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

Revision as of 23:58, 21 January 2015 editTimotheus Canens (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →NorthBySouthBaranof: ok← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:47, 22 January 2015 edit undoRoger Davies (talk \| contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Loganmac: add some edit numbersNext edit →
Line 777:		Line 777:
	:::Have edited the header for consistency with other proposed findings, and because someone being a SPA is not an offence, nor is it the principal point of the proposed subsequent finding (being that Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct). -- ] (]) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)		:::Have edited the header for consistency with other proposed findings, and because someone being a SPA is not an offence, nor is it the principal point of the proposed subsequent finding (being that Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct). -- ] (]) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Works for me. ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)		::::Works for me. ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
			::: Just adding some edit numbers as this has been discussed elsewhere. Articles: 8chan (36), Talk:8chan (12); Gamergate controversy (31), Talk:Gamergate controversy (202); plus assorted Misplaced Pages space pages (189). Total: 470 Gamergate-related edits out of about 800 edits to date, and that's doesn't include user space.  ] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

	===Willhesucceed===		===Willhesucceed===

Revision as of 00:47, 22 January 2015

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Misplaced Pages may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battlefield conduct

2) Misplaced Pages is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Biographical content

3) The Biographies of living persons ("BLP") policy applies not only to biographical articles but to all edits about living people in all pages within the encyclopedia. All such edits must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources, avoiding self-published material. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material must be removed immediately, and may not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances relevant to the subject. The policy permits "some leeway ... to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community", though administrators may delete defamatory material or personal attacks. Failure to adhere to the BLP policy may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators and BLPs

4) The Biographies of Living People policy authorises administrators to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Misplaced Pages:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents."

Absent objective standards of what is clear and what is less clear, the "Not perfect" provision in the administrator policy is relevant: Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Accuracy of sources

5) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. Repeated failures to represent sources accurately may result in sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators and 'involvement'

6) The "Involved admins" section of the Adminstrators policy states that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Full support, but as a matter of style, I might introduce the principle by describing what the policy does cover before turning to what it does not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single purpose accounts

7) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Misplaced Pages are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
While I understand Euryalus' concerns, I still think this is a necessary principle here. SPAs who edit appropriately and neutrally are welcome regardless, but hyperfocused editors not staying neutral or behaving badly can be very disruptive indeed. Seraphimblade 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support, but see my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is useful guidance for editors and sysop going forward, as we are about to authorise discretionary sanctions in this topic area: this principle lets people know what the standards of behaviour are likely to be at AE. Salvio 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Fine as a rendition of WP:SPA but I don't consider it relevant to the findings in this case. There is a difference between SPA's and throwaway accounts - we should not automatically hold suspicions against an editor entirely because they edit within a single topic. Nor should we hold undue suspicions against editors who used to edit various topics but have now come back as SPAs. There are SPA's who have contributed entirely usefully to Gamergate topics, and editors with long and varied histories who have not. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Although we have used this wording before, I think the emphasis should be on the importance of the editing remaining neutral rather than on trying to evaluate whether an editor's subjective "focus" is neutral. It also bears emphasis that while an editor's being an SPA on a controversial topic may draw additional scrutiny to the editor, it will not ordinarily be a basis for sanctions in and of itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade - agreed, but the issue is hyperfocused POV-pushing rather than whether the POV-pusher has also edited other topics. I accept this principle is a fair rendering of the policy and is in any case a sideline to the heart of this PD - just wanted to register opposition to what is occasionally an unfair presumption against SPA's. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad - a reading of the second last sentence of remedy 10 indicates it will be possible to sanction an SPA solely on the basis that they are an SPA. Any SPA with an expired Gamergate topic ban will need to cease being a SPA by making edits to unrelated topics, or risk blocks of up to one year. This is regardless of the merit of their post-topic ban contributions. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Decorum

8) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
With the understanding that the occasional outburst should be forgiven and that the fact an editor was trying to protect Misplaced Pages and uphold its policies may be invoked in mitigation. Salvio 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct during arbitration cases

9) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recidivism

10) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enough is enough

11) When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

12) All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Misplaced Pages article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 07:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This probably should be moved up a little in the list of principles. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my comments on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The links are to the article entitled "Gamergate controversy." I express no view as to whether there actually exists an identifiable real-world thing that is best described as a "GamerGate controversy," or whether a different designation would better describe the entire fiasco. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

History of the dispute

2) The article on the Gamergate controversy was created in early September 2014; since then, the dispute has included dozens of peripheral articles and biographies and scores of editors. Attempts to resolve it in various fora have been disrupted by torrents of wide-ranging allegations and counter-allegations, by the importation of off-wiki feuds, and by the arrival of IP editors and people using throwaway accounts. The dispute has included attempted outings and harassment (examples: , , , ), as well as accusations of collusion, off-wiki canvassing, POV-pushing, non-neutral tone, and BLP violations. Administrators working to resolve the issues have become the focus of attacks on their integrity. The topic has been under general sanctions since late October 2014.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"The dispute" actually comprises an entire series of disputes, some serious and others less so, some legitimate and others less so, some between two sides both acting in good faith and others less so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Brad --Guerillero | My Talk 05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
agreeing also with NYB's comment DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Also per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DungeonSiegeAddict510

3) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages (e.g., ) battleground conduct (), broken their topic ban twice (block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ().

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 01:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes ~~on soapboxing; less convinced that these diffs prove "battleground." Supporting in the context of the proposed remedy below.~~ -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
added some diffs from the talk page --Guerillero | My Talk 07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Added a clause about their topic ban --Guerillero | My Talk 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

One diff appears to be a duplicate, so I removed it. @Beeblebrox: did you mean to refer to some other diff? LFaraone 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel

4) Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used administrative tools in relation to this article (examples: , , ) while also offering personal commentary on the article subject (example: ).

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This was not egregiously bad, but admins involved in taking an administrative role should avoid substantive discussions of content. Seraphimblade 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
He did what is said here, though it may not rise to the level of a sanction. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

True on its face, but I do not believe the conduct rises to the level of passing an arbitration finding against this editor. Courcelles 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The question presented as to Gamaliel is whether his engagement with the substance of "Gamergate" or related issues reached the level that would disqualify him from taking administrator action in this topic-area. I conclude that it did not. That said, there are times that even a borderline "involved" admin may best serve the project by stepping away from the area, given that if he or she does not, his or her participation may itself become a focus of dispute. But the argument for taking that step is mitigated when accusations of "involvement" are flung against substantially every admin working on the topic-area, and when for whatever reason, other admins are reluctant to intervene. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No, just no. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not feel that this finding shows Gamaliel to be involved to a degree that he should avoid administrative actions. More or less per Newyorkbrad. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NYB -- Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure whether what follows in the relevant remedy should also be mentioned here to some degree, for maximum clarity. LFaraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

5) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ), improper use of sources (e.g., ), and battleground conduct (e.g., ).

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This feels like a content decision, but I agree that the sourcing was wrong. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Switching to a support, albeit a weak one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I can't support this as written. The "improper use of sources" diffs are weak, and more generally I don't like stepping into the role of trying to decide whether someone was accurately representing sources. The "battleground conduct" diffs are too few and too weak to support also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The "sources" diffs, which David has now expanded below, aren't weak at all. It's a simple matter of comparing text A with text B and seeing if they match. They don't. Roger Davies 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per GorillaWarfare. Not seeing this as written as anything that rises to the level of an arbitration finding. Courcelles 01:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- The battleground conduct is weak and I am not going to touch a misuse of source like this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Why aren't you going to touch misuse of sources? It's a well-established misconduct issue. Roger Davies 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see enough here to support a finding. Seraphimblade 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my comments below. Misuse or misleading use of sources is a serious conduct issue for which we have sanctioned people in the past, where it is intentional or habitual, but in this case I am satisfied (partly by the explanation on the talkpage) that the diffs cited here are isolated errors. Of course, every effort should be made to avoid such errors, especially in the BLP context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I believe that this editor sought in good faith to address BLP violations and other issues within the topic-area, although some specific instances of conduct were suboptimal. I incline toward opposing, but would like to see any response by the drafters to the opposers before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The misuse of sources is pretty straightforward. North adds "which mocked and criticized those in the movement who were harassing" sourced to , which only states "This one, Brianna Wu, because she dared to tweet some jokes about the ongoing drama." Next, North adds more, citing Wu as mocking "the movement and its supporters for, among other things, making illogical claims and misogynistic threats" to , where the actual text is "But Wu was thrust into the spotlight on Oct. 9, when she tweeted what she intended as a joke. It mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, ridiculing them for, among other things, “fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent". They are appending the sources to statements they do not support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong

6) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ), battleground conduct (), misuse of sources (), and needlessly personalized or degraded discussions (e.g. ). This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past (2009, Block log).

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I share some of GW and Courcelles's concerns, but I think that this will roll --Guerillero | My Talk 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer the alternative proposed by GW (and may propose it myself), but this can't pass by with no finding at all. Seraphimblade 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I have the same commentary as in the NorthBySouthBaranof with respect to "misuse of sources". Furthermore, I don't think the single diff for "needlessly personalized or degraded discussions" is sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Noting that I intend to switch to support if these are strengthened or struck—I can also propose an alternative if people would prefer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sharing the same concerns with GorillaWarfare here, again. The "needlessly personalized or degraded discussions" diff is totally insufficient for justifying a finding of that sort of misconduct. Courcelles 02:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:, @Seraphimblade: I'd support such an alt. And I agree some finding is necessary. Courcelles 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per other opposers and my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

As a veteran arbitrator, I'm well aware of Ryulong's prior cases and sanctions. In this topic-area, however, I believe Ryulong sought in good faith to address BLP issues and related problems. He did so, in many instances, without delicacy, and I particularly disapprove of the feud he found himself in with David Auerbach, from which he should have disengaged much earlier. Nonetheless, subject to further input from the drafters or others, I incline toward opposing this finding as too harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong (alternate)

6.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ) and battleground conduct (). This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past (2009, Block log).

Support:

First choice to 6. Seraphimblade 19:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice to 6 --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Lovely, thanks for doing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc

7) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ) and battleground conduct (e.g., , , , ). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014).

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
True as written, though I wish there was more there, there. All four diffs of edit warring are from the same day, a pretty clear 3RR violation, but not evidence of a prolonged edit-war, more along the lines of evidence that, in my experience, would have gotten a 24 hour block at ANEW. Courcelles 02:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Supporting as factually accurate, though I also agree with the comment by Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I added three more diffs for "battleground conduct." GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

He deserves a week block for edit warring. Nothing else, that I can see after looking over the evidence, is that serious. The battleground comment diff is for a single less-than-thought-out comment. Strangely for Misplaced Pages, Tarc seems to have changed. I, like Brad, do not see the WP:POINT vios that have come up in the past. I strongly suggest to Tarc that he find an area of the encyclopedia to edit that is not related to a modern-day dispute. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Tarc's conduct in prior disputes, including his time-wasting and tension-raising trolling during the Manning case and his exceptionally poor judgment in the banned-user-on-Jimbo's-talkpage nonsense, is legitimate background in evaluating his conduct this time around. I do not, however, see a parallel between his editing in the GamerGate area and these prior issues, as the disruptive point-making of which he has been guilty in the past is absent here. Courcelles' observation on the edit-warring diffs is well-taken and I do not believe the talkpage diff offered as an example of "battleground conduct" reflects misconduct. I know that additional evidence of suboptimal conduct by Tarc has been presented elsewhere, but subject to further comment by the drafters or others, incline toward opposing this finding as too harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Still giving this one some thought. More diffs would definitely strengthen it, but I'm not sure they're there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate

8) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (), battleground conduct (), and BLP violations (). The Devil's Advocate has previously been sanctioned for his conduct in controversial areas (1st t-ban Nov 2011, 1st t-ban vio block Dec 2011, 2nd t-ban Apr 2012, 2nd t-ban vio block Sep 12, I-ban Oct 2012).

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It works --Guerillero | My Talk 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As corrected. Seraphimblade 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This works now. Courcelles 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It is arguable that every online community sometimes needs a devil's advocate, but effective devil's advocacy requires a certain set of skills, including good judgment as to both what points to press and how far to press them. These are skills that The Devil's Advocate does not possess, and he therefore ought to find a very different role within the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Noting for the record that I imposed the October 2012 interaction ban as an AE admin, and that I do not believe this requires recusal, per the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:ARBPOL#Recusal of arbitrators. T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

The two 2013 "sanctions" are not actual sanctions, and have no place being mentioned here. One goes to a DS the committee overturned as unreasonable, the other to a mere warning that DS exist n a topic area. Courcelles 02:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but while the 2013 stuff is wrong the FOF also underreports. What he has is two separate t-bans, with a subsequent block for each for breaching them. (The actual history is: t-ban (30 days) 30 Nov 2011; blocked for t-ban vio 5 Dec 2011; fresh t-ban (6 mths) 3 Apr 2012; blocked for t-ban vio 16 Sep 12.). Plus, there's an i-ban from Oct 12. So that's five AE sanctions in total. I'll sort the FOF out tomorrow. Roger Davies 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying may not be an FoF that is warranted here. Just, not as this is written at present. Courcelles 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FOF updated. I've commented out the earlier erroneous one. Roger Davies 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Minor change, but I've changed the "May 2012" sanction diff to "October 2012". The review of the Race and intelligence case happened in May 2012, but The Devil's Advocate was not placed under an interaction ban until October. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now called "I-ban Oct 2012". Roger Davies 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct () and has been sanctioned for edit warring and creating a hostile editing environment ().

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Weakly. The third diff is, IMO, the worst. And the block is part of the record here. Courcelles 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
as the proposer --Guerillero | My Talk 05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The third diff, especially, is well out of line. Seraphimblade 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak support. The proposed wording is true as far as it goes. ~~but the supporting evidence here and on talkpage over time is too thin to support significant sanction.~~ -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Reconsidered this second sentence in the context of what we are looking at from others in the same battleground. Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Added a few more diffs and moved to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

~~Agreed with Courcelles that the third diff is worth mention, but it may be the only one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~

As stated by GorillaWarfare. LFaraone 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

A finding based on "battleground conduct" is inherently subjective, and this would be a borderline case of that. I do agree that this user has unnecessarily personalized disputes and used inflammatory language, although in some instances I can understand why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Titanium Dragon

10) Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in combative behavior and BLP violations (, , , , ). They were topic banned under BLP enforcement ().

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tutelary

11) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in battleground conduct by edit-warring to re-open threads in GamerGate dispute resolution (, , , , , , , ) and has reinstated BLP-violating content ().

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TaraInDC

12) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. )

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this was a little too far. Courcelles 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've also added a few more diffs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

As stated above, I find the concept of "battleground conduct" subjective and in this case, I find the evidence insufficient to support a finding of it. I agree that this editor sometimes lost her temper and used strong language, though some would say understandably, but I decline to support the finding against her based on that either, especially since she has not edited in two and one-half months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Parties topic-banned by the community

13) The following parties to this case have been topic banned by the community under the Gamergate general sanctions:

ArmyLine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Loganmac

14) Loganmac (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, whose edits to the project have been largely limited to the Gamergate controversy (). Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. , , , ).

Support:

Works for me, Roger Davies 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(forgot to support) GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Courcelles 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
this needs to be in here --Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
But the title should be changed; the problem is the manner of editing by the SPA, not the simple fact of SPA-hood. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Have edited the header for consistency with other proposed findings, and because someone being a SPA is not an offence, nor is it the principal point of the proposed subsequent finding (being that Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just adding some edit numbers as this has been discussed elsewhere. Articles: 8chan (36), Talk:8chan (12); Gamergate controversy (31), Talk:Gamergate controversy (202); plus assorted Misplaced Pages space pages (189). Total: 470 Gamergate-related edits out of about 800 edits to date, and that's doesn't include user space. Roger Davies 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (, , ). battleground behaviour (, , , , , ), and point making behaviour (, ).

Support:

As proposer. I think the next to last diff is the worst, but the rest establish a pattern here. Courcelles 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 10:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Courcelles. Seraphimblade 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Masem engaged in POV-pushing

16) Masem (talk · contribs) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy.(, , , , , , , ).

Support:

Oppose:

None of these are article edits. Masem is discussing aspects of policy, including the "Verifiability not truth" paradox. They're also questioning whether crude characterisation of the sides into white hats and black hats is not just polarising the issues further and making it more difficult to resolve. I guess this is what talk pages are for and, if it isn't, it ought to be. Roger Davies 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There are no article edits here. Discussion of how reliable a given source is or is not is entirely in line with NPOV, and is indeed one of the ways we come to a neutral article based upon the most highly reliable references. Seraphimblade 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per Roger Davies and Seraphimblade. Euryalus (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel like there might be something here, but this doesn't fit the definition of POV-pushing. Courcelles 21:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not as written. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I frankly don't believe his participation in the topic has been helpful, but that is not a basis for an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, the GamerGate controversy.

ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

Support:

I'd like to emphasize my personal appreciation for the admins who have been working this difficult area. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ditto, Roger Davies 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I also echo Beeblebrox. Courcelles 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 to all of the above. Administrator activity in AE is critical to the effectiveness of community and committee sanctions, and I greatly respect all those so willing. LFaraone 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above --Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed with many thanks to those willing to wade into this mess. Seraphimblade 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per all above. Subject to possible tweaking concerning the scope. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Gamaliel reminded

2) Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded that the boundaries of 'involved' are frequently blurred and that the exercise of administrative discretion often requires the exercise of circumspection.

Support:

If anything at all is needed ... Roger Davies 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to be clear here that I do not believe he actually did anything improper, but he did blur the line between being involved and uninvolved, and in such cases it is always best to leave enforcement actions to someone who is unambiguously uninvolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Contingent on the passage of the relevant FoF, and with emphasis that this is a very mild reminder, not a finding of any serious misconduct. Seraphimblade 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

As I said in the FoF, I cannot support any arbitration finding concerning this editor over what they did in this case. Courcelles 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per my vote at the FoF --Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
See my comment on the finding of fact. There is a more general, and frankly more interesting, discussion to be had somewhere about whether we are better off with admins specializing in specific sanctions-enforcement areas (who as a result may over times draw accusations of becoming embroiled or partisan in the controversy), or urging much wider admin participation in this role (with the tradeoff that admins will come to enforcement situations with less background on what has gone before). But I am not willing to single out a particular admin for a remedy (albeit a reminder only) in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof: (remedies)

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (I)

3.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

Roger Davies 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice, Roger Davies 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I'm explicitly opposing this wording for anyone. The language about "gender or sexuality broadly construed" sounds good, but the sheer breadth of those terms would inject the remedy into almost every competently written BLP on the project. The wikilawyering on this sort of language would be almost endless, is adding "He is gay, and married his partner in 2015" related to sexuality? Yeah, at least some would argue it was, and I'd agree with them. Too unfocused to be a workable remedy. Courcelles 04:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not clear what has being gay has to do with that example any more than a heterosexuals in the same situation, bu hey ... I'm easy on cutting back the restriction (and, for simplicity, prefer that the scope of the DS and of the topic bans are identically worded). The complication here though is that Gamergate was simply the trigger for a dispute about gender and sexuality. There's no getting away from that. And a narrower restriction could easily create the situation where t-banned editors can participate freely in disputes with identical matrices and probably many of the same players as the Gamergate one providing it doesn't specifically revolve around the Gamergate controversy. Given how entrenched people are, that's probably unwise. Roger Davies 05:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that when you ban someone from "gender and sexuality" you unwittingly ban them from a lot. Not just articles that would obviously come to mind, but you ban them from a lot of otherwise uncontroversial biographical content. You can't add information about someone's family situation to a BLP, for instance (that's what my being gay example comes from). I sort of see the type of content you want to keep t-banned people off of, which I think is more "pages whose primary topics are gender and sexuality". That's a lot less sweeping than the originally proposed language. Courcelles 05:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, my preference will always be precise symmetry between the scope of DS and topic bans because it's so much easier to administer so I'm not much bothered either way, but the original proposer did have a point. Roger Davies 05:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see sufficient evidence of misconduct to justify a sanction against this editor. Seraphimblade 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
$CommentAboutScope --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (II)

3.2) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

Or what else comes out of the scope discussion on the mailing list --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

As above, I don't see enough to apply any sanction to this editor. Seraphimblade 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. The more I think of the "gender and sexuality broadly construed" the more I come to think just how broad of a topic ban that is. For editing or creating BLP's, it would be very, very broad as written. Undecided if this editor merits a topic ban, but I really do not like the language in 3.1. Courcelles 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (III)

3.3) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
first choice --Guerillero | My Talk 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per my comments above, I don't see sufficient misconduct to justify this. Seraphimblade 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Although this wording is the best of the options, I don't think that this user has acted in such a way as to warrant a TBAN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion as a compromise between the wording of Roger Davies and myself. Courcelles 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong (remedies)

Ryulong topic-banned (I)

4.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

(second choice) This is needed, but per my remarks below I believe it would only push his disruption into some new area. If he is sitebanned this should be a precondition for any future return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per my vote on 3.1. Courcelles 04:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
sexuality is a huge area --Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overbroad. Seraphimblade 18:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overbroad. I would support a more limited topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ryulong topic-banned (II)

4.2) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

or some variation of this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support this in addition to any other remedies that may pass. Seraphimblade 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have a workable FoF. Courcelles 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Fourth choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per my comments on 3.2. Courcelles 04:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong topic-banned (III)

4.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice among all topic ban remedies. Seraphimblade 03:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice (first among all topic ban proposals). Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to any other sanctions --Guerillero | My Talk 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong: other topics restriction

4.4) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be topic-banned from any topic if in a consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard he has caused disruption in that area. Any such sanctions must be logged in Enforcement log below, and may only be appealed to the Committee directly.

Support:

~~Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)~~

--Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My preferred solution, though I admit it will not pass. Courcelles 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I don't like this sort of sanction as it seems like an admission that this person is disruptive, and that we don't expect it to stop, but we will do anything we can to avoid just banning them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
My thinking mirrors Beeblebrox's here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Too vague & imprecise DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per Beeblebrox. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As stated by Beeblebrox. Seraphimblade 18:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per Beeblebrox, and also because I see no reason why this should require a consensus of AE admins. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Switched from support, Roger Davies 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ryulong banned

4.5) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

(first choice) As always, banning someone is not something we should want to do, but sometimes it is the best thing for the project. Ryulong has acted very poorly in this topic area, and it is clear that previous sanctions and blocks have failed to have the desired effect of ending disruptive behavior. A revolving door of speedy topic bans, chasing the problem from area to another, is not the answer. This is. I sincerely hope that at some point in the future he will be able to return and be a productive member of this community again, but for now he needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Last Choice I would love to not do this but I don't think anything else has a snowball's chance of passing --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

My mind is open on the other proposed remedies, but I will certainly not be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Neither will I. Need to contemplate the rest of it, but this is not the solution. Courcelles 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Excessive in the circumstances. I'm open to some alternative. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to try something else. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ryulong warned

4.6) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

As proposer. Wordsmith as needed (and I suspect it needs some), but this is what I think is needed here. A last and final chance to conduct themselves appropriately. Courcelles 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to any other sanctions, but not in place of them. Seraphimblade 03:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't hurt, but definitely not an alternative to other sanctions (unless, of course, the siteban passes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I should think all the previous sanctions served as warning enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox, Roger Davies 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. Note that this cannot pass with 4.5, though it can pass with any or all of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, or 4.4. In fact, I think it should it pass, it should with some variety of topic ban. Courcelles 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong: 1RR

4.7) Subject to the usual exceptions, Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except Ryulong's own user space. Also, subject to the usual exceptions, he may not revert the same editor more than once in any 72-hour period, across all pages. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

Proposed. Looking through his block log (linked in the FoF above) the ready and apparent problem is that Ryulong has a tendency to edit-war, and that this problem extends across topic areas, it is not a GG only issue. So, proposed as a solution if 4.5 fails to pass. Copyedit as needed. The third clause is because he sometimes gets a little too passionate, and reverts a single editor across multiple pages rather than discussing, but feel free to remove that one if needed. I think the combination of 4.3, 4.6, and this 4.7 are preferable to a site-ban, and Ryulong will either change his conduct to not cause future disruption, or he won't. And if he doesn't, 4.6 makes it clear what will happen. Courcelles 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TaraInDC: (remedies)

TaraInDC topic banned (I)

5.1) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Second choice, Roger Davies 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Davies:, you can only vote once. Combined the duplicate. Courcelles 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I'd support an admonishment, nothing more in this case. Courcelles 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a fan of the overly-broad topic ban wording (here or elsewhere). GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overbroad. Seraphimblade 19:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overbroad. A more limited restriction should be considered. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
too broad --Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No sanction is warranted against this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

TaraInDC topic-banned (II)

5.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

The battleground conduct here was not an isolated instance, but was repeated several times. "They behaved badly too" doesn't excuse that. Seraphimblade 19:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice, Roger Davies 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Proposed as better than 5.1, though I still don't think this editor deserves a topic ban. Courcelles 04:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No sanction is warranted against this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. Courcelles 04:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TaraInDC topic-banned (III)

5.3) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice among topic ban proposals. Seraphimblade 03:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
first choice --Guerillero | My Talk 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

No sanction is warranted against this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

TaraInDC admonished

5.4) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Support:

Proposed. This is as far as I'd go for this editor. Courcelles 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice to topic bans; I don't think that this and a topic ban are necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
iff the topic ban fails --Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Insufficient. Seraphimblade 19:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No sanction is warranted against this editor (though I would support this over any version of the topic-bans). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc: (remedies)

Tarc banned

6.1) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

He may not have been the worst actor in this specific situation, but he clearly failed to get the message from four prior arbcom findings. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

As I say above on the proposed finding, Tarc has behaved horrendously in past disputes. However, he has done nothing sitebanworthy in this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my comments on the FoF. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I think this is one of those cases where conduct has improved from prior appearances before the Committee. This development should continue. Courcelles 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NYB. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Tarc topic-banned (I)

6.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

iff the FoF passes --Guerillero | My Talk 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. Not sure what I support for this editor, but let's consider all the options. Courcelles 04:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc topic-banned (II)

6.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

Seraphimblade 03:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc warned

6.4) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

--In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to, not in lieu of, any other remedy (excepting 6.1). Seraphimblade 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Seraphimblade, Roger Davies 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. Note that this cannot pass with 6.1. I'm honestly not sure what I support for Tarc. But this is something I'd like to consider. Courcelles 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate (remedies)

The Devil's Advocate banned

7.1) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Roger Davies 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I find myself wishing I could find some way not to support this. I kind of like TDA, but like other parties in this case, they appear not to have gotten the message from previous lesser sanctions so this would appear to be the only remaining option likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't like this but I can't see another option --Guerillero | My Talk 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There are only so many topic bans that can be placed before we have to question whether someone ought to be participating here at all. Seraphimblade 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Courcelles 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per my comment on the finding of fact, his days as an in-everyone's-face devil's advocate should end, because in that role he does a lousy job; but I think he could remain a useful editor if he changed his editing model of locating the editorial controversy of the moment and hurling gasoline on it. I'm willing to allow him one more chance, anyway (and perhaps therefore the more fool I). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate topic-banned

7.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

In conjunction with 7.1 (provided it passes), to apply on any future return to editing. Seraphimblade 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Needed, though either instead of or to run if/when 7.1 is appealed. Courcelles 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Subject to finalization of the scope wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice, Roger Davies 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

not enough --Guerillero | My Talk 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In favour of 7.3. Courcelles 03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion. Courcelles 04:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate topic-banned (II)

7.3) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

In addition to 7.1, not as an alternative. Courcelles 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Courcelles, Roger Davies 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to 7.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom admonished

8) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Support:

I sincerely hope this will be taken seriously and no further action will be required with regard to this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
as the proposer --Guerillero | My Talk 05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Misconduct wasn't as severe or repeated as many others, hopefully this will suffice. Seraphimblade 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
On reconsideration, moving to support. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

~~On balance I don't think it rises even to admonition level. A simple "don't do it again" suffices. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~

I think this is more worthy of a formal reminder than the stronger admonishment. Courcelles 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think we need an 8.1? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Though there was poor behavior here, I don't think a formal admonishment is needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Tutelary (remedies)

Tutelary topic-banned (I)

9.1) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per my vote on 3.1. Courcelles 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per my comments on the scope --Guerillero | My Talk 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my comments on the scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As with the other uses of this over-broad remedy. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overbroad. Seraphimblade 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Tutelary topic-banned (II)

9.2) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

some variation of this is my second choice --Guerillero | My Talk 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~
Seraphimblade 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thrd choice, Roger Davies 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Move to oppose in favor of 9.3 GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per my comments on 3.2. Courcelles 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tutelary topic-banned (III)

9.3) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tutelary banned

9.4) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

~~Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

This seems severe given the accompanying finding. If there is indeed ample evidence, the finding should be updated with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Overly strict in view of the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Excessive. Seraphimblade 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose on present evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Switch to oppose, Roger Davies 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Although ample evidence of poor behavior was presented, unlike other parties to this case this was not their fourth or fifth time facing sanctions and their block log is short, including only two short blocks for edit warring. I'm therefore more inclined to grant a last chance here but have not firmly made up my mind one way or the other just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts with agendas

10) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Gamergate and (ii) reasonably appears to be engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Editnotices to this effect should be added to relevant pages. The topic ban prohibits the editor from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed. The topic bans can be appealed to the enforcing administrator, to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and then to the committee at "ARCA". Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be blocked, for up to one year, if on the expiry of their topic ban they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban. All topic-bans and blocks must be logged in the Enforcement log below.

Support:

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe this does not require prior warning, should that be made explicit? Courcelles 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It depends how tough on SPAs/Newbies we wish to be. I believe we should always have a warning especially as whenever I ask the consensus always seems to be that nobody reads editnotices anyway. Whether this deals with existing SPAs hovering around the topic quickly enough is another matter ... Roger Davies 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As the person who dug this up. I don't think warnings are needed here because this is meant to be an ulta-fast but light-weight version of DS to deal with the waves of SPAs that have and will enter the topic area to push an agenda. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Oppose point (i) and also the sentence commencing "Any editor topic banned under this sanction..." Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. It is not less disruptive if the editor has also made a hundred other contributions to other topics. Nor should an editor with a previously expired topic ban be arbitrarily blocked for legitimate post-ban contributions, just because they couldn't find unrelated subjects to edit as well. I acknowledge the problem of throwaway accounts but the remedy for this is a combination of Discretionary Sanctions and swift administrator action against POV, not stigmatising SPAs as bad editors regardless of the actual post-ban edits they make. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756: remedies

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned (I)

11.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. These bans are converted to Arbitration Committee-imposed bans. ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

My understanding is that we are codifying this simply to make things as unambiguous as possible going forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox, Roger Davies 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 03:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~
DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Noting that Xander756 has also been indefinitely blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Prefer wording in 11.2 GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned (II)

11.2) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. These bans are converted to Arbitration Committee-imposed bans. ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice. Courcelles 11:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
first choice --Guerillero | My Talk 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

If we're not going to use this "gender or sexuality, all broadly construed" language in the individual remedies, let's not use it anywhere. Courcelles 11:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon: remedies

Titanium Dragon topic-banned (I)

12.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed.

Support:

Same as above. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 15:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~
DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (amended 11.20, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Overbroad, but do support the existing topic ban and extending to gender conflict. Seraphimblade 21:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, we are going to need to post an alt of this for the new scope --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer wording in 12.2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Titanium Dragon topic-banned (II)

12.2) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Courcelles 11:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 15:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed per the opposition above. Courcelles 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Loganmac: remedies

Loganmac topic-banned (I)

13.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Courcelles 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
per the FoF --Guerillero | My Talk 05:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer wording in 13.2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Loganmac topic-banned (II)

13.2) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice. Courcelles 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed: remedies

Willhesucceed topic banned (I)

14.1) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

As proposer. Courcelles 06:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (Only if 14.2 fails to pass, otherwise oppose.) Courcelles 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 08:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~
Okay, Roger Davies 10:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 15:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer wording in 14.2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Willhesucceed topic-banned (II)

14.2) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

First choice. Courcelles 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, Roger Davies 15:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for discussion, per 3.3. Courcelles 02:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem topic-banned

15) Masem (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.

Support:

Oppose:

The FOF doesn't describe any misconduct, Roger Davies 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
FoF supports no such restriction, as it describes no wrongdoing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Of the mindset that Masem should take a step back from the area, though. Courcelles 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

DungeonSiegeAddict510 banned

16) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

as proposer --Guerillero | My Talk 07:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the revised FoF, I do not believe this editor will follow his topic ban. Courcelles 18:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In light of additional diffs in the FoF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) by Roger Davies.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Misplaced Pages	13	0	0		·
2	Battlefield conduct	13	0	0		·
3	Biographical content	13	0	0		·
4	Administrators and BLPs	13	0	0		·
5	Accuracy of sources	13	0	0		·
6	Administrators and 'involvement'	13	0	0		·
7	Single purpose accounts	12	1	0		·
8	Decorum	13	0	0		·
9	Conduct during arbitration cases	13	0	0		·
10	Recidivism	13	0	0		·
11	Enough is enough	13	0	0		·
12	Neutral point of view	8	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	13	0	0		·
2	History of the dispute	13	0	0		·
3	DungeonSiegeAddict510	11	0	0		·
4	Gamaliel	6	5	0		·
5	NorthBySouthBaranof	5	3	0		·
6	Ryulong	4	2	0		·
6.1	Ryulong (alternate)	4	0	0		·
7	Tarc	8	1	1		·
8	The Devil's Advocate	11	0	0		·
9	TheRedPenOfDoom	9	1	0		·
10	Titanium Dragon	10	0	0		·
11	Tutelary	10	0	0		·
12	TaraInDC	10	0	0		·
13	Parties topic-banned by the community	13	0	0		·
14	Loganmac	10	0	0		·
15	Willhesucceed	9	0	0		·
16	Masem engaged in POV-pushing	2	7	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	13	0	0		·
2	Gamaliel reminded	5	5	0		·
3.1	NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (I)	2	3	0		·
3.2	NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (II)	1	2	0		·
3.3	NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned (III)	2	1	0		·
4.1	Ryulong topic-banned (I)	0	4	0		Cannot pass
4.2	Ryulong topic-banned (II)	3	2	0		·
4.3	Ryulong topic-banned (III)	2	0	0		·
4.4	Ryulong: other topics restriction	3	7	0		·
4.5	Ryulong banned	4	3	0		·
4.6	Ryulong warned	4	2	0		·
5	TaraInDC topic-banned (I)	3	6	0		·
5.2	TaraInDC topic-banned (II)	2	2	0		·
5.3	TaraInDC topic-banned (III)	2	0	0		·
5.4	TaraInDC admonished	3	2	0		·
6.1	Tarc banned	2	2	1		·
6.2	Tarc topic-banned (I)	1	1	1		·
6.3	Tarc topic-banned (II)	2	0	0		·
6.4	Tarc warned	3	0	0		·
7.1	The Devil's Advocate banned	7	2	0		·
7.2	The Devil's Advocate topic-banned	3	3	0		·
7.2	The Devil's Advocate topic-banned (II)	2	0	0		·
8	TheRedPenOfDoom admonished	8	1	0		·
9.1	Tutelary topic-banned (I)	3	6	0		·
9.2	Tutelary topic-banned (II)	4	1	0		·
9.3	Tutelary topic-banned (III)	1	0	0		·
9.4	Tutelary banned	2	5	0		·
10	Single purpose accounts with agendas	10	1	0		·
11.1	ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned (I)	8	0	0		·
11.2	ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned (II)	1	0	0		·
12.1	Titanium Dragon topic-banned (I)	6	2	0		·
12.2	Titanium Dragon topic-banned (II)	3	0	0		·
13.1	Loganmac topic-banned (I)	5	1	0		·
13.2	Loganmac topic-banned (II)	2	0	0		·
14.1	Willhesucceed topic-banned (I)	4	1	0		·
14.2	Willhesucceed topic-banned (II)	2	0	0		·
15	Masem topic-banned	2	6	0		·
16	DungeonSiegeAddict510 banned	2	1	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass

Notes

^ At this stage only first preference votes have been counted in the total support votes listed.

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comments