Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:19, 27 June 2015 editDoc James (talk \| contribs)Administrators312,255 edits →Statement by User:Doc James: corrected self← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:29, 27 June 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,803 edits →Statement by Atsme: cmt to DJNext edit →
Line 1,163:		Line 1,163:

	*Article is PP by NeilN Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the block he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards.		*Article is PP by NeilN Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the block he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards.

			====Response to Doc James====
			A wise admin and former ARBCOM member {{u\|Someguy1221}} explained Verifiability well: ''"In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles."''

			With the latter in mind, I can't help but consider the following with reference to MEDRS when Doc James stated: "This guidelines is malleable to accommodate poorly studied areas such as this one." . The poorly studied area being kombucha, and the questioned source being a low quality, single author, 13 yr. old systematic journal review that Doc James green lighted for citing unsupported scientific claims of potential causality based on the poor reporting of a very small group of anecdotal case reports. No, this appeal isn't about my misunderstanding of MEDRS as Doc James is trying to make it appear - it's about my refusal to accept his suggestion that MEDRS guidelines are malleable. My first obligation when writing any article is to maintain compliance with NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and in the case of health and/or food articles, to ''strictly adhere'' to MEDRS which clearly conflicts with malleable, particularly when citing material regarding human health. I remember how, 2 mos ago, I was castigated by certain members of Proj Med for once referring to MEDRS as a guideline, not a policy, when writing my first essay. The words, "strict adherence", were tattooed on my posterior. A group of Proj Med editors immediately requested the essays deletion, partly because they felt it didn't show enough respect for MEDRS when I wrote "follow" MEDRS guidelines instead of treating it more like policy with strict adherence. The new essay ] now reads "requires close attention" but based on current events, I should probably update it to read, MEDRS, the malleable guideline. And the irony - here I am now appealing a block for having respected MEDRS. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 03:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

	===Statement by Callanecc ===		===Statement by Callanecc ===

Revision as of 03:29, 27 June 2015

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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 informationShortcuts

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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

A Quest For Knowledge

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Anthony Watts (blogger) and Climate change denial anywhere on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed, until September 16, 2015. - Penwhale \| 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
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 A Quest For Knowledge User who is submitting this request for enforcement Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested A Quest For Knowledge (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Watts Up With That - a blog which promotes fringe views on climate science - recently canvassing their readers to "correct" our coverage. Since then, we've been having a tough time handling the increased attention and fervor, and consensus building has been turbulent. I requested page protection to facilitate discussion, but we kept hitting the same walls, so JzG created an RfC to address a recurring issue. Unfortunately, A Quest For Knowledge has been disrupting the RfC and other methods of consensus building, which has made our task considerably harder. He has repeatedly inserted his opinions into the RfC question, suggesting that responding is a waste of time, and all but one of the options contravene policy, making the RfC's summary markedly non-neutral. In two cases, he added his opinions in the middle of JzG's comment, which mixed up attribution of JzG's words and the origin of the RfC. My first effort was to move his comment to the discussion section, but he reverted me, and approaching him on his talk page hasn't helped. May 30, 09:05 May 30, 13:06 May 30, 18:11 June 1, 19:28 While the RfC's wording may not be perfect, it was obviously a good faith effort to aid discussion and build consensus, and the structured format has helped us tease out a few suggestions already. AQFK's edits are clearly an effort to stop discussion and collaboration, which has not been helpful in an already terse environment. AQFK has also been edit warring on the article for a considerable time. He is not the only one, but his history is extensive, and his reverts are often not coupled with substantive discussion. The following diffs are all removing the same sourced content from the article: June 1, May 30, May 29, May 26, May 23, May 23, May 22, May 12, May 10, May 10, May 10, May 7, May 7, May 6, May 3, May 3, April 30, April 29, April 27, April 21, April 21, April 20 AQFK has been exhibiting other problematic behavior as well, which I'll add to this request as I'm able. It is worth noting that disruptive behavior is not limited to AQFK, and broader sanctions may eventually be needed, but at the moment AQFK is the only one attempting to hinder collaboration. AQFK was previously topic banned from climate change by arbcom in 2010. The ban was lifted in 2012. The topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I'm asking that they be applied (in whatever form is deemed necessary) to prevent further disruption. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) AQFK has also been misrepresenting the conversation, and not working toward a goal of building consensus and collaborating with editors of different viewpoints. For example, when discussing the inclusion of this quote, AQFK has repeatedly summarized the dispute as the addition of the word "denier": , , , , , , , , , , , This has led to confusion, since the contested edit does not contain the word "denier". Yet, AQFK continues to assess sources based on their use of the word "denier" and not variants like "climate change denial". Editors have asked AQFK to be more careful in his choice of language (, , , , , ), and method of assessing sources (), but his behavior has not changed (). Note that the last diff is one AQFK has copied and pasted several places. In it, AQFK misrepresents the sources by saying the word "denier" does not appear in any of them, when in reality some variant of "denier" appears in nearly 30%. () — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct and this DS notice on May 3rd Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge 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 A Quest For Knowledge The problem with the RfC as currently written is that it presents a false trichotomy. According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google): PBS - "skeptic" Scientific American - "skeptical" American Thinker - "skeptic" New York Times - "skeptics" Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set? PBS - "skeptic" LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism" Fox News - "skeptical" USA Today - "skeptic" The Telegraph - "science" BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as: Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources Meteorologist - 1 Source Science - 1 Source Denier - 0 Sources I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results: IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical". The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used. Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist" Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative". Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative" Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic" Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog" Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used. The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist" Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic". Google Scholar Totals: Skeptic - 3 times. Meteorologist - 2 times Conservative - 2 times Anti-climate science - 1 time Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time Science - 1 time Science (in quotes) - 1 time Denier - 0 times Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority. Unfortunately, the RfC as written presents 3 options, all of which require that we violate Misplaced Pages's rules, on a WP:BLP no less. Other options are completely omitted from the RfC. For example, another editor presented a compromise which both Jess and I liked yet it was completely omitted from the RfC. Why was this omitted from the RfC? Imagine an election where major opposition candidates are left off the ballot. Would such an election be considered legitimate? I'm not against an RfC - quite the contrary - RfCs are a wonderful way to judge consensus. An RfC which presents a false trichotomy while ignoring actual legimate options isn't going to solve anything. I've been on Misplaced Pages for 6 years and have tens of thousands of edits. I have as much right to point out that an RfC is flawed as anyone. The idea that an editor should be sanctioned for pointing out that a flawed RfC is flawed is absurd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC) As for the edit-warring, anyone who knows me knows that I always try to follow WP:BRD. However, BRD does not work if I'm the only one willing to follow it. I brought up a legitimate WP:BLP concern. Under no circumstance should anyone edit-war contentious negative information back into the article. It should have gone to the talk page and only restored after consensus was reached. I may have edit-warred, but at least I edit-warred to remove contentious content, not the other way around. In any case, if we're throwing stones at glass houses, here's everyone with more than one revert on just the last sentence in the lede: Akhilleus ArtifexMayhem Capitalismojo DHeyward Gnncmac Joel B. Lewis JzG Mann jess Nomoskedasticity Peter Gulutzan PeterTheFourth Stephan Schulz Tillman Ubikwit If you want to sanction someone, how about sanctioning all the editors who edit-warred contentious negative WP:BLP material into the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC) In retrospect, I obviously wasn't thinking clearly. It was a mistake for me to edit-war on the RfC. I can see why it was disruptive, although it was certainly not intentional. I suppose that might make little difference. But if I realized that it was disruptive at the time, I certainly wouldn't have done it. I obviously let my emotions get the better of me, and for that I'm sorry. I let down the editors of that article, and the community, and I let down myself. I apologize. All I can say is that nobody is perfect, and we all have lapses of judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Guerillero I have no horse in this race, I just formatted Jess's request in the format that AE likes --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ubikwit This is an issue that needs attention. AQFK has been tendentiously ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and making repeated recourse to WP:WTW, for example, ignoring the numerous comments on the Talk page refuting the attempt. The Watts BLP and WUWT blog article are subject to WP:PSCI, and the semantics issue between "denier", etc., and "skeptic" would seem to be clearly subordinate to the policy-based prioiritization of the mainstream view of scientists versus Watts' pseudoscience views, which do not correspond to scientific skepticism, but do fall under the rubric of environmental skepticism.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I was not aware that the article was under a 1rr restriction, either. Perhaps someone should post a banner or the like on the page.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC) It bears noting that the discussion regarding denialism vs skepticism has been going on for a couple of months now at Watts' BLP, predating the appearance of both Man Jess and Sphilbrick. A substantial number of sources and interpretive aspects have been discussed, and I added most of the sources that had been previously discussed at the BLP to the WUWT talk page yesterday, rounding out this list. It also bears noting that the issue of including "denialism" on WP:WTW has also been under discussion for a couple of months, with an emerging consensus to delete the term from that guideline. AQFK did participate in that discussion as well, though he subsequent deleted his comment. It further bears noting that Dave souza has been tackling the definitional aspects in a professional manner, with this edit, for example, and more to come from this source.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Query What is the reason for the delay in handling this complaint?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by JzG I have to say that AQFK's approach seems to me to be unhelpful. AQFK states as fact that an RfC cannot possibly succeed because of WTW, even though it includes nothing more skeptical than the result of the previous RfC, and numerous good-faith comments by long-time Wikipedians have already accepted that the question is valid. It is fine to dispute the question put in an RfC. It is not fine to insist on stating as fact that the question is invalid, when that is just an opinion, and is rejected by most others commenting. AQFK also repeatedly removes a statement which is sourced and attributed to a well-known authority, citing BLP, despite, again, numerous long-time Wikipedians arguing in good faith that this is not a violation since it si high profile, sourced and attributed. Overall the impression is that PAG are being used not as a guide to good practice, but as a magic talisman to wave away opinions for which the editor very obviously harbours a visceral hatred. And AQFK comes across as a Warrior for Truth™, where Truth equates to a philosophical view divorced from scientifically established reality. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) @Sphilbrick I am not sure what you're implying re. Mann jess, I would have thought that the involvement of experienced editors new to the article would be highly desirable, given the history of entrenched views and fights between the usual suspects on these articles. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) @AQFK: You are stating your opinion as fact again. It is not a fact that the three options "violate" WP:BLP. That is in fact a grossly uncivil comment given that a significant number of people support one or other of them; you are in essence saying that several good faith editors and admins are systematically violating a core policy, by advocating an attributed comment from a world-famous expert in the field - who you happen to dislike. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway As indicated in the request, this is an editor with a history of egregious disruption in this topic. The topic ban was lifted on the basis that the topic was under a sanctions process and the editor had kept their nose clean for a good while. And so we're back here. On the face of it, the editor has returned to their disruptive ways and is now interfering with serious consensus-building attempts. It seems reasonable to me to consider once again an indefinite topic ban. --TS 11:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Are we going to allow a former topic banned policy violator to argue that their latest serious violation is justified by some content argument, related in some vague way to the BLP policy? That's the same question arbcom faced in 2010, when A Quest For Knowledge used the same argument in defence of their disruptive conduct at that time. Why would we assume that they've learned from their mistakes if they pull the same silly stunt _five years later_? --TS 22:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Comment by Robert McClenon I was not involved in this particular controversy, but have a comment. I was involved in a Request for Comments where one of the parties to the conflict protested the RFC vociferously. That sort of behavior is very disruptive, especially because an RFC is often the last option of resolving a content dispute before going to conduct dispute resolution. Also, inserting one's own comments in the middle of another editor's comments, even if meant in good faith, is problematic because it is very likely to cause other editors to mistake who is saying what. Aside from the more general matter of whether the subject editor is POV-pushing or personalizing the dispute (and I haven't researched that), disrupting an RFC is a conduct issue that complicates the resolution of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sphilbrick As Mann jess correctly points out, there is a post at WUWT reacting to recent edits to the article. Guy was understandably concerned about potential external influence, (see my talk page). I shared this concern, reviewed the article edit logs and recent edit history. I am sure there is some involvement, my casual review suggested it was not significant. Please note that Guy and I hold very different opinions on the substance of the dispute, but Guy concurs. Most of the recent edits, and most of the contributors to the talk page are "regulars", the exception being Mann jess, who had zero involvement prior to 17 May, but who is now the fifth leading contributor to the article. The very first edits by Mann jess to the WUWT article were a consecutive sequence of 14 edits, adding relevant material, but also changing the lede to characterize WUWT as a "blog dedicated to climate change denial" Mann jess has over 10,000 edits. Most editors with that much experience would know that such a contentious statement should be discussed on the talk page first. The edit was reverted, by AQFK, with edit summary (Per WP:WTW.) a reference to a guideline which specifically singles out "denialist" as a word to watch The article is subject to a 1RR editing restriction, but Mann Jess re-introduced the wording with less than 24 hours elapsing between the first entry, the removal, and the re-introduction. In fairness, not every editor is aware of which articles are subject to 1RR, so I think this should mot result in sanction. To her credit, Mann jess immediately went to the talk page to open up discussion. However, per WP:BRD, one should then reach a consensus before re-introducing contentious wording. Mann jess requested semi-protection, I requested full protection. It has achieved the goal of stopping the edit war, and starting talk page discussion, which while heated, is proceeding. I understand Mann jess's objection to the edit by AQFK that inserted a comment near the top of an RfC, rather than at the bottom. However, the RfC failed to mention that "denialism" is covered by WP:WTW, and thus, while not prohibited, requires a much higher hurdle than simply a consensus of editors to use the word. It is understandable that AQFK was trying to be helpful, so that outside editors would not spend time reviewing sources, and thinking about the best wording, only find some time later that a specifically relevant guideline existed. I do think AQFK could have handled the attempt to inform readers differently, but we do not levy sanctions for failure to be perfect (for which I am thankful). --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by JBL There is a long-term content/wording-based edit war going on about how to describe Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog, and particularly about the use of various forms of the word "deny." AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. In this context, most of AQFK's behavior has been consistent with the battleground approach being taken by editors on both sides, but the disruptive edits to the RFC are I think notable for their inappropriateness. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Edit to add: it is worth mentioning that Mann jess has been making substantial improvements to at least the Watts article (unrelated to ongoing edit warring) while all this has been going on. Response to Arzel: This sort of bad-faith argumentation, in which you pretend to care about the sanctity of process when in fact you care about the actual outcome, is tiresome. See my related comments here. Statement by MONGO I cannot say whether or not AQFK has or has not acted inappropriately as far as edit warring and disruption, or whether others have in this matter. My take on the blog is that it posts guest speakers that are at least skeptical if not openly in denial of AGW. The lack of sturdy science in the blog which agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is fact is alarming...so I would not consider the blog to be a reliable source. In one post on the blog, apparently written by Watts, he states in essence that he agrees with the scientific concensus that the planet is warming and that some of this warming is caused by us. He did not elaborate on how much is caused by what source. Watts then proclaims he considers himself a skeptic and scoffs at being labelled a denier. He also seems to be calling on his readers to correct this information. I do not know if AQFK saw this and is trying to help, but I doubt it. I won't link to the blog post as it makes a personal attack against one of our editors. Anyway, my take is that Watts opinion of himself, though it is a primary source, is important since this is a BLP issue. The parties need to work towards a consensus about incorporating Watts's proclamation and also listing what reputable scientists say. I suggested the source by an antagonist of Watts (Mann) be kept out since other scientific viewpoints of similarity could be used instead.--MONGO 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Peter Gulutzan Mann jess's accusation should be dismissed. Re JzG's RFC: I also complained it was not neutral and warned that JzG says people who don't call WUWT a denial blog are "idiots", Mann jess says about A Quest For Knowledge "he reverted me" but actually three different editors reverted. Re the diffs: Mann jess says this is about the Watts Up With That article but actually the diffs are from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, a BLP, which did not have a recent influx of new editors or perturbation caused by Watts's blog post. On Anthony Watts (blogger), by my count five different editors have reverted the addition of the quote in the lead saying Watts's blog is a denial blog, with oft-expressed concerns on the talk page about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are more editors re-inserting (I counted eight), but that is not a consensus and A Quest For Knowledge deserves a defender-of-wiki barnstar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Update: I believe one would get a better view of academic and mainstream-media reliable sources (plus Watts himself) saying skeptic by looking at an older version of the Anthony Watts (blogger) page here, and looking at the five citations after the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming" then the ten citations after the sentence "The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming." I point to an older version because Mann jess destroyed those sentences. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir I followed the Anthony Watts page for a bit, but honestly got tired of it and unwatched it. I'm disappointed to see that the exact same thing I saw weeks ago is still occurring. Without commenting on the content itself, AQFK's actions seem quite inappropriate and battleground. Especially so for the RFC comments. I opened the diffs, closed them, and reopened them thinking I had accidently opened the same one over and over... the fact that I hadn't and that the same comment was essentially spammed is what prompted me to comment now. Given the past sanctions but otherwise good behavior (unless someone knows of similar disruption related to AGW outside of this recent event), perhaps a short reinstatement of the topic ban (e.g., 4 months) would be appropriate. It would provide cooling off time as well as time to demonstrate intent to cease disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cas Liber If a person is perverting the use of or misrepresenting sources according to our sourcing guidelines, that is a much more difficult and time-consuming problem to deal with than incivility and filibustering and undermines wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia...and should be dealt with accordingly. has someone done that here yet? I've only just scanned this page but reams of talkpage notes I haven;t had time to read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by (Arzel) AQFK actions have been no worse than those that would complain against him. In particular the statement by JBL is extremely troubling. "Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue." - JBL How is that not a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? And it is right here in the this complaint! Not to mention calling all of us that disagree with him "denialists" Simply put, there will never be compromise with attitudes like that, and I doubt that opinion is limited to JBL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris The admins here are experienced enough to see past some of the "But so did he!" stuff above. (I agree with the substance of Arzel's complaint though not with the way he has put it.) Any misbehavior by others can be dealt with separately. This leaves us with AQFK's disruptive conduct as outlined in User:Mann_jess's diffs. AQFK has a right to object to what they regard as an ill-formulated RFC but does not have the right to do so disruptively. Having previously been sanctioned at WP:ARBCC means that AQFK is fully aware that this is a contentious topic area and that they should be even more careful than usual. I do not think AQFK is a "bad" editor but for whatever reason climate change is a hot-button issue for them. There's no indication of troublesome behavior outside of climate change -- which reinforces both the argument that AQFK is basically a valuable editor and the conclusion that climate change is a topic they should stay away from, whether by choice or otherwise. It appears that the original topic ban needs to be reinstated but I see no need at all for other sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Manul AQFK continues to misunderstand and/or misrepresent scholarly articles on climate change. One needn't look further than the first scholarly article AQFK cites in order to see the competence issue. This is not a question of content but of competence, of whether AFQK is able to understand the plain meaning of a source. That article says the exact opposite of what AQFK thinks it says: it actually equates "climate skepticism" and "climate denial" in the context of WUWT, as exhaustively explained here. Yet AQFK did not understand their mistake then and despite repeated corrections over the course of months AFQK continues making the same mistake, up to this very AE request. This kind of tendentious behavior is time-wasting for all those involved. This is not a battleground between opposing factions, nor is it a content dispute between equal sides. Rather, there are simply problematic individuals who misapprehend the scientific literature and the scientific consensus. While Misplaced Pages should describe fringe views accurately and fairly, Misplaced Pages ultimately aims to reflect consensus science. To portray the scientific consensus on climate change as anything other than settled is to violate Misplaced Pages policies, in particular WP:PSCI. AQFK has consistently and tendentiously violated this policy by attempting to portray a climate denialism blog as practicing legitimate scientific skepticism, a view that goes against every scholarly source that substantively addresses the blog in question. AFQK makes tendentious arguments by searching for "skepticism" without apprehending the content or context of sources (in particular, not understanding or being concerned with the demarcation sources make between scientific skepticism and the word "skepticism" in the context of the specific blog in question). Discretionary sanctions exist, at least in part, because certain topic areas attract entrenched individuals whose editing is not in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. It is not clear why AQFK's topic ban on climate change was lifted, but it should be clear now that the topic ban needs to be reinstated, and for an indefinite duration. Manul ~ talk 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Are all admins here aware that the arbitration committee decided unanimously that A Quest For Knowledge had been engaged battlefield conduct and edit warring on the topic of climate change and had been indefinitely topic banned from climate change? I have never heard of a topic ban being reinstated for a shorter period of time, or given a narrower scope, when there is similar problematic behavior after a topic ban has been lifted. Manul ~ talk 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy Wikilawyering disruption in part by AQFK drove me from the article in April. He's still at it in this action. For his main "defense", AQFK offered a blatantly wrong reading of WP:Words to watch, falsely claiming that this guideline allowed him to A. Disrupt an RFC survey that included as one option "2. Use self-identification, climate skeptic, but note accusations of denialism, with attribution." B. Edit war to remove a certain quotation multiple times list imported from OP in this complaint and verified by me that they're all dealing with the same quote June 1, May 30, May 29, May 26, May 23, May 23, May 22, May 12, May 10, May 10, May 10, May 7, May 7, May 6, May 3, May 3, April 30, April 29, April 27, April 21, April 21, April 20 The first problem with AQFK's WP:Words to watch argument is that this guideline provides no edit-war exception and states in the lead The guideline does not apply to quotations... Second problem Naturally, he'll reply to this statement invoking something else. Shifting rationale is a common sign of disruptive wikilawyering. In April, as I was trying to pin AQFK down as to the rationale for his edit warring, his positions swirled from vague invocations of WP:WTW (above) to WP:FRINGE.... (DIFF) which I rebutted with edit summary, "Wrong framing of the question.... this is a BLP issue, not a fringe one". (AQFK made no reply to my rebuttal, but still uses vague references to "Fringe", even though there are no edit war exceptions in that guideline.) and back again to WP:BLP... which provides that we can at times report that so-and-so said "x" instead of saying X in wikivoice. At least, that's what I thought it said but AQFK kept on reverting the quotation. So I asked an abstract "how does it work" question at the noticeboard. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive221#I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery Called to the involved editors' attention here And AQFK chose not to participate. What it boils down to is that BLP - the real issue at play in the content dispute - requires inclusion of minority views. AQFK just ignores those viewpoints with a disruptively vague dismissal citing FRINGE but without constructively pursuing WP:Dispute Resolution when others disagree with his evaluation. Exhausted from the wikilawyering, I departed the article. Question for AQFK Others have suggested you've had prior experience with dramas involving 3RR exception point 7, and certainly there's the present example. Do you think your approach has caused less disruption than might have resulted by instead following the advice explicitly stated in the exception, i.e., to seek help from BLP noticeboard instead? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC) ADDITION Talk about wikilawyering! After posting my initial statement I peeked at AQFK's talk page. It turns out that AQFK has misrepresented himself. In his opening statement above he claims he was allowed to edit war on the basis that the text he repeatedly deleted was prohibited material. However, at his own talk page he contradicts that claim, saying that he was actually edit warring just because he didn't want the material in the lead!! Quote, "'Denier' is a WP:WTW and shouldn't be used unless widely used by WP:RS. It's not widely used, in fact, it's rarely used. And I don't object to having this in the article. My objection is that it doesn't belong in the lede. It's not widely used and minority/fringe POVs don't belong in the lede. But like I said, I'm fine with it being in the body." (bold added) There is no 3RR exception for "Text you approve for the body, but you don't like in the lead" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC) NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology I now endorse calls for a renewed climate change topic ban due to Edit warring, gaming the system, and battlegrounding. The comments offered by Arbs thus far all address the RFC, so AQFK apologizes on that specific point and simply ignores my complaint of disruptive policy-shopping in order to somehow justify 22+ reverts of text AQFK apparently thinks is perfectly fine if it appears in the body of the article. There's neither an explanation nor apology for disrupting the article and talk page simply because he wanted to control the text in the lead section. By trying to soothe the ruffled Arb feathers thus far exposed, combined with these other behaviors, it's my opinion the apology is an example of gaming the system and battlegrounding while he is under the microscope. Accordingly, the topic ban should be renewed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Discussion of possible sanctions @Gamaliel: and @Heimstern Läufer:, 1RR is fine with me, but I'd like to suggest it be imposed only on the three climate-related articles that have been a problem rather than the entire topic area. The three I have in mind are Anthony Watts (blogger), {{Watts Up With That?]], and ]. There are many articles and editors that are not suffering from this dysfucntion and should not have to contend with 1RR because of this micro-problem. A recent example is what happened over a good faith misunderstanding regarding article splitting at Scientific consensus on climate change. Please don't slap 1RR across the entire topic area, just because there's been recent squabbles regarding "denial" on these three pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Ah, thanks for the clarification earlier today Gamaliel, in which you articulated the idea is 1RR just on the specific editor in question. That works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: and @Heimstern Läufer:, Here's a technical fly in the ointment and I'm not sure what to think. AQFK made 22+ reverts of the same material from the lead, claiming the existence that a 3RR exemption allowed this. If you impose 1RR, someone less wise than AQFK might laugh, and carry on after the dust settles... after all, if claiming a revert didn't count due an exemption got them past 3RR, it should get them past 1RR, right? I don't know what to make of this observation. I have no reason to think AQFK would stoop to such gamesmanship, but there are many others who are interested in the same material whom I don't know as well. Do you think you might say something about the claims of exemption, to help any future controversy in event someone tries to break AQFK's revert record using the same exemption claims? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @Tillman:, who opines with no analysis that "NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. " Pete, I would like to become a better editor. Please explain, with diffs instead of innuendo, exactly how you think I have been at fault? I can't help but note that earlier today you made an article edit that deleted the word "however". You justified it with a vague reference to the MOS; I reverted you with a pinpoint cite to WP:HOWEVERPUNC. You may well be right, but I'd just like to hear something specific. Instead, you've posted this innuendo about my behavior here. Please defend the claim? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) chilling effect? That's the purpose of AE in the first place ADMINS, Pete also complains of a chilling effect on a group of editors opposed to labeling Watts a "denier". If they're after real NPOV why should they be chilled? We could easily report Watts' self-description (skeptic), criticisms of Watts (some say denier), the controversy over which label applies, and observe that most pop culture sources don't really distinguish between these terms (see work in progress at global warming denial. There is only a chilling effect on those who say "just skeptic" or "just denier". And that's OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Closing with meaning - new request Forget sanctions on anybody. Our purpose here is prevention, not punishment. The only way to prevent future chaos in these articles is to resolve, once and for all, the correct application of policy to criticisms of Watts and his blog as being engaged in "climate change denial". Unless there is a binding resolution how that should work on these articles, I have little hope that sanctioning one or even a handful of editors will prevent anything, longterm. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC) @Jess, are arguments that are primarily about policy interpretation still regarded as mere content disputes? In a criminal matter I once sat on a jury, and among the charges we had to diliberate was one with several aspects, but our instructions only explained some of them. Once we had resolved what we thought had actually happened, we just spun our wheels until finally we trotted back into court with a written legal question for the judge. After that, it was resolved quickly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by dave souza The #Statement by A Quest For Knowledge above repeats an argument he introduced at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) on 21 April 2015. It misrepresents the WP:LABEL guideline, which is a sub-page of MOS/STYLE, and introduces novel claims about policies. As of 21 April, the guideline included "denialist" as an example of a value-laden label which "may express contentious opinion and may be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." AQFK reinterprets this as meaning "the contentious terms such as 'denier' should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources." This misrepresents the guideline, which says at the top of the page "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias", going on to "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly", and "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources". AQFK then says "So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term 'skeptic':", presenting "reliable sources randomly selected by Google". This shifts the burden from "widely used" to "used by a majority", and disregards the requirement of WP:SOURCES policy to consider the quality of sources. It also disregards WP:WEIGHT policy. The article concerned is about a blogger who promotes the fringe view that scientists and government scientific bodies such as NASA and NOAA "spuriously doubled" reported temperature increases for nefarious reasons; WP:PSCI requires us to show how these views have been received by topic experts. Several academic sources explicitly associate Watts or the blog with climate change denial, but AQFK argued on the basis of the google search that using the word "denial" was "advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article." The word denier is defined in OxfordDictionaries.com as: 1) noun A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: a prominent denier of global warming a climate change denier Both the historian Spencer R. Weart and the National Center for Science Education use the word non-pejoratively. These are content issues to be resolved in normal talk page discussion, but AQFK's dogmatic insistence on novel interpretations of policy is tendentious and disruptive. A topic ban appears appropriate. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward This is now stale and AQFK has shown the same behavior or worse has been displayed by some of his detractors here. This should be closed with no action as it's clear there is no action against AQFK will be preventative considering the amount of discord and POV pushing and BLP violations that exist on the topic. Any action should be aimed at adressing the disruption which is at the page and topic level. 1RR should be a page 1RR, not an editor, for example. Ubikwit is facing a topic ban imminently which should lower the confrontation. level somewhat. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tillman There's so much unhappy and ugly behavior on display in the recent (and continuing) edit warring over Anthony Watts (blogger) and WUWT, that it seems a bit churlish to single out AQFK. He has acknowledged, and apologized for, his edit-warring at Watts Up With That, above -- but he's gotten in trouble over this sort of thing before. The edit-warring that I observed began at WUWT, with a provocative edit by the editor who filed the complaint against AQFK, who added this opening sentence to the article, with no prior discussion: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts. Please see this Talk page entry Unsurprisingly, a number of editors felt that this was a problematic edit. The situation wasn't helped by the supporters of this change repeatedly claiming to have reached WP:Consensus for the change: please see this section at Article talk page. Specifically, please see this reply to the editor proposing sanctions, @ 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "We established consensus to link climate change denial..." "Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. ..." So there was problematic behavior by the editor proposing the sanctions -- which makes one wonder if the purpose of this RfE might be to get an opposing editor to go away. Further, we read at the Statement by JBL: AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. ... So it's clear what at least one editor is hoping for from this, and perhaps subsequent, enforcement actions. Other editors, both here and at Anthony Watts (blogger), have made clear their antipathy against both Watts and his blog. NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. To be fair, neither has mine, and I think the arbs would have to look very hard to find a blameless editor active during the edit wars at these two articles. Sigh. This Request for Enforcement is already having a chilling effect on editors who have opposed the efforts to label Anthony Watts and his blog as Climate Deniers. Is this what the ArbComm wants? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jess @NewsAndEventsGuy This request is about specific problematic behavior, not a content dispute. While I agree that broader action will be necessary to address related problems from other editors, it is very likely going to require a separate AE case (and probably soon). AQFK's behavior is distinct from the other problems we're seeing, and it is very likely to extend to other articles in the topic even if this specific dispute is resolved. I'm unsure how I feel about his apology for the RfC, and especially his lack of interest in addressing other complaints, such as his edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and so on. It's possible his behavior will improve without sanctions, but we should consider that possibility on its own, not settle on it because we got distracted by unrelated behavior from others. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity If this report is simply allowed to archive, we will surely end up here again when the behaviour resumes. It's not hard to imagine that AQFK is biding his/her time, refraining from editing as a means of giving the impression that there's no issue to deal with. Past experience suggests otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by JBL AQFK has not edited essentially since this was filed. During the same period, discussion on the Anthony Watts page has been considerably more civil and constructive. I think there's a natural conclusion to draw. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. My initial reading suggests that this is actionable. Edit warring on both the article and on the RFC, as well as little attempt to engage with those supporting the RFC suggests a battleground approach. I have some concerns that there may be others in this topic area with unclean hands (even some of those accusing AQFK seem to allude to edit warring by others), and in part for that reason, I would prefer to wait a bit and see if AQFK will post a statement here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Posting a note at the top of an RFC declaring it "a waste of time" and edit warring to keep it there certainly appears to be disruptive behavior and evidence of a battleground mentality. I'm curious to see what the justification is for this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) If this editor is unable to distinguish between participating in an RFC, which a number of other editors managed to do without incident, and disrupting an RFC, then future disruption in this topic area will be inevitable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Awaiting A Quest for Knowledge's statement. He should post that statement here before making any further edits to the RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Any thoughts regarding a 1RR restriction on articles and talk pages in the topic area given the evidence of edit warring? Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) That seems acceptable as a compromise between no action and reinstating the topic ban, both of which have been called for by those here. Of course, compromise is not always the right solution, but since I'm not seeing any real administrative will for a full topic ban, and as it seems incorrect to allow edit warring to simply stand, this may be best. (Note: I am restricted to mobile browsing only, so laying any sanction myself will be a bigger hassle than I have time for unless my situation changes.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @NewsAndEventsGuy: I apologize for being unclear. I meant a 1RR restriction on A Quest For Knowledge. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) And for the record, that's also the kind of 1RR I was responding to above. So we're on the same topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) One way or another, this AE ought to be closed. Though it's hard to see much exemplary behavior in the climate change area, there is evidence submitted that AQFK has engaged in long-term edit warring on articles related to Anthony Watts. Either this is serious enough to do something, or we should close this with a warning. Since he's already been in an arb case, a mere warning may not be enough. If you want to impose a sanction that actually does something, I'd propose a three-month ban from the topic of Anthony Watts (blogger) anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and a 3-month ban from the topic of Climate change denial. The evidence submitted by WP:AE#Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy shows a pattern of long-term reverting that went on for six weeks or so and during that time AQFK may never have actually broken 1RR. This suggests that a 1RR restriction on AQFK could be more symbolic than real. A complete topic ban of AQFK from the suggested articles would have more effect. I don't know if sanctioning AQFK will solve the long-term problem with these articles, but if it doesn't a fresh AE may be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I'm fine with this too if editors are concerned that a 1RR restriction will be ineffective. Gamaliel (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Will enact the 3-month TBAN from Watts and Climate change denial with a modified end date of September 16, as this should have been closed days ago. - Penwhale \| 23:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Anthony Watts (blogger) and Climate change denial anywhere on Misplaced Pages, broadly construed, until September 16, 2015. - Penwhale | 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: A Quest For Knowledge (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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

Watts Up With That - a blog which promotes fringe views on climate science - recently canvassing their readers to "correct" our coverage. Since then, we've been having a tough time handling the increased attention and fervor, and consensus building has been turbulent. I requested page protection to facilitate discussion, but we kept hitting the same walls, so JzG created an RfC to address a recurring issue.

Unfortunately, A Quest For Knowledge has been disrupting the RfC and other methods of consensus building, which has made our task considerably harder. He has repeatedly inserted his opinions into the RfC question, suggesting that responding is a waste of time, and all but one of the options contravene policy, making the RfC's summary markedly non-neutral. In two cases, he added his opinions in the middle of JzG's comment, which mixed up attribution of JzG's words and the origin of the RfC. My first effort was to move his comment to the discussion section, but he reverted me, and approaching him on his talk page hasn't helped.

While the RfC's wording may not be perfect, it was obviously a good faith effort to aid discussion and build consensus, and the structured format has helped us tease out a few suggestions already. AQFK's edits are clearly an effort to stop discussion and collaboration, which has not been helpful in an already terse environment.

AQFK has also been edit warring on the article for a considerable time. He is not the only one, but his history is extensive, and his reverts are often not coupled with substantive discussion. The following diffs are all removing the same sourced content from the article: June 1, May 30, May 29, May 26, May 23, May 23, May 22, May 12, May 10, May 10, May 10, May 7, May 7, May 6, May 3, May 3, April 30, April 29, April 27, April 21, April 21, April 20

AQFK has been exhibiting other problematic behavior as well, which I'll add to this request as I'm able. It is worth noting that disruptive behavior is not limited to AQFK, and broader sanctions may eventually be needed, but at the moment AQFK is the only one attempting to hinder collaboration.

AQFK was previously topic banned from climate change by arbcom in 2010. The ban was lifted in 2012. The topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I'm asking that they be applied (in whatever form is deemed necessary) to prevent further disruption. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AQFK has also been misrepresenting the conversation, and not working toward a goal of building consensus and collaborating with editors of different viewpoints. For example, when discussing the inclusion of this quote, AQFK has repeatedly summarized the dispute as the addition of the word "denier": , , , , , , , , , , ,

This has led to confusion, since the contested edit does not contain the word "denier". Yet, AQFK continues to assess sources based on their use of the word "denier" and not variants like "climate change denial". Editors have asked AQFK to be more careful in his choice of language (, , , , , ), and method of assessing sources (), but his behavior has not changed ().

Note that the last diff is one AQFK has copied and pasted several places. In it, AQFK misrepresents the sources by saying the word "denier" does not appear in any of them, when in reality some variant of "denier" appears in nearly 30%. () — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct and this DS notice on May 3rd

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge

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 A Quest For Knowledge

The problem with the RfC as currently written is that it presents a false trichotomy. According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):

PBS - "skeptic"
Scientific American - "skeptical"
American Thinker - "skeptic"
New York Times - "skeptics"
Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
PBS - "skeptic"
LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
Fox News - "skeptical"
USA Today - "skeptic"
The Telegraph - "science"
BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
Meteorologist - 1 Source
Science - 1 Source
Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

Skeptic - 3 times.
Meteorologist - 2 times
Conservative - 2 times
Anti-climate science - 1 time
Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
Science - 1 time
Science (in quotes) - 1 time
Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority.

Unfortunately, the RfC as written presents 3 options, all of which require that we violate Misplaced Pages's rules, on a WP:BLP no less. Other options are completely omitted from the RfC. For example, another editor presented a compromise which both Jess and I liked yet it was completely omitted from the RfC. Why was this omitted from the RfC?

Imagine an election where major opposition candidates are left off the ballot. Would such an election be considered legitimate?

I'm not against an RfC - quite the contrary - RfCs are a wonderful way to judge consensus. An RfC which presents a false trichotomy while ignoring actual legimate options isn't going to solve anything.

I've been on Misplaced Pages for 6 years and have tens of thousands of edits. I have as much right to point out that an RfC is flawed as anyone. The idea that an editor should be sanctioned for pointing out that a flawed RfC is flawed is absurd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the edit-warring, anyone who knows me knows that I always try to follow WP:BRD. However, BRD does not work if I'm the only one willing to follow it. I brought up a legitimate WP:BLP concern. Under no circumstance should anyone edit-war contentious negative information back into the article. It should have gone to the talk page and only restored after consensus was reached. I may have edit-warred, but at least I edit-warred to remove contentious content, not the other way around.

In any case, if we're throwing stones at glass houses, here's everyone with more than one revert on just the last sentence in the lede:

Akhilleus
ArtifexMayhem
Capitalismojo
DHeyward
Gnncmac
Joel B. Lewis
JzG
Mann jess
Nomoskedasticity
Peter Gulutzan
PeterTheFourth
Stephan Schulz
Tillman
Ubikwit

If you want to sanction someone, how about sanctioning all the editors who edit-warred contentious negative WP:BLP material into the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I obviously wasn't thinking clearly. It was a mistake for me to edit-war on the RfC. I can see why it was disruptive, although it was certainly not intentional. I suppose that might make little difference. But if I realized that it was disruptive at the time, I certainly wouldn't have done it. I obviously let my emotions get the better of me, and for that I'm sorry. I let down the editors of that article, and the community, and I let down myself. I apologize. All I can say is that nobody is perfect, and we all have lapses of judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I have no horse in this race, I just formatted Jess's request in the format that AE likes --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

This is an issue that needs attention. AQFK has been tendentiously ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and making repeated recourse to WP:WTW, for example, ignoring the numerous comments on the Talk page refuting the attempt.
The Watts BLP and WUWT blog article are subject to WP:PSCI, and the semantics issue between "denier", etc., and "skeptic" would seem to be clearly subordinate to the policy-based prioiritization of the mainstream view of scientists versus Watts' pseudoscience views, which do not correspond to scientific skepticism, but do fall under the rubric of environmental skepticism.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article was under a 1rr restriction, either. Perhaps someone should post a banner or the like on the page.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It bears noting that the discussion regarding denialism vs skepticism has been going on for a couple of months now at Watts' BLP, predating the appearance of both Man Jess and Sphilbrick. A substantial number of sources and interpretive aspects have been discussed, and I added most of the sources that had been previously discussed at the BLP to the WUWT talk page yesterday, rounding out this list.
- It also bears noting that the issue of including "denialism" on WP:WTW has also been under discussion for a couple of months, with an emerging consensus to delete the term from that guideline. AQFK did participate in that discussion as well, though he subsequent deleted his comment.
  - It further bears noting that Dave souza has been tackling the definitional aspects in a professional manner, with this edit, for example, and more to come from this source.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Query What is the reason for the delay in handling this complaint?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I have to say that AQFK's approach seems to me to be unhelpful. AQFK states as fact that an RfC cannot possibly succeed because of WTW, even though it includes nothing more skeptical than the result of the previous RfC, and numerous good-faith comments by long-time Wikipedians have already accepted that the question is valid.

It is fine to dispute the question put in an RfC. It is not fine to insist on stating as fact that the question is invalid, when that is just an opinion, and is rejected by most others commenting.

AQFK also repeatedly removes a statement which is sourced and attributed to a well-known authority, citing BLP, despite, again, numerous long-time Wikipedians arguing in good faith that this is not a violation since it si high profile, sourced and attributed.

Overall the impression is that PAG are being used not as a guide to good practice, but as a magic talisman to wave away opinions for which the editor very obviously harbours a visceral hatred. And AQFK comes across as a Warrior for Truth™, where Truth equates to a philosophical view divorced from scientifically established reality. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick I am not sure what you're implying re. Mann jess, I would have thought that the involvement of experienced editors new to the article would be highly desirable, given the history of entrenched views and fights between the usual suspects on these articles. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@AQFK: You are stating your opinion as fact again. It is not a fact that the three options "violate" WP:BLP. That is in fact a grossly uncivil comment given that a significant number of people support one or other of them; you are in essence saying that several good faith editors and admins are systematically violating a core policy, by advocating an attributed comment from a world-famous expert in the field - who you happen to dislike. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

As indicated in the request, this is an editor with a history of egregious disruption in this topic. The topic ban was lifted on the basis that the topic was under a sanctions process and the editor had kept their nose clean for a good while. And so we're back here.

On the face of it, the editor has returned to their disruptive ways and is now interfering with serious consensus-building attempts. It seems reasonable to me to consider once again an indefinite topic ban. --TS 11:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to allow a former topic banned policy violator to argue that their latest serious violation is justified by some content argument, related in some vague way to the BLP policy? That's the same question arbcom faced in 2010, when A Quest For Knowledge used the same argument in defence of their disruptive conduct at that time. Why would we assume that they've learned from their mistakes if they pull the same silly stunt _five years later_? --TS 22:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon

I was not involved in this particular controversy, but have a comment. I was involved in a Request for Comments where one of the parties to the conflict protested the RFC vociferously. That sort of behavior is very disruptive, especially because an RFC is often the last option of resolving a content dispute before going to conduct dispute resolution. Also, inserting one's own comments in the middle of another editor's comments, even if meant in good faith, is problematic because it is very likely to cause other editors to mistake who is saying what. Aside from the more general matter of whether the subject editor is POV-pushing or personalizing the dispute (and I haven't researched that), disrupting an RFC is a conduct issue that complicates the resolution of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

As Mann jess correctly points out, there is a post at WUWT reacting to recent edits to the article.
Guy was understandably concerned about potential external influence, (see my talk page). I shared this concern, reviewed the article edit logs and recent edit history. I am sure there is some involvement, my casual review suggested it was not significant. Please note that Guy and I hold very different opinions on the substance of the dispute, but Guy concurs. Most of the recent edits, and most of the contributors to the talk page are "regulars", the exception being Mann jess, who had zero involvement prior to 17 May, but who is now the fifth leading contributor to the article.
The very first edits by Mann jess to the WUWT article were a consecutive sequence of 14 edits, adding relevant material, but also changing the lede to characterize WUWT as a "blog dedicated to climate change denial"
Mann jess has over 10,000 edits. Most editors with that much experience would know that such a contentious statement should be discussed on the talk page first.
The edit was reverted, by AQFK, with edit summary (Per WP:WTW.) a reference to a guideline which specifically singles out "denialist" as a word to watch
The article is subject to a 1RR editing restriction, but Mann Jess re-introduced the wording with less than 24 hours elapsing between the first entry, the removal, and the re-introduction. In fairness, not every editor is aware of which articles are subject to 1RR, so I think this should mot result in sanction.
To her credit, Mann jess immediately went to the talk page to open up discussion. However, per WP:BRD, one should then reach a consensus before re-introducing contentious wording.
Mann jess requested semi-protection, I requested full protection. It has achieved the goal of stopping the edit war, and starting talk page discussion, which while heated, is proceeding.
I understand Mann jess's objection to the edit by AQFK that inserted a comment near the top of an RfC, rather than at the bottom. However, the RfC failed to mention that "denialism" is covered by WP:WTW, and thus, while not prohibited, requires a much higher hurdle than simply a consensus of editors to use the word. It is understandable that AQFK was trying to be helpful, so that outside editors would not spend time reviewing sources, and thinking about the best wording, only find some time later that a specifically relevant guideline existed.
I do think AQFK could have handled the attempt to inform readers differently, but we do not levy sanctions for failure to be perfect (for which I am thankful). --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JBL

There is a long-term content/wording-based edit war going on about how to describe Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog, and particularly about the use of various forms of the word "deny." AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. In this context, most of AQFK's behavior has been consistent with the battleground approach being taken by editors on both sides, but the disruptive edits to the RFC are I think notable for their inappropriateness. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: it is worth mentioning that Mann jess has been making substantial improvements to at least the Watts article (unrelated to ongoing edit warring) while all this has been going on.

Response to Arzel: This sort of bad-faith argumentation, in which you pretend to care about the sanctity of process when in fact you care about the actual outcome, is tiresome. See my related comments here.

Statement by MONGO

I cannot say whether or not AQFK has or has not acted inappropriately as far as edit warring and disruption, or whether others have in this matter. My take on the blog is that it posts guest speakers that are at least skeptical if not openly in denial of AGW. The lack of sturdy science in the blog which agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is fact is alarming...so I would not consider the blog to be a reliable source. In one post on the blog, apparently written by Watts, he states in essence that he agrees with the scientific concensus that the planet is warming and that some of this warming is caused by us. He did not elaborate on how much is caused by what source. Watts then proclaims he considers himself a skeptic and scoffs at being labelled a denier. He also seems to be calling on his readers to correct this information. I do not know if AQFK saw this and is trying to help, but I doubt it. I won't link to the blog post as it makes a personal attack against one of our editors. Anyway, my take is that Watts opinion of himself, though it is a primary source, is important since this is a BLP issue. The parties need to work towards a consensus about incorporating Watts's proclamation and also listing what reputable scientists say. I suggested the source by an antagonist of Watts (Mann) be kept out since other scientific viewpoints of similarity could be used instead.--MONGO 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Mann jess's accusation should be dismissed.

Re JzG's RFC: I also complained it was not neutral and warned that JzG says people who don't call WUWT a denial blog are "idiots", Mann jess says about A Quest For Knowledge "he reverted me" but actually three different editors reverted.

Re the diffs: Mann jess says this is about the Watts Up With That article but actually the diffs are from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, a BLP, which did not have a recent influx of new editors or perturbation caused by Watts's blog post. On Anthony Watts (blogger), by my count five different editors have reverted the addition of the quote in the lead saying Watts's blog is a denial blog, with oft-expressed concerns on the talk page about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are more editors re-inserting (I counted eight), but that is not a consensus and A Quest For Knowledge deserves a defender-of-wiki barnstar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I believe one would get a better view of academic and mainstream-media reliable sources (plus Watts himself) saying skeptic by looking at an older version of the Anthony Watts (blogger) page here, and looking at the five citations after the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming" then the ten citations after the sentence "The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming." I point to an older version because Mann jess destroyed those sentences. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I followed the Anthony Watts page for a bit, but honestly got tired of it and unwatched it. I'm disappointed to see that the exact same thing I saw weeks ago is still occurring. Without commenting on the content itself, AQFK's actions seem quite inappropriate and battleground. Especially so for the RFC comments. I opened the diffs, closed them, and reopened them thinking I had accidently opened the same one over and over... the fact that I hadn't and that the same comment was essentially spammed is what prompted me to comment now.

Given the past sanctions but otherwise good behavior (unless someone knows of similar disruption related to AGW outside of this recent event), perhaps a short reinstatement of the topic ban (e.g., 4 months) would be appropriate. It would provide cooling off time as well as time to demonstrate intent to cease disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

If a person is perverting the use of or misrepresenting sources according to our sourcing guidelines, that is a much more difficult and time-consuming problem to deal with than incivility and filibustering and undermines wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia...and should be dealt with accordingly. has someone done that here yet? I've only just scanned this page but reams of talkpage notes I haven;t had time to read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (Arzel)

AQFK actions have been no worse than those that would complain against him. In particular the statement by JBL is extremely troubling. "Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue." - JBL How is that not a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? And it is right here in the this complaint! Not to mention calling all of us that disagree with him "denialists" Simply put, there will never be compromise with attitudes like that, and I doubt that opinion is limited to JBL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The admins here are experienced enough to see past some of the "But so did he!" stuff above. (I agree with the substance of Arzel's complaint though not with the way he has put it.) Any misbehavior by others can be dealt with separately.

This leaves us with AQFK's disruptive conduct as outlined in User:Mann_jess's diffs. AQFK has a right to object to what they regard as an ill-formulated RFC but does not have the right to do so disruptively. Having previously been sanctioned at WP:ARBCC means that AQFK is fully aware that this is a contentious topic area and that they should be even more careful than usual.

I do not think AQFK is a "bad" editor but for whatever reason climate change is a hot-button issue for them. There's no indication of troublesome behavior outside of climate change -- which reinforces both the argument that AQFK is basically a valuable editor and the conclusion that climate change is a topic they should stay away from, whether by choice or otherwise. It appears that the original topic ban needs to be reinstated but I see no need at all for other sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Manul

AQFK continues to misunderstand and/or misrepresent scholarly articles on climate change. One needn't look further than the first scholarly article AQFK cites in order to see the competence issue. This is not a question of content but of competence, of whether AFQK is able to understand the plain meaning of a source. That article says the exact opposite of what AQFK thinks it says: it actually equates "climate skepticism" and "climate denial" in the context of WUWT, as exhaustively explained here. Yet AQFK did not understand their mistake then and despite repeated corrections over the course of months AFQK continues making the same mistake, up to this very AE request. This kind of tendentious behavior is time-wasting for all those involved.

This is not a battleground between opposing factions, nor is it a content dispute between equal sides. Rather, there are simply problematic individuals who misapprehend the scientific literature and the scientific consensus. While Misplaced Pages should describe fringe views accurately and fairly, Misplaced Pages ultimately aims to reflect consensus science. To portray the scientific consensus on climate change as anything other than settled is to violate Misplaced Pages policies, in particular WP:PSCI. AQFK has consistently and tendentiously violated this policy by attempting to portray a climate denialism blog as practicing legitimate scientific skepticism, a view that goes against every scholarly source that substantively addresses the blog in question. AFQK makes tendentious arguments by searching for "skepticism" without apprehending the content or context of sources (in particular, not understanding or being concerned with the demarcation sources make between scientific skepticism and the word "skepticism" in the context of the specific blog in question).

Discretionary sanctions exist, at least in part, because certain topic areas attract entrenched individuals whose editing is not in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. It is not clear why AQFK's topic ban on climate change was lifted, but it should be clear now that the topic ban needs to be reinstated, and for an indefinite duration. Manul ~ talk 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Are all admins here aware that the arbitration committee decided unanimously that A Quest For Knowledge had been engaged battlefield conduct and edit warring on the topic of climate change and had been indefinitely topic banned from climate change?

I have never heard of a topic ban being reinstated for a shorter period of time, or given a narrower scope, when there is similar problematic behavior after a topic ban has been lifted. Manul ~ talk 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

Wikilawyering disruption in part by AQFK drove me from the article in April. He's still at it in this action.

For his main "defense", AQFK offered a blatantly wrong reading of WP:Words to watch, falsely claiming that this guideline allowed him to

A. Disrupt an RFC survey that included as one option "2. Use self-identification, climate skeptic, but note accusations of denialism, with attribution."

B. Edit war to remove a certain quotation multiple times list imported from OP in this complaint and verified by me that they're all dealing with the same quote

The first problem with AQFK's WP:Words to watch argument is that this guideline provides no edit-war exception and states in the lead The guideline does not apply to quotations... Second problem Naturally, he'll reply to this statement invoking something else. Shifting rationale is a common sign of disruptive wikilawyering. In April, as I was trying to pin AQFK down as to the rationale for his edit warring, his positions swirled from vague invocations of WP:WTW (above)

to WP:FRINGE.... (DIFF)

which I rebutted with

edit summary, "Wrong framing of the question.... this is a BLP issue, not a fringe one". (AQFK made no reply to my rebuttal, but still uses vague references to "Fringe", even though there are no edit war exceptions in that guideline.) and back again to WP:BLP...

which provides that we can at times report that so-and-so said "x" instead of saying X in wikivoice. At least, that's what I thought it said but AQFK kept on reverting the quotation. So I asked an abstract "how does it work" question at the noticeboard.

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive221#I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery

Called to the involved editors' attention here

And AQFK chose not to participate.

What it boils down to is that BLP - the real issue at play in the content dispute - requires inclusion of minority views. AQFK just ignores those viewpoints with a disruptively vague dismissal citing FRINGE but without constructively pursuing WP:Dispute Resolution when others disagree with his evaluation. Exhausted from the wikilawyering, I departed the article.

Question for AQFK Others have suggested you've had prior experience with dramas involving 3RR exception point 7, and certainly there's the present example. Do you think your approach has caused less disruption than might have resulted by instead following the advice explicitly stated in the exception, i.e., to seek help from BLP noticeboard instead?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

ADDITION

Talk about wikilawyering! After posting my initial statement I peeked at AQFK's talk page. It turns out that AQFK has misrepresented himself. In his opening statement above he claims he was allowed to edit war on the basis that the text he repeatedly deleted was prohibited material. However, at his own talk page he contradicts that claim, saying that he was actually edit warring just because he didn't want the material in the lead!!

Quote, "'Denier' is a WP:WTW and shouldn't be used unless widely used by WP:RS. It's not widely used, in fact, it's rarely used. And I don't object to having this in the article. My objection is that it doesn't belong in the lede. It's not widely used and minority/fringe POVs don't belong in the lede. But like I said, I'm fine with it being in the body." (bold added)

There is no 3RR exception for "Text you approve for the body, but you don't like in the lead"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology

I now endorse calls for a renewed climate change topic ban due to Edit warring, gaming the system, and battlegrounding. The comments offered by Arbs thus far all address the RFC, so AQFK apologizes on that specific point and simply ignores my complaint of disruptive policy-shopping in order to somehow justify 22+ reverts of text AQFK apparently thinks is perfectly fine if it appears in the body of the article. There's neither an explanation nor apology for disrupting the article and talk page simply because he wanted to control the text in the lead section. By trying to soothe the ruffled Arb feathers thus far exposed, combined with these other behaviors, it's my opinion the apology is an example of gaming the system and battlegrounding while he is under the microscope. Accordingly, the topic ban should be renewed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of possible sanctions

@Gamaliel: and @Heimstern Läufer:, 1RR is fine with me, but I'd like to suggest it be imposed only on the three climate-related articles that have been a problem rather than the entire topic area. The three I have in mind are Anthony Watts (blogger), {{Watts Up With That?]], and ]. There are many articles and editors that are not suffering from this dysfucntion and should not have to contend with 1RR because of this micro-problem. A recent example is what happened over a good faith misunderstanding regarding article splitting at Scientific consensus on climate change. Please don't slap 1RR across the entire topic area, just because there's been recent squabbles regarding "denial" on these three pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification earlier today Gamaliel, in which you articulated the idea is 1RR just on the specific editor in question. That works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: and @Heimstern Läufer:, Here's a technical fly in the ointment and I'm not sure what to think. AQFK made 22+ reverts of the same material from the lead, claiming the existence that a 3RR exemption allowed this. If you impose 1RR, someone less wise than AQFK might laugh, and carry on after the dust settles... after all, if claiming a revert didn't count due an exemption got them past 3RR, it should get them past 1RR, right? I don't know what to make of this observation. I have no reason to think AQFK would stoop to such gamesmanship, but there are many others who are interested in the same material whom I don't know as well. Do you think you might say something about the claims of exemption, to help any future controversy in event someone tries to break AQFK's revert record using the same exemption claims? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tillman:, who opines with no analysis that "NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. "

Pete, I would like to become a better editor. Please explain, with diffs instead of innuendo, exactly how you think I have been at fault? I can't help but note that earlier today you made an article edit that deleted the word "however". You justified it with a vague reference to the MOS; I reverted you with a pinpoint cite to WP:HOWEVERPUNC. You may well be right, but I'd just like to hear something specific. Instead, you've posted this innuendo about my behavior here. Please defend the claim? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

chilling effect? That's the purpose of AE in the first place

ADMINS, Pete also complains of a chilling effect on a group of editors opposed to labeling Watts a "denier". If they're after real NPOV why should they be chilled? We could easily report Watts' self-description (skeptic), criticisms of Watts (some say denier), the controversy over which label applies, and observe that most pop culture sources don't really distinguish between these terms (see work in progress at global warming denial. There is only a chilling effect on those who say "just skeptic" or "just denier". And that's OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing with meaning - new request

Forget sanctions on anybody.

Our purpose here is prevention, not punishment. The only way to prevent future chaos in these articles is to resolve, once and for all, the correct application of policy to criticisms of Watts and his blog as being engaged in "climate change denial". Unless there is a binding resolution how that should work on these articles, I have little hope that sanctioning one or even a handful of editors will prevent anything, longterm. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jess, are arguments that are primarily about policy interpretation still regarded as mere content disputes? In a criminal matter I once sat on a jury, and among the charges we had to diliberate was one with several aspects, but our instructions only explained some of them. Once we had resolved what we thought had actually happened, we just spun our wheels until finally we trotted back into court with a written legal question for the judge. After that, it was resolved quickly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

The #Statement by A Quest For Knowledge above repeats an argument he introduced at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) on 21 April 2015. It misrepresents the WP:LABEL guideline, which is a sub-page of MOS/STYLE, and introduces novel claims about policies.

As of 21 April, the guideline included "denialist" as an example of a value-laden label which "may express contentious opinion and may be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." AQFK reinterprets this as meaning "the contentious terms such as 'denier' should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources."
This misrepresents the guideline, which says at the top of the page "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias", going on to "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly", and "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources".

AQFK then says "So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term 'skeptic':", presenting "reliable sources randomly selected by Google".
This shifts the burden from "widely used" to "used by a majority", and disregards the requirement of WP:SOURCES policy to consider the quality of sources. It also disregards WP:WEIGHT policy.
The article concerned is about a blogger who promotes the fringe view that scientists and government scientific bodies such as NASA and NOAA "spuriously doubled" reported temperature increases for nefarious reasons; WP:PSCI requires us to show how these views have been received by topic experts. Several academic sources explicitly associate Watts or the blog with climate change denial, but AQFK argued on the basis of the google search that using the word "denial" was "advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article."

The word denier is defined in OxfordDictionaries.com as: 1) noun
A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
a prominent denier of global warming
a climate change denier
Both the historian Spencer R. Weart and the National Center for Science Education use the word non-pejoratively.

These are content issues to be resolved in normal talk page discussion, but AQFK's dogmatic insistence on novel interpretations of policy is tendentious and disruptive. A topic ban appears appropriate. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

This is now stale and AQFK has shown the same behavior or worse has been displayed by some of his detractors here. This should be closed with no action as it's clear there is no action against AQFK will be preventative considering the amount of discord and POV pushing and BLP violations that exist on the topic. Any action should be aimed at adressing the disruption which is at the page and topic level. 1RR should be a page 1RR, not an editor, for example. Ubikwit is facing a topic ban imminently which should lower the confrontation. level somewhat. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tillman

There's so much unhappy and ugly behavior on display in the recent (and continuing) edit warring over Anthony Watts (blogger) and WUWT, that it seems a bit churlish to single out AQFK. He has acknowledged, and apologized for, his edit-warring at Watts Up With That, above -- but he's gotten in trouble over this sort of thing before.

The edit-warring that I observed began at WUWT, with a provocative edit by the editor who filed the complaint against AQFK, who added this opening sentence to the article, with no prior discussion:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts. Please see this Talk page entry

Unsurprisingly, a number of editors felt that this was a problematic edit. The situation wasn't helped by the supporters of this change repeatedly claiming to have reached WP:Consensus for the change: please see this section at Article talk page. Specifically, please see this reply to the editor proposing sanctions, @ 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"We established consensus to link climate change denial..."

"Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. ..."

So there was problematic behavior by the editor proposing the sanctions -- which makes one wonder if the purpose of this RfE might be to get an opposing editor to go away. Further, we read at the Statement by JBL:

AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. ...

So it's clear what at least one editor is hoping for from this, and perhaps subsequent, enforcement actions. Other editors, both here and at Anthony Watts (blogger), have made clear their antipathy against both Watts and his blog.

NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. To be fair, neither has mine, and I think the arbs would have to look very hard to find a blameless editor active during the edit wars at these two articles. Sigh.

This Request for Enforcement is already having a chilling effect on editors who have opposed the efforts to label Anthony Watts and his blog as Climate Deniers. Is this what the ArbComm wants? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jess

@NewsAndEventsGuy This request is about specific problematic behavior, not a content dispute. While I agree that broader action will be necessary to address related problems from other editors, it is very likely going to require a separate AE case (and probably soon). AQFK's behavior is distinct from the other problems we're seeing, and it is very likely to extend to other articles in the topic even if this specific dispute is resolved. I'm unsure how I feel about his apology for the RfC, and especially his lack of interest in addressing other complaints, such as his edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and so on. It's possible his behavior will improve without sanctions, but we should consider that possibility on its own, not settle on it because we got distracted by unrelated behavior from others. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

If this report is simply allowed to archive, we will surely end up here again when the behaviour resumes. It's not hard to imagine that AQFK is biding his/her time, refraining from editing as a means of giving the impression that there's no issue to deal with. Past experience suggests otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JBL

AQFK has not edited essentially since this was filed. During the same period, discussion on the Anthony Watts page has been considerably more civil and constructive. I think there's a natural conclusion to draw. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge

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

My initial reading suggests that this is actionable. Edit warring on both the article and on the RFC, as well as little attempt to engage with those supporting the RFC suggests a battleground approach. I have some concerns that there may be others in this topic area with unclean hands (even some of those accusing AQFK seem to allude to edit warring by others), and in part for that reason, I would prefer to wait a bit and see if AQFK will post a statement here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Posting a note at the top of an RFC declaring it "a waste of time" and edit warring to keep it there certainly appears to be disruptive behavior and evidence of a battleground mentality. I'm curious to see what the justification is for this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- If this editor is unable to distinguish between participating in an RFC, which a number of other editors managed to do without incident, and disrupting an RFC, then future disruption in this topic area will be inevitable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Awaiting A Quest for Knowledge's statement. He should post that statement here before making any further edits to the RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts regarding a 1RR restriction on articles and talk pages in the topic area given the evidence of edit warring? Gamaliel (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- That seems acceptable as a compromise between no action and reinstating the topic ban, both of which have been called for by those here. Of course, compromise is not always the right solution, but since I'm not seeing any real administrative will for a full topic ban, and as it seems incorrect to allow edit warring to simply stand, this may be best. (Note: I am restricted to mobile browsing only, so laying any sanction myself will be a bigger hassle than I have time for unless my situation changes.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: I apologize for being unclear. I meant a 1RR restriction on A Quest For Knowledge. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  - And for the record, that's also the kind of 1RR I was responding to above. So we're on the same topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
One way or another, this AE ought to be closed. Though it's hard to see much exemplary behavior in the climate change area, there is evidence submitted that AQFK has engaged in long-term edit warring on articles related to Anthony Watts. Either this is serious enough to do something, or we should close this with a warning. Since he's already been in an arb case, a mere warning may not be enough. If you want to impose a sanction that actually does something, I'd propose a three-month ban from the topic of Anthony Watts (blogger) anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and a 3-month ban from the topic of Climate change denial. The evidence submitted by WP:AE#Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy shows a pattern of long-term reverting that went on for six weeks or so and during that time AQFK may never have actually broken 1RR. This suggests that a 1RR restriction on AQFK could be more symbolic than real. A complete topic ban of AQFK from the suggested articles would have more effect. I don't know if sanctioning AQFK will solve the long-term problem with these articles, but if it doesn't a fresh AE may be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- - I'm fine with this too if editors are concerned that a 1RR restriction will be ineffective. Gamaliel (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Will enact the 3-month TBAN from Watts and Climate change denial with a modified end date of September 16, as this should have been closed days ago. - Penwhale | 23:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

Handpolk topic-banned, I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes as a normal admin action. `Zad68` 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
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 MarkBernstein User who is submitting this request for enforcement Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested MarkBernstein (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 Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Gamergate Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 6/12/15 accuses me of several things 6/12/15 More accusations 6/12/15 Calls me a gamergate fan 6/12/15 accuses me of being non-neutral and says i came from a 'gamergate basement' 6/12/15 accuses me of not being new or neutral 6/12/15 calls me a troll when i warn him User_talk:MarkBernstein 6/12/15 admits to battleground mentality on his talk page Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 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. Additional comments by editor filing complaint It's important to note that 'gamergate supporter' or anything similar is essentially a slur. It's a personal attack. And since I am not in any way a gamergate supporter, it really offends me to be described that way. It's also a violation of AGF to accuse somebody of editing the article in accordance with views you perceive them to have. And extremely disruptive to do so repeatedly whenever you disagree, in an attempt to win an argument. Along with demonstrating a battleground mentality. All of those are exactly what User:MarkBernstein has been doing to me, despite repeated warnings from me to stop. And they are against the sanctions that put a very short leash on all editors to not be disruptive. At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned. So far I count one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. Handpolk (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) User:Jorm made the same accusations and personal attacks about me here as the subject of this AE made. Calling me a Gamergate supporter. These types of unfounded attacks and accusations being allowed so freely directly violate the sanctions along with the rules of Misplaced Pages. They contribute to the battleground mentality of the article and should not be tolerated. We are to assume good faith. Handpolk (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&diff=prev&oldid=666700640 Discussion concerning MarkBernstein 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 MarkBernstein I am meeting with a distinguished colleague Saturday, and will have tasks and topics of greater interest and urgency before me. The complainant's behavior rather speaks for itself, as does the number of distinguished editors at AN/I who supported an indef even before this ill-advised return to AE. His subreddit, where notable Wikipedians have been ordered to "post tits", may also interest readers; it will not be difficult for you to find, I would call your attention to the amount of time and aggravation this editor has cost the project in the immediate wake of steps taken to stem the flood of "new" and zombie Gamergate editors. I said then that more would be needed; that appears to be the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC) It was perhaps very wicked of me, back in 2014, to allude to the influx of new, zombie, brigaded, and sockpuppet accounts that arrived at Gamergate, each so eager to be severely neutral. I trust we have moved beyond that, now, and that we can speak plainly about what we so clearly see. This complaint is one small move in Gamergate’s new playbook. Expendable accounts plan to file numerous grievances that will require lots of admin time. If they succeed in securing sanctions against their targets, or in embarrassing more victims, that’s icing on the cake: the immediate goal is to exhaust those few administrators willing to mop the space. First we had an ill-founded attack on TRPoD from an IP editor, resulting in the 30/500 rule. Here on its heels, we have an ill-founded attack on me, intended to gut that rule by showing it to be toothless. (Note, incidentally, that Handpolk’s late collaborator Dwarvenhobble has already been banned as an obvious -- and now confessed -- sock of a banned editor.) Is there any reason to believe this will end here? Of course not. Handpolk's work has been a great success; they set out to spend a lot your time, and -- voila! -- your time has been spent. They set out to poke holes in the 30/500 rule, and while you’ve held your ground, they are not worse off than when they began and they know where to poke next. (Meanwhile, it looks like they're hoping to use the distraction to put scare quotes around each characterization of Gamergate abuse.) It is gratifying to see so many respected administrators below taking an interest in the problem and demonstrating close familiarity with the area, its unprecedented problems, and its extensive archives. Sooner or later, though, you will have to grasp the nettle. You know why the talk page archives run to a million words, why no question is ever settled, why the answer to every point is always yet another dissertation on why the reliable sources cannot be relied upon, why every fresh zombie is greeted and cosseted and protected until, as here, they fall to pieces. You don’t want to take this on, you’ve been hoping it would go away, melt, thaw, or resolve itself into a dew. I understand. I sympathize. But it has cost the rest of us a lot of time, it's costing the project credibility, and editors, and admins -- none of which it can afford right now -- and it's not getting any better. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: To refer to people by their first name alone is, in common written usage, an indication of intimacy or, at any rate, intimate acquaintance. That is, I presumed, what you were indicating when you introduced a reference to "Milo and Christina" into a discussion. My rejoinder was only a personal attack to the extent that any mild and discretely indirect stylistic and spelling correction is. A few first names are treated specially as a conventional sign of special reference and esteem -- “Martin” and “Malcom” for “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Malcom X”, some Japanese living treasures -- but even here the use of the first name is often reserved for people who knew and worked with the person. Of course, some fannish communities use first names as a clannish indicator of support, a dog-whistle that members will recognize and outsiders will not, to signal mutual membership, but of course that couldn't be your intent. If this were a personal attack, you'll want also to cite whoever corrected the Gamergate fan who kept misspelling “genesis” as “genesys”, too, but the standard of English in the area will likely deteriorate further. (Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Topic-banned editor @NorthBySouthBaranof:, participating in the Arbcom Lightbreather case, is being hounded along with former editor Ryulong by Gamergate IP editors trying to call attention to discussion of their supposed sex lives at an attack site we will not mention here. Paraphrasing his words, "I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before Misplaced Pages wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets?” To further emphasize the point, the last few minutes a Gamergate supporter has written, falsely, that I wrote something untrue in The Guardian and then called Zoe Quinn a participant in the Gamergate controversy, suggesting that she had any choice after Gamergate used Misplaced Pages to announce her imminent murder. Enough already. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article." A later addition, also signed "j0eg0d", explains that "He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM." Another editor named "ggtehxnor" opines: I've met homeless unmedicated schizophrenics with a firmer grasp of reality than Bernstein. He is quite possibly the most deranged Misplaced Pages editor there is, and that is an impressive (and terrifying) accomplishment. At another Gamergate board, "WPBATTLEGROUND" starts a fresh thread titled "Let”s Talk About BarkMerstein.” Is this dude banging Jimmy Wales or something? How is it possible he is not at least topic banned? And as you know my talk page has been the home to lies and sneering insinuations, now kindly hatted by TRPoD. Thanks, guys! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher:’s historical survey is unsympathetic and in a few cases not quite accurate, but I thank him for taking the trouble. The original ban, in particular, arose as a boomerang when I (so young! so idealistic!) appealed here against what I believed to be a McCarthyist slander . I believe I did not develop the terminology of Boss/Provocateur/Pal until Careless on January 22, substantially later. I am happy to discuss these former broils if you like, but don't wish to tire your patience. If any of you are of a historical bent, you also want to review Gamergate’s successful attack on Ryulong, from which this case (if case this be!) is taken. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher:'s additional background on Ryulong is very helpful. It should be remembered that the action against Ryulong was the cornerstone of the original attack (Operation: The Five Horsemen Of WikiBias) and was always prosecuted by a considerable group of editors, not by the provocateur alone. It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation. Note, too, the relentless publicity Ryulong's opponents gave to a flimsy appearance of conflict of interest. And now, right on schedule, we have accusations that I'm really a member of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s staff, and perhaps also the King Of Titipu. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC) "An encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.” -- Tony Sidaway MarkBernstein (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @J0eg0d: Re your comment about tag teams (forsooth!) with Strongjam and Bosstopher (!): I have no idea what you're saying, or asking me, or anyone, to do. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved IP Please note that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI about whether User:Handpolk's latest complaint should earn him a boomerang. At the moment it has unanimous support.208.76.111.246 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) It appears that there's little to no self reflection occurring by the OP on why he was topic banned. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) User:Ryk72 makes a very fair point below about whether the linked off site behavior should be considered. I'll go ahead and bid these proceedings adieu. Farewell. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken I do not want to replicate the AN/I report referred to by the IP, but it should be noted that Handpolk made 170 4-byte edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 within an hour, each one removing a single Wikilink, in order to pad his edit total and qualify for the 500/30 requirement. Such gaming of the system (which also included 20 closely-times edits to another article, as reported in the AN/I thread by Floquenbeam) should not be rewarded by allowing him to edit Gamergate articles, or by having this complaint heard here. BMK (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Based on the AN/I discussion Handpolk has now been indefinitely topic-banned by Euryalus "from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. BMK (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC) I have no opinion one way or the other regarding MarkBernstein's edits or behavior, and I am totally uninvolved in Gamergate. BMK (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Masem While I do have a lot of doubts as to Handpolk's sincerity on their edits (the numerous tiny edits on one article as to get to 500+ edits), it should be noted that Mark has been warned and blocked twice before , due to his commenting on contributors not content in article talk space. This diff for example is specifically targeted at me due to a discussion I put into earlier regarding our WP:W2W policy. The comments toward Handpolk in article talk space are more of the same. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC) And while I know it's been recommended that this specific action is likely tainted and only end up focused on the filer, I'm adding this new personal attack from Mark , presuming I have connections to two named people, primarily for documentation. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: The point is not whether I use first names or last names; the issue is that you are commenting on contributors, not content, on article talk pages, an issue you were blocked twice before and warned since. If you want to assert that I have conflicts of interest with GG that should keep me from contributing on the GG pages, you can open a new enforcement case (but as I've said during the original ArbCom, I would freely allow any investigation of any sockpuppetry assumptions or offsite analysis to show that I don't interact with them at all). But to continue to speak about editors' actions is continuing the behavior that ArbCom expressly warned about as well as the previous bans. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) @Protonk : Perhaps it was meant as a joke (Mark tends to use these but Poe's law always comes into play). Regardless, the issue is commenting on the commentator, not content, even if it was in jest. He's been blocked twice for this behavior and it leads to the combative battleground mentality plaguing that page. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) @Zad68 : As best as I can recall, at the time that the ArbCom GG was filed, Mark was already blocked for making personal attacks under previous community GG sanctions, and thus was not likely considered a party. He was unblocked after/during? the case. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC) In reply to @TonySideway's comment (by way of Mark's reposting of part of it) - Myself (and presumably a few others) are not asking for the article to treat harassment and threats as if they were not a crime, if at the very leat amoral and unethical, but we need to amoral in drawing the line between the actions and the people behind it when there has been no legal conviction of anyone involved yet (though that will be a matter of when, not if). Misplaced Pages cannot judge, even if there was a conviction, under NPOV. But what is happening is that editors like Mark write the article to condemn all of GG when we know that there is a portion of GG that have stated they are not involved in the harassment and are trying to fight against it. If any of these were named people (and arguably there are), WP:BLP applies immediately and we'd temper the claims of the press without question; the spirit of BLP says we should be working on the same lines even if the group is primarily anonymous members (in that they have usernames but no apparent connection to real names) and treat the group objectively and not judgementally, separating the actions from the people. It is also the case that Mark and others want to condemn GG - Mark often speaks to the harassment and threats as "vile" and "evil", which I would not disagree with on a personal level, but as a WP editor, framing the article with these points in mind prevents us from reading sources and writing in a neutral, conservative, amoral style - they are crimes but we should not be harping in WP's voice or tone how bad these are. Similarly, which Quinn and others are victims of these crimes and we have to take to prevent BLP-type issues appearing about them, our article should not be treating them more than just victims, which instead we end up writing more sympathetically for these people which again moves off the amoral standpoint. We should not be trying to write the article to right great wrongs of the emotional and financial harm that has come to these people - just as we cannot make the GG movement look better than its current public perception. This is the amorality that is needed and demanded by NPOV that Mark and others do not seem to want to give, because the press has taken this stance. We are not the press, we're an academic work, and need to recognize when the press is writing within common moral standards for maintaining its readership rather than teaching information. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jorm User:Handpolk has pretty much followed the Gamergate Handbook On How To Be Difficult, only with a new twist (that of rapidly making hundreds of minor edits in order to game himself into the 30/500 set). Oh, he also started a subreddit where he exposes other Misplaced Pages editors to sexual harassment. He's absolutely not here to make an encyclopedia, and has just been indefinitely topic banned from the Gamergate/games/feminism area for his conduct. This should be closed as "no action." It looks like we might be heading towards the rare double boomerang! This will require popcorn.--Jorm (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Actually, here's an interesting question: does continuing to post in this AE request violate the topic ban that was handed to Handpolk by Euryalus a couple hours ago? I think it might. --Jorm (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Yes it does. Handpolk, benefit of the doubt for posts up till now as you may not have realised, but this AE request is a Gamergate-related issue and post-ban posts to it are a breach of the ban. There's plenty of eyes on this page so if there's anything that needs adding in either side of the debate, another editor will no doubt add it. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth @Masem: Perhaps you should start a different enforcement request where the well is not quite so prodigiously poisoned by the filer? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72 I do not believe that a reasonable person would find either the subject or the filer of this AE request to be entirely blameless. Given the issue raised here appears to be limited to comments about each other an interaction ban may be sufficient & appropriate. Support mutual (two-way) I-ban. - Ryk72 04:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC) @EdJohnston:, I noticed your comment in the "admin" section below: The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in WP:ARBGG. While I concur that the WP:ARBGG decision was intended to address a number of problematic behaviours in the topic space, (and also that the editor's behaviour appears problematic in itself), I'm not clear that the sanctions were intended to stop any particular type of edits in WP:MAINSPACE, which is the meaning that I intuit from the comment. Of course, it is entirely likely that I am misunderstanding, and that the intent was to cover edits in non-Article spaces. Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little on the meaning, and if & how you see WP:ARBGG impacting content decisions? Thanks in advance for any additional insight you can provide. Apologies if this is not the best forum; please feel free to relocate. - Ryk72 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) @"uninvolved IP", While I share your disdain for a number of the comments raised in fora such as the one which you linked; as a general principle, I don't believe that sanctioning editors for off-Wiki behaviour is in the interests of the project. In part because I'm not sure where we would stop. - Ryk72 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by ForbiddenRocky I suspect the filer is WP:NOTHERE as evidenced by his reddit and other actions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) I just looked at the stuff Cullen328 mentioned about the filer and Liz. And I looked at the filer's edits on WP:BOOMERANG and its talk page. Those things are either serious chutzpah ~~or serious emotional reactiveness.~~ In the former case filer deserves an indef. ~~In the latter perhaps a short block.~~ While I really suspect the filer is WP:NOTHERE, ~~I can't also help feeling maybe he just needs time to cool off.~~ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I change my mind. Filer knows too much GG history, and too much about sanctions against MarkBernstein. Filer can't both claim general ignorance of what's going on and at the same time make comments that require knowing a lot about the arcana around GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway A topic ban of the filer is merited on the grounds of their blatant attempt to game the 500 edit qualification. This already seems to have been handled through a topic ban arrived at by community discussion at ANI, however. I suggest this current AE discussion may be safely closed with a note of that ban, unless there is merit in the original complaint. In the latter case, perhaps a new filer will come forward to advance any genuine issues. --TS 12:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC) The filer is advertising, on both user page and user talk page, a reddit community supposedly created by the filer that is described as uncensored and currently contains attacks on individual Misplaced Pages editors. An edit by me earlier today to remove the user page link citing WP:POLEMIC was reverted by the filer on the pretext of "vandalism". Obviously I'm walking away because I don't want to play to anybody's script. But maybe an indefinite block is merited here before things get out of control. --TS 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC) As a not at all disinterested observer I think it's fair to say that some otherwise edgy behaviour by some editors is being treated with a little indulgence (though very far from absolute liberty) precisely because they are clearly reacting to deliberate, targeted attacks that have been without cease for nine months. I don't know about other topics in Misplaced Pages that may be subject to similar attacks or worse, but I observe that over the past few months since the Gamergate arbitration this page has quite often been dominated by discussion of Gamergate. It may not be the worst topic for external pressure, but it's certainly not the least. There are honourable and fair editors who disagree with the mainstream on how we should report Gamergate; there are even some who clearly retain an honest belief that our NPOV policy requires that which I think it is impossible to square with the normal and routine interpretation we use everywhere else. They honestly and sincerely believe that Misplaced Pages should be truly amoral, knowing no difference between the most radiant love and the most heinous hatred, between a hand that caresses and a hand that mortally wounds. Those people, I can work with, though their very existence makes my hair stand up on end. We can discuss and wrangle and, grudgingly, reach a compromise that doesn't go off the deep end but does satisfactorily convey the fact that some objective harm must inevitably be conveyed in the course of reporting on malicious human behaviour. But we cannot work at all under the pressure of that same hatred, which I loathe with every fibre of my being, that seeks to harm those who find threats of rape to be a bad thing. And that's where we are. Ignore it, perhaps, for as Wikipedians we all have that option and that's always been the path condoned by Arbcom, sometimes expressly but usually only by omission. But an encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test. Righting great wrongs? No. Just making sure that we all understand that just getting the facts down, according to the NPOV, is a truly political statement and not one we should duck. --TS 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Protonk I'd rather we not sanction editors for calling a duck a duck. The "I'm not a gater, I'm just a neutral editor who wanted to learn about GG and found the article be be biased" line is well-worn. We've heard it from literally every gater and almost never heard it from editors one might reasonably call neutral or disinterested. It is well worn precisely because serves a useful rhetorical purpose. The speaker can not only claim neutrality but they can erect that veneer over their position (which is almost inevitably pro gamergate in general and in this specific case stupefyingly obviously pro gamergate). Editors here trying to do their best to follow AGF are then obligated to treat this manifest ploy as the law of the land. If you accuse them what is plainly clear, you're impugning their neutrality or using a slur (gamergater) to describe them. If we keep reading from the same script it is no surprise the lines don't change. GG certainly won't change the tactic because it works like gangbusters and because it fits with their narrative of GG as objective/neutral and the rest of the world as biased. I find the hand-wringing above from editors who claim to be neutral offensive. This complaint is baseless and should be dismissed as such. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: Perhaps they were just making a good natured but ill fated joke at how we use first names to connote familiarity. To suggest you were friends with Yiannopoulos or Hoff Sommers is of course absurd. In the context of protracted and repeated arguments which favor the group under discussion it might be misinterpreted as slight against the subject's neutrality. But given how widely and strenuously this colleague--an administrator no less--asserts their neutrality I have no choice but to imagine this interpretation must have been furthest from Mark's mind. Protonk (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: Yeah it's absurd. That it stings at all may be based on the singular regard a particular community holds for one administrator. Protonk (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir I've been quasi sorta watching Handpolk and frankly they've made the rope makers quite rich already. Nearly as rich as they've made the glue factories. It's honestly heartening that anyone would find a glimmer of potential here and if Zad68 thinks there's hope, don't see why not let them one more coil of rope? Though it's quite generous given the user's actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Also posting on BYK's talk page after being told not to: . Just indef already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) And posted again on BYK's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Gamaliel - ~~To be clear, the topic ban is (or will be?) for Gamergate and gender related controversies, right? He keeps blanking his user talk page, so it's hard to tell if it's already been placed on him.~~ Nevermind. I found what I needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by IP user I find it strange that text which doesn't mention the banned topic would be sanctionable as a topic ban violation, or that it qualifies for removal under WP:POLEMIC. The user reported in this request in fact has the following text on their talk page which seems to advocate the destruction of wikipedia yet no mention has been made of WP:POLEMIC over several months: A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive. -- NorthBySouthBaranof. I find it especially strange that here Gamaliel supports an indefinite ban when, while that same reported user was topic banned they maintained on their user pages links to their personal blog discussing the topic, criticizing our handling of it and even criticizing editors directly! In that case however, rather than recommend an indefinite ban he thought it more appropriate to lift the editor's topic ban. Is there some difference in these two situations not apparent to the rest of us? 173.192.176.158 (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328 The thing I like the least among the OP's behavior, among a range of bad behaviors that one might want to analyze, is that they stomped away while loudly accusing actually productive editors of being "trolls" and "vandals". Can you imagine? Folks like Liz, the kind, helpful opposite of a troll. I do not believe that the encyclopedia will suffer at the loss of this editor. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Liz My statement isn't about Mark but about Handpolk. I would argue that we give the topic ban a chance have an impact. I already see Handpolk editing on non-Gamergate articles which was the main goal of the topic ban. I can see he has a bit of a persecution complex right now and doesn't fully undertand how, in good faith, editors on Misplaced Pages disagree all of the time but manage to, mostly, find a way to coexist without going to ANI or AE. But I hope maybe working with a different group of editors can turn him around. He's an intelligent editor and I see his main offense to be an unwillingness to drop the stick. If the topic ban can cause him to move on from Gamergate and work on other pages, then it will have served its purpose. Liz 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Regarding Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Ellen Pao, a discussion about whether these articles fell under Gamergate DS only occurred yesterday (Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Ellen Pao) which was after Handpolk made his edits to the Kleiner article. A Gamergate connection is not immediately obvious and the warning on the talk page (again, posted after his edits) said that the articles were covered by DS without specifying Gamergate. While an editor should not edit an article after receiving a DS warning from an admin, I can see why an explanation might be called for so an editor can understand why these two articles would come under the Gamergate umbrella. It doesn't seem like a discussion over the scope of DS shouldn't be considered a violation of DS. Liz 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @J0eg0d:, can you tell me what "brigading" means? The only place where I've seen that word used in regard to internet activity was on reddit and I didn't know what it refers to there except, apparently, it's a bad thing. Thanks for any explanation you can provide. Liz 17:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by 63.153.218.127 I would just like to note that MarkBernstein accused an IP of creating the first arbitration request against TRPoD. 63.153.218.127 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before ArbCom wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets for nothing more than "lulz"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) The continuing harassment targeting myself in particular is clearly subject to WP:BANEX, as an issue directly involving myself. Furthermore, it's interesting how Gamergate-related editors and IPs magically appear out of nowhere to continue the harassment. I draw the Arbitration Committee's attention to this obvious disruption of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by j0eg0d @Zad68: Apologies Zad68, I'm unfamiliar with the Admins handling this request ... In regards to User:MarkBernstein; I will talk from my own experiences: Mark has engaged in WP:OUTING me and brigading members Liz & Cullen328 into investigation of (what Mark believed to be) my IP address. MARK WAS WARNED Yet he continued researching for personal information about me through the Hugo Awards website, and demanding I provide personal information myself. I have been a member of Misplaced Pages since 2005, Mark's persistence that I am a SOCK account appears to be a false-excuse to harass others & openly DOX people. He reacts this way to anyone looking to discuss the role of Gamergate. Mark and acquaintances PeterTheFourth, TheRedPenOfDoom, Jorm blatantly Wikihounded me and others in discussions about Gamergate. It's all archived. They would Wikihound me personally when I created a dialog in a forum, edited other pages, or simply uploaded an image for a WIKI page. Their sole purpose regarding GamerGate_Controversy (IMHO) is to divert intelligent dialog by twisting words, going off-topic, deleting and hatting anything providing a balanced narrative about the #gamergate hashtag. Read from Mark's own words above; "zombie Gamergate editors, brigaded and sockpuppet accounts". These are the same biased, angry (dare I claim paranoid) attacks used against someone who has been with Misplaced Pages for 10 years. I stepped away from Misplaced Pages just to get a break, and here I return to still see Mark's activities being allowed. This man and his alliances (Please note who is defending Mark and who is requesting Handpolk be topic banned) are disruptive to every GamerGate topic and aggressively harass newer users that want to add to the same GamerGate discussion - I point to Handpolk whose USER page was altered because of a link he provided to Reddit. He was accused of advertising in this case. I can see the frustration in this, because Mark Bernstein's USER page is advertising his own website. Mark advertises again below in A Modest Informal Proposal where I admittedly removed the link to his website only to have to undone by ]. Is this because of favoritism, because no one has ever pointed it out, or maybe Mark has enough friends to create the consensus that his website is not advertising? My appeal on Mark Bernstein, in light of the documented history of his past bannings & current behavior; is to permanently restrict him from every topic regarding GamerGate. I find this to be an absolutely reasonable action considering his current request to "check"(2) every Misplaced Pages newcomer. Mark is not learning from his past bans. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Liz: The term "brigading" is like a "call to arms". For a better definition, you might ask your friend Mark Bernstein as he uses it more often than I do. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC) I believe any accusations by MarkBernstein should be sourced. I'm very aware of MarkBernstein;s excessive suspicions as it have been focused on myself in Mark's attempts to OUT me. His immoderate requests made to "harass" newcomers should be taken as an admission in treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground. I'm also concerned by the accounts of TRPOD, PeterTheFourth, Jorm, Strongjam and NorthBySouthBaranof in what is clearly a shared agenda. I find it difficult to believe their claims of "organized attacks" against themselves or Misplaced Pages when each of these editors have cried wolf continuously on IP addresses, contributing editors such as Masem, myself and every NEWCOMER that seeks to correct errors in a WIKI article. Even within this very page it is Mark's unusual behavior that needs to be addressed as it is personable to me ... To Quote "(Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.)" _MarkBernstein" "A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article. A later addition, also signed j0eg0d, explains that He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM." _MarkBernstein I have one account and only one account with Misplaced Pages since 2005. I have not been blocked or restricted in all my 10 years. MarkBernstein continues to make these accusations without fact, evidence or sourcing. MarkBernstein pursuant zealotry in researching & following me inside & outside of Misplaced Pages is the exact method in which Mark approaches every person bringing question to the very articles MarkBernstein himself guards. ADMINS, I must ask: After so many temporary blocks/restrictions specific Long Term Abuse, if MarkBernstein has not learned how to behave by now; Why is he and his Wikihounds being allowed to continue this WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct? --j0eg0d (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: I can certainly appreciate your defense of Masem but in regards to me ... ... You're attempt to explain the Ryulong story to an Admin @Rad68: which is already on record and (sorry) but Ryulong's excessive behavior predates the #gamergate hashtag by a few years SOURCE. His "behavior" is well-documented even outside Misplaced Pages . Your defense of Mark Bernstein seemed to be in error, as my claim of Mark WP:OUTING me has to do with my IP address & researching my name through the HUGO Awards - It has nothing to do with Reddit. My recognizing the same extremism with Ryulong's (remaining) WIKI friends - My declaration that the "defenders" of the Gamergate-Controversy WIKI should be removed - and my current suggestion to simply delete the gamergate WIKI; are provided as measures to end this battlefield mentality. You called me an "ass" in defense of your friends, Bosstopher. I'm unconcerned with name -calling, but you're adding to the WIKI battlefield & encouraging quarreling; You're part of the problem. I hope you can see that, because you need to stop. --j0eg0d (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @Strongjam and Strongjam: If you and your WP:Tag Team with Bosstopher & Mark Bernstein have an ARBCOM request towards me or other Editors making statements; You may want to create a separate request (with sources) as you're pursuing off-topic conversations to distract from the current issue. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam This bullshit is the type of thing MarkBernstein and NorthBySouthBaranof are talking about, and it needs to stop. — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) In regards to J0eg0d, can an oversighter please take a look at their contributions around May 24? I'm surprised those edits plus their recent contributions about living people haven't attracted much admin attention. — Strongjam (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @J0eg0d: You're the one who brought me into with your accusations that I've made false claims about IP harassment. Don't be surprised if you get hoisted by your own petard. — Strongjam (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq J0eg0d's above statement mentions their long history at Misplaced Pages—that's a good achievement but it would be fairer to note the context: 21 edits in 2005 13 edits in 2008 11 edits in 2013 13 edits in 2014 246 edits in 2015 That gives a total of 304 edits, the vast majority of which have been in 2015 and concerned with gamergate. Most editors would not have sufficient experience to comment at WP:AE after 304 edits, nor would they know that "WP:BATTLEFIELD" is a useful term of art. Rather than worrying about whether MarkBernstein has examined off-wiki forums, it would make more sense to worry about the off-wiki forums where tactics to push the gamergate line are discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher @Zad68: It's only just hit me that you don't know the background of Mark's topic bans and his IBANs with DHeyward so here I go. Mark was originally Tbanned for making some very extreme claims. He accused Thargor Orlando of being part of a coordinated 8chan threat against which endangered his life, without providing any evidence, made some incredibly dodgy and insulting comments to starship.paint and accused Masem of being the BOSS of a Gamergate faction that was organising offsite. As a result he ended up topic banned. Then he wrote a blogpost that got covered in the Guardian, got blocked for posting about it on Jimbotalk, got his topic ban removed because it had supposedly become punitive by this point. He then returned to editing the article and behaved a lot more calmer than last time, but people he crossed swords with before his topic ban found it hard to bury the hatchet. So they tried to get him tbanned over minor issues. This led to all those IBANS that popped up, as well as another temporary topic ban/block. As for the present day I'm not really sure what's going on, because it's been 2 weeks since I've had a good nights sleep, but j0eg0d is acting like an ass ( +Mark's statement)) and really has no room to talk about AGF and civility. Also people in general are being a bit too mean to Masem on the talk page and really ought to dial it down. Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) @Protonk: That comment is no more absurd than claiming Masem is coordinating a Gator army, which is something multiple editors of the article actually believe. On a related note you'd think if an experienced administrator was coordinating offsite disruption he'd come up with a better strategy than the current one: "And then after 4 days and 10 posts, you go to talk page and write "This isn't neutral at all, you're all SJWs! Then they'll be bound to fix the article!"Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) @Zad68:@MarkBernstein: Per your suggestion, (and per the worrying path j0eg0d is taking), here is a brief summary of what happned to Ryulong for Zad to get some context. Once upon a time an advocate of Gamergate started editing Misplaced Pages. He didn't like what was going on so he complained about it on reddit (a lot). He eventually made so many reddit posts about wikipedia that they made him a moderator of /r/KotakuInAction. Most of his reddit posts were extremely focused on Ryulong, some were highly insulting and tried to dig up dirt on him from a webpage that was created to harass him. He used exactly the same name on reddit and Misplaced Pages and admitted the reddit account was his multiple times. But whenever the account was brought up and Ryulong tried to correct his errors or get him to stop, he denied the account was his and accused everyone of WP:OUTING him. He then deleted the vast majority of his insulting reddit posts about Ryulong before the Arbcom case ended (does this remind you anyone @J0eg0d:?). The wikipedia administration in their infinite wisdom responded by banning Ryulong from mentioning offsite behaviour, and Arbcom claimed it was impossible to deduce that the reddit account and wikipedia account belonged to the same person (the extreme stupidity of such a conclusion still blows my mind to this day). In the end the editor in question got so ballsy that he started wikistalking Ryulong in the last days before his ArbCom ban, and it was this outrageous display which finally got him blocked (for 24 hour). Zad, I hope you keep the lessons of such a story in mind when dealing with complaints about insults on reddit. Also please note the recent RfC we had that concluded linking usages of the same username on multiple websites is not necessarily outing.Bosstopher (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC) @J0eg0d: Firstly I'd like to say how flattered I am that you think I have the necessary social skills to make friends. Secondly Mark's exclamation mark in brackets, pretty much sums up my views on your theory that Mark, Strongjam and me are some kind of evil Gamergate triumvirate. The reason I explained both Mark's story and that of Ryulong vs Loganmac to Zad, was because both were barely touched on in the Arbcom case, which is where he was looking for information. Also I never called you an ass, I merely said you were acting like an ass. I gave evidence that supported this, in the form of your taunting Mark through putting hidden Reichstag links in his username and referring to Gamaliel as his "butt buddy" on reddit. Now I am no expert on assholish behaviour, but surely you must agree that what you did here falls very well into that category? If my name calling is part of the problem, what does that make your name calling?Bosstopher (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Result concerning MarkBernstein This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Last time someone tried to game a 30/500 restriction like this, I just indeffed them. I see no reason why this case shouldn't be handled similarly. T. Canens (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC) As to Mark Bernstein, I support prompt closing with no action. As to the filer, while I understand T. Canens' position, hasn't the issue been addressed by the community at ANI? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Just noting that this was written before Handpolk's subsequent activity. (Which is obvious by definition, of course, but still pointing it out.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I note that Handpolk is now blocked 48 hours as a self-requested block for a wikibreak. If he is not blocked for longer as a result of this thread, he needs to steer well clear of controversial topics going forward. (I haven't reviewed some of the most recent behavior so I am not !voting on any sanction against him just now.) The concerns raised by Mark Bernstein and others about some IP edits are very serious, and help explain the remedies that have been imposed in this topic-area including the prohibition of IP and new-account editing, but I don't think they clearly relate to Handpolk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC) The filer has gone on to post and restore a violation of his topic ban on his userpage and talkpage and posted terms for its removal , while treating other editors with contempt . The filer's conduct throughout has had the air of a breaching experiment and we can expect more of this kind of thing if it is seen as successful. I recommend indef for the filer. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Handpolk's edits restoring the advertising of the off-WP forum for discussing the WP Gamergate article and WP activities related to Gamergate are clearly, without room for argument, a violation of their topic ban from Gamergate broadly construed that was found at ANI (I did not argue either for or against a sanction for Handpolk in that discussion). The fact that Handpolk repeatedly removes everything from their User and User Talk pages except for the sections advertising that forum really says a lot about their intentions, much more so than their rhetoric repeatedly denying interest in the topic or that they will respect the topic ban. However, Acroterion, allow me to argue a little in Handpolk's favor here: I wouldn't go straight to indef and throw away the key. Other than restoring those sections, I do see that Handpolk has been trying to disengage from the topic and its editors, and I recognize that they have indeed made constructive edits in other areas. So instead an indef, an administrator could make an WP:AE action of removing the sections from Handpolk's User and User Talk pages, and notify them that restoring them will, without question, result in a block. I think that would complete their disengagement from the topic without a block, and give them a little WP:ROPE, and that would be preferable. `Zad68` 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) It's worth a try. However, they also need to treat other editors with respect. It would also be best if other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries refrain from posting on his talkpage, even with the best of intentions, and it would be wise for Handpolk to refrain from, as Euryalus notes, re-litigating the ANI discussion in other venues . I don't feel strongly about indef, but their conduct clearly requires stronger measures than a topic ban.Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Alright, I'll sit on my hands and wait for more comments. Do we have evidence of their bad behavior interacting with editors other than Gamergate editors? `Zad68` 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Not that I've seen, though I believe Liz has edited there only recently and Tony Sidaway has largely withdrawn from participation on that subject. My comment about other editors was not meant to include you among the "other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries." The topic ban violation should go, as much for Handpolk's sake as anything else, as other editors have tried to point out. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Since BMK removed the violations on their own initiative in the meantime, I, for the sake of procedure, reverted BMK's actions and then removed them myself as an administrative/arbitration enforcement action and left a note that reinstatement will result in a block. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Handpolk has since been editing Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a firm at the center of a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed by Ellen Pao. As far as I'm concerned, it's a topic ban violation. Handpolk's insistence that it has nothing to do with anything of the sort is to me utterly disingenuous. I don't see any likelihood that a short block will have any effect on their behavior, which has reinforced my perception that they're pushing boundaries.I've given them the benefit of the doubt that they sincerely believed it was safe, but they continue to argue, and I'm not interested in an ad nauseum discussion. However, I don't like issuing an indef block when I'm feeling exasperated, so I won't. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I've blocked Handpolk for for continuing to try to discuss Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers after I directly told him to stop: the boundary-pushing cannot be ignored. I blocked for 48 hours to allow for a little more discussion here, rather than indef. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I note you've also unblocked per the discussion on my talk page. Please note I don't disagree with the block - it's a good faith judgement call on when enough rope is too much, and we simply mildly disagree that that point has been reached with these edits. We have both now urged Handpolk to stay further away from the topic-banned subjects, so if this wasn't enough rope, anything further certainly will be. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Those admins who don't yet support an indef might consider the logic of a one-month block of Handpolk based on the behavior so far. It's not as though there is much extenuation for the awful stuff that has been reported above. The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in WP:ARBGG. Handpolk's connection with Reddit is the icing on the cake. Does anyone think that Misplaced Pages has a tragic misunderstanding of the good intentions of the Reddit people? EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC) ~~I think we've seen everything we need to see from the filer to support an indef block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Given the Reddit stuff on top of everything else, an indef would be the obvious way forward, though having said that the GG topic ban is effectively the same thing anyway in terms of stopping disruption, with the bonus that he may find useful other areas to work in. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Handpolk probably doesn't mind using up as much admin time on Misplaced Pages as possible, so if he is only topic banned he'll probably take the opportunity to launch further appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I've glanced at Handpolk's other contributions and he seems to be editing normally outside this topic area. Since he's already under an indef topic ban, I'm content to leave it at that unless he strays into the topic area again. Any objections to closing this? Gamaliel (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I stuck my neck out a bit for Handpolk and I'm delighted to see my trust doesn't appear misplaced. I don't see any reason for any further action regarding Handpolk. Regarding MarkBernstein, I do find that when he focuses on content, he makes cogent, policy- and source-based arguments. I am not saying I do or do not agree with his conclusions all the time as I'm still trying to keep an arm's length from the content, but his arguments appear well-formed and connected to policy. Mark doesn't do a 100% perfect job of WP:FOC and does sometimes take mild or indirect jabs at other editors, but I read through the WP:ARBGG case and his behavior appears within the limits of what Arbcom condoned. ~~Mark was editing the article at the time the case started and he doesn't even appear as a named party, much less as one of the sanctioned.~~ But the thing I'm finding most disruptive about Mark's behavior now is, frankly, a continued failure to adhere to WP:DNFTT. Gamergate is just one of so, so many articles that are under continuous, co-ordinated offsite attacks, and its editors are just a handful of so, so many targeted harassment campaigns. Yes absolutely there are public anonymous chat communities hosted at several sites where people talk about the Gamergate editing here, but honestly it's hardly a drop in the bucket compared to some of the stuff I've seen from well-funded advocacy groups who have real money on the line depending on how favorable "their" Misplaced Pages article is to their medical treatment or product or company. Also there are other well-known Misplaced Pages-antagonist sites that I won't mention which have engaged in much sharper treatment of WP editors. So it's just a distraction when someone makes mention here that this or that post was made about some editor at such and such a site. In all but the most extreme cases does Misplaced Pages take an action here solely based on some complaint or comment posted off-site. Yes, if an off-site comment can be connected to an action that appears on-Misplaced Pages, we can adjust how we deal with it, but otherwise, bringing it here when there is no tangible effect from it is only a distraction. I guess the question is, Does this equate to Mark being a net-negative in this topic area? Not sure but I feel it's close. `Zad68` 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks Masem for pointing that out, struck that part of my statement. `Zad68` 04:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC) And now we got some guy who says he's a journalist and he's threatening to write stuff if we don't hand out sanctions in a manner of his liking. Even if I wanted to here I won't sanction now because I don't even want to provide the appearance of appeasement. Closing with no further action. `Zad68` 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) A Modest, Informal Proposal We've had a rough day. An IP tried to use an Arbcom page to publicize material of a sexual nature about two Gamergate enemies -- one current and one former Wikipedian. The current Wikipedian complained there, and here; an IP deleted their complaint because they're topic banned for Gamergate. I repeated it, as it's Kafkaesque to prevent someone from protesting Gamergate's use of Misplaced Pages to defame them because they're not supposed to mention Gamergate. Then I was redacted. Finally, this page was semi-protected. Elsewhere, Zoe Quinn is being called a "participant" in the Gamergate Controversy, as if she chose to participate. I'm accused falsely of publishing a falsehood in The Guardian, and also of looking at Gamergaters funny, or something. A new Gamergater arrived at the talk page, full of severe neutrality (but not full of 500 edits) to argue that we must immediately link to the latest Gamergate attack site, the promotion of which is 8chan's talking point of the day. Other editors are again unhatting their pet dead horses and throwing up great walls of text in support of phantasmic and whimsical propositions that have no chance of gaining consensus. You're the experts: you know what to do! But, as you appear stuck, some things you might try include: 1) The IP loophole is clearly being used to allow socks or puppets to edit Arbcom and AE pages and Gamergate biographies. Stop this: semi-protect everything in sight for the next six months. At least that will deter the IP socks. 2) Consider checking all newcomers to Gamergate topics against the whole list of banned Gamergate editors. No doubt that's onerous, but what else can you do? (This still doesn't help with meat puppets, zombies, and brigades, but it's a start.) 3) Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages -- especially but not limited to the prominent Gamergate targets. 4) Either enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically, like blocks, or do this proactively, or let oversight do it proactively. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the defenders of the wiki to enforce rules against Gamergate transgression, and it reinforces their sense that the rules are simply meant to oppress them. 5) Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing. Endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments, to which editors must respond time and time again, is painful and unproductive. At present, it requires endless wrangling simply to hat a dead horse -- and the horse always rises again in a couple of weeks. 6) Freeze the Gamergate page and the talk page. No dithering, no shadow drafts, nothing. Send everyone away until 2016. If anything needs to be changed, petition for the change at AE, with the understanding that few or no changes are likely to be accepted. These are drastic, but the pain this continued nonsense inflicts is very real. I’m not wedded at all to any of these suggestions, but it's time to try something. We have no business broadcasting murder threats against Gamergate's victims or broadcasting sexual gossip about Gamergate’s perceived enemies, and we're spending vast amounts of time (and incurring significant pain) simply to provide some amusing lulz for Gamergate’s fans.. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I think placing all a lot of these pages (although not the arbitration pages) under Pending Changes would make a lot of sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Provided that Gamergate socks or supporter don't render pending changes a dead letter, of course. But that still leaves the talk page problem, which is severe -- most of today's BLP violations were talk pages, which is a small comfort if it's your sex life Gamergate is discussing. Plus, this endless rehashing of dead horses (and then rehashing the meta discussion of whether the horse is really dead or resting, and whether it might be revived) is also pernicious, painful, and completely unproductive. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I also see a number of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to . If you visit the usual Gamergate haunts, you may find a fairly fresh thread in which this is proposed as the talking point to use against that me and in defense of some of the more vocal participants here.At another, there's a nice thread about how "Masem’s had Enough" with that nasty Jew "Bernstein...stein..stein". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I understand that the clerks and admins need to allow a lot of latitude here, Still, I do think calling me "dishonest or paranoid" might be just a little hard to square with policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC) And since Dr. Hathaway raises the subject, I continue to stand behind Infamous and its sequels, in which, to the best of my knowledge, I took no liberties of any sort with any person’s words. Having previously diagnosed my mental illness, he now accuses me of unspecified professional misconduct. The mental illness is one thing, this is really another. Guys -- I tried to keep this section light in tone, general in its recommendations, and useful to administrators who I acknowledged have a tough job. You see below some of of the personal vituperation I'm receiving in consequence; there's plenty more beneath the waterline. I'm writing about the project; Gamergate responds by writing about (er) me. I'm really trying to help you here, but... MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Dr. Hathaway now says my professional misconduct is not, as he wrote, "taking liberties with the words of others" but rather taking liberties with facts. He is mistaken on this count as well; that article correctly summarized the proposal that was its topic. If Dr. Hathaway wishes to take issue with something that The Guardian published, their editor Katherine Viner may be reached at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU; I cannot help him, nor can Misplaced Pages administrators. Again, repeated and unfair attacks on my professional reputation are hard to square with policy, especially as the topic of this section is not my conduct at Arbcom or elsewhere: Handpolk's complaint against my conduct is thataway ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ , In the mean time, perhaps someone might mop up the mess? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC) To repeat myself at dr hathaway's demand, neither Infamous nor its sequels took any liberties with any facts. Though my professional reputation is not even slightly pertinent to this topic, I value it highly. Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Masem now defends Dr Hathaway by claiming my reading of Masem's text does not conform to his intentions. This is really not the time or place for a lesson on the history of the Intentional fallacy and postmodern critical theory, is it? You may read my ACM Hypertext 2011 paper On Criticism if you wish, or Landow's Hypertext, or better still Eagleton (both volumes, they're not very long). Is my reading a valid reading? I believe it plainly is. (guys: I run a press known for edgy interactive Postmodern fiction, though some modernism is in the catalog as well. Srsly; I'm in your base deconstructing your pretty ponies. Stop it.) Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The attention of administrators is called to this outrageous eve of wiki hounding . I presume even wiki editors who cross Gamergate are permitted to volunteer for their local candidates! Even if they support Democrats? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) And to my unpracticed eye, this looks like a legal threat: . Not against me, but still. Mops? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Starke Hathaway Any proposed solution to what is wrong with the Gamergate article will be incomplete if it does not address the problem of a number of established editors with powerful personal feelings on the topic asserting ownership over the article, strangling any attempt to even discuss changes that do not fully agree with their preferred POV on the topic, and creating a palpably hostile, demeaning, and uncollaborative environment for anyone who dissents from their preferred POV (i.e., everyone but themselves). You don't need to look any farther than the abuse they heap on Masem, a long-established editor and administrator, to see that this is a problem. And that is entirely beside the fact that they assume, without evidence and in total contravention of AGF, that any young editor or newcomer to the topic area is a sock, or a troll, or a trolling sock. Just today, MarkBernstein alone has referred to Masem as a "Gamergate fan" (Masem has strenuously objected to this characterization), to Rhoark (and me) as simply "Gamergate" (neither of us so identify as far as I know), and reposted a topic-banned editor's comments about Gamergate to AE. In short, the article has exactly the same problem it had before the ArbCom case, which is that a confederacy of frankly paranoid editors is hell-bent on creating an article that reads in the most condemnatory way possible without regard to other editors' views, AGF and civility, and the sources as demonstrated by the discussion here. That's not to say it doesn't have other problems as well, but I think everyone might find that the flames will die down if certain individuals around here stop throwing gasoline on them. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I don't know what the "usual Gamergate haunts" are, but searching reddit for Masem's username finds a recent thread titled "Masem's had enough!" containing the words MarkBernstein actually quotes but nothing like "nasty Jew" or any mention of MB's ethnicity at all. "Bernstein-stein-stein" is obviously a reference to MB's words echoing from the top of the WP:REICHSTAG, the essay which was linked three times in the comment to which the "Bernstein-stein-stein" comment is a reply. I find it strange that MB would imply anti-Semitism. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I apologize for the directness of my language before. Still, this incident is illustrative of the liberties MarkBernstein sometimes takes with the ~~words of others~~ facts, as we all saw in the events surrounding the ArbitrationGate debacle, which is a problem for an encyclopedia editor. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: You're right, "liberties with words" is not what I meant to say. "Liberties with facts" is closer to the mark, and I've edited my comment accordingly. And since I seem to have been insufficiently specific, allow me to specify. The liberties with facts you have taken in the present instance is implying that commenters on an external website thread were making anti-Semitic comments about you when in fact no one in the thread made any mention of your ethnicity. The liberties with facts you took in the ArbitrationGate incident occurred when you were quoted in the Guardian saying prior to the final decision that "feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia" and "every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned." Neither of these statements were or are true. The parallel I am drawing between these incidents is that in both cases you went beyond the facts in a direction that is both non-factual and apparently calculated make your position sound more sympathetic. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Before I send my letter to the editor at the Guardian, I think I'll just take a quick look at the essay hosted on your webpage, to which you link on your user page, to see if they quoted you correctly. Oh, it would seem they did. What was your objection exactly? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Re: MarkBernstein's statement above that It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation, to my memory Ryulong's sexual orientation was only ever "revealed" or "publicized" when he himself brought it up as a defense after being called out for homophobia after tweeting the statement I don't have time to deal with gamergate fags here considering I only checked twitter to see if there was an update for a video game. I would link to an archive of the tweet in question, but I'm not sure whether that raises concerns about outing. Again, I must disagree with MarkBernstein's assessment and presentation of facts. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by ForbiddenRocky Dear Admins, please save GGC from all the dead horses. Today included a suggestion to change the lede that has been shot down every time. And a repeat of the attempt to make GG ethics the keystone of the description of GG. And a rehash of the anti-feminism issue. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72 Respected Administrators, Having reviewed the considerable archives of the Talk pages, one feels inclined to believe that there would be less re-discussion if discussions were allowed to reach their normal conclusion; rather than being endlessly filibustered, derailed with WP:FORUM violating comment on the Article subject, personal attacks, constant requests to close discussion, and aggressive "hatting". If editors were compelled to focus on the discussion of article improvements, you might see both a better editing environment and a better article. NB: Diffs to follow. - Ryk72 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Statement By Masem First and foremost, it is very very frustrating that there is continued attempts to meat/sockpuppet Misplaced Pages due to GG-related issues, and I share Mark's and likely countless other admins in having to stem that tide. I certain agree in condemning any editor (new/IP or otherwise) that attempts to shame other editors in the matter Mark's addressed. This unfortunately is a reality that WP, being an open wiki in a age where the 4chan/Anon mentality exists, has to struggle with. This is still a learning experience for WP for everyone to figure out how to deal with these topics that involve the technology-saavy. That said, Mark has demonstrated in his analysis above the continued battlefield mentality that he and others on that page have continued to engage in since the formal closure of the GG arbcom case, in line with Starke Hathaway's comments above. In his plea, he points out how to limit IP and new editors (a reasonable step, particular in light of Handpolk's approach), but then says that we must block all further discussion on the talk page, which is basically allowing his version of the article, which several established editors including myself, have pointed out still has problems in tone and neutrality, and while summarizing the sources, is being used as a soapbox to attack the Gamergate supporters/movement in a manner that no other WP on a disliked group is treated as. Myself and other editors cannot get any word in edgewise because Mark and others on that page try to shut down any discussion before it can start. Add in the personal attacks or comments directed at other editors and not content (which I again point out, Mark has been warned and blocked twice within the duration of Gamergate), and this is the same OWNership and battleground mentality that Ryulong, NBSB, etc. showed from the original ArbCom. I've personally been very patient, trying to avoid opening any new ArbCom case against them and trying to work with them, but any suggestions that simply don't fit their vision are stonewalled. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) As an example of the stonewalling, this diff has become quite common by several editors, when another editor tries to engage in broad strokes issues with the article, the reply "please state what specific edit you want or we'd collapse this discussion" is completely OWNership and battleground behavior. Yes, for IP/new editors that come along and go "the article is biased, fix it!" this is a reasonable step, but in the case above, for example, @Rhoark is attempting to figure how to address how to character the makeup of GG as used throughout the article based on a list of reliable sources, which one or two single edits is not going to cut it. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein your Infamous post purposely twists my words (the "administrator" that you have noted in that blockquote is my text), and that's not the first time you've done it to my words on your blog offsite . You're reading something into what I have said that was nowhere close to my intentions in all those previous instances (which is comparable to assuming that when I said "WP should stay conservative" you took that as meaning "right-wing" rather than "a careful approach". You are not assuming good faith, and that failure to assume good faith by established editors is creating the continued battleground atmosphere. If established editors (and not just those that tip the 500 edits) are finding fault with the article, that's the point to continue discussion, not to lock down the article to a preferred version. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: You readings can be very valid readings even if you consider context, I will give you that (just as taking "conservative" to mean "right-wing"; let's call it a failure of Poe's law. But a core policy on WP is assuming good faith, and your takes immediately presume the worst possible take on my statements, which is not appropriate for a conductive building of an encyclopedia by many editors. There are cases that we have had to throw AFG out the door (500/30 is an example of such) due to persistent off-site problems, I don't question that. But when you fail to AFG presented by long-established editors and make personal commentary about them on article talk pages to diminish their contributions, that is not appropriate, and exacerbates the battleground nature that the GG talk page remains. This is exactly the behavior that instigated the GG case, and clearly one that should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC) @Aquillion I would be more readily accept that Mark's behavior was within Stewardship if there was not condensing replies, comments on editors, a clear contempt for the subject manner, and other factors that do not show contributions towards consensus and using policy as a tool to silence opposition. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Statement By Rhoark Much has been made about calling people Gamergaters. Mark Bernstein has made it abundantly clear that he defines a Gamergater as a violent misogynist. This makes it problematic when he casually labels someone as such. I on the other hand consider a Gamergater to be someone with a deep concern for verifiability in all media and solidarity with anyone who's been persecuted for expressing their views. As such, it's high praise that I consider Mr. Bernstein a standout Gamergater. I expect that displeases him, but I hope we can eventually see eye-to-eye. What this all goes to show is simply that we should not worry about what a Gamergater "really" is, foruming, and righting great wrongs. Rather we should focus on the sources. There is a problem, as others have noted, that certain editors are unwilling to engage with the sources. They will quote the name of a policy, but are unwilling to explain how it is pertinent. They will call for a discussion to be hatted without bothering to understand what has been said. This stems from the unfortunate situation of the number of trolls they have had to endure. They deserve sympathy on this count, but it has trained them to take a very particular mental shortcut of regarding anyone they see as opposition as being interchangeable. Thus you see Mr. Bernstein casually describing events on and off wiki as simply a continuum of "what Gamergate did today". They see conspiracies and campaigns whenever anyone on the Internet takes note of how bad the article is. It's true, whenever it happens there's an influx of people who are not familiar with policy or the history of the talk page. This is why we already have the exceptional 30/500 requirement. So far as I can tell, it hasn't helped. Experienced editors, who understand policy, are still subject to aspersions as if they were part of the mob. Will any of the proposed measures help? I can't say. Any of them but a total freeze would be mostly harmless. However, for these editors, change will ultimately have to come from within. Rhoark (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I invite everyone to examine the horse themselves and evaluate its vital signs. At first I posted a list of sources, and went on to point out that the article was at significant variance with these sources. Mark Bernstein's reaction was, in sequence: Twist Masem's use of the word "conservative" to mean "right-wing", when in context it was clearly used in the sense of "cautious". Imply NPOV is sympathy for misogyny. Block quote himself from an unrelated argument in February. Hat the conversation (without signing) based apparently on the fact that ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) and TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) asked for it. To appease the editors who felt a discussion about reliable sources had to be hatted unless a specific edit was proposed, I offered one off the cuff. It used the word "participant" to denote in the most general sense everyone involved in the controversy without regard to how they were involved or what side they took. Mark Bernstein considered this, apparently, equivalent to not just libel, but threatening murder He has in that thread evaded every request to support his position with a reliable source. Now, he'd like admins to get everyone to stop talking about it. This is the sort of thing being referred to when people are requesting relief from dead horses. Rhoark (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I'm feeling a lot of mixed messages, so can someone please state unequivocally whether this is or is not an appropriate section in which to discuss specific editors' disruptive behavior? Rhoark (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC) While waiting for clarification on the above point, I'd like to recognize Aquillion (talk · contribs) as one of the good ones, engaged in stewardship rather than ownership. Strongjam (talk · contribs), Bosstopher (talk · contribs), and Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) are also among the editors who seem unsympathetic to Gamergate, but are still consistently civil and base their edits on policy and sources. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by ColorOfSuffering 7) Topic-ban every user who has ever contributed to the Gamergate controversy talk page or article. This can be extended to other articles within the scope of Gamergate, but I'd focus on the controversy page first. We can maintain the 300/50 silliness to keep the trolls at bay, but we need to start from scratch with all new faces. The article does not need to be frozen; the editors do. There are too many battleground SPAs monitoring the most trivial edit, exhibiting extreme battleground behavior that would be excoriated in any other article space. Everyone with skin in the game has had their say, I believe it's now time for the true uninvolved editors to clean up the mess. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by an uninvolved editor FDJK001 Some nice ideas up there. Seeing how an editor threatened to block me after seeing my pattern of editing (actually my intentions were unrelated to gaining access to 500/30, the reason is hilarious), I realized things based off of what I read from all of you, how if unregulated Misplaced Pages could become the broadcast channel for Gamergate (quoting MarkBernstein and how the 500/30 rule could work only for so long. First of all, I am uninvolved, having placed only one edit on the talk page for Gamergate but only to have it closed in minutes for my quota on edits being too low. So my one edit on there doesn't count and so this categorizes me as uninvolved. We obviously need to restrict editors who have had some involvement with the talk page and those who have battleground behaviour, like ColorOfSuffering said. So here could be the optimal compilation of the solutions: •Users with more than 25% disruptive edits in their past 50 edits should not be allowed to edit. •Editors and administrators involved with the talk page in the past 6 months should not be allowed to edit. If the controversy is still ongoing the time restriction should be extended. •Like Rhoark and others mentioned, a temporary freeze on the page could deter Gamergaters, but this will work for only about a few months. •Temporary IP topic block for those already involved. •Recognize that Zoe Quinn has no fault in this so that Gamergaters don't blame the victim (https://en.wikipedia.org/Victim_blaming). I admit I was messing around, experimenting with my talk page earlier today to punish myself for forgetting to use the "=" sign, but for the most part people like me could fit the criteria above. I didn't fit this list to conform just for me, but for everybody with rationality; one editor above, I forgot who, mentioned how involved editors with experience and prestige fall into the hate category, unfortunately. I might come back and redefine my solutions if more loopholes spring up. I wish you all luck in finding the true optimal solution. Good night. FDJK001 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC). Statement by j0eg0d 1) I suggest this for Gamergate related discussion only; The excessive suspicion Ad Nauseam of the IP "loopholes", "socks" & "puppets" could also be handled by taking away the swords & shields off the editors battle-fielding the WIKI. OR - We could experiment with a trial-solution that all gamergate_controversy edits refrain from USER names and only allow IP signed content. Asking to protect or semi-protect ArbCom & AE pages (even for one month) is absurd. One could easily assume this suggestion is meant to control the current bias surrounding the #gamergate topics POV Pushing. We'll be restricting direct emails to one another next with their exhausting mandates. These "defenders" of the WIKI are the problem here. 2) Checking all newcomers interested in Gamergate topics disregards Assume Good Faith. We are very aware of the interest in the WIKI Gamergate_controversy, because the current page is completely one-sided. It's one reason we get so many newcomers - because people want a balanced narrative. Editors certainly can not perform reasonably with the logic that every single newcomer is (sic) "meat puppets" or "zombies" Incivility. It would be autocratic in entertaining the idea and it's just further harassment. 3) "Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages" Again, we have a demand for restrictions and again Mark specifically points to "the prominent Gamergate targets". I suggest Mark Berstein be removed from every gamergate topic, because (IMHO) Mark Bernstein incites the disruptions Don't Be A Fanatic. I'm speaking from personal experience noted in this statement above. 4) "enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically" Again ... more restrictions ... A suggestion to dominate #gamergate discussions by some inherent right. It IS part of our responsibility to maintain the WIKI, and by locking in automated functions that BLOCK even the questioning of content is subjugation. 5) "Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing" We should never need to restrict a TALK page. It's the manner in reviewing content, identifying bias and (for some) pointing out the unreasonable hostility towards #gamergate supporters. This excuse of "endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments" is the fault of those editors insulting, attacking, Tag Teaming newcomers - as I and several other have noted and genuinely experienced. 6) "Freeze the Gamergate page and the talk page" ... more of the same deadhorse calls for restriction. Maybe it's time the Admins knew the opposition's story? We've heard plenty of Mark's one-sided prejudices & intolerant name-calling here. With all humility, I request our Admins to watch this interview with actor Adam Baldwin - Adam Baldwin created the #gamergate hashtag and he explains exactly why he started Gamergate. I understand YouTube is not a reliable source, I am not suggesting it be allowed in the WIKI, that isn't my intention. My intention is to allow you (our Administrators) to understand what makes the WIKI Gamergate_controversy so BIASED, and why people are so adamant about a Neutral Point Of View. It may also help you come to a final decision. @Zad68: Final Thought: I wouldn't mind if we deleted the gamergate WIKI and let User:Ryulong's old friends go back to protecting his Kamen_Rider creations. They've made a mockery of the entire structure and I for one am tired of seeing new editors scrutinized & discouraged. I would also like some attention noted on the persons that have diverted this case off-topic over the past 8 days, as I believe the intentions are to close any resolution against Mark Bernstein by rehashing the Gamergate controversy and misdirecting attention to other Editors: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. --j0eg0d (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion Most of these seem a bit too heavy-handed; the page itself is fairly stable, say, and while the circular talk-page discussions might be frustrating, my reading of the way they're going is that they're unlikely to lead to any dramatic changes. More aggressively doing checkusers on new users who immediately start arguing the position of recently-banned or topic-banned users could be reasonable, but the 30/500 restriction is hopefully minimizing that problem anyway. Regarding people going around the 30/500 restriction, though, I would suggest extending it to the entire topic regardless of where it appears, since it does seem like some users are just posting elsewhere in order to avoid that restriction and since it's generally bad for one content dispute to spill out all over the wiki. Being more proactive about topic-banning editors who seem like they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or whose discussion indicates that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia could help with a bit of the rancor, though (and discourage users from getting rancorous about their views in the first place). Anyone who edits a controversial article extensively is going to have some kind of opinion on its topic, on the sources and how to weight them and so on; but that opinion has to be expressed in a way consistent with our policies or it's not really going to be helpful. Misplaced Pages is not really the place to try and eg. press a disagreement with the mainstream coverage, and people who repeatedly seem to be pushing that without any apparent regard for the problems it causes are probably here to get the word out on a viewpoint they feel is being suppressed by the mainstream media -- which isn't an unreasonable thing to want, but which means they're WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. As an aside, I notice that a lot of users above are referring to WP:OWN a lot in an accusatory manner; it might be worth reminding people of WP:STEWARDSHIP. If people are editing an article due to sincere interest in its subject matter, and if they're taking the time to explain why they object to a change (as opposed to just tirelessly reverting back to one version with little or no explanation), it isn't usually WP:OWN. As that article says, it's important to be careful about throwing accusations about it around, since it can be taken as a personal attack (it implies that their edits are coming from a sense of ownership rather than a desire to improve the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom I am not sure how it would be possible to contain the disruption of the gamergate trolls. If you have the stomach to go to their boards, you find that they are COMPLETELY OUTRAGED!!! by something new and not related to games every day - and they still seem to feel that Misplaced Pages is the place where they should play the white knight and try to right these terrible wrongs if only the SJW would just go away and let them write the TRUTH. But the longer they are allowed to maintain that delusion, the more of Misplaced Pages gets sucked into that pit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) It is also probably valid to consider this post to Jimbo's talk page wherein a "blogger and journalist" , who so ethically attempts to incite the subjects of his story to continue the dispute, has kindly linked to their vlog in which they call for the participants at one of the gamergate boards to create accounts and stealth edit until they can swarm the GGC page as consideration for what steps may be considered in the effort to contain and limit disruption about the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @J0eg0d: You appear to be completely missing the point. AE exists to address disruption of the encyclopedia and the context of any actions discussed here MUST take into account the full context of the disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Liz This request has been open now for 8 days and has gone in a dozen different directions and we are now rehashing the Gamergate controversy as it was lived out on Misplaced Pages. It seems likely that no action will be taken against any editor so could Gamaliel, Zad68 or another admin close this case? Gamergate discussion have the potential to continue indefinitely so editors will keep posting as long as this complaint is open. Liz 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Result concerning A Modest, Informal Proposal I see a lot of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and not to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner regarding a variety of topics. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Starke Hathaway: and anyone else who wants to use this page as a boxing ring, your comments will be removed and you are likely to be faced with sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I agree with Liz, this should be closed for that very reason. I'm not going to close it myself, because every time I say or do anything here, I get a bunch of messages and emails saying how I'm preventing righteous justice or some shit. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes per Newyorkbrad's suggestion. No further action, if you want BIG CHANGES start another ArbCom. `Zad68` 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk topic-banned, I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes as a normal admin action. Zad68 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarkBernstein (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: Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Gamergate

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

6/12/15 accuses me of several things
6/12/15 More accusations
6/12/15 Calls me a gamergate fan
6/12/15 accuses me of being non-neutral and says i came from a 'gamergate basement'
6/12/15 accuses me of not being new or neutral
6/12/15 calls me a troll when i warn him
User_talk:MarkBernstein 6/12/15 admits to battleground mentality on his talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's important to note that 'gamergate supporter' or anything similar is essentially a slur. It's a personal attack. And since I am not in any way a gamergate supporter, it really offends me to be described that way. It's also a violation of AGF to accuse somebody of editing the article in accordance with views you perceive them to have. And extremely disruptive to do so repeatedly whenever you disagree, in an attempt to win an argument. Along with demonstrating a battleground mentality.

All of those are exactly what User:MarkBernstein has been doing to me, despite repeated warnings from me to stop. And they are against the sanctions that put a very short leash on all editors to not be disruptive.

At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned.

So far I count one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. Handpolk (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jorm made the same accusations and personal attacks about me here as the subject of this AE made. Calling me a Gamergate supporter. These types of unfounded attacks and accusations being allowed so freely directly violate the sanctions along with the rules of Misplaced Pages. They contribute to the battleground mentality of the article and should not be tolerated. We are to assume good faith. Handpolk (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&diff=prev&oldid=666700640

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

Statement by MarkBernstein

I am meeting with a distinguished colleague Saturday, and will have tasks and topics of greater interest and urgency before me. The complainant's behavior rather speaks for itself, as does the number of distinguished editors at AN/I who supported an indef even before this ill-advised return to AE. His subreddit, where notable Wikipedians have been ordered to "post tits", may also interest readers; it will not be difficult for you to find,

I would call your attention to the amount of time and aggravation this editor has cost the project in the immediate wake of steps taken to stem the flood of "new" and zombie Gamergate editors. I said then that more would be needed; that appears to be the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It was perhaps very wicked of me, back in 2014, to allude to the influx of new, zombie, brigaded, and sockpuppet accounts that arrived at Gamergate, each so eager to be severely neutral. I trust we have moved beyond that, now, and that we can speak plainly about what we so clearly see.

This complaint is one small move in Gamergate’s new playbook. Expendable accounts plan to file numerous grievances that will require lots of admin time. If they succeed in securing sanctions against their targets, or in embarrassing more victims, that’s icing on the cake: the immediate goal is to exhaust those few administrators willing to mop the space. First we had an ill-founded attack on TRPoD from an IP editor, resulting in the 30/500 rule. Here on its heels, we have an ill-founded attack on me, intended to gut that rule by showing it to be toothless. (Note, incidentally, that Handpolk’s late collaborator Dwarvenhobble has already been banned as an obvious -- and now confessed -- sock of a banned editor.)

Is there any reason to believe this will end here? Of course not. Handpolk's work has been a great success; they set out to spend a lot your time, and -- voila! -- your time has been spent. They set out to poke holes in the 30/500 rule, and while you’ve held your ground, they are not worse off than when they began and they know where to poke next. (Meanwhile, it looks like they're hoping to use the distraction to put scare quotes around each characterization of Gamergate abuse.)

It is gratifying to see so many respected administrators below taking an interest in the problem and demonstrating close familiarity with the area, its unprecedented problems, and its extensive archives. Sooner or later, though, you will have to grasp the nettle. You know why the talk page archives run to a million words, why no question is ever settled, why the answer to every point is always yet another dissertation on why the reliable sources cannot be relied upon, why every fresh zombie is greeted and cosseted and protected until, as here, they fall to pieces. You don’t want to take this on, you’ve been hoping it would go away, melt, thaw, or resolve itself into a dew. I understand. I sympathize. But it has cost the rest of us a lot of time, it's costing the project credibility, and editors, and admins -- none of which it can afford right now -- and it's not getting any better. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: To refer to people by their first name alone is, in common written usage, an indication of intimacy or, at any rate, intimate acquaintance. That is, I presumed, what you were indicating when you introduced a reference to "Milo and Christina" into a discussion. My rejoinder was only a personal attack to the extent that any mild and discretely indirect stylistic and spelling correction is. A few first names are treated specially as a conventional sign of special reference and esteem -- “Martin” and “Malcom” for “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Malcom X”, some Japanese living treasures -- but even here the use of the first name is often reserved for people who knew and worked with the person. Of course, some fannish communities use first names as a clannish indicator of support, a dog-whistle that members will recognize and outsiders will not, to signal mutual membership, but of course that couldn't be your intent. If this were a personal attack, you'll want also to cite whoever corrected the Gamergate fan who kept misspelling “genesis” as “genesys”, too, but the standard of English in the area will likely deteriorate further. (Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic-banned editor @NorthBySouthBaranof:, participating in the Arbcom Lightbreather case, is being hounded along with former editor Ryulong by Gamergate IP editors trying to call attention to discussion of their supposed sex lives at an attack site we will not mention here. Paraphrasing his words, "I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before Misplaced Pages wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets?” To further emphasize the point, the last few minutes a Gamergate supporter has written, falsely, that I wrote something untrue in The Guardian and then called Zoe Quinn a participant in the Gamergate controversy, suggesting that she had any choice after Gamergate used Misplaced Pages to announce her imminent murder. Enough already. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article."

A later addition, also signed "j0eg0d", explains that

"He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM."

Another editor named "ggtehxnor" opines:

I've met homeless unmedicated schizophrenics with a firmer grasp of reality than Bernstein. He is quite possibly the most deranged Misplaced Pages editor there is, and that is an impressive (and terrifying) accomplishment.

At another Gamergate board, "WPBATTLEGROUND" starts a fresh thread titled "Let”s Talk About BarkMerstein.”

Is this dude banging Jimmy Wales or something? How is it possible he is not at least topic banned?

And as you know my talk page has been the home to lies and sneering insinuations, now kindly hatted by TRPoD. Thanks, guys! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher:’s historical survey is unsympathetic and in a few cases not quite accurate, but I thank him for taking the trouble. The original ban, in particular, arose as a boomerang when I (so young! so idealistic!) appealed here against what I believed to be a McCarthyist slander . I believe I did not develop the terminology of Boss/Provocateur/Pal until Careless on January 22, substantially later. I am happy to discuss these former broils if you like, but don't wish to tire your patience. If any of you are of a historical bent, you also want to review Gamergate’s successful attack on Ryulong, from which this case (if case this be!) is taken. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher:'s additional background on Ryulong is very helpful. It should be remembered that the action against Ryulong was the cornerstone of the original attack (Operation: The Five Horsemen Of WikiBias) and was always prosecuted by a considerable group of editors, not by the provocateur alone. It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation. Note, too, the relentless publicity Ryulong's opponents gave to a flimsy appearance of conflict of interest. And now, right on schedule, we have accusations that I'm really a member of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s staff, and perhaps also the King Of Titipu. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"An encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.” -- Tony Sidaway MarkBernstein (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: Re your comment about tag teams (forsooth!) with Strongjam and Bosstopher (!): I have no idea what you're saying, or asking me, or anyone, to do. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved IP

Please note that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI about whether User:Handpolk's latest complaint should earn him a boomerang. At the moment it has unanimous support.208.76.111.246 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there's little to no self reflection occurring by the OP on why he was topic banned. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryk72 makes a very fair point below about whether the linked off site behavior should be considered. I'll go ahead and bid these proceedings adieu. Farewell. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I do not want to replicate the AN/I report referred to by the IP, but it should be noted that Handpolk made 170 4-byte edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 within an hour, each one removing a single Wikilink, in order to pad his edit total and qualify for the 500/30 requirement. Such gaming of the system (which also included 20 closely-times edits to another article, as reported in the AN/I thread by Floquenbeam) should not be rewarded by allowing him to edit Gamergate articles, or by having this complaint heard here. BMK (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the AN/I discussion Handpolk has now been indefinitely topic-banned by Euryalus "from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. BMK (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other regarding MarkBernstein's edits or behavior, and I am totally uninvolved in Gamergate. BMK (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

While I do have a lot of doubts as to Handpolk's sincerity on their edits (the numerous tiny edits on one article as to get to 500+ edits), it should be noted that Mark has been warned and blocked twice before , due to his commenting on contributors not content in article talk space. This diff for example is specifically targeted at me due to a discussion I put into earlier regarding our WP:W2W policy. The comments toward Handpolk in article talk space are more of the same. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And while I know it's been recommended that this specific action is likely tainted and only end up focused on the filer, I'm adding this new personal attack from Mark , presuming I have connections to two named people, primarily for documentation. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: The point is not whether I use first names or last names; the issue is that you are commenting on contributors, not content, on article talk pages, an issue you were blocked twice before and warned since. If you want to assert that I have conflicts of interest with GG that should keep me from contributing on the GG pages, you can open a new enforcement case (but as I've said during the original ArbCom, I would freely allow any investigation of any sockpuppetry assumptions or offsite analysis to show that I don't interact with them at all). But to continue to speak about editors' actions is continuing the behavior that ArbCom expressly warned about as well as the previous bans. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Protonk : Perhaps it was meant as a joke (Mark tends to use these but Poe's law always comes into play). Regardless, the issue is commenting on the commentator, not content, even if it was in jest. He's been blocked twice for this behavior and it leads to the combative battleground mentality plaguing that page. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 : As best as I can recall, at the time that the ArbCom GG was filed, Mark was already blocked for making personal attacks under previous community GG sanctions, and thus was not likely considered a party. He was unblocked after/during? the case. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In reply to @TonySideway's comment (by way of Mark's reposting of part of it) - Myself (and presumably a few others) are not asking for the article to treat harassment and threats as if they were not a crime, if at the very leat amoral and unethical, but we need to amoral in drawing the line between the actions and the people behind it when there has been no legal conviction of anyone involved yet (though that will be a matter of when, not if). Misplaced Pages cannot judge, even if there was a conviction, under NPOV. But what is happening is that editors like Mark write the article to condemn all of GG when we know that there is a portion of GG that have stated they are not involved in the harassment and are trying to fight against it. If any of these were named people (and arguably there are), WP:BLP applies immediately and we'd temper the claims of the press without question; the spirit of BLP says we should be working on the same lines even if the group is primarily anonymous members (in that they have usernames but no apparent connection to real names) and treat the group objectively and not judgementally, separating the actions from the people. It is also the case that Mark and others want to condemn GG - Mark often speaks to the harassment and threats as "vile" and "evil", which I would not disagree with on a personal level, but as a WP editor, framing the article with these points in mind prevents us from reading sources and writing in a neutral, conservative, amoral style - they are crimes but we should not be harping in WP's voice or tone how bad these are. Similarly, which Quinn and others are victims of these crimes and we have to take to prevent BLP-type issues appearing about them, our article should not be treating them more than just victims, which instead we end up writing more sympathetically for these people which again moves off the amoral standpoint. We should not be trying to write the article to right great wrongs of the emotional and financial harm that has come to these people - just as we cannot make the GG movement look better than its current public perception. This is the amorality that is needed and demanded by NPOV that Mark and others do not seem to want to give, because the press has taken this stance. We are not the press, we're an academic work, and need to recognize when the press is writing within common moral standards for maintaining its readership rather than teaching information. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jorm

User:Handpolk has pretty much followed the Gamergate Handbook On How To Be Difficult, only with a new twist (that of rapidly making hundreds of minor edits in order to game himself into the 30/500 set). Oh, he also started a subreddit where he exposes other Misplaced Pages editors to sexual harassment. He's absolutely not here to make an encyclopedia, and has just been indefinitely topic banned from the Gamergate/games/feminism area for his conduct.

This should be closed as "no action."

It looks like we might be heading towards the rare double boomerang! This will require popcorn.--Jorm (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, here's an interesting question: does continuing to post in this AE request violate the topic ban that was handed to Handpolk by Euryalus a couple hours ago? I think it might. --Jorm (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does. Handpolk, benefit of the doubt for posts up till now as you may not have realised, but this AE request is a Gamergate-related issue and post-ban posts to it are a breach of the ban. There's plenty of eyes on this page so if there's anything that needs adding in either side of the debate, another editor will no doubt add it. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth

@Masem: Perhaps you should start a different enforcement request where the well is not quite so prodigiously poisoned by the filer? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

I do not believe that a reasonable person would find either the subject or the filer of this AE request to be entirely blameless. Given the issue raised here appears to be limited to comments about each other an interaction ban may be sufficient & appropriate.

Support mutual (two-way) I-ban. - Ryk72 04:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I noticed your comment in the "admin" section below: The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in WP:ARBGG.

While I concur that the WP:ARBGG decision was intended to address a number of problematic behaviours in the topic space, (and also that the editor's behaviour appears problematic in itself), I'm not clear that the sanctions were intended to stop any particular type of edits in WP:MAINSPACE, which is the meaning that I intuit from the comment. Of course, it is entirely likely that I am misunderstanding, and that the intent was to cover edits in non-Article spaces.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little on the meaning, and if & how you see WP:ARBGG impacting content decisions? Thanks in advance for any additional insight you can provide. Apologies if this is not the best forum; please feel free to relocate. - Ryk72 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@"uninvolved IP", While I share your disdain for a number of the comments raised in fora such as the one which you linked; as a general principle, I don't believe that sanctioning editors for off-Wiki behaviour is in the interests of the project. In part because I'm not sure where we would stop. - Ryk72 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

I suspect the filer is WP:NOTHERE as evidenced by his reddit and other actions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at the stuff Cullen328 mentioned about the filer and Liz. And I looked at the filer's edits on WP:BOOMERANG and its talk page. Those things are either serious chutzpah ~~or serious emotional reactiveness.~~ In the former case filer deserves an indef. ~~In the latter perhaps a short block.~~ While I really suspect the filer is WP:NOTHERE, ~~I can't also help feeling maybe he just needs time to cool off.~~ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I change my mind. Filer knows too much GG history, and too much about sanctions against MarkBernstein. Filer can't both claim general ignorance of what's going on and at the same time make comments that require knowing a lot about the arcana around GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

A topic ban of the filer is merited on the grounds of their blatant attempt to game the 500 edit qualification. This already seems to have been handled through a topic ban arrived at by community discussion at ANI, however. I suggest this current AE discussion may be safely closed with a note of that ban, unless there is merit in the original complaint. In the latter case, perhaps a new filer will come forward to advance any genuine issues. --TS 12:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The filer is advertising, on both user page and user talk page, a reddit community supposedly created by the filer that is described as uncensored and currently contains attacks on individual Misplaced Pages editors. An edit by me earlier today to remove the user page link citing WP:POLEMIC was reverted by the filer on the pretext of "vandalism". Obviously I'm walking away because I don't want to play to anybody's script. But maybe an indefinite block is merited here before things get out of control. --TS 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As a not at all disinterested observer I think it's fair to say that some otherwise edgy behaviour by some editors is being treated with a little indulgence (though very far from absolute liberty) precisely because they are clearly reacting to deliberate, targeted attacks that have been without cease for nine months.

I don't know about other topics in Misplaced Pages that may be subject to similar attacks or worse, but I observe that over the past few months since the Gamergate arbitration this page has quite often been dominated by discussion of Gamergate. It may not be the worst topic for external pressure, but it's certainly not the least.

There are honourable and fair editors who disagree with the mainstream on how we should report Gamergate; there are even some who clearly retain an honest belief that our NPOV policy requires that which I think it is impossible to square with the normal and routine interpretation we use everywhere else. They honestly and sincerely believe that Misplaced Pages should be truly amoral, knowing no difference between the most radiant love and the most heinous hatred, between a hand that caresses and a hand that mortally wounds. Those people, I can work with, though their very existence makes my hair stand up on end. We can discuss and wrangle and, grudgingly, reach a compromise that doesn't go off the deep end but does satisfactorily convey the fact that some objective harm must inevitably be conveyed in the course of reporting on malicious human behaviour.

But we cannot work at all under the pressure of that same hatred, which I loathe with every fibre of my being, that seeks to harm those who find threats of rape to be a bad thing.

And that's where we are. Ignore it, perhaps, for as Wikipedians we all have that option and that's always been the path condoned by Arbcom, sometimes expressly but usually only by omission. But an encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.

Righting great wrongs? No. Just making sure that we all understand that just getting the facts down, according to the NPOV, is a truly political statement and not one we should duck. --TS 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

I'd rather we not sanction editors for calling a duck a duck. The "I'm not a gater, I'm just a neutral editor who wanted to learn about GG and found the article be be biased" line is well-worn. We've heard it from literally every gater and almost never heard it from editors one might reasonably call neutral or disinterested. It is well worn precisely because serves a useful rhetorical purpose. The speaker can not only claim neutrality but they can erect that veneer over their position (which is almost inevitably pro gamergate in general and in this specific case stupefyingly obviously pro gamergate). Editors here trying to do their best to follow AGF are then obligated to treat this manifest ploy as the law of the land. If you accuse them what is plainly clear, you're impugning their neutrality or using a slur (gamergater) to describe them. If we keep reading from the same script it is no surprise the lines don't change. GG certainly won't change the tactic because it works like gangbusters and because it fits with their narrative of GG as objective/neutral and the rest of the world as biased. I find the hand-wringing above from editors who claim to be neutral offensive.

This complaint is baseless and should be dismissed as such. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Perhaps they were just making a good natured but ill fated joke at how we use first names to connote familiarity. To suggest you were friends with Yiannopoulos or Hoff Sommers is of course absurd. In the context of protracted and repeated arguments which favor the group under discussion it might be misinterpreted as slight against the subject's neutrality. But given how widely and strenuously this colleague--an administrator no less--asserts their neutrality I have no choice but to imagine this interpretation must have been furthest from Mark's mind. Protonk (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Yeah it's absurd. That it stings at all may be based on the singular regard a particular community holds for one administrator. Protonk (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I've been quasi sorta watching Handpolk and frankly they've made the rope makers quite rich already. Nearly as rich as they've made the glue factories. It's honestly heartening that anyone would find a glimmer of potential here and if Zad68 thinks there's hope, don't see why not let them one more coil of rope? Though it's quite generous given the user's actions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also posting on BYK's talk page after being told not to: . Just indef already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And posted again on BYK's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel - ~~To be clear, the topic ban is (or will be?) for Gamergate and gender related controversies, right? He keeps blanking his user talk page, so it's hard to tell if it's already been placed on him.~~ Nevermind. I found what I needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP user

I find it strange that text which doesn't mention the banned topic would be sanctionable as a topic ban violation, or that it qualifies for removal under WP:POLEMIC. The user reported in this request in fact has the following text on their talk page which seems to advocate the destruction of wikipedia yet no mention has been made of WP:POLEMIC over several months:

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive. -- NorthBySouthBaranof.

I find it especially strange that here Gamaliel supports an indefinite ban when, while that same reported user was topic banned they maintained on their user pages links to their personal blog discussing the topic, criticizing our handling of it and even criticizing editors directly! In that case however, rather than recommend an indefinite ban he thought it more appropriate to lift the editor's topic ban. Is there some difference in these two situations not apparent to the rest of us? 173.192.176.158 (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

The thing I like the least among the OP's behavior, among a range of bad behaviors that one might want to analyze, is that they stomped away while loudly accusing actually productive editors of being "trolls" and "vandals". Can you imagine? Folks like Liz, the kind, helpful opposite of a troll. I do not believe that the encyclopedia will suffer at the loss of this editor. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

My statement isn't about Mark but about Handpolk. I would argue that we give the topic ban a chance have an impact. I already see Handpolk editing on non-Gamergate articles which was the main goal of the topic ban. I can see he has a bit of a persecution complex right now and doesn't fully undertand how, in good faith, editors on Misplaced Pages disagree all of the time but manage to, mostly, find a way to coexist without going to ANI or AE.

But I hope maybe working with a different group of editors can turn him around. He's an intelligent editor and I see his main offense to be an unwillingness to drop the stick. If the topic ban can cause him to move on from Gamergate and work on other pages, then it will have served its purpose. Liz 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Ellen Pao, a discussion about whether these articles fell under Gamergate DS only occurred yesterday (Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Ellen Pao) which was after Handpolk made his edits to the Kleiner article. A Gamergate connection is not immediately obvious and the warning on the talk page (again, posted after his edits) said that the articles were covered by DS without specifying Gamergate.

While an editor should not edit an article after receiving a DS warning from an admin, I can see why an explanation might be called for so an editor can understand why these two articles would come under the Gamergate umbrella. It doesn't seem like a discussion over the scope of DS shouldn't be considered a violation of DS. Liz 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d:, can you tell me what "brigading" means? The only place where I've seen that word used in regard to internet activity was on reddit and I didn't know what it refers to there except, apparently, it's a bad thing. Thanks for any explanation you can provide. Liz 17:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 63.153.218.127

I would just like to note that MarkBernstein accused an IP of creating the first arbitration request against TRPoD. 63.153.218.127 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before ArbCom wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets for nothing more than "lulz"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The continuing harassment targeting myself in particular is clearly subject to WP:BANEX, as an issue directly involving myself. Furthermore, it's interesting how Gamergate-related editors and IPs magically appear out of nowhere to continue the harassment. I draw the Arbitration Committee's attention to this obvious disruption of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by j0eg0d

@Zad68: Apologies Zad68, I'm unfamiliar with the Admins handling this request ... In regards to User:MarkBernstein; I will talk from my own experiences: Mark has engaged in WP:OUTING me and brigading members Liz & Cullen328 into investigation of (what Mark believed to be) my IP address. MARK WAS WARNED Yet he continued researching for personal information about me through the Hugo Awards website, and demanding I provide personal information myself. I have been a member of Misplaced Pages since 2005, Mark's persistence that I am a SOCK account appears to be a false-excuse to harass others & openly DOX people. He reacts this way to anyone looking to discuss the role of Gamergate.

Mark and acquaintances PeterTheFourth, TheRedPenOfDoom, Jorm blatantly Wikihounded me and others in discussions about Gamergate. It's all archived. They would Wikihound me personally when I created a dialog in a forum, edited other pages, or simply uploaded an image for a WIKI page. Their sole purpose regarding GamerGate_Controversy (IMHO) is to divert intelligent dialog by twisting words, going off-topic, deleting and hatting anything providing a balanced narrative about the #gamergate hashtag. Read from Mark's own words above; "zombie Gamergate editors, brigaded and sockpuppet accounts". These are the same biased, angry (dare I claim paranoid) attacks used against someone who has been with Misplaced Pages for 10 years. I stepped away from Misplaced Pages just to get a break, and here I return to still see Mark's activities being allowed.

This man and his alliances (Please note who is defending Mark and who is requesting Handpolk be topic banned) are disruptive to every GamerGate topic and aggressively harass newer users that want to add to the same GamerGate discussion - I point to Handpolk whose USER page was altered because of a link he provided to Reddit. He was accused of advertising in this case. I can see the frustration in this, because Mark Bernstein's USER page is advertising his own website. Mark advertises again below in A Modest Informal Proposal where I admittedly removed the link to his website only to have to undone by ]. Is this because of favoritism, because no one has ever pointed it out, or maybe Mark has enough friends to create the consensus that his website is not advertising? My appeal on Mark Bernstein, in light of the documented history of his past bannings & current behavior; is to permanently restrict him from every topic regarding GamerGate. I find this to be an absolutely reasonable action considering his current request to "check"(2) every Misplaced Pages newcomer. Mark is not learning from his past bans. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: The term "brigading" is like a "call to arms". For a better definition, you might ask your friend Mark Bernstein as he uses it more often than I do. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe any accusations by MarkBernstein should be sourced. I'm very aware of MarkBernstein;s excessive suspicions as it have been focused on myself in Mark's attempts to OUT me. His immoderate requests made to "harass" newcomers should be taken as an admission in treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground. I'm also concerned by the accounts of TRPOD, PeterTheFourth, Jorm, Strongjam and NorthBySouthBaranof in what is clearly a shared agenda. I find it difficult to believe their claims of "organized attacks" against themselves or Misplaced Pages when each of these editors have cried wolf continuously on IP addresses, contributing editors such as Masem, myself and every NEWCOMER that seeks to correct errors in a WIKI article. Even within this very page it is Mark's unusual behavior that needs to be addressed as it is personable to me ... To Quote

"(Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.)" _MarkBernstein"
"A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article. A later addition, also signed j0eg0d, explains that He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM." _MarkBernstein

I have one account and only one account with Misplaced Pages since 2005. I have not been blocked or restricted in all my 10 years. MarkBernstein continues to make these accusations without fact, evidence or sourcing. MarkBernstein pursuant zealotry in researching & following me inside & outside of Misplaced Pages is the exact method in which Mark approaches every person bringing question to the very articles MarkBernstein himself guards. ADMINS, I must ask: After so many temporary blocks/restrictions specific Long Term Abuse, if MarkBernstein has not learned how to behave by now; Why is he and his Wikihounds being allowed to continue this WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct? --j0eg0d (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I can certainly appreciate your defense of Masem but in regards to me ... ... You're attempt to explain the Ryulong story to an Admin @Rad68: which is already on record and (sorry) but Ryulong's excessive behavior predates the #gamergate hashtag by a few years SOURCE. His "behavior" is well-documented even outside Misplaced Pages . Your defense of Mark Bernstein seemed to be in error, as my claim of Mark WP:OUTING me has to do with my IP address & researching my name through the HUGO Awards - It has nothing to do with Reddit.

My recognizing the same extremism with Ryulong's (remaining) WIKI friends - My declaration that the "defenders" of the Gamergate-Controversy WIKI should be removed - and my current suggestion to simply delete the gamergate WIKI; are provided as measures to end this battlefield mentality. You called me an "ass" in defense of your friends, Bosstopher. I'm unconcerned with name -calling, but you're adding to the WIKI battlefield & encouraging quarreling; You're part of the problem. I hope you can see that, because you need to stop. --j0eg0d (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam and Strongjam: If you and your WP:Tag Team with Bosstopher & Mark Bernstein have an ARBCOM request towards me or other Editors making statements; You may want to create a separate request (with sources) as you're pursuing off-topic conversations to distract from the current issue. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

This bullshit is the type of thing MarkBernstein and NorthBySouthBaranof are talking about, and it needs to stop. — Strongjam (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to J0eg0d, can an oversighter please take a look at their contributions around May 24? I'm surprised those edits plus their recent contributions about living people haven't attracted much admin attention. — Strongjam (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: You're the one who brought me into with your accusations that I've made false claims about IP harassment. Don't be surprised if you get hoisted by your own petard. — Strongjam (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

J0eg0d's above statement mentions their long history at Misplaced Pages—that's a good achievement but it would be fairer to note the context:

21 edits in 2005
13 edits in 2008
11 edits in 2013
13 edits in 2014
246 edits in 2015

That gives a total of 304 edits, the vast majority of which have been in 2015 and concerned with gamergate. Most editors would not have sufficient experience to comment at WP:AE after 304 edits, nor would they know that "WP:BATTLEFIELD" is a useful term of art. Rather than worrying about whether MarkBernstein has examined off-wiki forums, it would make more sense to worry about the off-wiki forums where tactics to push the gamergate line are discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

@Zad68: It's only just hit me that you don't know the background of Mark's topic bans and his IBANs with DHeyward so here I go. Mark was originally Tbanned for making some very extreme claims. He accused Thargor Orlando of being part of a coordinated 8chan threat against which endangered his life, without providing any evidence, made some incredibly dodgy and insulting comments to starship.paint and accused Masem of being the BOSS of a Gamergate faction that was organising offsite. As a result he ended up topic banned. Then he wrote a blogpost that got covered in the Guardian, got blocked for posting about it on Jimbotalk, got his topic ban removed because it had supposedly become punitive by this point.

He then returned to editing the article and behaved a lot more calmer than last time, but people he crossed swords with before his topic ban found it hard to bury the hatchet. So they tried to get him tbanned over minor issues. This led to all those IBANS that popped up, as well as another temporary topic ban/block. As for the present day I'm not really sure what's going on, because it's been 2 weeks since I've had a good nights sleep, but j0eg0d is acting like an ass ( +Mark's statement)) and really has no room to talk about AGF and civility. Also people in general are being a bit too mean to Masem on the talk page and really ought to dial it down. Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Protonk: That comment is no more absurd than claiming Masem is coordinating a Gator army, which is something multiple editors of the article actually believe. On a related note you'd think if an experienced administrator was coordinating offsite disruption he'd come up with a better strategy than the current one: "And then after 4 days and 10 posts, you go to talk page and write "This isn't neutral at all, you're all SJWs! Then they'll be bound to fix the article!"Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68:@MarkBernstein: Per your suggestion, (and per the worrying path j0eg0d is taking), here is a brief summary of what happned to Ryulong for Zad to get some context. Once upon a time an advocate of Gamergate started editing Misplaced Pages. He didn't like what was going on so he complained about it on reddit (a lot). He eventually made so many reddit posts about wikipedia that they made him a moderator of /r/KotakuInAction. Most of his reddit posts were extremely focused on Ryulong, some were highly insulting and tried to dig up dirt on him from a webpage that was created to harass him. He used exactly the same name on reddit and Misplaced Pages and admitted the reddit account was his multiple times. But whenever the account was brought up and Ryulong tried to correct his errors or get him to stop, he denied the account was his and accused everyone of WP:OUTING him. He then deleted the vast majority of his insulting reddit posts about Ryulong before the Arbcom case ended (does this remind you anyone @J0eg0d:?). The wikipedia administration in their infinite wisdom responded by banning Ryulong from mentioning offsite behaviour, and Arbcom claimed it was impossible to deduce that the reddit account and wikipedia account belonged to the same person (the extreme stupidity of such a conclusion still blows my mind to this day). In the end the editor in question got so ballsy that he started wikistalking Ryulong in the last days before his ArbCom ban, and it was this outrageous display which finally got him blocked (for 24 hour). Zad, I hope you keep the lessons of such a story in mind when dealing with complaints about insults on reddit. Also please note the recent RfC we had that concluded linking usages of the same username on multiple websites is not necessarily outing.Bosstopher (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: Firstly I'd like to say how flattered I am that you think I have the necessary social skills to make friends. Secondly Mark's exclamation mark in brackets, pretty much sums up my views on your theory that Mark, Strongjam and me are some kind of evil Gamergate triumvirate. The reason I explained both Mark's story and that of Ryulong vs Loganmac to Zad, was because both were barely touched on in the Arbcom case, which is where he was looking for information. Also I never called you an ass, I merely said you were acting like an ass. I gave evidence that supported this, in the form of your taunting Mark through putting hidden Reichstag links in his username and referring to Gamaliel as his "butt buddy" on reddit. Now I am no expert on assholish behaviour, but surely you must agree that what you did here falls very well into that category? If my name calling is part of the problem, what does that make your name calling?Bosstopher (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

Last time someone tried to game a 30/500 restriction like this, I just indeffed them. I see no reason why this case shouldn't be handled similarly. T. Canens (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
As to Mark Bernstein, I support prompt closing with no action. As to the filer, while I understand T. Canens' position, hasn't the issue been addressed by the community at ANI? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was written before Handpolk's subsequent activity. (Which is obvious by definition, of course, but still pointing it out.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I note that Handpolk is now blocked 48 hours as a self-requested block for a wikibreak. If he is not blocked for longer as a result of this thread, he needs to steer well clear of controversial topics going forward. (I haven't reviewed some of the most recent behavior so I am not !voting on any sanction against him just now.) The concerns raised by Mark Bernstein and others about some IP edits are very serious, and help explain the remedies that have been imposed in this topic-area including the prohibition of IP and new-account editing, but I don't think they clearly relate to Handpolk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The filer has gone on to post and restore a violation of his topic ban on his userpage and talkpage and posted terms for its removal , while treating other editors with contempt . The filer's conduct throughout has had the air of a breaching experiment and we can expect more of this kind of thing if it is seen as successful. I recommend indef for the filer. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Handpolk's edits restoring the advertising of the off-WP forum for discussing the WP Gamergate article and WP activities related to Gamergate are clearly, without room for argument, a violation of their topic ban from Gamergate broadly construed that was found at ANI (I did not argue either for or against a sanction for Handpolk in that discussion). The fact that Handpolk repeatedly removes everything from their User and User Talk pages except for the sections advertising that forum really says a lot about their intentions, much more so than their rhetoric repeatedly denying interest in the topic or that they will respect the topic ban. However, Acroterion, allow me to argue a little in Handpolk's favor here: I wouldn't go straight to indef and throw away the key. Other than restoring those sections, I do see that Handpolk has been trying to disengage from the topic and its editors, and I recognize that they have indeed made constructive edits in other areas. So instead an indef, an administrator could make an WP:AE action of removing the sections from Handpolk's User and User Talk pages, and notify them that restoring them will, without question, result in a block. I think that would complete their disengagement from the topic without a block, and give them a little WP:ROPE, and that would be preferable. Zad68 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  - It's worth a try. However, they also need to treat other editors with respect. It would also be best if other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries refrain from posting on his talkpage, even with the best of intentions, and it would be wise for Handpolk to refrain from, as Euryalus notes, re-litigating the ANI discussion in other venues . I don't feel strongly about indef, but their conduct clearly requires stronger measures than a topic ban.Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    - Alright, I'll sit on my hands and wait for more comments. Do we have evidence of their bad behavior interacting with editors other than Gamergate editors? Zad68 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      - Not that I've seen, though I believe Liz has edited there only recently and Tony Sidaway has largely withdrawn from participation on that subject. My comment about other editors was not meant to include you among the "other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries." The topic ban violation should go, as much for Handpolk's sake as anything else, as other editors have tried to point out. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      - Since BMK removed the violations on their own initiative in the meantime, I, for the sake of procedure, reverted BMK's actions and then removed them myself as an administrative/arbitration enforcement action and left a note that reinstatement will result in a block. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        Handpolk has since been editing Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a firm at the center of a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed by Ellen Pao. As far as I'm concerned, it's a topic ban violation. Handpolk's insistence that it has nothing to do with anything of the sort is to me utterly disingenuous. I don't see any likelihood that a short block will have any effect on their behavior, which has reinforced my perception that they're pushing boundaries.I've given them the benefit of the doubt that they sincerely believed it was safe, but they continue to argue, and I'm not interested in an ad nauseum discussion. However, I don't like issuing an indef block when I'm feeling exasperated, so I won't. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        I've blocked Handpolk for for continuing to try to discuss Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers after I directly told him to stop: the boundary-pushing cannot be ignored. I blocked for 48 hours to allow for a little more discussion here, rather than indef. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        I note you've also unblocked per the discussion on my talk page. Please note I don't disagree with the block - it's a good faith judgement call on when enough rope is too much, and we simply mildly disagree that that point has been reached with these edits. We have both now urged Handpolk to stay further away from the topic-banned subjects, so if this wasn't enough rope, anything further certainly will be. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    - Those admins who don't yet support an indef might consider the logic of a one-month block of Handpolk based on the behavior so far. It's not as though there is much extenuation for the awful stuff that has been reported above. The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in WP:ARBGG. Handpolk's connection with Reddit is the icing on the cake. Does anyone think that Misplaced Pages has a tragic misunderstanding of the good intentions of the Reddit people? EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
~~I think we've seen everything we need to see from the filer to support an indef block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)~~

Given the Reddit stuff on top of everything else, an indef would be the obvious way forward, though having said that the GG topic ban is effectively the same thing anyway in terms of stopping disruption, with the bonus that he may find useful other areas to work in. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk probably doesn't mind using up as much admin time on Misplaced Pages as possible, so if he is only topic banned he'll probably take the opportunity to launch further appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced at Handpolk's other contributions and he seems to be editing normally outside this topic area. Since he's already under an indef topic ban, I'm content to leave it at that unless he strays into the topic area again. Any objections to closing this? Gamaliel (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I stuck my neck out a bit for Handpolk and I'm delighted to see my trust doesn't appear misplaced. I don't see any reason for any further action regarding Handpolk.
Regarding MarkBernstein, I do find that when he focuses on content, he makes cogent, policy- and source-based arguments. I am not saying I do or do not agree with his conclusions all the time as I'm still trying to keep an arm's length from the content, but his arguments appear well-formed and connected to policy. Mark doesn't do a 100% perfect job of WP:FOC and does sometimes take mild or indirect jabs at other editors, but I read through the WP:ARBGG case and his behavior appears within the limits of what Arbcom condoned. ~~Mark was editing the article at the time the case started and he doesn't even appear as a named party, much less as one of the sanctioned.~~
But the thing I'm finding most disruptive about Mark's behavior now is, frankly, a continued failure to adhere to WP:DNFTT. Gamergate is just one of so, so many articles that are under continuous, co-ordinated offsite attacks, and its editors are just a handful of so, so many targeted harassment campaigns. Yes absolutely there are public anonymous chat communities hosted at several sites where people talk about the Gamergate editing here, but honestly it's hardly a drop in the bucket compared to some of the stuff I've seen from well-funded advocacy groups who have real money on the line depending on how favorable "their" Misplaced Pages article is to their medical treatment or product or company. Also there are other well-known Misplaced Pages-antagonist sites that I won't mention which have engaged in much sharper treatment of WP editors. So it's just a distraction when someone makes mention here that this or that post was made about some editor at such and such a site. In all but the most extreme cases does Misplaced Pages take an action here solely based on some complaint or comment posted off-site. Yes, if an off-site comment can be connected to an action that appears on-Misplaced Pages, we can adjust how we deal with it, but otherwise, bringing it here when there is no tangible effect from it is only a distraction.
I guess the question is, Does this equate to Mark being a net-negative in this topic area? Not sure but I feel it's close. Zad68 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Masem for pointing that out, struck that part of my statement. Zad68 04:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And now we got some guy who says he's a journalist and he's threatening to write stuff if we don't hand out sanctions in a manner of his liking. Even if I wanted to here I won't sanction now because I don't even want to provide the appearance of appeasement. Closing with no further action. Zad68 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A Modest, Informal Proposal

We've had a rough day. An IP tried to use an Arbcom page to publicize material of a sexual nature about two Gamergate enemies -- one current and one former Wikipedian. The current Wikipedian complained there, and here; an IP deleted their complaint because they're topic banned for Gamergate. I repeated it, as it's Kafkaesque to prevent someone from protesting Gamergate's use of Misplaced Pages to defame them because they're not supposed to mention Gamergate. Then I was redacted. Finally, this page was semi-protected.

Elsewhere, Zoe Quinn is being called a "participant" in the Gamergate Controversy, as if she chose to participate. I'm accused falsely of publishing a falsehood in The Guardian, and also of looking at Gamergaters funny, or something. A new Gamergater arrived at the talk page, full of severe neutrality (but not full of 500 edits) to argue that we must immediately link to the latest Gamergate attack site, the promotion of which is 8chan's talking point of the day. Other editors are again unhatting their pet dead horses and throwing up great walls of text in support of phantasmic and whimsical propositions that have no chance of gaining consensus.

You're the experts: you know what to do! But, as you appear stuck, some things you might try include:

1) The IP loophole is clearly being used to allow socks or puppets to edit Arbcom and AE pages and Gamergate biographies. Stop this: semi-protect everything in sight for the next six months. At least that will deter the IP socks.

2) Consider checking all newcomers to Gamergate topics against the whole list of banned Gamergate editors. No doubt that's onerous, but what else can you do? (This still doesn't help with meat puppets, zombies, and brigades, but it's a start.)

3) Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages -- especially but not limited to the prominent Gamergate targets.

4) Either enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically, like blocks, or do this proactively, or let oversight do it proactively. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the defenders of the wiki to enforce rules against Gamergate transgression, and it reinforces their sense that the rules are simply meant to oppress them.

5) Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing. Endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments, to which editors must respond time and time again, is painful and unproductive. At present, it requires endless wrangling simply to hat a dead horse -- and the horse always rises again in a couple of weeks.

6) Freeze the Gamergate page and the talk page. No dithering, no shadow drafts, nothing. Send everyone away until 2016. If anything needs to be changed, petition for the change at AE, with the understanding that few or no changes are likely to be accepted.

These are drastic, but the pain this continued nonsense inflicts is very real. I’m not wedded at all to any of these suggestions, but it's time to try something. We have no business broadcasting murder threats against Gamergate's victims or broadcasting sexual gossip about Gamergate’s perceived enemies, and we're spending vast amounts of time (and incurring significant pain) simply to provide some amusing lulz for Gamergate’s fans.. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think placing all a lot of these pages (although not the arbitration pages) under Pending Changes would make a lot of sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Provided that Gamergate socks or supporter don't render pending changes a dead letter, of course. But that still leaves the talk page problem, which is severe -- most of today's BLP violations were talk pages, which is a small comfort if it's your sex life Gamergate is discussing. Plus, this endless rehashing of dead horses (and then rehashing the meta discussion of whether the horse is really dead or resting, and whether it might be revived) is also pernicious, painful, and completely unproductive. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I also see a number of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to . If you visit the usual Gamergate haunts, you may find a fairly fresh thread in which this is proposed as the talking point to use against that me and in defense of some of the more vocal participants here.At another, there's a nice thread about how "Masem’s had Enough" with that nasty Jew "Bernstein...stein..stein". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the clerks and admins need to allow a lot of latitude here, Still, I do think calling me "dishonest or paranoid" might be just a little hard to square with policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And since Dr. Hathaway raises the subject, I continue to stand behind Infamous and its sequels, in which, to the best of my knowledge, I took no liberties of any sort with any person’s words. Having previously diagnosed my mental illness, he now accuses me of unspecified professional misconduct. The mental illness is one thing, this is really another. Guys -- I tried to keep this section light in tone, general in its recommendations, and useful to administrators who I acknowledged have a tough job. You see below some of of the personal vituperation I'm receiving in consequence; there's plenty more beneath the waterline. I'm writing about the project; Gamergate responds by writing about (er) me. I'm really trying to help you here, but... MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Hathaway now says my professional misconduct is not, as he wrote, "taking liberties with the words of others" but rather taking liberties with facts. He is mistaken on this count as well; that article correctly summarized the proposal that was its topic. If Dr. Hathaway wishes to take issue with something that The Guardian published, their editor Katherine Viner may be reached at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU; I cannot help him, nor can Misplaced Pages administrators. Again, repeated and unfair attacks on my professional reputation are hard to square with policy, especially as the topic of this section is not my conduct at Arbcom or elsewhere: Handpolk's complaint against my conduct is thataway ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ , In the mean time, perhaps someone might mop up the mess? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

To repeat myself at dr hathaway's demand, neither Infamous nor its sequels took any liberties with any facts. Though my professional reputation is not even slightly pertinent to this topic, I value it highly. Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem now defends Dr Hathaway by claiming my reading of Masem's text does not conform to his intentions. This is really not the time or place for a lesson on the history of the Intentional fallacy and postmodern critical theory, is it? You may read my ACM Hypertext 2011 paper On Criticism if you wish, or Landow's Hypertext, or better still Eagleton (both volumes, they're not very long). Is my reading a valid reading? I believe it plainly is. (guys: I run a press known for edgy interactive Postmodern fiction, though some modernism is in the catalog as well. Srsly; I'm in your base deconstructing your pretty ponies. Stop it.) Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The attention of administrators is called to this outrageous eve of wiki hounding . I presume even wiki editors who cross Gamergate are permitted to volunteer for their local candidates! Even if they support Democrats? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And to my unpracticed eye, this looks like a legal threat: . Not against me, but still. Mops? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Any proposed solution to what is wrong with the Gamergate article will be incomplete if it does not address the problem of a number of established editors with powerful personal feelings on the topic asserting ownership over the article, strangling any attempt to even discuss changes that do not fully agree with their preferred POV on the topic, and creating a palpably hostile, demeaning, and uncollaborative environment for anyone who dissents from their preferred POV (i.e., everyone but themselves). You don't need to look any farther than the abuse they heap on Masem, a long-established editor and administrator, to see that this is a problem. And that is entirely beside the fact that they assume, without evidence and in total contravention of AGF, that any young editor or newcomer to the topic area is a sock, or a troll, or a trolling sock. Just today, MarkBernstein alone has referred to Masem as a "Gamergate fan" (Masem has strenuously objected to this characterization), to Rhoark (and me) as simply "Gamergate" (neither of us so identify as far as I know), and reposted a topic-banned editor's comments about Gamergate to AE. In short, the article has exactly the same problem it had before the ArbCom case, which is that a confederacy of frankly paranoid editors is hell-bent on creating an article that reads in the most condemnatory way possible without regard to other editors' views, AGF and civility, and the sources as demonstrated by the discussion here. That's not to say it doesn't have other problems as well, but I think everyone might find that the flames will die down if certain individuals around here stop throwing gasoline on them. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the "usual Gamergate haunts" are, but searching reddit for Masem's username finds a recent thread titled "Masem's had enough!" containing the words MarkBernstein actually quotes but nothing like "nasty Jew" or any mention of MB's ethnicity at all. "Bernstein-stein-stein" is obviously a reference to MB's words echoing from the top of the WP:REICHSTAG, the essay which was linked three times in the comment to which the "Bernstein-stein-stein" comment is a reply. I find it strange that MB would imply anti-Semitism. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I apologize for the directness of my language before. Still, this incident is illustrative of the liberties MarkBernstein sometimes takes with the ~~words of others~~ facts, as we all saw in the events surrounding the ArbitrationGate debacle, which is a problem for an encyclopedia editor. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: You're right, "liberties with words" is not what I meant to say. "Liberties with facts" is closer to the mark, and I've edited my comment accordingly. And since I seem to have been insufficiently specific, allow me to specify. The liberties with facts you have taken in the present instance is implying that commenters on an external website thread were making anti-Semitic comments about you when in fact no one in the thread made any mention of your ethnicity. The liberties with facts you took in the ArbitrationGate incident occurred when you were quoted in the Guardian saying prior to the final decision that "feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia" and "every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned." Neither of these statements were or are true. The parallel I am drawing between these incidents is that in both cases you went beyond the facts in a direction that is both non-factual and apparently calculated make your position sound more sympathetic. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I send my letter to the editor at the Guardian, I think I'll just take a quick look at the essay hosted on your webpage, to which you link on your user page, to see if they quoted you correctly. Oh, it would seem they did. What was your objection exactly? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: MarkBernstein's statement above that It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation, to my memory Ryulong's sexual orientation was only ever "revealed" or "publicized" when he himself brought it up as a defense after being called out for homophobia after tweeting the statement I don't have time to deal with gamergate fags here considering I only checked twitter to see if there was an update for a video game. I would link to an archive of the tweet in question, but I'm not sure whether that raises concerns about outing. Again, I must disagree with MarkBernstein's assessment and presentation of facts. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

Dear Admins, please save GGC from all the dead horses. Today included a suggestion to change the lede that has been shot down every time. And a repeat of the attempt to make GG ethics the keystone of the description of GG. And a rehash of the anti-feminism issue. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

Respected Administrators, Having reviewed the considerable archives of the Talk pages, one feels inclined to believe that there would be less re-discussion if discussions were allowed to reach their normal conclusion; rather than being endlessly filibustered, derailed with WP:FORUM violating comment on the Article subject, personal attacks, constant requests to close discussion, and aggressive "hatting".

If editors were compelled to focus on the discussion of article improvements, you might see both a better editing environment and a better article. NB: Diffs to follow. - Ryk72 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement By Masem

First and foremost, it is very very frustrating that there is continued attempts to meat/sockpuppet Misplaced Pages due to GG-related issues, and I share Mark's and likely countless other admins in having to stem that tide. I certain agree in condemning any editor (new/IP or otherwise) that attempts to shame other editors in the matter Mark's addressed. This unfortunately is a reality that WP, being an open wiki in a age where the 4chan/Anon mentality exists, has to struggle with. This is still a learning experience for WP for everyone to figure out how to deal with these topics that involve the technology-saavy.

That said, Mark has demonstrated in his analysis above the continued battlefield mentality that he and others on that page have continued to engage in since the formal closure of the GG arbcom case, in line with Starke Hathaway's comments above. In his plea, he points out how to limit IP and new editors (a reasonable step, particular in light of Handpolk's approach), but then says that we must block all further discussion on the talk page, which is basically allowing his version of the article, which several established editors including myself, have pointed out still has problems in tone and neutrality, and while summarizing the sources, is being used as a soapbox to attack the Gamergate supporters/movement in a manner that no other WP on a disliked group is treated as. Myself and other editors cannot get any word in edgewise because Mark and others on that page try to shut down any discussion before it can start. Add in the personal attacks or comments directed at other editors and not content (which I again point out, Mark has been warned and blocked twice within the duration of Gamergate), and this is the same OWNership and battleground mentality that Ryulong, NBSB, etc. showed from the original ArbCom. I've personally been very patient, trying to avoid opening any new ArbCom case against them and trying to work with them, but any suggestions that simply don't fit their vision are stonewalled. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As an example of the stonewalling, this diff has become quite common by several editors, when another editor tries to engage in broad strokes issues with the article, the reply "please state what specific edit you want or we'd collapse this discussion" is completely OWNership and battleground behavior. Yes, for IP/new editors that come along and go "the article is biased, fix it!" this is a reasonable step, but in the case above, for example, @Rhoark is attempting to figure how to address how to character the makeup of GG as used throughout the article based on a list of reliable sources, which one or two single edits is not going to cut it. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein your Infamous post purposely twists my words (the "administrator" that you have noted in that blockquote is my text), and that's not the first time you've done it to my words on your blog offsite . You're reading something into what I have said that was nowhere close to my intentions in all those previous instances (which is comparable to assuming that when I said "WP should stay conservative" you took that as meaning "right-wing" rather than "a careful approach". You are not assuming good faith, and that failure to assume good faith by established editors is creating the continued battleground atmosphere. If established editors (and not just those that tip the 500 edits) are finding fault with the article, that's the point to continue discussion, not to lock down the article to a preferred version. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: You readings can be very valid readings even if you consider context, I will give you that (just as taking "conservative" to mean "right-wing"; let's call it a failure of Poe's law. But a core policy on WP is assuming good faith, and your takes immediately presume the worst possible take on my statements, which is not appropriate for a conductive building of an encyclopedia by many editors. There are cases that we have had to throw AFG out the door (500/30 is an example of such) due to persistent off-site problems, I don't question that. But when you fail to AFG presented by long-established editors and make personal commentary about them on article talk pages to diminish their contributions, that is not appropriate, and exacerbates the battleground nature that the GG talk page remains. This is exactly the behavior that instigated the GG case, and clearly one that should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion I would be more readily accept that Mark's behavior was within Stewardship if there was not condensing replies, comments on editors, a clear contempt for the subject manner, and other factors that do not show contributions towards consensus and using policy as a tool to silence opposition. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement By Rhoark

Much has been made about calling people Gamergaters. Mark Bernstein has made it abundantly clear that he defines a Gamergater as a violent misogynist. This makes it problematic when he casually labels someone as such. I on the other hand consider a Gamergater to be someone with a deep concern for verifiability in all media and solidarity with anyone who's been persecuted for expressing their views. As such, it's high praise that I consider Mr. Bernstein a standout Gamergater. I expect that displeases him, but I hope we can eventually see eye-to-eye. What this all goes to show is simply that we should not worry about what a Gamergater "really" is, foruming, and righting great wrongs. Rather we should focus on the sources.

There is a problem, as others have noted, that certain editors are unwilling to engage with the sources. They will quote the name of a policy, but are unwilling to explain how it is pertinent. They will call for a discussion to be hatted without bothering to understand what has been said. This stems from the unfortunate situation of the number of trolls they have had to endure. They deserve sympathy on this count, but it has trained them to take a very particular mental shortcut of regarding anyone they see as opposition as being interchangeable. Thus you see Mr. Bernstein casually describing events on and off wiki as simply a continuum of "what Gamergate did today". They see conspiracies and campaigns whenever anyone on the Internet takes note of how bad the article is.

It's true, whenever it happens there's an influx of people who are not familiar with policy or the history of the talk page. This is why we already have the exceptional 30/500 requirement. So far as I can tell, it hasn't helped. Experienced editors, who understand policy, are still subject to aspersions as if they were part of the mob. Will any of the proposed measures help? I can't say. Any of them but a total freeze would be mostly harmless. However, for these editors, change will ultimately have to come from within. Rhoark (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I invite everyone to examine the horse themselves and evaluate its vital signs. At first I posted a list of sources, and went on to point out that the article was at significant variance with these sources. Mark Bernstein's reaction was, in sequence:

Twist Masem's use of the word "conservative" to mean "right-wing", when in context it was clearly used in the sense of "cautious". Imply NPOV is sympathy for misogyny.
Block quote himself from an unrelated argument in February.
Hat the conversation (without signing) based apparently on the fact that ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) and TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) asked for it.
To appease the editors who felt a discussion about reliable sources had to be hatted unless a specific edit was proposed, I offered one off the cuff. It used the word "participant" to denote in the most general sense everyone involved in the controversy without regard to how they were involved or what side they took. Mark Bernstein considered this, apparently, equivalent to not just libel, but threatening murder
He has in that thread evaded every request to support his position with a reliable source.
Now, he'd like admins to get everyone to stop talking about it.

This is the sort of thing being referred to when people are requesting relief from dead horses. Rhoark (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling a lot of mixed messages, so can someone please state unequivocally whether this is or is not an appropriate section in which to discuss specific editors' disruptive behavior? Rhoark (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While waiting for clarification on the above point, I'd like to recognize Aquillion (talk · contribs) as one of the good ones, engaged in stewardship rather than ownership. Strongjam (talk · contribs), Bosstopher (talk · contribs), and Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) are also among the editors who seem unsympathetic to Gamergate, but are still consistently civil and base their edits on policy and sources. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ColorOfSuffering

7) Topic-ban every user who has ever contributed to the Gamergate controversy talk page or article. This can be extended to other articles within the scope of Gamergate, but I'd focus on the controversy page first. We can maintain the 300/50 silliness to keep the trolls at bay, but we need to start from scratch with all new faces. The article does not need to be frozen; the editors do. There are too many battleground SPAs monitoring the most trivial edit, exhibiting extreme battleground behavior that would be excoriated in any other article space. Everyone with skin in the game has had their say, I believe it's now time for the true uninvolved editors to clean up the mess. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by an uninvolved editor FDJK001

Some nice ideas up there.

Seeing how an editor threatened to block me after seeing my pattern of editing (actually my intentions were unrelated to gaining access to 500/30, the reason is hilarious), I realized things based off of what I read from all of you, how if unregulated Misplaced Pages could become the broadcast channel for Gamergate (quoting MarkBernstein and how the 500/30 rule could work only for so long.

First of all, I am uninvolved, having placed only one edit on the talk page for Gamergate but only to have it closed in minutes for my quota on edits being too low. So my one edit on there doesn't count and so this categorizes me as uninvolved.

We obviously need to restrict editors who have had some involvement with the talk page and those who have battleground behaviour, like ColorOfSuffering said. So here could be the optimal compilation of the solutions:

•Users with more than 25% disruptive edits in their past 50 edits should not be allowed to edit.

•Editors and administrators involved with the talk page in the past 6 months should not be allowed to edit. If the controversy is still ongoing the time restriction should be extended.

•Like Rhoark and others mentioned, a temporary freeze on the page could deter Gamergaters, but this will work for only about a few months.

•Temporary IP topic block for those already involved.

•Recognize that Zoe Quinn has no fault in this so that Gamergaters don't blame the victim (https://en.wikipedia.org/Victim_blaming).

I admit I was messing around, experimenting with my talk page earlier today to punish myself for forgetting to use the "=" sign, but for the most part people like me could fit the criteria above. I didn't fit this list to conform just for me, but for everybody with rationality; one editor above, I forgot who, mentioned how involved editors with experience and prestige fall into the hate category, unfortunately.

I might come back and redefine my solutions if more loopholes spring up. I wish you all luck in finding the true optimal solution. Good night.

FDJK001 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC).

Statement by j0eg0d

1) I suggest this for Gamergate related discussion only; The excessive suspicion Ad Nauseam of the IP "loopholes", "socks" & "puppets" could also be handled by taking away the swords & shields off the editors battle-fielding the WIKI. OR - We could experiment with a trial-solution that all gamergate_controversy edits refrain from USER names and only allow IP signed content.

Asking to protect or semi-protect ArbCom & AE pages (even for one month) is absurd. One could easily assume this suggestion is meant to control the current bias surrounding the #gamergate topics POV Pushing. We'll be restricting direct emails to one another next with their exhausting mandates. These "defenders" of the WIKI are the problem here.

2) Checking all newcomers interested in Gamergate topics disregards Assume Good Faith. We are very aware of the interest in the WIKI Gamergate_controversy, because the current page is completely one-sided. It's one reason we get so many newcomers - because people want a balanced narrative. Editors certainly can not perform reasonably with the logic that every single newcomer is (sic) "meat puppets" or "zombies" Incivility. It would be autocratic in entertaining the idea and it's just further harassment.

3) "Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages" Again, we have a demand for restrictions and again Mark specifically points to "the prominent Gamergate targets". I suggest Mark Berstein be removed from every gamergate topic, because (IMHO) Mark Bernstein incites the disruptions Don't Be A Fanatic. I'm speaking from personal experience noted in this statement above.

4) "enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically" Again ... more restrictions ... A suggestion to dominate #gamergate discussions by some inherent right. It IS part of our responsibility to maintain the WIKI, and by locking in automated functions that BLOCK even the questioning of content is subjugation.

5) "Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing" We should never need to restrict a TALK page. It's the manner in reviewing content, identifying bias and (for some) pointing out the unreasonable hostility towards #gamergate supporters. This excuse of "endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments" is the fault of those editors insulting, attacking, Tag Teaming newcomers - as I and several other have noted and genuinely experienced.

6) "Freeze the Gamergate page and the talk page" ... more of the same deadhorse calls for restriction. Maybe it's time the Admins knew the opposition's story? We've heard plenty of Mark's one-sided prejudices & intolerant name-calling here. With all humility, I request our Admins to watch this interview with actor Adam Baldwin - Adam Baldwin created the #gamergate hashtag and he explains exactly why he started Gamergate. I understand YouTube is not a reliable source, I am not suggesting it be allowed in the WIKI, that isn't my intention. My intention is to allow you (our Administrators) to understand what makes the WIKI Gamergate_controversy so BIASED, and why people are so adamant about a Neutral Point Of View. It may also help you come to a final decision.

@Zad68: Final Thought: I wouldn't mind if we deleted the gamergate WIKI and let User:Ryulong's old friends go back to protecting his Kamen_Rider creations. They've made a mockery of the entire structure and I for one am tired of seeing new editors scrutinized & discouraged. I would also like some attention noted on the persons that have diverted this case off-topic over the past 8 days, as I believe the intentions are to close any resolution against Mark Bernstein by rehashing the Gamergate controversy and misdirecting attention to other Editors: ], ], ], ], ], ], ].

--j0eg0d (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Most of these seem a bit too heavy-handed; the page itself is fairly stable, say, and while the circular talk-page discussions might be frustrating, my reading of the way they're going is that they're unlikely to lead to any dramatic changes. More aggressively doing checkusers on new users who immediately start arguing the position of recently-banned or topic-banned users could be reasonable, but the 30/500 restriction is hopefully minimizing that problem anyway. Regarding people going around the 30/500 restriction, though, I would suggest extending it to the entire topic regardless of where it appears, since it does seem like some users are just posting elsewhere in order to avoid that restriction and since it's generally bad for one content dispute to spill out all over the wiki.

Being more proactive about topic-banning editors who seem like they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or whose discussion indicates that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia could help with a bit of the rancor, though (and discourage users from getting rancorous about their views in the first place). Anyone who edits a controversial article extensively is going to have some kind of opinion on its topic, on the sources and how to weight them and so on; but that opinion has to be expressed in a way consistent with our policies or it's not really going to be helpful. Misplaced Pages is not really the place to try and eg. press a disagreement with the mainstream coverage, and people who repeatedly seem to be pushing that without any apparent regard for the problems it causes are probably here to get the word out on a viewpoint they feel is being suppressed by the mainstream media -- which isn't an unreasonable thing to want, but which means they're WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia.

As an aside, I notice that a lot of users above are referring to WP:OWN a lot in an accusatory manner; it might be worth reminding people of WP:STEWARDSHIP. If people are editing an article due to sincere interest in its subject matter, and if they're taking the time to explain why they object to a change (as opposed to just tirelessly reverting back to one version with little or no explanation), it isn't usually WP:OWN. As that article says, it's important to be careful about throwing accusations about it around, since it can be taken as a personal attack (it implies that their edits are coming from a sense of ownership rather than a desire to improve the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

I am not sure how it would be possible to contain the disruption of the gamergate trolls. If you have the stomach to go to their boards, you find that they are COMPLETELY OUTRAGED!!! by something new and not related to games every day - and they still seem to feel that Misplaced Pages is the place where they should play the white knight and try to right these terrible wrongs if only the SJW would just go away and let them write the TRUTH. But the longer they are allowed to maintain that delusion, the more of Misplaced Pages gets sucked into that pit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also probably valid to consider this post to Jimbo's talk page wherein a "blogger and journalist" , who so ethically attempts to incite the subjects of his story to continue the dispute, has kindly linked to their vlog in which they call for the participants at one of the gamergate boards to create accounts and stealth edit until they can swarm the GGC page as consideration for what steps may be considered in the effort to contain and limit disruption about the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@J0eg0d: You appear to be completely missing the point. AE exists to address disruption of the encyclopedia and the context of any actions discussed here MUST take into account the full context of the disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

This request has been open now for 8 days and has gone in a dozen different directions and we are now rehashing the Gamergate controversy as it was lived out on Misplaced Pages. It seems likely that no action will be taken against any editor so could Gamaliel, Zad68 or another admin close this case? Gamergate discussion have the potential to continue indefinitely so editors will keep posting as long as this complaint is open. Liz 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning A Modest, Informal Proposal

I see a lot of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and not to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner regarding a variety of topics. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway: and anyone else who wants to use this page as a boxing ring, your comments will be removed and you are likely to be faced with sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Liz, this should be closed for that very reason. I'm not going to close it myself, because every time I say or do anything here, I get a bunch of messages and emails saying how I'm preventing righteous justice or some shit. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes per Newyorkbrad's suggestion. No further action, if you want BIG CHANGES start another ArbCom. Zad68 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaqeli

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Jaqeli 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: 1

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: 1

Statement by Jaqeli

Hello everyone. 3 months ago I was granted by admin @HJ Mitchell: with 3 month topic ban exemption on several of my TBAN-related articles, the reason behind this was to see if I could be trusted again in the area of my TBAN. Now my 3 months topic ban exemption is over so I want to file a new request at AE. I want my TBAN to be cancelled and lifted from me entirely. During these 3 months I've created some good quality articles, expanded some and I didn't engage in any edit war. I want to get back to wiki again without any TBAN on me as I can do many good for wiki as I am sure during this period of time I have truly learned my lessons from my past mistakes. As I've said in my past appeal 3 months ago I fully understand this is my last chance given to me so I will definitely keep and follow my word. Thank you. Jaqeli 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Heimstern: Please see my contribs but one of them can be Epigram of Amazaspos. As for conflicts, I had no conflicts during 3 months. Thank you. Jaqeli 23:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'm not currently active in AE matters, so I'll leave it to my fellow admins to determine whether the topic ban should be lifted. At a glance I see nothing problematic in recent contribs, so why not. Sandstein 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaqeli

Result of the appeal by Jaqeli

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

Hello, Jaqeli. You say that you have created quality articles in the past three months. Would you mind linking to some of your best contributions in that time? Also, have you handled any conflicts in that time? That could help us evaluate your request. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just letting everyone know that I've hit a busy patch of real life and likely won't be able to continue work on this for at least a few days. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on a lookover of the past several hundred edits (going back through May), I'm fine with the topic ban being removed. Has the process by which one lifts a topic ban changed from a bureaucratic perspective recently? Or can I just go and strike the remedy from the log? NW (Talk) 21:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: NW, I think struck the entry (but not remove it fully) is the proper procedure. - Penwhale | 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request from 82.11.33.86

IP unblocked. The user has agreed to stop warring at Gulf War and will create an account that they will use for any edits to ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

An IP user who was recently blocked for 1RR violation at Gulf War just requested an unblock on their talk page. Here is the unblock request:

Unblock request
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

--TL22 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved non admin Bosstopher

Illegitimate block. The IP editor was never properly alerted of DS guidelines per policy and therefore can't recieve a DS block, even if the edit page itself has the relevant information. Also it seems a bit overzealous, somebody could have just gone to the IP's talk page an informed them of 1RR without need for a block, which in my (albeit limited to one topic area) experience is what usually happens when someone violates 1RR. Judging by the IPs current comments they would have stopped if informed. Bosstopher (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d

I don't want to debate the merits of the block, but a cursory look at WP:AN3 shows that this highly problematic user is involved in 4 different edit wars. If not this, the IPs actions elsewhere are significant to contend disruption. That of course is another topic, but relevant as far as the IP's recent conduct is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Involved non admin TripWire

I'll leave the validity of the block to the admins, but I, having been dealt with this IP over the past week or so, would like to say:

It's not possible that the IP did not see the 1RR warning when he was editing the page.
The IP is a habitual edit-warrior and have been blocked previously too for editwarring.
He is prompt to revert and lazy at using the talk pages.
The IP, whereas a newcomer, but is quite experienced when it comes to editing and reporting other editors, in the past few days, it has already reported a few editors at various notice boards, I doubt he was unable to see the 1RR warning.—TripWire 19:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by blocking administrator

I don't think this has been copied over properly, but no matter. First, a DS alert is not necessary for a violation of 1RR. Second, the IP was at least put on notice at AN3 when the filer stated that it was a violation of WP:ARBPIA, although I don't believe he used the magical term 1RR. The IP could then have self-reverted or at least said he didn't know. Putting all that aside, and assuming that the IP's claim of ignorance is perceived as credible, I have no problem unblocking him if even one administrator thinks that's the right course of action.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by 82.11.33.86

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

This was a valid block for 1RR violation. Israel was attacked with Scud missiles during the 1990 Gulf War so the WP:ARBPIA decision applies there. For a short edit warring block like 48 hours I wouldn't see any special reason to lift it early. However, if the IP would promise to stop warring on Gulf War and would agree to create an account and use it for any future edits on ARBPIA topics, I'd accept that as a good enough reason to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Per agreement at User talk:82.11.33.86 I've unblocked. The IP will stop edit warring on Gulf War and will create an account. I think this would be OK with the blocking admin, User:Bbb23, per his comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eg0d

Wrong venue for the context of the behavior under review; closing with no action here, discussion is at ANI. `Zad68` 19:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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 J0eg0d User who is submitting this request for enforcement MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested J0eg0d (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 25 June Calls Gamaliel a kapo and calls Kevin Standlee "another of MarkBernstein’s socks" 25 June Defends calling Gamaliel a kapo Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Currently topic-banned (indef Gamaliel) and blocked (DESiegel); I'm not sure how to provide the diffs. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Currently blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log. Additional comments by editor filing complaint In diff #1, J0eg0d lashes out against Gamaliel and calls him a kapo, a Jewish concentration-camp guard, providing a helpful WikiLink for those unfamiliar with the term. In diff #2, J0eg0d defends his use of the term "kapo" and says Gamaliel and I "are lying about it." I replied: I do not recall having previously commented about this particular insult, which makes me wonder how I lied with regard to it. Is Gamaliel Jewish? I didn't know that, nor (I suspect) does the editor above; I don't see how that can possibly be relevant here and wonder why this editor thought it was. The phrase "half-Jewish" used above is interesting, as no one would say "I am half born-again"; it suggests the writer is thinking that Jewishness is racial. Finally, how many winners of Hugo awards confuse "abase" and "debase", or perhaps "abase" and "abuse"? All this raises the question of whether this editor is capable of making significant contributions to the project, even if they were here to contribute, and none of this improves the atmosphere around here. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) J0eG0d removed this from his user page, which he is entitled to do, but the attitude displayed here might merit scrutiny. The repeated injection of religion into Gamergate is strange and unsavory, its defense here is not well calculated to excuse or explain the editor's conduct, and of course we have real questions of competence here as well. Someone using the same name on a gamergate forum at Reddit writes: To be fair, you haven't seen me go #FullCunt. I agree that the problem is Mark & the ETCs, they've been doing shit to me since I first mentioned gamergate. They're fanatics with Administrative fanatic friends. We need more people on Misplaced Pages, but I've heard some won't bother because of the 30/500 restriction ... I'd tell them that you can just edit your own TALK page over & over again until you reach that limit and then wait 30 days. I'm 140 edits away from that restriction, so the Kapos have increased their sanctioning of me. I just need to shut up for a while LOL. I mention this only because (a) you might want to know what’s coming down the track, and (b) if I had more confidence in this editor’s competence, I might take the four-letter-word as an allusion or dog-whistle to the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, and that, too, might be worth knowing about. Admins being busy, I thought it might be easier to see it laid out plainly that to await your digging through the history for deleted passages. @166.177.187.197: In the past week or so, I helped resolve a conundrum about the description of the Chetro Ketl great house in Chaco Canyon: since it is not circular, why do people describe its circumference? To assist editors working on Hypertext Fiction, I provided a half dozen lead references to the extensive literature on the early history of the subject. I repaired some apparent vandalism at Doug Engelbart, a page which suffers strangely frequent mishaps. I dealt with an absurd claim of WP:COI trumpeted by Gamergate partisans at User Talk:Jimbo and elsewhere. I added an award to novelist Erin Morgenstern. I helped research whether WIkiedia was trespassing on another organization’s trademark. I replied to any number of partisan Gamergate proposals at the talk page. I contacted oversight twice regarding urgent BLP violations, both of which were promptly acted upon. Any additional questions? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Kyohyi: The English political lexicon has many indispensable terms based on behavior of animals or mythical creatures: herd mentality, stampede, mugwump, dog-whistle, bull moose, blue dog, majority whip, and concern troll spring to mind, but I don’t doubt we could find a lot more. I don't think they're necessarily dehumanizing; certainly, Lincoln was famously fond of animal similes, not least because even a familiar and symbolic metaphor like "sea lion" can leaven a situation with a touch of humor. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJ0eg0d&type=revision&diff=668624725&oldid=668608615 Discussion concerning J0eg0d 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 J0eg0d Statement by Starke Hathaway He's already indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate and currently blocked for the behavior MarkBernstein cites here. Leaving aside the question of what exactly MarkBernstein hopes to gain from bringing this request beyond the indefinite topic ban and block already in place, this request should be closed without action or at least deferred until j0eg0d is unblocked and can respond here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: do you also find the "armies of Mordor" to be an adorable and appropriate way of referring to other editors? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Strongjam: I don't think anyone has said any of these terms are equivalent. But whatever difference exists is one of degree and not kind. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: for what it's worth I agree with you that those insults are not on the same level, and no one as far as I can tell is arguing that j0eg0d shouldn't be sanctioned for the personal attack (though some might argue that he as already been sanctioned for it). Still, I think it's fundamentally unfair to apply the most severe sanction available (indef block) for personal attacks when the requester has a prodigious history of personal attacks (albeit milder ones) for which he has faced no lasting sanction whatsoever. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by 174.30.95.89 I don't think pursuing this is gonna help. j0eg0d already has an indef topic ban and is blocked for 3 weeks, more than enough to get the message across. This seems like kicking him while he is down. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: "GamerGaters" (or "Gators") is an term used semi-frequently by some editors. Most of the time, it has an implied negative connotation. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: Thing is, there are many posts on KiA where they call each other "misogynists" (to mock its common usage and application). I wouldn't be surprised if they treat "sea-lioning" in the same manner. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher J0eg0d's behaviour has gone far beyond the pale, and a strong statement should be made that throwing anti-semitic insults at other editors is not acceptable. Even though he's currently topic banned and temporarily blocked, I don't think that's enough given the circumstance. His block should be extended to indefinite with room for a standard offer should he wish to return. Bosstopher (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Kyohyi:I think categorizing this as dehumanisation is unfair. Idefinitely still think of J0eg0d as a human, just the sort of human who's proven he shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. J0eg0d's entrance into this topic area began with creating some redirects that had to be Oversighted. He then spent much of the intervening period insulting other editors while accusing them of being uncivil, and making BLP vios. This culminated in the unrepentant use of antisemitic insults against editors, and accusing people with confirmed real life identities attached to their account of being Bernstein socks. If you can find me any other editor in this topic area who's undertaken "such behavior" please tell me and I'll file/support an AE sanction request against them. Bosstopher (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Kyohyi:Kapos were sick disgusting Nazi collaborators. Sealions are adorable creatures that overwhelm your heart with cuteness. I mean seriously look at how cute this thing is. In fact multiple wikipedia users in the topic area, have proudly boasted of their sealion nature. /r/KotakuInAction's logo is Vivian James riding a sealion. The alllure of the sealion is so strong that I sometimes wish I was pro-GG just so I could be associated with the adorable, adorable creature that is the sealion. Even if you view sealion as an insulting term, there really is no comparison between aquatic mammals and instruments of the Nazi persecution. Bosstopher (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Kyohyi:@Starke Hathaway:I think the armies of Mordor thing is not the nicest way to refer to a group of people. The term sealion has also been used insultingly from time to time on Misplaced Pages, such as this comment from tRPOD. This is obviously not the best way to go about civil editing. BUT (and this is one huge but, think Sarah Massey only bigger) this is not on the same level as calling someone a Kapo. I would much rather people associate me with the fictional character Sauron than Hitler. Also the Kapo insult was racially and ethnically charged. It's one thing to insult a group based on ideology (for instance saying Liberal Democrats are dumb), and another to insult a group based on ethnicity (for instance saying French people are dumb). While insults against people because of their ideology may not always be appropriate, it's just incomparable to racially charged epithets and insults.Bosstopher (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam While I agree with Bosstopher. This seems like the wrong place for it. There is still an open topic on ANI regarding this. — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) False equivalence springs to mind. — Strongjam (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved IP Question for the filer: beyond minor copyedits what substantive contributions have you made to the encyclopedia in the last week? Last month? I think it's time you demonstrate an intent to contribute positively beyond the scope of a minor video game controversy. Enough community time and effort has been wasted on this pettiness. 166.177.187.197 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom Question for 166.177.187.197: what contribution of any kind have you made to the project, in any space EVER? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by RolandR j0eg0d denies that the term "kapo" is antisemitic, arguing that it is instead "a term we call privileged Jews abasing other Jews". Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that he only uses this term to describe editors he perceives to be Jewish, we should note that in Jewish discourse the term kapo is used to mean a traitor. This was the term used by the Israeli right wing to delegitimise Yitzhak Rabin in the period of incitement leading up to his murder in 1995. So it would appear to me that its use in this context is far worse than a simple antisemitic smear; it is an implicit call for physical violence against the editors so defamed. Use of this term should be banned in Misplaced Pages, and those who so describe other editors should be severely sanctioned. RolandR (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi Dehumanization has been going on in the Gamergate topic area. If we are going to sanction this editor for this behavior we should be sanctioning all editors that participate in such behavior. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: My apologies, but it's not this filing that I'm claiming as dehumanization. I think that the use of the term Kapo is dehumanizing. However, making references to sealions, calling people sealions, and such are also dehumanization. So if we're going for further sanctions, we should look at doing them consistently. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: Just because a group reclaims a word or description for themselves doesn't mean those outside the group aren't engaging in dehumanization when they are using it. There's a certain ethnic slur which comes to mind that highlights this point. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: Then it may be best to agree to disagree. To me, the fundamentals remain the same, you "other" that person, make them unwelcome, and open them up to further abuse. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by ColorOfSuffering My name was invoked and so I felt I should respond. First, I would like to say that calling someone a kapo is a bad thing, and I'd consider it a personal attack specifically on point #4: Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. But I do feel that this policy has been inconsistently applied in all Gamergate-related articles, especially with regards to using the term sealion, which is admittedly a far less inflammatory term, though still an unwarranted personal attack. To wit: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. It's the kind of behavior that is tolerated by certain editors while other editors are banned and blocked for the exact same behavior. For evidence of this, see this AE request, or any previous AE request regarding the filing editor. As a final point of clarification, the image on my user page, used as evidence me "proudly boasting" of my sealion status, is a seal. This should be readily apparent by the caption. It is an ironic image used to criticize those who would attach labels to what are perceived to be "groups" of Misplaced Pages editors. Having clarified this point, @Bosstopher:, if you would be so kind as to redact my user name from your comment I would appreciate it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning J0eg0d This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. The behavior of the named party isn't under the jurisdiction of WP:ARBGG for where and when the behavior was exhibited. This is being discussed at ANI, which is the proper location. Closing with no action here. `Zad68` 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong venue for the context of the behavior under review; closing with no action here, discussion is at ANI. Zad68 19:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning J0eg0d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: J0eg0d (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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate :

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

25 June Calls Gamaliel a kapo and calls Kevin Standlee "another of MarkBernstein’s socks"
25 June Defends calling Gamaliel a kapo

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Currently topic-banned (indef Gamaliel) and blocked (DESiegel); I'm not sure how to provide the diffs.

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

Currently blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In diff #1, J0eg0d lashes out against Gamaliel and calls him a kapo, a Jewish concentration-camp guard, providing a helpful WikiLink for those unfamiliar with the term.

In diff #2, J0eg0d defends his use of the term "kapo" and says Gamaliel and I "are lying about it." I replied:

I do not recall having previously commented about this particular insult, which makes me wonder how I lied with regard to it. Is Gamaliel Jewish? I didn't know that, nor (I suspect) does the editor above; I don't see how that can possibly be relevant here and wonder why this editor thought it was. The phrase "half-Jewish" used above is interesting, as no one would say "I am half born-again"; it suggests the writer is thinking that Jewishness is racial. Finally, how many winners of Hugo awards confuse "abase" and "debase", or perhaps "abase" and "abuse"? All this raises the question of whether this editor is capable of making significant contributions to the project, even if they were here to contribute, and none of this improves the atmosphere around here. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eG0d removed this from his user page, which he is entitled to do, but the attitude displayed here might merit scrutiny. The repeated injection of religion into Gamergate is strange and unsavory, its defense here is not well calculated to excuse or explain the editor's conduct, and of course we have real questions of competence here as well.

Someone using the same name on a gamergate forum at Reddit writes:

To be fair, you haven't seen me go #FullCunt. I agree that the problem is Mark & the ETCs, they've been doing shit to me since I first mentioned gamergate. They're fanatics with Administrative fanatic friends. We need more people on Misplaced Pages, but I've heard some won't bother because of the 30/500 restriction ... I'd tell them that you can just edit your own TALK page over & over again until you reach that limit and then wait 30 days. I'm 140 edits away from that restriction, so the Kapos have increased their sanctioning of me. I just need to shut up for a while LOL.

I mention this only because (a) you might want to know what’s coming down the track, and (b) if I had more confidence in this editor’s competence, I might take the four-letter-word as an allusion or dog-whistle to the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, and that, too, might be worth knowing about.

Admins being busy, I thought it might be easier to see it laid out plainly that to await your digging through the history for deleted passages.

@166.177.187.197: In the past week or so, I helped resolve a conundrum about the description of the Chetro Ketl great house in Chaco Canyon: since it is not circular, why do people describe its circumference? To assist editors working on Hypertext Fiction, I provided a half dozen lead references to the extensive literature on the early history of the subject. I repaired some apparent vandalism at Doug Engelbart, a page which suffers strangely frequent mishaps. I dealt with an absurd claim of WP:COI trumpeted by Gamergate partisans at User Talk:Jimbo and elsewhere. I added an award to novelist Erin Morgenstern. I helped research whether WIkiedia was trespassing on another organization’s trademark. I replied to any number of partisan Gamergate proposals at the talk page. I contacted oversight twice regarding urgent BLP violations, both of which were promptly acted upon. Any additional questions? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: The English political lexicon has many indispensable terms based on behavior of animals or mythical creatures: herd mentality, stampede, mugwump, dog-whistle, bull moose, blue dog, majority whip, and concern troll spring to mind, but I don’t doubt we could find a lot more. I don't think they're necessarily dehumanizing; certainly, Lincoln was famously fond of animal similes, not least because even a familiar and symbolic metaphor like "sea lion" can leaven a situation with a touch of humor. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJ0eg0d&type=revision&diff=668624725&oldid=668608615

Discussion concerning J0eg0d

Statement by J0eg0d

Statement by Starke Hathaway

He's already indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate and currently blocked for the behavior MarkBernstein cites here. Leaving aside the question of what exactly MarkBernstein hopes to gain from bringing this request beyond the indefinite topic ban and block already in place, this request should be closed without action or at least deferred until j0eg0d is unblocked and can respond here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: do you also find the "armies of Mordor" to be an adorable and appropriate way of referring to other editors? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I don't think anyone has said any of these terms are equivalent. But whatever difference exists is one of degree and not kind. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: for what it's worth I agree with you that those insults are not on the same level, and no one as far as I can tell is arguing that j0eg0d shouldn't be sanctioned for the personal attack (though some might argue that he as already been sanctioned for it). Still, I think it's fundamentally unfair to apply the most severe sanction available (indef block) for personal attacks when the requester has a prodigious history of personal attacks (albeit milder ones) for which he has faced no lasting sanction whatsoever. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 174.30.95.89

I don't think pursuing this is gonna help. j0eg0d already has an indef topic ban and is blocked for 3 weeks, more than enough to get the message across. This seems like kicking him while he is down. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: "GamerGaters" (or "Gators") is an term used semi-frequently by some editors. Most of the time, it has an implied negative connotation. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Thing is, there are many posts on KiA where they call each other "misogynists" (to mock its common usage and application). I wouldn't be surprised if they treat "sea-lioning" in the same manner. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

J0eg0d's behaviour has gone far beyond the pale, and a strong statement should be made that throwing anti-semitic insults at other editors is not acceptable. Even though he's currently topic banned and temporarily blocked, I don't think that's enough given the circumstance. His block should be extended to indefinite with room for a standard offer should he wish to return. Bosstopher (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi:I think categorizing this as dehumanisation is unfair. Idefinitely still think of J0eg0d as a human, just the sort of human who's proven he shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. J0eg0d's entrance into this topic area began with creating some redirects that had to be Oversighted. He then spent much of the intervening period insulting other editors while accusing them of being uncivil, and making BLP vios. This culminated in the unrepentant use of antisemitic insults against editors, and accusing people with confirmed real life identities attached to their account of being Bernstein socks. If you can find me any other editor in this topic area who's undertaken "such behavior" please tell me and I'll file/support an AE sanction request against them. Bosstopher (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi:Kapos were sick disgusting Nazi collaborators. Sealions are adorable creatures that overwhelm your heart with cuteness. I mean seriously look at how cute this thing is. In fact multiple wikipedia users in the topic area, have proudly boasted of their sealion nature. /r/KotakuInAction's logo is Vivian James riding a sealion. The alllure of the sealion is so strong that I sometimes wish I was pro-GG just so I could be associated with the adorable, adorable creature that is the sealion. Even if you view sealion as an insulting term, there really is no comparison between aquatic mammals and instruments of the Nazi persecution. Bosstopher (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi:@Starke Hathaway:I think the armies of Mordor thing is not the nicest way to refer to a group of people. The term sealion has also been used insultingly from time to time on Misplaced Pages, such as this comment from tRPOD. This is obviously not the best way to go about civil editing. BUT (and this is one huge but, think Sarah Massey only bigger) this is not on the same level as calling someone a Kapo. I would much rather people associate me with the fictional character Sauron than Hitler. Also the Kapo insult was racially and ethnically charged. It's one thing to insult a group based on ideology (for instance saying Liberal Democrats are dumb), and another to insult a group based on ethnicity (for instance saying French people are dumb). While insults against people because of their ideology may not always be appropriate, it's just incomparable to racially charged epithets and insults.Bosstopher (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

While I agree with Bosstopher. This seems like the wrong place for it. There is still an open topic on ANI regarding this. — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

False equivalence springs to mind. — Strongjam (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved IP

Question for the filer: beyond minor copyedits what substantive contributions have you made to the encyclopedia in the last week? Last month? I think it's time you demonstrate an intent to contribute positively beyond the scope of a minor video game controversy. Enough community time and effort has been wasted on this pettiness. 166.177.187.197 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Question for 166.177.187.197: what contribution of any kind have you made to the project, in any space EVER? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

j0eg0d denies that the term "kapo" is antisemitic, arguing that it is instead "a term we call privileged Jews abasing other Jews". Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that he only uses this term to describe editors he perceives to be Jewish, we should note that in Jewish discourse the term kapo is used to mean a traitor. This was the term used by the Israeli right wing to delegitimise Yitzhak Rabin in the period of incitement leading up to his murder in 1995. So it would appear to me that its use in this context is far worse than a simple antisemitic smear; it is an implicit call for physical violence against the editors so defamed. Use of this term should be banned in Misplaced Pages, and those who so describe other editors should be severely sanctioned. RolandR (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi

Dehumanization has been going on in the Gamergate topic area. If we are going to sanction this editor for this behavior we should be sanctioning all editors that participate in such behavior. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: My apologies, but it's not this filing that I'm claiming as dehumanization. I think that the use of the term Kapo is dehumanizing. However, making references to sealions, calling people sealions, and such are also dehumanization. So if we're going for further sanctions, we should look at doing them consistently. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Just because a group reclaims a word or description for themselves doesn't mean those outside the group aren't engaging in dehumanization when they are using it. There's a certain ethnic slur which comes to mind that highlights this point. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Then it may be best to agree to disagree. To me, the fundamentals remain the same, you "other" that person, make them unwelcome, and open them up to further abuse. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ColorOfSuffering

My name was invoked and so I felt I should respond. First, I would like to say that calling someone a kapo is a bad thing, and I'd consider it a personal attack specifically on point #4: Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. But I do feel that this policy has been inconsistently applied in all Gamergate-related articles, especially with regards to using the term sealion, which is admittedly a far less inflammatory term, though still an unwarranted personal attack. To wit: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. It's the kind of behavior that is tolerated by certain editors while other editors are banned and blocked for the exact same behavior. For evidence of this, see this AE request, or any previous AE request regarding the filing editor. As a final point of clarification, the image on my user page, used as evidence me "proudly boasting" of my sealion status, is a seal. This should be readily apparent by the caption. It is an ironic image used to criticize those who would attach labels to what are perceived to be "groups" of Misplaced Pages editors. Having clarified this point, @Bosstopher:, if you would be so kind as to redact my user name from your comment I would appreciate it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning J0eg0d

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

The behavior of the named party isn't under the jurisdiction of WP:ARBGG for where and when the behavior was exhibited. This is being discussed at ANI, which is the proper location. Closing with no action here. Zad68 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

TRPoD indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard GG discretionary sanction; they may appeal after six months. `Zad68` 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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 Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom_admonished : There is also the 1RR restriction listed at the top of the talk page., though as written only applies to the mainspace page. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:12, 2015 June 25 No assumption of good faith, and misinterpreting question as a BLP violation. 03:29, 2015 June 25 Hatting a discussion he previously removed (arguably a 1RR violation), also demonstrating battleground behavior 16:48, 2015 June 25 Accusing an editor of peddling in BLP allegations where none exist 04:36, 2015 June 25 Redacting out the supposed BLP issue, technically 2RR now from Diff #2. 14:22, 2015 June 25 Hatting a discussion on the Meta page about his redaction of Diff #4 (involved). 16:48, 2015 June 25 Rehatting the discussion from Diff #5 (now 1RR on the Meta page). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None. 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 Yesterday, Anarchyte (talk · contribs) posted a question of in light of the website Kotaku's involvement with the Gamergate topic whether to continue to use them as a primary source or not . (Note that Anarchyte is >500 edits/30 day but I don't see any gaming like Handpolk). Additionally, they refers to the person on Kotaku as "one of their chief editors", which was probably an unintentional mistake, as the Kotaku person is a writer.) TheRedPenofDoom (TRPOD) reverted this (Diff #1 above), with the change "one sealion out, the next appears to make the same unfounded accusations" which is failing to assume good faith from the start. I subsequently reverted this and replied to the editor of how Kotaku is being used in relation to their question . TRPoD hatted this discussion (Diff #2 above) with again language that was inappropriate "WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLP / WP:39PAGESOFTHISSHIT", as well as a question of violating 1RR. TRPoD, properly, did let Anarchyte (talk · contribs) aware of sanctions of the GG on their talk page but not after claiming they were "peddle in allegations" on the GG talk page (Diff #3 above). I pointed out TRPOD on that user's talk page that there was no BLP violations in the user's questions, and certainly nothing to question the disproven claim that is central to GG . TRPOD replies again that the disproven allegation was being dragged through the mud again ; I agree 100% in TRPOD if Anarchyte was redragging the disproven allegation but that was not the question asked. Subsequently TRPOD redacted out the claim on the GG talk page (Diff #4 above). He then begs a question of why Anarchyte linked to an archive version of the article then link directly . To some defense of TRPOD, using archive sites is a tactic of GGers but they use "archive dot is", a blacklisted site on en.wiki rather than the Wayback version. On TRPOD's redaction, and not wanting to hit 1RR myself, I opened a new section on the Meta page to ask about reverting the redaction as it was not a BLP issue . TRPOD again instisted there was a inference of the disproven accusation , and continued to assert that the goal of this whole discussion was to "muddy her name" . He subsequently hatted that discussion (Diff #5) with the change "ontinued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named." which again is not what the original question was nor were any non-established claims made in this discussion to date. I reopened it since I felt the close was completely out of line and the discussion far from over. He rehatted that again (Diff #6) simply saying "WP:BLP". This is an isolated case that would likely merit a WP:TROUT from any other editor if it was done for the first time. But this is the continuation of behavior of TRPOD (who others have brought here before) of completely failing to assume good faith, issuing personal attacks and assuming editors are acting for Gamergate without cause, very little civility, trying to shut down discussions that they asserted have no need for further discussion, violating the 1RR behavior demanded by ArbCom, and overall a battleground mentality that shows no willingness to work with editors to discuss improvements to the article in a consensus-based manner (that is, WP:NOTHERE at least in the area of Gamergate). I have tried to give TRPOD benefit of the doubt in case of a mistaken read of Anarchyte's question. @Strongjam: Assuming good faith and in context of Anarchyte's question, I do not see the attempt to make a false statement - just misidentifying the person's role at Kotaku, but as their question was asked, it was the fact Kotaku's activities relative to the accusation being central to GG making the question of their usability of a source, and that's nowhere close to a BLP issue, that's a standard good question to ask about independence of sources. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Also on the 1RR issues, then okay, they don't apply to the talk page per the admin's statement, but in considering the other factors related to battleground hostility, these reversions are still important to note; I'd also think the mess that the talk page has gone through that this would be a common sense goal everyone should adhere to. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Again, we're supposed to assume good faith. Anarchyte's statement in context made it clear it wasn't a new accusation being brought up, and just misnamed a person's role at Kotaku. I've done accidental typos too with names and persons, but the context is clear that it's not a BLP, and I'm sure others have too. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @PeterTheFourth: That wasn't the question asked of whether the relationship's existence should involve WP's consideration of the source, but whether because Kotaku was criticized and was forced to respond to the situation around the disproven accusation of COI that gained further criticism from GG of them, how WP should treat that source. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) I read the line "a main part of the whole fiasco" establishing the intent and context of the statement, speaking to Kotaku as a site as a whole, and not to one specific editor. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 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 The insistence by Masem on trotting out and retrotting out and retrotting out the name of a living person in relation to an "ethical scandal" that 1) reliable sources from the beginning of the coverage have verified was never inappropriate action/scandal and 2) where even if there had been a scandal of inappropriate unethical the only person being named is the one who would have had zero agency in the commission of the ethical breach. It is unacceptable. That he is attempting to justify his actions by "But they were in a relationship!!!" as justification for repeatedly dragging someone's name as near as the mud as he can get it is disgusting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Strongjam That's a pretty cut and dry BLP violation. It's not just unsourced, as you noted it's a false statement about an editor at Kotaku. Why would you restore it without correcting that first? — Strongjam (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) On the topic of 1RR, the enforcing admin HJ Mitchell, when asked if it applied to the talk page clarified that it only applied to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: It's not about WP:AGF. The statement in the diff is a false statement. It should have been redacted. It should not have been restored without being corrected. — Strongjam (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: Again, WP:AGF has nothing to do with whether it should be redacted. Even honest mistakes should be redacted. The AGF part is about how we respond to the user after the redaction. — Strongjam (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth You've provided a number of diffs you believe to contain 1RR violations- I may be wrong, but I don't believe the talk page for Gamergate controversy has a 1RR restriction, just the article itself (besides, removals due to BLP violations are exempt from revert restrictions.) PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: You stated- 'that's a standard good question to ask' re: an editor asking whether somebody's personal sex life made the company that employed them an unreliable source. I'm not sure it's reasonable to call these questions standard, good, or in any way encourage them. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) @Masem: Meat of the removed comment: "Since Kotaku is a controversially bias website towards the GamerGate controversy per one of their chief editors previously being in a relationship <with somebody>, should we really let Kotaku be main sources in this article?" Please don't try to portray the removed comment as about anything other than what it was. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 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. TheRedPenOfDoom is indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions, for edit-warring, battleground behavior, and disparaging a group of people such as with this comment. TRPoD may appeal this topic ban at AE after six months. `Zad68` 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard GG discretionary sanction; they may appeal after six months. Zad68 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom_admonished :; There is also the 1RR restriction listed at the top of the talk page., though as written only applies to the mainspace page.

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

03:12, 2015 June 25 No assumption of good faith, and misinterpreting question as a BLP violation.
03:29, 2015 June 25 Hatting a discussion he previously removed (arguably a 1RR violation), also demonstrating battleground behavior
16:48, 2015 June 25 Accusing an editor of peddling in BLP allegations where none exist
04:36, 2015 June 25 Redacting out the supposed BLP issue, technically 2RR now from Diff #2.
14:22, 2015 June 25 Hatting a discussion on the Meta page about his redaction of Diff #4 (involved).
16:48, 2015 June 25 Rehatting the discussion from Diff #5 (now 1RR on the Meta page).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

Yesterday, Anarchyte (talk · contribs) posted a question of in light of the website Kotaku's involvement with the Gamergate topic whether to continue to use them as a primary source or not . (Note that Anarchyte is >500 edits/30 day but I don't see any gaming like Handpolk). Additionally, they refers to the person on Kotaku as "one of their chief editors", which was probably an unintentional mistake, as the Kotaku person is a writer.) TheRedPenofDoom (TRPOD) reverted this (Diff #1 above), with the change "one sealion out, the next appears to make the same unfounded accusations" which is failing to assume good faith from the start. I subsequently reverted this and replied to the editor of how Kotaku is being used in relation to their question . TRPoD hatted this discussion (Diff #2 above) with again language that was inappropriate "WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLP / WP:39PAGESOFTHISSHIT", as well as a question of violating 1RR.

TRPoD, properly, did let Anarchyte (talk · contribs) aware of sanctions of the GG on their talk page but not after claiming they were "peddle in allegations" on the GG talk page (Diff #3 above). I pointed out TRPOD on that user's talk page that there was no BLP violations in the user's questions, and certainly nothing to question the disproven claim that is central to GG . TRPOD replies again that the disproven allegation was being dragged through the mud again ; I agree 100% in TRPOD if Anarchyte was redragging the disproven allegation but that was not the question asked.

Subsequently TRPOD redacted out the claim on the GG talk page (Diff #4 above). He then begs a question of why Anarchyte linked to an archive version of the article then link directly . To some defense of TRPOD, using archive sites is a tactic of GGers but they use "archive dot is", a blacklisted site on en.wiki rather than the Wayback version.

On TRPOD's redaction, and not wanting to hit 1RR myself, I opened a new section on the Meta page to ask about reverting the redaction as it was not a BLP issue . TRPOD again instisted there was a inference of the disproven accusation , and continued to assert that the goal of this whole discussion was to "muddy her name" . He subsequently hatted that discussion (Diff #5) with the change "ontinued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named." which again is not what the original question was nor were any non-established claims made in this discussion to date. I reopened it since I felt the close was completely out of line and the discussion far from over. He rehatted that again (Diff #6) simply saying "WP:BLP".

This is an isolated case that would likely merit a WP:TROUT from any other editor if it was done for the first time. But this is the continuation of behavior of TRPOD (who others have brought here before) of completely failing to assume good faith, issuing personal attacks and assuming editors are acting for Gamergate without cause, very little civility, trying to shut down discussions that they asserted have no need for further discussion, violating the 1RR behavior demanded by ArbCom, and overall a battleground mentality that shows no willingness to work with editors to discuss improvements to the article in a consensus-based manner (that is, WP:NOTHERE at least in the area of Gamergate). I have tried to give TRPOD benefit of the doubt in case of a mistaken read of Anarchyte's question.

@Strongjam: Assuming good faith and in context of Anarchyte's question, I do not see the attempt to make a false statement - just misidentifying the person's role at Kotaku, but as their question was asked, it was the fact Kotaku's activities relative to the accusation being central to GG making the question of their usability of a source, and that's nowhere close to a BLP issue, that's a standard good question to ask about independence of sources. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also on the 1RR issues, then okay, they don't apply to the talk page per the admin's statement, but in considering the other factors related to battleground hostility, these reversions are still important to note; I'd also think the mess that the talk page has gone through that this would be a common sense goal everyone should adhere to. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, we're supposed to assume good faith. Anarchyte's statement in context made it clear it wasn't a new accusation being brought up, and just misnamed a person's role at Kotaku. I've done accidental typos too with names and persons, but the context is clear that it's not a BLP, and I'm sure others have too. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: That wasn't the question asked of whether the relationship's existence should involve WP's consideration of the source, but whether because Kotaku was criticized and was forced to respond to the situation around the disproven accusation of COI that gained further criticism from GG of them, how WP should treat that source. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I read the line "a main part of the whole fiasco" establishing the intent and context of the statement, speaking to Kotaku as a site as a whole, and not to one specific editor. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

The insistence by Masem on trotting out and retrotting out and retrotting out the name of a living person in relation to an "ethical scandal" that 1) reliable sources from the beginning of the coverage have verified was never inappropriate action/scandal and 2) where even if there had been a scandal of inappropriate unethical the only person being named is the one who would have had zero agency in the commission of the ethical breach.

It is unacceptable.

That he is attempting to justify his actions by "But they were in a relationship!!!" as justification for repeatedly dragging someone's name as near as the mud as he can get it is disgusting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

That's a pretty cut and dry BLP violation. It's not just unsourced, as you noted it's a false statement about an editor at Kotaku. Why would you restore it without correcting that first? — Strongjam (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of 1RR, the enforcing admin HJ Mitchell, when asked if it applied to the talk page clarified that it only applied to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: It's not about WP:AGF. The statement in the diff is a false statement. It should have been redacted. It should not have been restored without being corrected. — Strongjam (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Again, WP:AGF has nothing to do with whether it should be redacted. Even honest mistakes should be redacted. The AGF part is about how we respond to the user after the redaction. — Strongjam (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth

You've provided a number of diffs you believe to contain 1RR violations- I may be wrong, but I don't believe the talk page for Gamergate controversy has a 1RR restriction, just the article itself (besides, removals due to BLP violations are exempt from revert restrictions.) PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: You stated- 'that's a standard good question to ask' re: an editor asking whether somebody's personal sex life made the company that employed them an unreliable source. I'm not sure it's reasonable to call these questions standard, good, or in any way encourage them. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Meat of the removed comment: "Since Kotaku is a controversially bias website towards the GamerGate controversy per one of their chief editors previously being in a relationship <with somebody>, should we really let Kotaku be main sources in this article?"

Please don't try to portray the removed comment as about anything other than what it was. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

TheRedPenOfDoom is indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions, for edit-warring, battleground behavior, and disparaging a group of people such as with this comment. TRPoD may appeal this topic ban at AE after six months. Zad68 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme

Appealing user: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 7:59 pm, 28 June 2015, this Sunday (6 days from now) (UTC−4); You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

Reason for the appeal

Callanecc has demonstrated an indisputable bias towards me and maintains a double standard. He automatically assumes that I am at fault without investigating the evidence. I am also requesting that this block be removed from the DS log, and that Callanecc recuse himself from future administrator interactions involving me.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Atsme

History of bias and double standards

Feb 10, 2015 - Callan imposes revert restriction on Griffin and simply warns editors involved in tag-teaming and reverting my edits.

Feb 22, 2015 Callan advises another admin on how to prepare against me, clearly showing favoritism...if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part.

Feb 23, 2015 Callan's summary and the RfC close which substantiated that my edits were indeed correct in removal of BLP violations even though I was repeatedly threatened and harassed by other editors, and also warned and told by Callan to drop the stick while he supported the position of the other editors who opposed me.

April 20, 2015 6 weeks later, more of the same suggestive tone by Callan with reference to acting against me by taking a harder line (purposely mentioning STICK) while ignoring the false accusations of the OP. This is further indication of Callan's bias against me, and his double standards.

Inadvertent Emojis and 1st unwarranted ARB warning

Callanecc's first ARB warning to me which was unwarranted

March 11, 2015 Callan posts my first ever ARB warning (CAM) not long after consensus supported my position and problematic editors refused to abide by it - This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor.

Other editors respond to Callan's DS warning

March 12, 2015 An editor confirms other instances of double standard w/diffs to demonstrate.

March 13, 2015 Another editor comments, Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji?

March 11, 2015 I asked Callan why I got the warning.

March 12, 2015 Callan explains The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is uncivil.

Note: I used specificolly instead of specifically in a harmless comment. The emojis were inadvertent and the result of a glitch in the emoji dashboard which I proved many times over before Callanecc would remove the warning.

March 14, 2015 Explanation with diff from T13 about the emoji dashboard glitch.

More evidence of bias and double standards

Feb 16, 2015 Issues ARB warning to a very offensive editor (also an admin), then removes all trace of it from the DS log the next day. My warning remains as a strike-thru as evidenced below.
March 12, 2015 Editor who previously cast aspersions against me now asks Callan to do more than just warn me. Callan responds with .... working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with).... Yet he issued an ARB warning for inadvertent emojis?

March 12, 2015 I request help from Callan because other editors are casting aspersions.

March 12, 2015 Explains warning, acknowledges aspersion but does not act on it. Asks me, Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you.

March 12, 2015 Callan simply hides offending comment directed at me by the same user who caused me to get the ARB warning and is asking Callan for stricter penalties imposed against me.

My warning remains on DS log with a strike through - more evidence of the bias and double standard considering he removed all traces of other editor's warning who was far more deserving of more than just a warning.

Atsme (talk · contribs) warned for making a disruptive and uncivil edit on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Vacated following discussion on my talk page (see 1 & 2). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 14, 2015 Discusses my warning with other editor who repeatedly harassed me, and continued to ignore my requests for removal of the warning from the log, not unlike what is happening now in the Kombucha case.

March 25, 2015 My response to Callan's discussion with now desysopped Dreadstar regarding Griffin and how he failed to accomplish what Callan wanted done with regards to me. (my bold for emphasis) Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability.

The above exchange made me feel as though I have a target on my back, and that I'm fair game for the gamers who like to play games with human lives.

Current DS Block re: Kombucha

June 21, 2015 Request to Callanecc to repeal the DS but my request was ignored; typical of our prior interactions.
June 22, 2015 Callan's response is reminiscent of Griffin, not unlike what was happening at Kombucha. .....you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like WP:3RRNO you need to get consensus It was apparent to me that he didn't even bother to evaluate the situation, and the block was a knee jerk reaction based on his bias, double standard, and in support of some of the same editors that were involved at Griffin.
Some of the noncompliant material I disputed at the article have been removed but the issues are ongoing.
June 23, 2015 I provided a sequential list of diffs demonstrating my edits and attempts to remove noncompliant material (scientifically unsupported death claims) that is grossly noncompliant with our 3 core content policies and MEDRS. Instead, I was blocked for it.

Article is PP by NeilN 23:48 June 20, 2015 Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the block he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards.

Response to Doc James

A wise admin and former ARBCOM member Someguy1221 explained Verifiability well: "In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles."

With the latter in mind, I can't help but consider the following with reference to MEDRS when Doc James stated: "This guidelines is malleable to accommodate poorly studied areas such as this one." June 22, 2015. The poorly studied area being kombucha, and the questioned source being a low quality, single author, 13 yr. old systematic journal review that Doc James green lighted for citing unsupported scientific claims of potential causality based on the poor reporting of a very small group of anecdotal case reports. No, this appeal isn't about my misunderstanding of MEDRS as Doc James is trying to make it appear - it's about my refusal to accept his suggestion that MEDRS guidelines are malleable. My first obligation when writing any article is to maintain compliance with NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and in the case of health and/or food articles, to strictly adhere to MEDRS which clearly conflicts with malleable, particularly when citing material regarding human health. I remember how, 2 mos ago, I was castigated by certain members of Proj Med for once referring to MEDRS as a guideline, not a policy, when writing my first essay. The words, "strict adherence", were tattooed on my posterior. A group of Proj Med editors immediately requested the essays deletion, partly because they felt it didn't show enough respect for MEDRS when I wrote "follow" MEDRS guidelines instead of treating it more like policy with strict adherence. The new essay WP:AVDUCK now reads "requires close attention" but based on current events, I should probably update it to read, MEDRS, the malleable guideline. And the irony - here I am now appealing a block for having respected MEDRS. Atsme 03:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

Statement by User:Doc James

It was a good top ban. This user by comments like this is struggling with respect to proper interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guideline . And unfortunately this has been ongoing for a couple of weeks at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Atsme

Result of the appeal by Atsme

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

I'll point out that the DS is not a block, but a TBAN (for 7-days). - Penwhale | 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

Eric Corbett was blocked by User:GorillaWarfare for violating an Arbcom remedy/sanction. R. Baley (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
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. previous "close": General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Request concerning Eric Corbett User who is submitting this request for enforcement EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Eric Corbett (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16:19, 25 June 2015 Corbett posts comment on talk page about how WMF's workshop related to gender issues is "grossly offensive". Adds that Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable. 16:31, 25 June 2015 Adds another comments to the section linked above Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 13:18, 25 January 2015 Blocked by Sandstein for 48 hours for GGTF tban violation 13:40, 27 February 2015 Blocked by Coffee for 72 hours for GGTF tban violation 03:08, 27 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 1 week for GGTF tban violation 22:00, 28 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 2 weeks for GGTF tban and Lightbreather iban violations 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 Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Eric Corbett 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 Eric Corbett Statement by GregJackP Jesus Christ, he made a single comment on his own talk page. Leave him be. Or is he so influential that Misplaced Pages is going to riot over his comment? GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Andy Dingley What possible benefit is served by this, other than allowing whoever posted it to boost their feeble sense of self-worth? Andy Dingley (talk) 5:22 pm, Today (UTC−5) Statement by Cassianto The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Utterly pointless and tantamount to harassment of Eric. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands. Cassianto 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sagaciousphil This is a pointless petty action and has no benefit to Misplaced Pages whatsoever. In fact, as I am a British female (yes, I know all the "vocal American feminists" will no doubt spit, hiss and create the usual drama at this: "British" and "female" appear to equate to "non entity" and/or "idiot" or of "no importance", "not worthy of any consideration" as far as the vociferous, vocal few are concerned.) Over the last couple of weeks on Misplaced Pages I have been subjected to pornographic images, been left "barnstars" advising me to have a poisoned drink, seen messages that advocated I should get cancer and die, as well as being the target of a particularly persistent POV pushing editor. Who has been the main person who has tried to encourage me to see past all the cap, helped, advised and been one of the few voices of support and reason? Certainly not any members of the Gender Gap Task Force or those who claim to be advocating Civility ... no, the editor who has particularly helped, enticed and encouraged is Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat* 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Konveyor Belt Really? I think EvergreenFir could find a more productive way to help Misplaced Pages than hounding Eric's posts for slight references to the GGTF. KonveyorBelt 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Darwinian Ape I have no idea why this user got a topic ban, but I find watching his every move and reporting even the slightest violation of his topic ban much more concerning than this minor breach. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is never a good thing. Darwinian Ape 00:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010 Seems someone has too much time on there hands!, Stop wasting the communities time and find something better to do that doesn't involve following Eric like a lap dog. –Davey2010 00:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by Floq Suppose they gave a drama and no one came? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Statement by HiaB It's a wikilawyered and frivolous sanction. EC has never in my knowledge treated any editor differently because of their sex. I would note the irony of the "harassment" (at least as defined by others in GGTF) he is undergoing and it is a minor sort for sure, but out of all the people who "know" harassment most are quite content to visit it on other people or their conceived opponents. I'm sure he'll be blocked and eventually down the line it will be wiki-lawyered into a site ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Eric Corbett This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Eric Corbett was blocked by User:GorillaWarfare for violating an Arbcom remedy/sanction. R. Baley (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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. previous "close": General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eric Corbett (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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :

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

16:19, 25 June 2015 Corbett posts comment on talk page about how WMF's workshop related to gender issues is "grossly offensive". Adds that Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable.
16:31, 25 June 2015 Adds another comments to the section linked above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13:18, 25 January 2015 Blocked by Sandstein for 48 hours for GGTF tban violation
13:40, 27 February 2015 Blocked by Coffee for 72 hours for GGTF tban violation
03:08, 27 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 1 week for GGTF tban violation
22:00, 28 May 2015 Blocked by Callanecc for 2 weeks for GGTF tban and Lightbreather iban violations

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

Statement by Eric Corbett

Statement by GregJackP

Jesus Christ, he made a single comment on his own talk page. Leave him be. Or is he so influential that Misplaced Pages is going to riot over his comment? GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

What possible benefit is served by this, other than allowing whoever posted it to boost their feeble sense of self-worth? Andy Dingley (talk) 5:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Statement by Cassianto

The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Utterly pointless and tantamount to harassment of Eric. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands. Cassianto 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sagaciousphil

This is a pointless petty action and has no benefit to Misplaced Pages whatsoever. In fact, as I am a British female (yes, I know all the "vocal American feminists" will no doubt spit, hiss and create the usual drama at this: "British" and "female" appear to equate to "non entity" and/or "idiot" or of "no importance", "not worthy of any consideration" as far as the vociferous, vocal few are concerned.) Over the last couple of weeks on Misplaced Pages I have been subjected to pornographic images, been left "barnstars" advising me to have a poisoned drink, seen messages that advocated I should get cancer and die, as well as being the target of a particularly persistent POV pushing editor. Who has been the main person who has tried to encourage me to see past all the c*ap, helped, advised and been one of the few voices of support and reason? Certainly not any members of the Gender Gap Task Force or those who claim to be advocating Civility ... no, the editor who has particularly helped, enticed and encouraged is Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Konveyor Belt

Really? I think EvergreenFir could find a more productive way to help Misplaced Pages than hounding Eric's posts for slight references to the GGTF. KonveyorBelt 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape

I have no idea why this user got a topic ban, but I find watching his every move and reporting even the slightest violation of his topic ban much more concerning than this minor breach. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is never a good thing. Darwinian Ape 00:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Seems someone has too much time on there hands!, Stop wasting the communities time and find something better to do that doesn't involve following Eric like a lap dog. –Davey2010 00:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

Suppose they gave a drama and no one came? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HiaB

It's a wikilawyered and frivolous sanction. EC has never in my knowledge treated any editor differently because of their sex. I would note the irony of the "harassment" (at least as defined by others in GGTF) he is undergoing and it is a minor sort for sure, but out of all the people who "know" harassment most are quite content to visit it on other people or their conceived opponents. I'm sure he'll be blocked and eventually down the line it will be wiki-lawyered into a site ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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