Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:29, 4 November 2014 view sourceNativeForeigner (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators14,196 edits panda← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,349 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}

</noinclude>
=<includeonly>]</includeonly>=
<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
== Ahmed Hassan Imran ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|BengaliHindu}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|MehulWB}}
*{{admin|Berean Hunter}}
*{{admin|Dennis Brown}}
*{{admin|Salvio giuliano}}
*{{admin|Dougweller}}
*{{userlinks|Pharaoh of the Wizards}}
*{{userlinks|Serialjoepsycho}}
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}}
*{{userlinks|Bladesmulti}}
*{{userlinks|AmritasyaPutra}}

<!-- The editor filing the case will automatically be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMehulWB&diff=632163282&oldid=631177434
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABerean_Hunter&diff=632163561&oldid=631692224
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADennis_Brown&diff=632163887&oldid=632163291
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASalvio_giuliano&diff=632164022&oldid=632087787
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADougweller&diff=632164117&oldid=632159748
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APharaoh_of_the_Wizards&diff=632164206&oldid=632088603
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASerialjoepsycho&diff=632164292&oldid=631822415
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHell_in_a_Bucket&diff=632164371&oldid=632111826
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABladesmulti&diff=632164477&oldid=632100043
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAmritasyaPutra&diff=632164615&oldid=631929745

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BengaliHindu/Archive_28#Allegations_not_proven
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive207#Ahmed_Hassan_Imran
*
*

=== Statement by BengaliHindu ===
I was expanding ] with proper inline citations from reliable sources when ] started blanking out sections of the article (see , , , , , , ) citing that I'm making allegations against ] whereas I had only been adding whatever allegations had been made against him as published in reliable sources. ] identified (see here ) themselves as readers of Kalom newspaper, edited by ], and indirectly threatened to move against me for expanding the article which they think constitute a cyber crime under Indian law. I tried to explain my position to ] in ], but the situation reached an impasse, so I reported in BLP noticeboard (see here ). I stopped editing because of ]'s continuous blanking out of the article. ], ], ] made edits in the article after that and I was accused of sockpuppetry. In the SPI case {{admin|Berean Hunter}} adjudicated me of sockpuppetry based on behaviourial pattern, that too after almost one month and for 72 hours. I have never had any blocks in my entire edit history. I know I didn't do it. I request you to review this case and remove my block log. ] (]) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by MehulWB ===
I have already added my comments on different Misplaced Pages sections like BLPN, Noticeboards etc. so I am not sure what exactly I need to add here but I didn't blank out the page. I put proper explanations for my edits thru discussions but I was wrongly reported to the administrators. I hope everything is okay at the end.--] (]) 18:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Berean Hunter ===
=== Statement by Dennis Brown ===
Link of my involvement:

At the ANI discussion linked above, someone asked for review of Berean Hunter's actions. At SPI, BH blocked one account as master, and another as puppet after an investigation. Being experienced at SPI procedure and sockpuppet investigation, I reviewed by looking at the histories of all relevant parties, and provided that information at ANI. In my opinion, the conclusions and actions of Berean Hunter were reasonable, based on facts, appeared to have been in good faith, and was executed within community norms. As I stated there, there is no 100% guarantee of accuracy when investigating sockpupppets, but many (if not most) admin would have come to the exact same conclusion, that sockpuppetry had taken place. That is the sum total of my participation in these events. ] - ] 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@{{u|Serialjoepsycho}}: There is no requirement to notify a user that an SPI case has been opened in their name. In fact, notification is typically discouraged. Unlike ANI, SPI is a formal administrative board, and actions are not based upon voting or consensus, although like all admin actions, they are subject to review. ] - ] 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dougweller ===
Not sure why I've been named as a party. It would have been nice to have been given a reason. ] (]) 19:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards ===
=== Statement by Serialjoepsycho ===
I can only speak from the ANI that was opened that unblock BengaliHindu. BengaliHindu was not notified of the SPI on his talkpage. I have no way of knowing if they was aware of that SPI and it doesn't seem they were. In the ANI opened Berean Hunter focuses in on BH vandalism report saying that it wasn't vandalism but obvious BLP issue the user was trying to forward. This doesn't actually seem all to obvious from any of the discussion taking place between BH and MehulWB before the time of the report. At some point later BH had taken it to BLPN. It strange to think that BH would be taking measures in good faith and bad faith at the same time. BH lacks any prior history of it. This also involved an article of a BLP who made major headlines. Those headlines could have brought the other users over. Nirmalya1234 makes protected edit request that suggests they are a new user. Abhijit4law made different changes to the article. Banning an individual for sock puppetry on such weak evidence a month after the incident in question and without reviewing other relevant details is not good precedent. The is also the matter of the two others that remain blocked. As far as it goes with BengaliHindu his ban is already over but there is that single blemish on his block log. I don't expect in the future an Admin to look thru the details of that block but I do expect that if they look at the block log it will poison the well.] (]) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dennis Brown}} It doesn't seem they are required but it does seem they are encouraged. On the SPI page there is a Post box in the collapsed box titled "How to open an investigation:". When you put a name there and click submit it takes you to a page to file your report with all kinds of instruction and advice. There is a section titled General comments. In that section its says You may wish to notify the accused with subst:uw-socksuspect|casename (in brackets).] (]) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
my involvement pertains to explaining SPI processes and agreeing in principle that the block was primarily behavioral based and not screamingly obvious. I suggested that the short term block was an extension of good faith on the behalf of the blocking administrator, other then that I have no opinion. I think it's fairly obvious this case should be declined with alacrity. ] (]) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bladesmulti ===
=== Statement by AmritasyaPutra ===
I agree with Abecedare that a note should be added to BangaliHindu's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken". --]<sup>]</sup> 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by (completely uninvolved) Abecedare===
I believe:
* ]'s block of ] was in good-faith and justifiable by policy,
* Nonetheless, reading the SPI and ANI discussion, it appears possible (probable even) that BengaliHindu did not in fact use sock-accounts
* Arbitration cannot resolve this issue and the case should (and, surely will) be rejected.

So how should we handle a case where correct procedure was followed but ''may'' have resulted in an undeserved block (and permanent marking of the long term editor's block record)? There are no universal answer, but my suggestion for this particular case would be that, ''if Berean and BangaliHindu concur'', a note be added the latter's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken" (Technically I believe this would involve blocking BengaliHindu again for say 1 second).

I wouldn't recommend this as a standard operating procedure, since that would result in endless re-litigation of past blocks. But we should be willing to make ] in individual instances, out of common courtesy. ] (]) 20:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
<!-- Other editors are free to make relevant comment on this request as necessary.
Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Please copy this section for the next person. -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Ahmed Hassan Imran: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Ahmed Hassan Imran: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

* '''Decline''' As stated by {{admin|Dennis Brown}}, the actions by {{admin|Berean Hunter}} do not appear even close to violating the relevant policies, and as such do not merit arbitration. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Per the above. ] (]) 19:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
{{anchor|unsuitablity_for_admin_role}}
*'''Recuse'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', I do not see a matter that requires arbitration here. Abuse of administrative tools is certainly within the ArbCom's purview, but I don't see credible cause to believe the actions undertaken were abusive or inappropriate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== {{anchor|Dangerous Panda}} DangerousPanda ==
'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small> '''at''' 15:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|NE Ent}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|DangerousPanda}}
*{{userlinks|Msnicki}}
*{{admin|Jehochman}}
*{{admin|Nyttend}}
*{{userlinks|Lecen}}
*{{admin|Jimbo Wales}}
*{{userlinks|MrX}}
<!-- The editor filing the case will automatically be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

Founder of Misplaced Pages told him his behavior was inappropriate and "ground for immediate desysopping."

Previous rfar, declined

See also ACE2013 election comments (collated in deleted Rfcu).

Recent complaint regarding AE action on WT:AC

RFCU ], deleted on procedural grounds (see discussion below)




=== Statement by NE Ent ===
:#]
:#] "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and '''civilly''' to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine)
I assert DangerousPanda has chronically failed to maintain his conduct in accordance with the expected Misplaced Pages standards. Being human, it's understandable that admins will ''occasionally'' misstep and, per ],
beyond a brief user talk page note suggesting their behavior was suboptimal, ANI threads and arbcom cases are not appropriate.
However, when the behavior is repeated over and over, and prior interventions have failed to be efficacious,
action needs to be taken.
The committee has repeatedly made it clear that arbcom cases about long term behavior should not be filed without
community processes, especially Rfcu's, being followed.
As documented above, I initiated such an Rfcu, and found an editor, Msnicki, who was willing to be the second certifier; unfortunately it was deleted in good faith by Jehochman based on wording that suggests Rfcu's may only be certified based on a ''single incident'', not a long term pattern of behavior.
After discussion with Jehochman , I requested review ]; Nyttend closed the discussion on the grounds Jehochman's reading is correct .
Per ''not perfect'' such an Rfcu is unlikely to gain a consensus since it's about a single incident.

This leads to an absurd, ] like situation that:
* The committee is unlikely take a case about long term behavior without an Rfcu.
* An rfcu about long term behavior will be deleted because it's about long term behavior.


This is formulated as a "case request" because that's the way a user gets the whole committee's attention.
What it really is '''a request for help:''' Tell me, tell us, what to do. Take a case on DP, or motion the Rfcu undeleted, or decline, but if you decline please tell us ''what to do'' about long term substandard behavior that never ''quite'' rises to the slam-bang desysop case, but is clearly unacceptable per the words set forth at ].
:@Salvio, does ''one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification'' refer to myself or Msnicki? <small>]</small> 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Msnicki ===

My experience was as a reporter in a case that (I learned later) began when DP blocked ] without proper warning as required by ] over some between Barney and ] at ] where Bearcat was the nom and losing (and would lose) the debate. Bearcat (who's an admin) complained at ANI and 29 minutes later, without warning and without discussion for ''the duration of the AFD (96 hours)''. After Barney called DP , DP allowed and even defended Bearcat as Bearcat baited Barney on Barney's own talk page even while Barney was blocked, effectively colluding to edge Barney closer to and eventually out the door in violation of ].

After DP indefinitely blocked Barney even from his own talk page, leaving him with only ], which starts by asking that the user wait 6 months, to reconsider. I thought there could be an appearance that DP was becoming emotionally involved and that he should seek another opinion from another admin. I was more appalled by Bearcat's behavior. but without ever discussing the substance of my remarks in a pattern that continues to this day. He has never been willing to discuss the substance of my complaint, which is that he showed poor judgment, made poor choices and got a poor outcome. I think he could get better outcomes simply by being willing to discuss past choices to see how they could have been made better, e.g., by being more receptive to others' concerns and suggestions but I've never been able to get past the tedious pattern of disrespect. Meanwhile, he's still never been willing to hand Barney off to another admin to see if there's a way to get this once productive editor back here and producing.

In the last round on DP's talk page, per Jehochman's suggestion that talk page discussion was a better vehicle, I tried again to explain my concerns , . DP interspersed his replies into the middle of my comment, mostly just denying everything. When I asked he not intersperse like that, , he removed my request, then closed the whole discussion, , claiming I'm obviously insincere.

I don't think he should be an admin because he shows no willingness to conform to our standards of civility yet expects to block others for the same behavior, shows poor judgment, makes poor choices and gets poor outcomes, then refuses to ] or consider others' input, the very input that might help him make better choices and get better outcomes. We lost a formerly productive contributor over something that started because an admin was losing an AfD and had a thin skin. Most admins should have been able to resolve this and get a better outcome. If DP were to give the Barney case up to another admin today, there's still some chance of a better outcome. ] (]) 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman (Dangerous Panda)===

I've simplified my original remarks. There is no need to repeat what I've already said elsewhere, such as on or in the referenced . ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

: "About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed." - There is no process for an administrator to edit a live RFCU. That would be extremely contentious, and after a dozen or more people had commented, editing the presentation would create chaos and a lot of work to notify everybody and ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of the revised presentation. The inclusion of prejudicial material ]. Once that happened, the most efficient way to correct things was to restart with a proper statement and proper certification.

: I was the unlucky one who decided to look at this RFCU with the intention of moving it from the "candidate" list to the "certified" list. There were two signers. Superficially it looked good, but upon closer inspection I was taken aback by the inclusion of irrelevant and dubious material (ArbCom guide statements, hearsay taken out of context), and that the certifiers were referring to incidents in 2014 (good enough) and 2012 (stale, and not the same). I read ] at ] and decided that the only ethical option was to delete the page. When we are talking about people, the rules need to be applied as written. I communicated with the filers, offering to (1) userify their content, and (2) explain what was wrong and how to fix it on a second try.

: The goal of dispute resolution is to convince the party in the wrong to correct themselves. This can take patience. Dispute resolution is not merely a checklist of prerequisites to fulfill while playing a game of ban-the-other-editors or desysop-the-evil-administrator. For that reason ArbCom should not require a futile RFCU when a user has already received lots of feedback and doesn't seem to be listening, per MrX. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) and 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

: {{ping|NE Ent}} - Here's how to get an RFCU about a long term pattern of administrator incivility. (1) Pick a recent incident of incivility. (2) Have at least two users discuss that same incident with the admin. (3) If the response isn't good, file an RFCU about that incident. (4) In the RFCU, include a section with evidence showing that the crystalizing incident isn't unique; it's part of a long term pattern. List all the prior incidents with diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Carcharoth}}, one way to make RFCU more user friendly would be to require an admin to review and approve the certification ''before'' anybody starts making comments. That way any deficiencies could be corrected before it goes live. It's just silly to let it run for 48 hours and for editors to spend their time commenting, many of the comments saying things like "this RFCU is poorly formed". That's just a waste of time caused by a backwards process. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nyttend ===
NE Ent is completely off base in his statement about the catch-22. As he was repeatedly told, both by others (perhaps by Jehochman?) and by me, the RFCU was deleted because it had not been properly certified: we always delete RFCUs when we do not have certifiers for '''the same dispute'''. I won't publish a guess of his reasons, but NE Ent is obsessing (along with others, if I remember rightly from the discussion I closed) about that one RFCU. As my closing statement said, this deletion was procedural, and it does not affect the possibility of creating a new RFCU on the same user about the same issue or about a different issue: just be sure to obtain proper certification next time. ] (]) 15:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I believe that arbitration requests about a single user generally take the name of the user; otherwise we could have lots of cases all called "unsuitability for admin role". I am thoroughly unfamiliar with all other aspects of this case, so I can have no reasonable comments on them. ] (]) 15:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with Dennis Brown: we definitely need to follow procedure in dispute-resolution situations, unless it's an emergency, or unless the parties agree to ignore procedure for whatever reason. Editors ought not be exposed to problematic situations just because some people decided to ignore the rules without very good reason; the dispute-resolution rules just almost never prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. And I also agree with Jehochman when he says that we mustn't accept as a single dispute something concocted out of incidents that occurred several years apart: RFCU policy clearly states that RFCUs must focus on a '''single incident'''. ] (]) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lecen ===
=== Statement by Jimbo Wales ===

I wrote an opinion/admonishment about a particular incident of hostility towards another user more than two years ago. While I fully stand by the remarks I made then, I think that the passage of time means that more recent behavior is significantly more relevant. Speaking about general principles rather than the specifics of this case, I think that a generous and kind spirit should encourage us to both firmly reject such behavior, but also to warmly welcome change over time. I have no idea what the application of this would be in this case, because I have not reviewed the recent complaints and so have no comment about them.--] (]) 16:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by MrX ===
I will post a more thorough statement soon, but I want to go on record as recommending that Arbcom accept this case. There is no strict requirement in policy or practice for completing an RFC/U, especially where a admin conduct, judgement and use of tools is concerned. Numerous attempts have been made over the past four years, at ANI, talk pages, an aborted RFC/U, and a previous RFAR, to address chronic concerns about DangerousPanda's conduct in his roles as an admin. Outside of Arbcom, the community is ill-equipped to settle admin conduct issues, and is powerless to remove admin privileges. Further distrust, discord, and wasted effort will result if Arbcom declines to accept this case.- ]] 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by peripherally involved Dennis Brown ===
The RFC/U was deleted because it wasn't properly certified. This has been verified by a number of people. Even so, the opening diff showing that Ent had tried to work out his problems with DP was '''two year old'''. The evidence also had tons of statements from "Arb reviews" from when DP ran for Arb, which were prejudicial and irrelevant as those individuals were speaking as to DP's fitness for Arb, not admin, thus they were completely out of place. Goals had to be changed, etc. In short, it was an abortion of an RFC/U. This is why so many of us tried to convince NE Ent to take it to DP's talk page ''first'', something that MrX actually did (and did so in a proper, respectful and appropriate way). Once there, I think DP did come up short in answering questions, being more defensive than engaging, but that is just one step in the dispute resolution process. That would form the basis for a fresh and valid RFC/U, assuming you can get two people to certify it. Are there legitimate gripes or concerns? From what I see, yes, but there is a reason we have processes in place to deal with them, they just haven't been used properly. Getting Arb involved this early in the process is unnecessary. <s>And yes, please change the name of this case.</s> ] - ] 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

*To me, it's a matter of procedure. It isn't about being bureaucratic, it is about maintaining reasonable order and fairness to all parties. I'm not judging the merits of any complaint, but we do have processes designed to deal with these grievances and these processes should be followed unless there is good cause, ie: an emergency. He had 48 hours to get certified, and infinite time to prepare. It was delete 60 hours later from lack of certification. It was already handled by the community. The same for all the improper material he was injecting, making it look as if a dozen people opined about DP's fitness as admin when they in fact were not saying any such thing. It was being handled by the community, including by myself and Bbb23, who commented on this (and gathered majority support of the participants). So far, the community has handled it, and Ent or anyone else can refile a proper RFC/U at any time. Failure to get certification at RFC/U or find enough editors to agree with you that there is abuse is not the same thing as the community being unable to handle the situation. On the contrary, the tone of the discussion on the various pages and the willingness of many admin to assist in userfying the old RFC/U, while unbiasedly encouraging dialog clearly shows the community can handle the situation, and continues to. We are not yet at an impasse, even if some are obviously impatient and single minded. ] - ] 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bbb23===
I agree with {{U|Dennis Brown}} and others that the RfC/U was not properly certified. I said as much at the time. However, it's not because one can't raise long-term conduct in an RfC/U or because the two certifiers have to agree about everything. Rather, it's because there was no attempt to resolve the dispute before initiating the RfC/U and because too much of it was old. It was a scattershot, poorly framed, poorly done RfC/U, and I was surprised that {{U|NE Ent}} would initiate it. Thus, this request should be declined because it's not ripe for the Committee. Another reason - and perhaps a threshold reason - why it should be declined is NE Ent concedes it's not a real request. He just wants advice. The RfC/U and subsequent events were a time sink. This is yet another time sink. Obviously, the arbitrators are free to provide advice if they wish, but this is not a constructive use of the arbitration process.--] (]) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Protonk===

I have no comment on the underlying issues, but the committee or the community need to come up with a process for dealing with behavioral issues that isn't a complete joke. I don't think RFC/U forbids raising long term conduct issues, but RFC/U has not served as a useful check on behavior in a long time. Rather, it provides us with a convenient mechanism to deflect criticism of vested contributors and admins by saying "hey, the RFC/U for so and so is a red link" when refusing to act on thorny conduct issues on noticeboards--the implication being that to actually get some action an editor has build a case against an editor, have that certified then take it before the community where the same sclerotic practices that prevent us from dealing with admins/vested contributors with conduct problems work themselves out via dueling "summaries of conflicts". To top it all off, that process is merely advisory. It's a tremendous, staggering waste of time and I'm embarrassed for us whenever we point users to that process in lieu of actually dealing with an issue on a noticeboard.

Ripe or not, one of the reasons NE Ent is here is that community process has failed, systemically. ] (]) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bearcat===

I'm not involved in this particular dispute, and cannot address the substance of the allegations that are actually being made. However, because Msnicki brought my name into it in her statement, I want to correct the record about what she said about me and the matter in which DangerousPanda and I actually interacted.

I did not "lose" the AFD debate in question because I was in any way wrong about what Misplaced Pages's basic inclusion rules are — it ultimately landed as a keep because editors who had access to source repositories that I don't have, and were therefore able to locate more appropriate reliable sourcing than I could have done, put in the effort to ''improve'' the article to a keepable ]-passing standard ''while'' the debate was underway. I did not in any way misrepresent the fact that the subject's basic claim of notability did not satisfy Misplaced Pages's inclusion rules in its original form — the article was substantively improved ''after'' I initiated the discussion. And I never had any objection to that kind of improvement, either — I said ''more'' than once in the discussion that while the claim of notability didn't pass ] by itself, the article ''could'' be kept if it were improved enough to get the topic over ] instead. So the fact that the article was kept does not represent a "failure" or any "malfeasance" on my part — it represents the process working exactly the way it's supposed to: people who believed that the topic should be considered notable, and had access to the necessary resources to properly substantiate that notability, actually put in the work to salvage the article. And that's ''always'' a possible, and very welcome, outcome to an AFD discussion. It's not a matter of "winners" or "losers" — the article ''became'' more keepable than it was in its initial iteration, and I consider that a "win" for ''everybody''.

And furthermore, I did not approach ANI asking for any specific action to be taken — I was being personally attacked, and asked for a neutral administrator to review the situation and make their ''own'' decisions about who was in the wrong and how to handle it, and would have ''accepted'' it if the other administrator had determined that I was at fault. And while continuing to respond to continued personal attacks may indeed suggest that I'm a bit more thin-skinned than I should be sometimes, it's not inappropriate "malfeasance", or against any Misplaced Pages policy, to do so — the ''worst'' that can be said about it is that it maybe isn't the most productive use of my own editing time, and I should have just let it roll off my back. But that's something for me to deal with on my own time in my own process of dealing with my own normal human imperfections, not a matter for Misplaced Pages to address punitively. And at any rate, if another editor is more outraged by a victim of uncivil ] ''responding'' to them than they are by the personal attacks themselves, then that says far more about them than it does about me.

All of that said, I'm not the subject of this discussion — Panda's handling of the matter that I was involved in isn't even the substance of the complaint — so it's not appropriate to badmouth me in the process of addressing the matter that's actually under discussion. And that's all I'm going to say here. ] (]) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
I'd suggest one of 2 things:
*Place this request on hold, and by motion temporarily desysop DP until he substantially engages with Mr.X (and any others with serious concerns) on his talk page. Once that happens, you can decide whether or not the result of the discussion is satisfactory, and either resysop or let the desysop stand.
*Accept as an ArbCom case now; RFCU in its current state is perfectly suited for wikilawyering a dispute until it goes away.
If you accept a case, a remedy at the end suggesting the community have an RFC on how to fix RFCU to make it marginally useful would be appropriate, though realistically unlikely to achieve anything. Finally, this is not really the place, but while I'm here: I apologize to everyone I've ever suggested start an RFCU on someone, whether when I was an Arb or a civilian. I should have know better, and been more helpful. RFCU is broken. --] (]) 15:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Alanscottwalker===
My view is not that RfCU is "broken", but it is a very ''delicate'' procedure, requiring massive restraint and good faith from all - and therefore can only be (and is) useful rarely. Thus, treating it as a 'check-off' in process has been unsuitable. ] (]) 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating ===
I recall no previous or subsequent contact with this editor other than the contact I will report here; although in the talk page diff below the editor seems to know of me.

In block log, DP confirms a consensus of incivility but overturns another admin's block.&nbsp; diff confirms the viewpoint that incivility has no standing without a violation of WP:NPA.

After the unblock, I asked on DP's talk page focusing on incivility enabling, and if he/she was willing to revert the unblock.&nbsp; I also pointed him/her to .&nbsp; In one of the responses, note the use of caps and the use of vulgarity in the same sentence as the word "incivility".

Is this the kind of behavior that another RFC/U can address?&nbsp; I can't say.&nbsp; My problem is the community's problem which is an admin who claims to be a supporter of our civility policy but has used the tools as an incivility enabler.&nbsp; ] (]) 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rschen7754 ===
It is true that DangerousPanda has, at times, acted inappropriately for an administrator. It is also true that concerns were raised about halfway through 2013. Finally, it is true that at times DangerousPanda has professed a willingness to change his behavior.

Probably what should be considered in whether to accept or decline this request is whether others have made enough good-faith attempts have been made to address the issues, and whether DangerousPanda has made enough good-faith attempts to address these issues. --''']]]''' 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by John Cline ===
I do not agree with Floquenbeam's assertion that RFC/U is broken. I agree with Salvio that an RFC/U must allow for certification of requests to examine long term issues of a user's conduct. I disagree with NE Ent's interpretation of comments made regarding the deleted RFC/U. His conclusion that ''"Rfcu's may only be certified based on a single incident, not a long term pattern of behavior"'' was never suggested, and the good faith error which heard it that way belongs to him alone.

What was actually said, on more than one occasion, was that he and Msnicki were clearly pursuing separate agendas, and that nothing resembling a semblance of "same purpose" was ever hinted to exist. I am confident that had NE Ent and Msnicki, both, focused on long term behavioral patterns, with each one expressing concerns that encompassed the same long term expanse, they could have satisfied the "sameness" requirement, and certified the RFC/U.

I therefore endorsed Jehochman's deletion of the RFC/U, and his subsequent efforts to facilitate the dispute resolution. I believe Dangerous Panda would embrace constructive suggestions and not be averse to endeavors aimed at improving his conduct and the way others perceive it. I have observed incremental improvements in Dangerous Panda's conduct already. And he and I have resolved disagreements betwixt our selves; amicably, and without drama or pain. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject this case request. The community's means of dispute resolution are sufficient enough, in my opinion, to accomplish the goals of improvement being sought.—] (]) 05:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Cla68===
Some of the suggestions here that user conduct RfCs be reviewed by admins is not a good idea. User conduct RfCs, especially on an admin, need to be kept hands-off by WP administrators to avoid the appearance of them closing ranks to protect one of their own, as appears to be the case here. WP admins are often friends with each other because of chatting on IRC or hanging-out with each other at Wiki-meetups. They need to be kept out of the process when one of their buddies is getting an RfC, perhaps well-deserved, perhaps not, dropped on them. Also, the wiki-lawyering over the RfC process, as happened here, needs to stop. It's hard enough as it is already to ever do anything about abusive users. ] (]) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hobit ===
I'm leery of making this a "pile-on" of unrelated things, but this user is one of the main reasons I'm not around any more. I've found him to be neither friendly nor helpful and he takes nearly any criticism or questioning as a pure attack and won't actually address issues. The one example that erks me the most is . He stepped forward as a closer, I questioned if he was an unbiased closer (before things were closed) as his actions (IMO) indicated he had a pretty strong personal opinion. Perhaps I badgered too much, but if you are going to step forward as a closer and can't deal with people doubting that you are a good choice, you probably shouldn't be a closer of anything, let alone be an admin.

I'm also pretty annoyed by all the name changes. Perhaps everyone else can manage it, but I've gone through at least 3 times when I figured out this person was very difficult to deal with--each time not realizing they were in fact the same person. I'd have avoided them in many cases had I realized. At the very very least, please keep this person to one account. Or at least one account as an admin. The lutz of changing names isn't enough to justify the confusion caused by anyone doing this, let alone an admin. ] (]) 23:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other user} ===
<!-- Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Please copy this section for the next person. -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== DangerousPanda: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/1/6> ===
{{anchor|1=unsuitability for admin role: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*{{xt|The record is clear enough that NE Ent created a defective RFC/U which had to be deleted because it did not satisfy the minimum requirements}}, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. As NE Ent points out, when a request for comment deals with a pattern of behaviour occurring over a long lapse of time, then, in my opinion, it stands to reason to interpret the concept of "same dispute" as referring to the conduct in question in general and, so, to consider the RFC validly certified even if the two certifiers have tried to engage the subject of the request about different incidents, provided both evince the same problem (for instance, incivility). That said, before deciding whether to accept or decline the case, I'd rather see more statements. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
**{{xt|Under your reading an editor can say, "They problem is you have bad judgment as an administrator" and then find another editor who ever held that view, no matter how many years ago, and then start an RFCU.}} "I think you have bad judgement as an administrator" is too vague and would not qualify; "you do not understand how speedy deletion works", on the other hand, in my opinion would. And, in that context, two editors who had discussed with an administrator two different articles he speedied would be acceptable certifiers for a RFC on his knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. <p>Now the fact that, in this case, one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification; still, in my opinion, it would have been better to discuss before acting, letting him know that you would delete the RFC unless he could provide a more recent discussion. After all, there was absolutely no need to delete the page in a hurry, as the only element that DP considers dangerous for his safety had already been removed. <p> About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
* '''Accept.''' ] ]] 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*Awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. ] (]) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 19:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*Also awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. And Alanscottwalker is correct, RfC/U is not broken, just rarely used correctly. ] (]) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*I'll also await a statement from DangerousPanda before deciding how to proceed, but my decision will not be significantly influenced by issues regarding the RFCU. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*I'd like to hear from DangerousPanda also. I generally have a lower threshold for accepting "administrator abuse" cases, because the only place which is adequately set up to deal with them is arbitration. If there is a pattern of problematic actions, an RfC/U is good, but if it cannot be accomplished I do not see the lack of one as being a blocker for an Arbitration case. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*Waiting for Panda, but should we not hear from him in a timely manner I only see myself accepting. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Gamergate ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Skrelk}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Ryulong}}
*{{admin|Masem}}
*{{userlinks|Tarc}}
*{{userlinks|Loganmac}}
*{{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}}

<!-- The editor filing the case will automatically be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=631424806&oldid=631404891
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMasem&diff=631424845&oldid=631424750
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATarc&diff=631424969&oldid=631151877
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ALoganmac&diff=631424877&oldid=630699038
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=631424886&oldid=631414966

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gamergate_controversy
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate
*]
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/GamerGate_%28controversy%29
*] (Filed 26 October, currently under way)

===Statement by Skrelk ===
The article regarding the ongoing Gamergate controversy has been plagued by dispute over it's objectivity from the beginning. The party's I have named appear to be the most active in editing, and most active on the talk page. A great deal of emotion is invested in this issue, but it ultimately seems to boil down whether or not Misplaced Pages's reliable sources and undue weight polices require a Misplaced Pages article to reflect the predominant opinions in the mainstream media. The effect of bias on a source's reliability is also a key issue. Some editors are arguing that Gamergate is a one sided issue, and presenting the pro-Gamergate side in the lead constitutes undue weight. I believe this requires arbitrator intervention because the dispute has only gotten worse, and the legitimacy of the POV dispute is in itself in dispute. The dispute did not resolve, or improve after the article was fully protected for a while, and discussions are now occurring on the talk page that the POV tag should be removed despite the clear bias in the article. The article's current strong condemnation of Gamergate supporters also may pose BLP issues. Thank you for your attention.
:@Robert: I'm saying some ambiguities in Misplaced Pages policy(particularly whether ], ], and ] require biases in news articles to be reflected in the article) need to be clarified. I also would like to see the Arbcom impose discretionary sanctions prohibiting accusing broad lists of users of POV-pushing without evidence. A decision on to what extent a media outlets direct participation in a controversy affects it's reliability with regard to articles about that controversy ] (]) 20:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ryulong ===
It has been less than two weeks since when it was about claims of personal attacks and not requesting it act as King Solomon in a content dispute (whether or not ] should be ignored simply because one side in a debate is slowly becoming a fringe view). ] have only been in place for less than 4 days. If those fail, then the arbitration committee should step in. At this point, it is still too premature.—] (]) 05:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even see the claim of ] violations when I wrote this the first time. The filing party is suggesting that BLP protects an anonymous group of no defined membership. And Masem's ownership claims are unfounded. This situation is subject to extreme levels of offsite canvassing on Reddit by external parties and also one of the parties in this case that is drawing in people that realize that they had an account that has been unused in one case for six years to attempt to skew the article in the favor of the Gamergate movement. The only people censuring me are those that support the movement or are sympathetic to it, while my actions have been lauded for ensuring that Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are upheld in the face of this off-site canvassing, and off-site harassment directed to me because I'm apparently high profile in all this. This is still a premature case. The filing party is asking for ArbCom to rule in a content dispute and effectively override ] and has not given ''any'' time for the community's sanctions to take hold and make a change, not that the change will likely be the one he wants to end up seeing. In the end, this is just another attempt at forum shopping by editors with an obvious POV to push, or it's going to be utilized as a pile-on attempt to silence editors they disagree with.—] (]) 06:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Masem ===
(''This is a more brief version of ] to be under 500 words'')
It is clear that Gamergate has received near-universal negative attention from the mainstream press due to a minority of its members engaging in harassment and death threats of women, a clear moral wrong, and that the proGamergate side (those that are arguing that there are ethics issues in video game journalism) has not receive much mainstream coverage due to their lack of a leadership, their anonymity, and the stigma of the above harassment. Per strict reading of ], ], and ], the article should be primarily in the voice to the antiGG side (which includes the press themselves). However, as we aim to write neutrally, we have to take much more care to avoid take the same tone and dislike that the press has given towards the proGG side.

A key issue that comes up is the misogynistic nature of the attacks, which is the opinion shared nearly by 100% of the press. However, it is not yet fully proven who exactly did the harassment and for what reason, and how many of those involved in the proGG side were part of that. As such the press's calling out the entire proGG as misogynic is their opinion, but it is far from a proven fact. We cannot, in Misplaced Pages's voice, condemn the whole of the proGG because the plurality of mainstream sources have. Editors like Ryulong, North, and others have pushed in language and excessive quotes (Beyond what is necessary to set the facts) as to use the predominate sourcing to force a very strong anti-"proGG" message that might reflect what the sources say, but as we are not a newspaper or a soapbox, is far from the neutrality we should aim for.

@North: Trust me, I'm aware of which areas we have had to add excessive quotes and references because of the SPA-type editors begging "But that's not true!". That accounts for maybe... 2% of the article (primarily, the claims that Kotaku refuted the accusation). None of the rest of the quotes were added because of people demanding "who said that?"; it is obvious where that if you take out the quote, you lose no context on the basics of the fundamentals of what GG is. --] (]) 06:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Northx2: No, it is not 100% fact that the harassment is misogynistic; there is no hard evidence to prove who or why it was done, though Occum's Razor provides an easy route to an explanation. It is clearly a fact that the media believes that the harassments were carried out due to misogyny, but as we have no concrete idea of the people who were involved in harassment, it is very much improper to apply the media's opinion of the matter as a fact that applies to everyone in the proGG class, in Misplaced Pages's voice. There's right ways to phrase the media's take as in the media's voice, as it is such a predominate opinion, but the present article shape absolutely is not that way. --14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:@North: No, there is no proof. There is a clear pattern, so there is the theory, likely true by Occum's Razor, that the harassment is driven by misogynistic users, and it is fine to state that the press has taken that stance, but no one yet has 100% proved the identities and their relationship to the GG movement, and validated they are misogynistic persons themselves, so we cannot claim the harassment is misogynistic as a fact in WP's voice. Keep in mind that there's a growing concern of flat-out internet trolls with no interest in GG are at work to keep up the harassment to make all sides look bad. --] (]) 17:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@NewYorkBrad: While the sanctions might work to prevent SPAs from making bad changes to the article, it also is clearly now creating a system that established edits like Ryulong and North to exert more control over the article, as attempting to revert what myself or others might see as excessive bias they can revert, and re-reverting would be an immediate edit war. Core to this is understanding where we as Misplaced Pages should be keeping the tone of this article and while that would normally be a content dispute, the past attempts to discuss that content dispute have been rejected by these same editors (]) If they refuse to even consider discussing the issues of bias, that makes the content dispute also behavioral. --] (]) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:Addendum: This is the type of situation that the sanctions favors the tag-teaming nature of a select few experienced editors: TaraInDC adds this , I revert as it is a very bias statement that ignores clearly reliable sources that says that the VG industry knows of its own ethical issues, and then that is reverted by ArtW , claiming that is BLP (which is definitely not, if we're not applying BLP to the proGG either). And because of the sanctions, I cannot go in an re-revert that to a less biased form (at least, I'm staying to a 1RR approach personally), nor can I call that chain out as a violation of the sanction. This is why ArbCom needs to step in to comment on how we are supposed to keep this article neutral. --] (]) 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Implying that provenly false allegations against Zoe Quinn may be true is very much a BLP issue. ] (]) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This is beyond just a sanctions issue - if it were only that, I would certainly wait to see how the current community ones would work out. There is a core issue of content (one involving systematic bias in the GG issue), which normally is outside of ArbCom's pervue. ''But'' previous attempts to mediate the issue have been ''rejected'' (so no attempt) by editors like Ryulong and North and others, claiming it's a SPA/IP issue to be ignored. That's masking the actual issues, even though the presence of SPA/IP at the article are not to be ignored. I've documented above a case that because of trying to stay within sanctions, I cannot introduce changes that I believe unbias the article without being reverted by their combined efforts, and they overwhelm the articles, dismissing the presences of SPA's arguments, showing little signs of consensus building. So the combination of a difficult content issue and ongoing behaviorial issues are intertwined, that the community sanction, even while fresh, will not likely help because it is not tackling the content side. --] (])

@SirFozzie: I believe the situation has to be looked at both ways, as there is a strong tendancy of the other named editors to take a presumption of guilty/negativity towards the Gamergate movement due to the preponderance of sources that are negative towards it; WP as a neutral source should not be taking such a position either. The "death by thousand cuts" is still a legit concern too. --] (]) 05:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Farmsbrough: Nail on the head. I consider myself the most senior of anyone editing that article that is aiming for the neutral tone, and I am getting shut out by some of the other named parties that keep pointing back to the fact a good portion (but not all, and not at the highest level of reliable sourcing) have condemded the movement, which these editors want us to follow in tone (eg right now, framing the controversy ''only'' as an issue of misogyny and harassment, and ignoring the counterpoints by the actual movement). The sanctions don't help - the article was locked down earlier today by editors - all experienced, edit warring over this point. There are too many people bringing their personal feelings into this and not checking them at the door to establish a neutral, clinical treatment of GG that I have been fighting far too long to maintain. And because there was a mediation case that this same group of experienced editors refused to participate in, claiming it was just SPAs, there's very little I can turn to, in part because of what Rich has noted, this is a very decisively splitting issue with very few in the neutral area that this article needs, and having ArbCom describe practices or other things that are related to broad interpretation or application of policy when it comes on how to have WP stay neutral in such situations would be extremely helpful. --] (]) 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: (Because it takes two to tango) I'm an admin but I've been trying to avoid any significant editing that I know will be controversial and/or abiding by BRD/1RR and focusing on talk page discussion if to a fault to address neutrality to avoid ownership; I'll full admit to having a 2RR issue since the santcions and one 3RR before (1RR is not strictly part of the sanctions but I'm trying to keep to that) but that's why I feel my hands are tied when the other named editors can work in a tag team manner to keep their POV on the article. On the other hand, former admin (but bit removed) Ryulong has definitely attempted to own the article (theirs is the highest edit count, and the bulk of their contributions is outside of NPOV, and they tend to be involved in most revision wars before and after the sanctions). To the best of my knowledge, there is no one else that has or had admin status otherwise directly involved. In terms of what I would consider "ownership" by established nonadmins, I would include TheRedPenOfDoom, NorthBySouthBaranof and TaraInDC, which is overlaps with those that refused to participate in the ] citing that they were just fighting against SPAs. But I'm finding that argument less and less persausive given any attempt to challenge the neutrality of the article and how they want to use the predominate position of the press's opinion on gamergate to be an attack article towards that group. --] (]) 23:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tarc ===
Hello Arbcom! Long time, no see! Don't worry, I am only at best tangentially involved in this topic area this time around; I remove obvious pov-pushing from the article and try to keep the unsourced and badly-sourced editing suggestions on the talk page at bay. This case is terribly premature and primarily about a content dispute; while there are some behavioral issues, standard administrative actions and community discussion have been able to resolve the more egregious transgressions. Titanium Dragon was ] following several ANI complaints, while Armyline got whacked with a ] over ] against yours truly.

Also, ] was recently enacted, so I think the best path forward would be to let the topic area run with that in place for a time and see how it goes. Admins have more tools in hand now to keep the peace. ] (]) 12:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Loganmac ===

As I've said before, a movement that targets gaming journalism is bound to be misrepresented by gaming journalism. The article has been more and more one-sided lately, backed on opinion pieces as if they were facts, to the point that at times the lead has looked like satire to outside viewers I've shown it too (Not gamergate, nor anti-gamergate). In the talk page, user Ryulong is constantly uncivil per ] and disregarding ], clearly showing a case of ] as told several times. He seems to show special pride in angering users and biting noobs, as his witch hunt with a list of almost 30 users he considers as SPAs, including admins who have been editing since years ago shows. And user NorthBySouthSaranof constantly reverts edits. I can be neutral, but when most of the article is written by people who have previously admitted their strong bias and kidnapp any single discussion on the talk page, it's really just frustating. I've always shown my respect to editor Masem for his effort in making a neutral article. As well as other editors that are in no way "pro-GamerGate" like Diego Moya and The Devil's Advocate.
The article decides to disregard neutral statements like "X journalist denied this", to "X statement has been proven false". It constantly pushes strong words like "violent harassment" or almost 40 mentions of the word misogyny in an attempt to evoke feelings on the reader. It's made almost entirely of quotes, going so far as to laughably present ] as misogynist or pro-harassment company, because to everyone's surprise, sites are going to be angry at their sponsors pulling off. or being targeted. The article disregards that you should first present "what a movement did bad" and then give criticism, instead it right out states "it's a controversy centered on misogyny", written as fact while sourcing parties involved in said controversy. Or sites targeted by said controversy. Going with ] here, even the article on ], who is universally considered as a symbol of evil, its lead barely even has criticism and is written, like it should be, historically and with a neutral tone. Or the 9/11 truthers movement, widely considered a conspiracy theory, presents the subject in a neutral light. Articles on religion don't state "But as proof suggests the earth is not 6000 years old" over and over ] (]) 19:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof ===
This appears to be, at the least, premature and is asking ArbCom to rule in a content dispute, which it cannot do. The initiating party has not been active on the article or the talk page in approximately three weeks. The subsequent discussion on WP:AN, resulting community-imposed general sanctions and an RFC initiated by Masem appear to be working to bring a broader group of editors into the discussion. If the initiating party believes there are legitimate BLP issues with the article, they should be brought up and discussed on the talk page and the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 05:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:@Masem: I'm assuming you are referring to I made today in the lede of the article, which is a perfect example. '''It is absolutely true and verifiable that the harassment has been of a misogynistic nature and that there have been violent threats made by Gamergate supporters.''' It is also absolutely true and verifiable that '''these are the most notable and important things about GamerGate''', as per what reliable sources have focused their attention on. Whether or not that '''fact''' makes some supporters of GamerGate unhappy, uncomfortable or vowing that we are "biased" against them is of no consequence. To omit the words "misogynistic" and "violent threats" from the lede fails utterly to present GamerGate as it has been presented by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discussing GamerGate. It would be, in fact, ''bias in favor of GamerGate''.
:The reason we have been using "excessive quoting" is that every time a paraphrase of the consensus view of reliable sources is attempted, POV warriors scream "bias." Numerous attempts have been made to craft in-Misplaced Pages's-voice wording that accurately reflects the mainstream POV on GamerGate as expressed in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources — that it is a group of anti-feminist culture warriors who oppose the increasing prominence of diverse voices, viewpoints and ideas about video gaming, that it is fundamentally rooted in personal attacks and false allegations against Zoe Quinn in a misogynistic attempt at shaming an outspoken female into silence, and that its claims to be about "journalism ethics" are nothing more than a smokescreen intended to shield it from criticism of its true goals. These are all ] as the undisputed conclusion of mainstream reliable sources. It would be awesome if we could simply state that. But every time it's attempted, a cry arises of "bias," so our only alternative to present the mainstream POV as appropriately predominant is to extensively quote from the vast majority of reliable sources that adhere to that viewpoint, in proportion to their prominence as reliable sources. ] (]) 06:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:@Masem: Yes, there is proof. I mean, '''there literally is proof''' that the harassment is misogynistic in nature. But that's beside the point, because we don't need proof — we need ]. The reliable sources say the harassment is misogynistic. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, Gamergate is now best-known for its wing which commits misogynistic harassment and death threats. It is that wing which earned the movement its front-page coverage in The New York Times and other major international media. The ] said '''#Gamergate leads to death threats against women in the gaming industry'''. It is no longer a subject of dispute in reliable sources. When something is not a subject of dispute in reliable sources, the contrary opinion is a ]. We do not qualify the lede of ] with half a dozen statements of doubt — we flatly say "these attacks were committed by al-Qaeda" and all other theories are discarded. It is an undisputed '''fact''' among reliable sources. Similarly, that some portion of Gamergate supporters are responsible for misogynistic harassment and death threats is also, at this point, an undisputed '''fact''' among reliable sources. ] (]) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Retartist ===
*'''Comment''' If one looks at the previous attempts at dispute resolution, you can see that a LOT more editors should be involved ] (]) 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:My argument is that ] and ] are being ignored while ] is being weirdly interpreted ] (]) 07:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Iamcuriousblue ===
There are serious issues with tone in the current version of the article. Those editors that support the current state of the article have argued that because the majority of the mainstream media have taken a negative opinion of the Gamergate movement, not only should the Misplaced Pages article reflect how the fact have been presented by the media (which I'm not disputing), but that a highly negative and editorializing tone must be adopted for the Misplaced Pages article as well. This comes across to me a blatant violation of ]. It is true that ] holds that Misplaced Pages need not give undue consideration of minority points of view, but at the same time, nowhere in the guidelines does that say that Misplaced Pages must adopt the condemnatory language media sources might use toward an unpopular point of view. If anything, ] mitigates against that.

There is also the issue that little attempt is being made to distinguish between news articles and op-ed articles, and avoid using op-eds as course of fact, per ]. There is also little common understanding of what sources meet the standard of ], with some editors being quick to call a source unreliable when it presents a point the editor doesn't want included, and applying no such standard when it comes to things the do want included. For example, no less than four ''Kotaku'' articles are cited, one in multiple places, yet ''Kotaku'' is treated as an "unreliable source" for the inclusion of any mention of threats toward pro-Gamergate writer ]. Clearly, some consensus on what constitutes a reliable sources needs to be agreed to here and stuck to.

Finally, I want to note precedent with regard to established articles on controversial topics. Look at the articles on the ], ], and ]. All controversial movements, all with their share of bad press, and the last one clearly outside the pale of respectable scientific opinion. Yet these articles manage to remain balanced where possible, and even in the case of Creationism where this is not entirely possible, these articles are refreshingly lacking in biased, inflammatory language. These articles represent the best practices of Wikipdia. I do not see why the same cannot be done for ]. ] (]) 07:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by mostly uninvolved editor Hasteur ===
As the author of the currently endorsed I note that multiple editors have been warned and 2 editors have been sanctioned already. I would note that the sanctions are only 4 days old and have already had a few attempts to overturn them on technicalities or to have them used to bludgen the opposition into the ground (and thereby claim that the community sanctions should be repealed). I invite the artibration committee to table this request for 3 weeks to reduce the "tempest in a teapot" nature and to give the recently endorsed sanctions time to work before ratcheting up the drama level of this drama filled topic to ArbCom level. ] (]) 14:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

''Addendum'': The last time I saw the argument "Wiki Insiders are using their knowledge of the rules to prevent us from our '''TRUTH'''" was the great MMA wars. Ryulong has already been censured for putting together his suspected GG-SPA list and we've moved on. But because the gaffe was committed the GGTRUTH-ers are going to hold onto that thread for dear life and try to make the argument "If I'm going down, I'm taking as many productive editors with me". Clearing the decks of all the editors who have already contributed to the Gamergate colleciton of articles is only going to provide more incentive for throwaway accounts/sockpuppetry/SPAs to try and win the vote instead of arguing from policy based consensus. ] (]) 12:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Precedent for similar cases/decisions are: Eastern Europe Mailing List ArbCom case, Mixed Martial Arts General Sanctions, Men's Rights Movement General Sanctions. ] (]) 13:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

''Re to NYB's question about SirFozzie's proposal'': The community endorsed sanctions put the tools into the toolbox for administrators to start rooting out the low level harassment designed to nullify those who are attempting to follow wikipedia's policies. I would counter that if {{U|SirFozzie}} wants a ArbCom blessing, then perhaps the committee could draft a motion endorsing the community sanctions (and encouraging administrators to use the sanctions) but reserving the right to institute something more restrictive if the current sanctions regime fails to resolve the issue. ] (]) 01:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by mostly uninvolved ] ===

It isn’t clear what action the filing party is requesting that the ArbCom take on this case. If the filing party is requesting discretionary sanctions, the usual ArbCom remedy in troubled areas, then I agree with Hasteur that the case should be tabled for a few weeks to let the community general sanctions, which are almost the same as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, work. If the filing party is requesting that some editors be topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned, then community general sanctions are an effective procedure for doing that without the need for a full evidentiary case. However, it appears (as Ryulong implies) that the filing party may be requesting that the ArbCom impose a solution to a content dispute. (There are periodic proposals that the English Misplaced Pages needs an editorial board to resolve otherwise intractable content disputes. These proposals are not accepted. Is the filing party asking the ArbCom to become an editorial board?)

There have been multiple recent proposals to deal with this controversy about a controversy, including a declined request for arbitration, an extreme request for the community to ban a long list of editors based on one editor’s research, a comparably extreme request for the community to ban that editor for overreach; a proposal for a special draconian form of general sanctions, and Hasteur’s accepted proposal for general sanctions (which are draconian enough). The filing party doesn’t seem to be saying that the general sanctions don’t work. I would agree with Newyorkbrad and Hasteur that the ArbCom should wait a few weeks and see if the general sanctions work, except that it isn’t clear to me what the filing party is requesting.

The ArbCom should either decline or table this case, but, in the absence of a clearer explanation by the filing party of what he is requesting, it isn’t clear why the case should be deferred or declined.] (]) 15:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

:::Some editors, including ] and possibly ], are implying that community general sanctions will not work, and that ArbCom intervention is needed. If they are saying that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are more effective than community general sanctions, would they please specify what the difference is? If they are saying that some other ArbCom action is needed, what action is that? Topic-bans? How can the ArbCom do that better than general sanctions? Action against ]? Have they requested community general sanctions action? For the ArbCom to act as an editorial board? Is that about to happen? In particular, if anyone thinks that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are more effective than community general sanctions, they have not said what the difference is. ] (]) 18:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by mostly uninvolved ] ===
ArbCom has limited options to deal with this problem. It could topic ban some of the above editors, but for that a specific violation of Misplaced Pages's policies must be shown and I don't believe the presenter of this case has even attempted so far to show that. It could impose discretionary sanctions, but that would do no more then the community has already done. So the last possible options would be to appoint uninvolved administrator as mentors to guide the page back to a NPOV. So far community sanctions have not been imposed long enough to know if they will be effective or not, as such I would suggest that ArbCom decline the case. If this case is accepted, now or in the future, I would suggest considering appointing of mentors to guide the discussion on the page.

--] (]) 17:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by marginally involved {{U|EvergreenFir}} ===
Given new general sanctions, this is premature. If those sanctions are not effective after a couple weeks, then arbcom I appropriate. Urge arbitrators to table until then. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Though not brought up in the OP, TaraInDC raises a good point that there's a ton of SPA and zombie accounts. If the calls to look at edits (quality, ratios, etc.) on the GGTF case have any sway on the arbitrators, then that same issue is present in this case 100 fold. I still think this is premature, but frankly the SPA/zombies are the main issue here. See extended content on the {{diff2|630774770|AN posting by Ryulong}} for lists and discussions about these accounts. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 04:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Devil's Advocate ===
My stance at the moment is to wait a week or so to see how things play out. I made a major edit last night that I would consider a move to address concerns about the article's neutrality. Personally, I have no faith in the general sanctions regime that has been passed because, in my experience, admin actions on this topic have been exclusively one-sided to the point where even blatant violations of 3RR have been ignored by admins when done in furtherance of an anti-GamerGate position. A number of admin actions from multiple admins have been involved, incompetent, abusive, or a combination of the three. Editors such as Tarc, Ryulong, and Baranof, are frequently engaged in abusive behavior on the talk page or POV-pushing, which appears to be receiving no attention from admins. That being said, I would at least like to wait and see how editing will play out before pursuing ArbCom. I do think there is a very good chance we will end up having to bring this to ArbCom and it may be a good idea to leave this request open and unresolved for a little bit because that moment could be very soon, but do not rush to accept it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:Fozzie seems to be talking about some situation that is not really taking place. Not surprisingly, this article is getting a huge influx of editors seeking to have the article reflect their point of view. Many of the established editors are able to work with these new editors when they show a legitimate understanding of Misplaced Pages's standards and ignore them when they appear to be just here to get their point of view in the article by any means necessary. The only editors who are seriously misbehaving with regards to these new editors are those with a history of such conduct towards established editors as well. My concern is actually very much in the opposite direction as it seems some of the editors who have expressed strong negative attitudes regarding the subject are trying to drive out or remove sympathetic and neutral voices. Having said that, it does seem for now that the situation is stable. Of course, this matter has been fluid and there is no telling where things may go even a day from now.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
This article is absolutely overrun with, shall we say, 'inexperienced' editors who are making progress on this page impossible. Just in the past 24 hours or so we have:

'''Straightforward SPAs'''

Accounts that were clearly created specifically to work on the page:
*{{user|Strongjam}} First edit on
*{{user|Willhesucceed}} First edit in August, to . One of the most tendentious of the article's SPAs, and while he in recent days has made some edits outside of the topic, his purpose on the project is quite clear: only 30 or so of his nearly 300 article edits are to articles unrelated to gamergate, and over 600 of his just over 700 talkpage edits are to ], with most of the remainder to other articles relating to gamergate.
*{{user|YellowSandals}}
*{{user|Muscat_Hoe}} First edit Sept 27, made a few edits to an unrelated video game article, committed as the account's eighth edit.
*{{user|AnyyVen}} first edit
*{{user|TuxedoMonkey}} first edit , has a large number of edits to ] adding copy-and-pasted 'offical' synopses to indiviual episodes.


'''"Sleeper" accounts'''

The off-site canvasing has specifically solicited people with old Misplaced Pages accounts to work on the article, with the apparent assumption that their efforts will be more successful than new accounts. This has resulted in a large number of long-inactive accounts returning suddenly to join the POV pushing. These are accounts with very few edits outside the topic but which were first active prior to August of this year.

*{{user|Halfhat}} Registered in April, played throught ], made six article edits and was inactive from May until October.
*{{user|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} Seven edits in 2013, five in March of this year,
*{{user|Loganmac}} somewhere around 30 edits from 2009-2011; returned September 10 and has since been laregely using the article talk page as a forum, making many idle, unproductive comments despite repeated reminders of ].
*{{User|Filthylaugh}} 18 edits in January.
*{{User|Swim Jonse}} A handful of edits in June of this year; began editing ] in August and has been exclusively dedicated to Gamergate since.
*{{user|Galexander}} Inactive since 2009, fewer than 30 edits prior to returning.

These are only the most blatant, and again, are just the accounts that have been active in the last day or so. Coupled with the very casual attitudes towards Misplaced Pages policy exhibited by even established editors pushing for a pro-gamergate article, and the page is a complete mess. While I don't think that the filer makes a good case for arbcom intervention in the content dispute, something more than the sanctions does need to be done about the constant influx, as it seems editors are only banned under those sanctions if they actually libel someone (which, given the BLP sanctions that are already in place due to a previous arbcom ruling, should be the default and not a special case for this article, shouldn't it?) This can't be the first article that has attracted this level of off site canvasing: what's the precedent? -- ] (]) 03:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

'''Note to newbies,''' since it's happened twice now: there is no space for threaded discussion in these 'statement by' sections. -- ] (]) 04:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And since Tutelary's "You're the ''real'' SPA!" meme seems to have taken hold, please note that editing one topic primarily or exclusively for a time after having established a diverse contribution history does not make one an SPA, nor does being inactive for a few months in the summer. The accounts I've listed above all either have ''very'' few - as in 20-30 or even less - edits outside gamergate or were clearly created specifically for editing on the subject. Good try tho. -- ] (]) 04:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Sir Fozzie's comment and his mention on the article talk page of off-site campaigns to 'make editors loose their cool' and get topic banned, I'll note that one of the SPAs I listed above, {{user|YellowSandals}}, has been making extremely inflammatory and disrespectful comparisons between this article accurately reflecting the large majority of sources that describe Gamergate's behavior as largely misogynistic and describing 'homosexuals' as 'degenerates' in Misplaced Pages's voice. Aside from being an incredibly poor analogy, this is outrageous on multiple levels. After I mentioned this on ], in addition to two editors arriving promptly to continue the debate over whether the article is 'biased,' I've received only two outside comments: one from an editor who has been active on the article sanctions page indicating that "Content disputes do not belong at WP:AN/I" and one saying that while a block might be appropriate (none has been issued) the problem is not covered under the page sanctions because "even though it's happening on a GamerGate page, it's only tangentially related to the topic itself." While YellowSandals has since been warned for other comments, these incredibly inflammatory remarks have not garnered so much as a polite 'stop that, please' from an uninvolved admin. If the page sanctions (which have now been active for a week and resulted in one topic ban and two wrist slaps with little overall improvement in the tone on the page) cannot restrict this kind of inflammatory language, then they're toothless and unlikely to improve the editing environment much at all.

The thing is that in many cases these are editors with absolutely nothing to lose: if their efforts to incite a flame war and get productive editors topic banned result in them being banned too, oh well, they're just throwaway accounts created to attempt to improve gamergate's PR and they can always make another. These behavioral issues need to be dealt with more strictly, particularly when they're coming from accounts with little or no history with the project. I don't know that this means that Arbcom must take this case, but at the very least it means that the page sanctions need to be more actively enforced for at least these most egregious violations. You're the policy wonks: any recommendations beyond 'wait and see' would be helpful. -- ] (]) 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Masem is so vigorously insisting his neutrality on the issue and attempting to vilify several other established editors including myself: edit counts on the page don't seem like the best way to prove 'ownership.' The 'Ryulong has edited the page more than anyone else!!!!!1' line is popular in off-site discussions of how terribly biased the article is, of course, but on-wiki I would imagine diffs would be more effective, as volume of edits does not in any way prove problematic behavior. For my part I was not even invited to the first mediation request and didn't learn about the second until it was already hopelessly bogged down, but I agree with the other editors involved who found that the requests as they were made were not useful: mediation is not some dramaboard that you 'drag' other editors to, and the framing of the 'disputes,' coupled with the fact that as I recall the filers had made little if any effort to resolve them on the talk page first other than to state and restate the claim that 'the page is biased,' made those efforts at dispute resolution unproductive and unlikely to yield results satisfactory to anyone. The fact that neither one was discussed on the talk page beforehand or announced once they were opened seems particularly odd from a process point of view. On the whole, I don't think that any good evidence has been presented that any of the editors Masem named are biased or behaving in a problematic way: all I see are assertions.

Masem, however, has for months now been accusing longterm editors of being 'biased' while declaring himself as neutral, but his actions absolutely do not bear that out. He has in fact flagrantly violated the three revert rule at least twice, detailed and . In both cases he was edit warring against multiple other editors and with a very clear pro-gamergate bias. Early last month he posted ] urging the 'anti-GG' editors (that is, most longterm editors on the page) to visit gamergate forum 'Kotaku in Action,' apparently believing it would make us more sympathetic to gamergate (and that such sympathy was required.) He also warned us about 'emotional' writing and generally gave the 'side' that he calls 'anti-GG' a talking to. He could have simply called for "more understanding" or "more tolerance" on ''both sides,'' but instead he lectured the longtime editors who've had the temerity to disagree with him while reassuring the page's many SPAs that they were completely in the right. His followup comments in that thread were even more insulting, with the overall effect of substantially increasing tensions on the page.

It was about this time that Masem began frequently and vocally claiming that the page was biased against gamergate, making vague statements about 'too many quotes' and 'piling on' without ever making specific suggestions for changes no matter how often he was pressed. This resulted in many discussions being dragged off-course as editors attempted to handle his vague (and therefor unanswerable) accusations. These claims eventually culminated in ]. I don't think there has been a single uninvolved editor that agreed with Masem's claims that the article was "too biased in the favor of the side with the plurality of sources." The community response is clearly that there is not a 'bias' probelm being introduced by our adherence to the reliable sources and observation of ].

The evidence is against you, Masem. For all your claims of neutrality, a clear-eyed look will show that you are simply not pushing for a 'neutral' article. You're edit warring. You're accusing longtime contributors of 'bias' for trying to maintain WP policy in the face of an absolute ''invasion'' of SPAs while barely even batting an eye at the SPAs themselves. A large number of disinterested editors have entirely failed to see the bias in the article that seems so clear to you. It's possible to edit neutrally while having a bias, but it's entirely inappropriate for you to set yourself up as 'the most senior of the neutral editors' when your actions are anything but neutral.

Alone, this would not be much problem, but coupled with the problem of large numbers of aggressively POV warring editors who have arrived on the page, Masem's SPA-enabling 'neutrality' is heavily contributing to a hostile environment. The page simply can't continue in the way that it does, or the 'death by a thousand cuts' will inevitably take its toll. I simply do not know enough about this type of process to make an informed recommendation to the committee about ''what'' course should be taken, but more than a week after the institution of the page sanctions I would argue that they alone are not going to solve this page's problems. -- ] (]) 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
@] If you are going to accuse others of being SPAs and 'sleeper' accounts, you should probably disclose that since you've returned on September 9th, of edits you've made a total of two (2) that aren't gamergate related </nowiki>], </nowiki>]. You might want to put yourself under your 'sleeper account' category. Also, you might want to read up on ], ], and ] since you don't seem to grasp BLP violations. Finally, I've made multiple edits to multiple articles that don't just include video games. I'm pretty sure we've been over this when Ryulong accused everyone he disagreed with, including an administrator, of being an SPA. This looks like just another attempt to silence those that won't subscribe to your agenda. ] (]) 04:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Willhesucceed ===
I didn't get a notice or anything, so I don't know what I'm supposed to do, but I will aver, again, that I'm not an SPA. The admins can look at my contributions for evidence of that. I've barely even touched GamerGate in the past few days? week?

Some editors to the Gamergate article, now consisting of Tara and Ryulong, seem to be trying to abuse Misplaced Pages rules in order to get rid of people with whom they disagree. (I'm not the only one who gets this impression. See also Tutelary's and MuscratHoe's edits to this page.)

'''If the admins are at all interested in fixing the Gamergate article, they'll consider banning all editors that have thus far contributed to it, and letting others take over. I believe there's precedence for that course of action. It's probably the only way Misplaced Pages has a chance of turning out a decent article on the topic.'''

So, ya. Have a look at my history: not an SPA. And ban everyone from Gamergate.

Apologies if I'm not supposed to be contributing to this, but it only seems right that I get to respond to allegations. Have a good'un. ] (]) 04:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: you'll also notice that a lot? most? of my edits to articles related to Gamergate, such as ], ], and ] (and to a lesser extent ]; I'm sure I'm forgetting a few) aren't related to GamerGate, but are instead intended to improve the article as a whole. Gawker Media probably ''literally'' took me half a day, if not a day, ''in hours'', to update, but I did it because I wanted to contribute.

You'll ''also'' notice that most recently I've put a lot of time and effort into ] and ] in particular, and have also contributed to ], none of which anyone can claim have anything whatsoever to do with Gamergate. Earlier I've cleaned up ], merged an article into (for some reason I can never figure out how to link to this with Wiki markup), and have puttered about on the occasional other page.

Substantively, most of my edits probably have little to nothing to do with Gamergate. Probably something like 99% of my contribution to ] has been limited to the article's talk page, and a lot of the edits to the Gamergate talk page itself consist of me rewording myself, fixing spelling, or providing new sources. It's all there, if only people bothered to look at it. Those accusing me of being an SPA are engaging in bad faith and have not bothered to actually investigate. If they had, I wouldn't be here. ] (]) 05:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by TuxedoMonkey ===
This statement is offered in light of my name coming up for possible sanctions. I freely admit to being a newly-registered account, and therefore I have a limited number of edits in a small set of topics. In deference to possible sensitivity to newcomers in the Gamergate article, I have limited myself to answering open questions on the talk page (with the exception of one unsolicited formatting suggestion) in what I consider to be a constructive and polite manner. I have never touched the article itself. If I have been disruptive, I welcome guidance and accept any sanctions that may have been unwittingly incurred. ] (]) 06:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by halfhat===
I've not got long so I'll add more later. The article has a lot of problems. It needs a lot of work, what's getting in the way is that people are routinely arguing about the subject (not the article), conflicts almost never come to any resolution, and many seem to have a accuse first ask questions later attitude. People calling others agenda pushers or whatever, without really backing it up. Another problem is that editors are largely divided into two camps, there's a bit of an "Us and Them" thing going on and it makes consensus really unlikely . Uh it's a mess. ] (]) 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by AnyyVen ===
Like halfhat I current do not have long, but I will add more at my earliest availability. Generally Per Masem above, there are huge issues with the article; despite the fact that yes, overwhelmingly, most secondary sources are vocally negative of Gamergate, there is a notable push to use WP's policies in favour of "antiGG" material and against "proGG" material, very much along what is spoken of in WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:WORDS, and WP:BIASED. The parties typically involved in this are Ryulong, TaraInDC, Tarc, TRPoD and NorthBySouthBaranof. I hate naming names but enough's enough. Generally these same editors are acrimonious in response, toeing the line of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BITE if not overstepping it. I believe Rylong in specific has defended himself with statements including that he "doesn't direct swears at people," and that he got in trouble for actually swearing I have noted this numerous times on the talk page as have others, and was a keystone in the that accused around two or three dozen editors of being SPAs, most of which were shown to be spurious and included administrators (furthermore including those who appeared in the discussion but disagreed with the plaintiff). In fact, it is these members who consistently accuse accounts of SPA activity which is, as noted on the WP:SPA page, considerable as a violation of WP:NPA. As far as my SPA activity, please see the AN discussion previously mentioned so that I don't waste your time by re-posting what has already been discussed; and since then, I've been relatively uninterested in Gamergate mostly because of the overwhelming animosity on that page, so please note my more recent edits and interests. Slow? Yes, but that's because I'm researching sources for new articles on obscure topics to do with Canada. As a doctoral student I don't have as much time as I'd like to contribute to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:Addendum: Per OmegaStar's comments below, I also contend that if Misplaced Pages's own policies had been enforced even somewhat reasonably from the start, let alone the current sanctions which seem to be completely underutilized, not only would the hostile attitudes, edit wars and POV pushing have ended, but you would not have to deal with the onslaught of "SPAs" that are supposedly currently streaming there en masse. If everyone was as reasonable and levelheaded, regardless of what their own viewpoint is, you wouldn't have an issue, content-wise or user-wise. The current environment is enabling this SPA invasion, and blocking the SPAs as they come will be as effective as treating a symptom of a chronic disease. This has much less to do with "what the article says" as it does "how it says it" and how anyone who even tries to ask honest questions on the talk page is treated, for all shame. ] (]) 13:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Protonk ===

As Ryulong and Hasteur note, this topic has only recently been placed under general sanctions. I suggest the committee decline to hear this case not only because it's premature but because I honestly can't see a productive remedy coming out of it. Very few of arbcoms recent cases give me reason to believe that their involvement in a topic like this will be anything other than a waste of time for all involved. We'll have 4-5 weeks of workshopping and evidence and then ban 1 person and warn one or two long term editors about being a dick. We may even have a few findings of fact/principle where we rediscover the definition of POV pushing or something! There may be a point where the community is unwilling or unable to handle the obvious and constant off-site canvassing, but even then I'm not clear how arbcom can positively impact the situation. ] (]) 14:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
* {{ping|Newyorkbrad}} I think SirFozzie's proposal is the only real route to acceptance for the case. It's a reason for arbcom to take it up, but it doesn't show an end game. Unless arbcom is willing to ban about a half dozen editors from the page and endorse DS in the topic area I don't see a month of deliberations as being very useful for anyone. This isn't a case where there are a small number of editors feuding over a topic or a single editor that the community can't come to a decision about. This is a topic area with many editors (some of whom are new, some of whom have recently reactivated old accounts to litigate the issue) pushing for a fringe viewpoint. IMO it's not the type of case where arbcom works well. ] (]) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Carrite===

This one is headed for ArbCom sooner or later, with a number of POV warriors needing to be cleaned out. I agree with NY Brad's assessment that regular community processes have not reached stalemate, however, so this is best declined for now. ] (]) 18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Swim Jonse ===

Condensed version of my reply to TaraInDC, since it must not be threaded:

:A - I am not a "sleeper" here, nor am I in any way, shape or form single purpose account. I and my interests in editing only recently began under this handle. You presume far too much with this and your classifications and where you feel someone is "pro-gamergate" if they're pro-neutrality. I have not remotely focused on "GamerGate" more than anything else, and of recent I was far more interested in cleaning up some band pages. This has happened concurrently. Generalization is never good.

:B - I do not see how I am impeding whatever you think is "progress" as I've not even edited this article even once. '''Again, I have not edited the article one time.''' I came to the '''talk page to make a recommendation.''' It comes as no surprise to me that there's so much controversy involved in something extremely simple if people are unwilling to work with people trying to provide a bridge between both sides of the topic.

:C (to nobody in particular) - if a couple comments on a talk page somehow garners this accusation, I don't really even want to be involved in this. I'm not here to sabotage an article. I'd said before that when I went into the Depression Quest article (which preceded "GamerGate") it was for the sake of neutrality. That article is now neutral. I distanced myself from "GamerGate" as soon as it became a hashtag as no one individual is qualified to speak for a group. However, if comments like "ban everyone from Gamergate" are being thrown around, that's even more incentive to distance myself from this article. Want to make some progress? Try being nice to each other and assuming less. ] (]) 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I'm going to buck the trend here, and say that this is likely something that the Committee should take a deeper look at. We have an article here that is the ongoing focused attention of a group wanting to counteract negative mainstream media coverage of their pet issue. What I'm afraid of is that one side is attempting to win this battle not on the weight of ] and making sure sources have ], but instead by inflicting the Wikipedian version of "Death by a Thousand Cuts" on the folks trying to edit by Misplaced Pages's stated policies, continuing a low level harassment (more accurately badgering, but you get what I mean) campaign generally aimed at making them lose their cool and then being sanctioned away from the article, allowing the aggravating parties free(r) reign to slant the article more in their favor. Having the Committee look at this fully will provide a countermeasure to this tactic. ] (]) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I have so far refrained from editing this article because certain users dominate the article so much that any edits I make will be reverted within minutes. Looking at the talk page, however, I was appalled and shocked at the attitude of a group of Wikipedians who have consistently advanced a single point of view, while at the same time strongly opposing any contribution that does not actively have the exact same point of view that they espouse. In pursuing this goal, these Wikipedians have demonstrated a severe and consistent lack of civility, creating an extremely hostile and tense atmosphere on the talk pages. The beligerent attitude is shown even here, already, by TaraInDC's list of Wikipedians above me. Tara's very first contribution to this Arbcom is to accuse almost a dozen Wikipedians of a serious breach of Misplaced Pages rules, and call for their bans. And this is the second time such a list has been presented. The first time the list was presented, it was shown to contain numerous innocent Wikipedians. The fact that these people seem so eager to pursue such extreme measures on such a large number of Wikipedians who happen to oppose their point of view, is disturbing to me. Surely, there are SPA's involved in this matter. Making blanket lists is not the proper way to deal with this. I am also disappointed that the hostile behaviour of these Wikipedians has not resulted in stronger sanction already, and therefore I strongly support an Arbcom in order to end the bickering and incivility. ] (]) 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
:SirFozzie's claim veers into conspiracy-thinking. Would such a campaign of harassment not require actual organization, implying a conspiracy? More importantly, my experience of the talk-page has been the exact opposite of SirFozzie's experience. What I have witnessed is consistent uncivil and hostile behavior of a group of Wikipedians, who's often inflammatory posts and attitude has enticed people to enter the debate in order to oppose them. I would argue that people come to Misplaced Pages with the expectation to find a neutral source of information. If these people then see that an article is being dominated by a group of Wikipedians who continuously show hostile and uncivil behaviour to anyone who dares question their view, they might be motivated to respond themselves. I do not question the fact that quite a number of these people have themselves responded in hostile and uncivil behaviour. And I am quite sure a few of them did so without direct provocation. But by far the most consistent source of uncivil behaviour has come from the group that dominates the article at the moment. ] (]) 21:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I have not edited in the area since it blew up, and rarely have edited in the area otherwise. Along the same lines as ] claim is the issue of how the discretionary sanctions were reached: with significant and growing opposition (including an alternative proposal that never got posted due to the speed in which discussion was closed) not really being addressed or even acknowledged. I may have something to contribute to the article space for these issues, but I see no reason to bother given the way this situation has snowballed and the speed in which administrators and involved users are acting on the matter. This sanction issue should be noted to {{ping|Newyorkbrad}} in particular (given his initial comment below) as to whether such a fast closure is truly representative of "community" in the terms of "community sanctions," especially if the result is experienced editors avoiding the space in fear of being blocked.

ArbCom should accept this to look neutrally at the conduct of ''all'' involved parties as well as providing some guidance in regards to the community sanctions and perhaps that overall process to ensure that the community is not steamrolled by activism in any direction.

===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
I have seen a lot of very "knee-jerk" reactions, as it appears that enough editors have a bias for one or the other presentation that anyone striving for neutrality has a significant chance of being accused of being a proponent for one side or the other of the external debate or meta-debate.

Sociologically the GamerGate controversy is, I think, very important as a clear and well documented illustration of the issues plaguing public discourse between heterogeneous groups. I would prefer, however, that Misplaced Pages merely document this phenomenon, and not become part of it.

I believe the way forward for these articles is to engage in positive debate, assisting those we may believe we do not agree with in sourcing their arguments, and using those sources well, rather than combatively attempting to rubbish sources as "tabloid" "unresearched" or "self-published" and so forth.

Certainly I thought the Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest articles had achieved a reasonable state of balance.

===Statement by Jehochman (Gamergate)===
I closed the community sanctions discussion and started ]. Since then 43 warnings have been logged and 3 sanctions have been handed out. I am interested in hearing any evidence that an administrator or established editor has been acting as an enabler, or attempting to own the article.

If there are a parade of ] acting badly, the page can be semi-protected or protected long-term by any administrator, and disruptive accounts can be warned and then topic banned. Once the bad actors realize that we aren't going to tolerate them, they will go elsewhere.

If there's a vested contributor causing trouble, that may require arbitration, because the community sanction won't take care of that kind of problem very well. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by A Quest for Knowledge ===
First, I haven't been following this dispute too closely, but based on what I have seen so far, there seems to be plenty of poor conduct on all sides of the dispute. At best, taking a one-sided approach as SirFonzie suggests would, at best, only eliminate half the problem.

Second, the purpose of ArbCom is to settle disputes that the community cannot. Given that the community has recently applied discretionary sanctions, it would be premature to accept the case without knowing whether those sanctions would have succeeded. ArbCom may very well end up taking a case on this dispute, but now's not the time. ] (]) 23:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statment by Cla68===
I respectfully suggest that the arbitrators put the GamerGate suite of articles on their watchlists and, when you have a few minutes, read over the talk page discussions and archives in order to familiarize yourselves with what's going on there. I'm fairly certain that this will eventually be a case, because the conduct by some of the editors, especially several of the established ones, is as abusive and corrosive as I've ever seen. ] (]) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by (user) ===
<!-- Other editors are free to make relevant comment on this request as necessary.
Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Please copy this section for the next person. -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Gamergate: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/1/4> ===
{{anchor|1=Gamergate: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*As Ryulong, Tarc, and Hasteur have noted, the community has recently authorized general sanctions for the Gamergate topic-area, including that "any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor that edits pages related to the Gamergate controversy, if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Editors in favor of our accepting this request should discuss how involvement by this Committee could potentially result in a more useful outcome than this, and whether we should hold off on accepting any case until we see whether the new sanctions are effective. If they are, there may be no need to accept a case. If they are not, I would consider taking and even expediting a case to deal with problems such as aggressive SPA involvement in a troubled article (compare, ]). ] (]) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
**I ask the interested parties to comment on SirFozzie's argument for acceptance, above. ] (]) 01:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
*Agree with NYB. I'm not seeing that the community authorized sanctions have failed, they've barely been given a chance to succeed. More robust use of that process currently looks like a better solution that a month or two of deliberation here, but I am willing to be convinced. ] (]) 17:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
::'''Decline'''. ] (]) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*I like Hasteur's suggestion and would propose to suspend this request for three weeks, to see whether the community-authorised sanctions help solve the dispute or they don't and, so, it becomes necessary for us to intervene. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
*I'd happy to suspend for 3 weeks, but I'm also happy to '''decline''' without prejudice to a new case if the community-authorised sanctions do not work. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''. ] <small>]</small> 23:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
*I'm also generally inclined to see if the community restrictions can successfully resolve this issue. I'm inclined toward either a decline without prejudice toward a future request, or to suspend this request to see if a few weeks' time means the situation indicates review is still needed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' at this time, without prejudice to a future request if the issues continue with community sanctions in place. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', and I also oppose the "tentative acceptance" solution proposed above. This is not a dispute that I think arbitration could resolve. ] ]] 23:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', per above. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 18:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' without prejudice to refiling at some later point after it becomes clearer whether or not community sanctions are working. ] (]) 22:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Carcharoth. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.