68 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for now: I'm digging through what's here, in the ArbCom archives, at the Talk pages, and elsewhere. There's some merit to the complaint about tRPoD's behavior, but there are also a valid point about what appears to be efforts by those who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's goals in mind to exploit a soft spot in Wikipedia's editing model. Focusing on just the second point now, I'm considering the option of placing the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page under special page-level sanctions that would increase the editor qualifications requirement from the current 10 edits/4 days to something like 500 edits/30 days, and some further qualifications on what would count toward "500 edits"--meaning, it couldn't be 500 trivial edits to a sandbox page. I don't think anybody would argue that that particular article, in the current environment, would be a great place for a truly new, good-faith editor to start their editing career. Masem, MarkBernstein, as you appear to be the most invested here and are coming from differing perspectives, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Zad68 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on setting up the 500/30 page-level sanction now. Zad68 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done page-level sanction notifications, but leaving this open to review behavior, haven't done that yet, but I have to step away at the moment. Zad68 19:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up note, I decided against trying to qualify by the quality of the 500 edits, that would just be too hard to enforce. It's easy to see when an account was created and how many edits it has. Let's just start there and see if it has a beneficial effect. If it works, the same can be applied to other related pages. I can also create an editfilter that would automatically disallow edits by accounts that don't meet the qualifications. If it turns out that this new page-level sanction drives the creation of 31-day-old socks, I can implement a sanction that says "No accounts created after 1 August 2014," which is about when this mess started. That can be left in place indefinitely, until it appears the articles aren't targeted any more. Zad68 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To those concerned about "what if all 500 edits are GG-related", at this point it is too risky to allow invested editors to be the ones making such a judgment call. If the editor is a SPA behaving badly throughout 500+ edits, bring them to AE and it should be easy to see. Zad68 21:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I counsel TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid references to the quality of editors' educations and/or their perceived need for therapy. I support no other action against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A related requirement of different treatment of accounts with less than 500 edits was imposed at Nagorno-Karabakh (and is still in effect now) per a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#Nagorno-Karabakh article (Arpil 2012). Reason for doing this at Nagorno-Karabakh was the extreme problem of sock editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support Zad's 500/30 page sanction, and I also agree that it would be counterproductive to set rules for the character of the 500 edits, such as they must have a certain quality, or must not all be GG-related. We can never foresee every possible wrinkle or sharp practice, and we can't fix them in advance by throwing instruction creep at them. Instead, we must trust admin discretion. With the special discretionary powers administrators have in the area, they can sanction any user who is obviously attempting to game or skirt the rule, in whatever manner. @ User:AllMyEasterEggs (five edits): Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor a quasi-judicial body; it doesn't work by precedent. To have special rules for special cases is in perfect harmony with the project's principles and culture.

I don't support any action against TheRedPenOfDoom at this time. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Closing notes - I reviewed the behavior of TRPoD in the context the comments were made, and reviewed the histories of the accounts they were interacting with. Sanctions are preventive and not punative. I believe the page-level sanction havea a good chance of dealing with the entire issue, and I do not see a need for any further action beyond the 500/30 minimum applied. Newyorkbrad's advice is sound, if he would like to further draw TRPoD's attention to that advice he may do so as an individual outside of AE action. Zad68 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRISZOOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

23:41, 16 May 2015 This is when Debresser gave up on removing "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land" and instead began changing to "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land"
09:30, 17 May 2015 Debresser changes again to "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land"

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

See:

Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing#Removals by Apndrew and improper edit summaries and ARBPIA violations by Debresser
Made two revert of those who put in an ARBPIA template and gave a reason why he thinks it does not belong there
User talk:Debresser#Careful
ARBPIA template at the top of Talk:Sur Baher

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There has been much dispute and discussion on Sur Baher and Talk:Sur Baher since 4 May. There have been mainly two disputes and one of them this is about is the statement added by Sean.hoyland that "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". See Sur Baher#East Talpiot. Debresser reverted it on 12 May with this edit summary. The source does say that: "... East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land".

Debresser has not wanted to refer to any source for his assertion. Even if someone accept the last one (the first one is not true as the statement is in the source), that other parts of East Talpiot's area are from another village, the statement does not, as Sean.hoyland described it, imply that "All/most of East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". It is about what happened with most of Sur Baher's expropriated land. The newest wording, "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land" is not a proper description of what the source say. I said that "That changed the meaning of what the source say. See talk page" and he reverted me by saying "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself".

I would keep discussing this on that talk page, despite that he is not giving any source for his arguments against a RS, and not come here, as I have also already looked away two times that he reverted two editors in the same time on that article recently, if it was not for that Debresser keeps on insisting that the statement added by Sean.hoyland can't be there and as he said on the talk page: "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". I see his edits as a violation of WP:1RR and more broadly, it is a conduct problem to not offer any reliable source and still removing the statement and then changing the meaning of what the source say and then say others who revert him once more, who base in on a RS in contrast to him, will "force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page" is a very problematic view. Notice also that it is me, Huldra and Sean.hoyland who has reverted him on that part and he has not had any support for that part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards