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

Revision as of 19:44, 28 January 2015 editTimotheus Canens (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →Ryulong banned: change to conditional support← Previous edit	Revision as of 20:03, 28 January 2015 edit undoGorillaWarfare (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators118,938 editsm Changed protection level of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision: Per request from Guerillero ( (expires 05:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)) (expires 05:43, 1 Next edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:03, 28 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)
NativeForeigner 01:20, 23 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)
NativeForeigner 01:20, 23 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)
I strongly agree with Salvio's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 25 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)
NativeForeigner 01:20, 23 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)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Harassment

13) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Support:

--Guerillero | My Talk 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of Monsieur de La Palice. Salvio 11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Working with Salvio is always educational. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
See also my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The principle should also mention that harassment of editors is prohibited and could usefully reference our prior decisions in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Limitations of arbitration

14) Despite superficial similarities, Misplaced Pages Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Misplaced Pages can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:

Revived from the 2008 Mantanmoreland case as it stills holds true today. (After NYB.) Roger Davies 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 16:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This definitely applies here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 12:34, 26 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)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
Ala NYB. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
Not egregious, but definitely bothers me quite a bit. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
@DGG: in my opinion, there isn't much point in a FoF of this sort if we cannot support a sanction. LFaraone 18:33, 22 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)~~

@LFaraone:Perhaps having this might help to show we're aware of the issue, and chose not to sanction. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 22 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., ). They have made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article and over 2300 to its talk page.

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)
on balance DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring yes, though mitigated by context. Improper use of sources is arguable. Battleground not made out on this evidence. Supporting as enough of the claim is technically accurate, but this is a weak endorsement only. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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:

Courcelles 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
Alternate definitely preferable, but I could live with this. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
Some of this is correct, but the alternate wording below is a more accurate reflection of the evidence. Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:44, 24 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)
T. Canens (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ryulong believed throughout this matter that he was protecting BLP subjects and the encyclopedia from highly inappropriate edits, and in this he was very often right. We are also aware of other pressures that were brought to bear on him and several other editors on this article, as presented in both public and private evidence in the case and reinforced on the proposed decision talkpage. I think it worthwhile to recognize all these circumstances here. Despite these factors, Ryulong can fairly be criticized for some aspects of his conduct in this dispute, one of which I have mentioned above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Moving here from support, on reconsideration of the comments by NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
FoF true, although what should be done as a result is somewhat independent. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit-warring is technically true. Battleground is not made out. Previous sanctions are a matter of record. Supporting, but only just. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 23 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)
Agree in part, disagree in part. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 24 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)
DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 06:54, 23 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)
As amended. LFaraone 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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:

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)
Courcelles 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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:

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)
Courcelles 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
LFaraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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)
But is back now, Roger Davies 10:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

It looks like, by our definition, TarainDC is also an SPA. Of 1000 or so edits, while only 30 edits are to related articles, about 500 are to broadly GamerGate-related stuff including talk pages, Examples: Gamergate controversy (30); Talk:Gamergate controversy (394); Talk:YesAllWomen (67); Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings (7); Talk:Zoe Quinn (1); Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GamerGate (6). The fact is that 394 talk page edits to the same article is invested. I won't add this to the FOF myself but it probably should be included for balance, Roger Davies 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, the other 500 of her 1000 edits, or 50%, are to other topics. That's not an SPA under any definition (and in any event I'm not sure why it matters here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Our definition (Remedy 11} is "focused primarily on Gamergate". If 50% of someone's edits are to one topic, it looks to me as if they are primarily focused. Roger Davies 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reiterating my earlier view that being a SPA is not an offence and should not be relevant to the Findings or Remedies in this case. But also agree with NYB that even if being a SPA is of note, SPA status is not made out on these figures. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I also don't really see "SPA" here. Certainly not to the point of a finding. Seraphimblade 04:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus and Seraphimblade. I agree entirely that being an SPA is not an offence and as I've just written elsewhere think the focus on them is unhealthy. More to the point, if we cannot agree between us what defines an SPA (compare TarainDC and Loganmac, with very similar editing stats and editing patterns) what hope is there that any SPA-related remedy won't be used for playing favourites in legitimate content disputes? Roger Davies 10:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
Addid another diff. Courcelles 21:28, 24 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)
On reflection, I think the wording of the finding as well as the former caption (thanks for the edit) places too much emphasis on the account's alleged SPA status rather than the actual problems with the editing. However, I do agree there were some problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Being a SPA is not an offence. Weak support re "battleground." -- Euryalus (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Similar line of thinking as Euryalus. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NF and Eury. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:19, 23 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)
LFaraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure a finding against this editor is essential, but I can support the thrust of the finding, though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I do note, though, that the editor voluntarily disengaged from this topic-area some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Masem

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) On reflection, that comment comes off more harshly than I intended, so I withdraw it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
per NYBrad. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No. NativeForeigner 01:27, 23 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

1.1)

(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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(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)
With some doubts about the very wide scope of point b. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC), modified 21:21 25 January (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)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Per the comments below and on the list, I've modified the scope of these sanctions to match remedy 2.1. Please feel free to revert if you disagree, and I'll propose this as an alt. Courcelles 20:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions available

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

Support:

Reminder of what's available to support this case, Roger Davies 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
With a small copyedit. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Some minor copyedits (including the reference to pending changes). Any arb may revert the copyedits in whole or part if undesired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
this replaces 11 for all practical purposes --Guerillero | My Talk 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Scope of standard topic ban

Scope of standard topic ban (I)

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision 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:

Housekeeping to reduce extensive multiple votes. Plus the authorisation for the DS needs to sync precisely with the areas covered by the topic ban. This can be done as a copy edit when we know whether this or 2.2) becomes the default provision, Roger Davies 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Will help calm the entire general topic area if this is the scope. And, yeah, this should be the DS scope as well, keeping in mind that it intersects with Sexology and the soon-to-be-renamed Footnoted Quotes in scope, though all three cover content the other two do not. Courcelles 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Seraphimblade 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice, (though I have some doubts about the extent of "gender-related") DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
only choice --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Some of the topic-banned editors probably need the broader scope while for others the narrower scope would likely be sufficient, but I well understand that there's no appetite for parsing things that fine, so I'll just say equal preference with 2.2. I am not a proponent of prohibiting any appeals for a full year, but prior discussions within the Committee appear to support it. I agree that the scope of the DS should be parallel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Scope of standard topic ban (II)

2.2) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

Housekeeping to reduce extensive multiple votes. Plus the authorisation for the DS needs to sync precisely with the areas covered by the topic ban. This can be done as a copy edit when we know whether this or 2.1) becomes the default provision, Roger Davies 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Solves this particular problem, interpreting "relating to" to include people involved in" DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Seraphimblade 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Equivalent or lesser preference to 2.1 over this. Not sure which, but I don't think this is better. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
See my comments on 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Too narrow. Courcelles 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer 2.1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Gamaliel reminded

3) (was 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)
NativeForeigner 01:29, 23 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 time 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)
DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof: (remedies)

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
See fresh comments below, Roger Davies 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Kind of puzzled that arbs who supported the FoF are opposing this remedy... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
To disentangle the area. NativeForeigner 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Switching to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
switching to support. This is sadly needed --Guerillero | My Talk 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)~~

LFaraone 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support this remedy, per my comments on the Finding. I'd back an admonishment, but conduct issues here will otherwise be addressed via the inevitable application of Discretionary Sanctions. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see sufficient evidence for this. Any future incidents can be dealt with at AE. Seraphimblade 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

~~I can't decided and I will leave it to the rest of the committee --Guerillero | My Talk 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Courcelles 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

While I understand where the opposers are coming from, this is not any ordinary topic. In NBSB, we have a prolific editor who has made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article, and over 2300 (yes, 2300) more to its talk page. They have also made around 700 edits to this case. This is evidence of deep investment. Simply put, it is difficult to imagine how a person can be part of the problem one day, and part of the solution the next. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that such a determined editor can met their editing opponent half-way to resolve an editing dispute. Our role is to get the article back to normal as rapidly as possible and we will not do that by handing it back to the poor admins having failed to pass an obvious remedy. Roger Davies 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be added to the FoF then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support, but looking at some edits independently to get a better feel. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof admonished

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

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, Roger Davies 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the topic ban does not pass. Still thinking about that one. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Courcelles 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Ryulong (remedies)

Ryulong topic-banned

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

I take his comments on the PD talk onboard, but still feel it would be better if he stepped away from this topic. Courcelles 16:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Distant second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
per Courcelles DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 5.4 and 5.5. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with other remedies. Seraphimblade 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

It would obviously be in Ryulong's own best interest to step away from this area for awhile, in favor of a less contentious wiki experience, and the remedy is obviously going to pass, but I can't fully support it in light of my comments elsewhere on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Ryulong: other topics restriction

5.2) (Was 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)
LFaraone 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A bit of a strange way to go about it. I have no problem with the concept, but for this particular use and this particular case it does feel like we are doing anything to stay short of a siteban. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per other opposers, though I would have favored this over a siteban if things came to that. Ryulong should, however, ask himself why this is even being considered. "Everyone trolls me on all topics all of the time" is not the answer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ryulong banned

5.3) (Was 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)
Last choice of presented options (Right now). I think if we're dealing with this on a purely pragmatic level this might be best for the project, but I do think that it would only be fair to attempt to apply some of the alternatives first, although I'm a bit concerned as to their potential efficacy, given the history. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, support. NativeForeigner 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a support iff Guerillero clarifies, in an edit made after 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC), whether his supports for 5.1, 5.4 and 5.5 are conditional on all three passing. Otherwise this is an oppose. T. Canens (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If the 1RR does not pass, then first choice of what's left. Still oppose if the 1RR somehow moves back to passing. The more I look at the history here, the more I am sure the problems are far wider than just this single topic, as I see it, Ryulong doesn't seem able to "hold his fire", and not get into edit wars. This also, per his block log, is independent of topic areas. Without very, very strong measures to stop them from continuing to edit war throughout the encyclopedia, I don't think we have any other choice. Also, even to this morning, I still see evidence of ongoing battleground mentality. I really, really don't like this, but I can't support their staying on the project without a strict 1RR and a topic ban at this point. And only one of those is going to pass. Courcelles 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I was really on the fence on this one, and I'm really unimpressed with Ryulong continuing the behavior we previously highlighted as problematic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 28 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)
I've decided to oppose this, albeit weakly. I'm hoping that the other remedies regarding Ryulong will end this situation, but I don't quite think a siteban is the best course forward here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the circumstances here, I don't think this is called for. For clarity's sake, though, this is very likely the absolute last chance. Seraphimblade 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Finally decided, on the basis of arguments submitted to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

~~I find my view on this changing from day to day, so it would be fairer if I abstained. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Comments:

~~Noting that I skipped this intentionally—still thinking on it and will come back soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)~~

@NativeForeigner: I tried to fix the numbering, but clarification of your exact meaning would be useful here. Courcelles 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong warned

5.4) (Was 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. (Note that this makes sense if and only if the ban fails. So, oppose if the ban passes.) Courcelles 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 5.1 and 5.5. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 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)
In addition to the other sanctions, if he is not immediately banned. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Support alongside other sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 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)
Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

5.5) (Was 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. 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)
In conjunction with the other sanctions, if the site ban does not pass. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
~~If the site ban does not pass & in addition to all other restrictions. Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)~~
LFaraone 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with any other sanctions. Ryulong has a long history of disruptively edit warring and that must stop. Seraphimblade 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 5.1 and 5.4. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring has definitely been a major issue here, so perhaps this will calm things. I agree with Beeblebrox that edit warring was not the only issue, but between this and the topic ban, I'm hoping we have a workable solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Support alongside other sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

If edit warring was the only problem this would be a fine solution. Unfortunately that's not the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I might otherwise support this, but there is already offsite discussion about how it might be gamed for purposes of harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox and NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NYB. Certainly not a marvelous reason to oppose, but if the follow through is there, such a 1RR restriction would inflame, not improve matters. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not convinced that this is workable, esp. the third clause. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the third clause. Stopping edit warring on individual pages is more important, and a lot easier to enforce, to boot. Courcelles 18:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going ahead and removing that clause as basically unenforceable and easily gamed. Anyone who disagrees, please feel free to revert. Courcelles 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, this remedy is indeed open to being too easily gamed, so I cannot support it. Salvio 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Per T. Canens and Salvio, Roger Davies 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

TaraInDC: (remedies)

TaraInDC topic-banned

6.1) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The battleground behavior here was repeated and appears deliberate. This wasn't one intemperate comment but a pattern. Seraphimblade 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Still think no more than the admonishment is needed. Courcelles 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No sanction is warranted against this (former) editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Reaffirming my strong opposition to this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They're fairly far gone. If they return with the same problematic behavior bring them to ARCA, or apply the passed sanctions, but I don't see a reason to sanction this user, although I will note that their behavior was poor. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
on further reflection. If they become problematic DS will fix it --Guerillero | My Talk 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 20:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For balance, considering the nature of her infractions. Salvio 17:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Salvio 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

upon reconsideration, DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, but user has returned and is editing now, hence no longer comfortable opposing on that basis. NativeForeigner 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

TaraInDC admonished

6.2) (Was 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)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Extremely weak support. Their behavior probably did warrant it, although the benefit of sanctioning them after they left is limited. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Would support if 6.1 were not currently passing, so vacuous support. LFaraone 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the topic ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Per T. Canens, Roger Davies 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
For balance, considering the nature of her infractions. Salvio 17:04, 27 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) Move to conditional support, Roger Davies 18:16, 26 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)
~~T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Abstain:

Salvio 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Tarc: (remedies)

Tarc banned

7.1) (Was 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)
LFaraone 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Tarc's behavior here wasn't perfect, but it was better, and notably the deliberately disruptive point making was not at issue here. I'm willing to hope that continues. Seraphimblade 20:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at the siteban threshold. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

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

Comments:

Tarc topic-banned

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
second choice Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 7.3 and 7.4 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Support, no preference. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 18:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak support, per my comment on the Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

If 7.3 and 7.4 both were to pass, I think that would be sufficient. Courcelles 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In my view not necessary. The discretionary sanctions could be invoked against him if there are future problems, which I hope there would not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Tarc warned

7.3) (Was 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 a package with 7.2 and 7.4 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:00, 26 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)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles 19:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Third choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition, not as alternative. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Repeated warnings to previously sanctioned users seem to me to be of very little value. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Tarc: 1RR

7.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, Tarc (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 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except Tarc's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

As proposer. Not sure what the specific hour level should be here, 24, 48, or 72, but I'm fine with any of those. I think there is a little too much of a tendency to revert on Tarc's part, that needs to be fixed. Courcelles 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 7.3 and 7.2 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to other remedies. Seraphimblade 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Again, if edit warring were the only issue this would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate (remedies)

The Devil's Advocate banned

8.1) (Was 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)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 18:21, 22 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)
Last choice --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 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)
Last choice given the new alternatives provided. Seraphimblade 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
First choice. Courcelles 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Indenting. Would like to vote on some other stuff. Courcelles 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice to all of 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Last choice. LFaraone 18:49, 24 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)
I find Brad's synopsis of his editing model to be fairly accurate, but I'm not convinced we've come to this point yet. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Explicitly oppose. Other things are passing that I believe will work. Courcelles 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

I find my view on this changing from day to day, so it would be fairer if I abstained. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate topic-banned

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Courcelles 16:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to 8.1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice as this just seems like "kicking the can down the road" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If the site ban does not pass DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 8.3 and 8.4 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice in a package with 8.3 and 8.4. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition to 8.1, if that one passes. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with 8.3 or 8.4, if either or both pass. Seraphimblade 17:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate: 1RR

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (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 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

As proposer. Not sure what the specific hour level should be here, 24, 48, or 72, but I'm fine with any of those. Courcelles 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If the site ban does not pass DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 8.2 and 8.4 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice in a package with 8.2 and 8.4. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with 8.2 and 8.4 provided they pass. Seraphimblade 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is more restrictive than necessary in my view, but I can support it as part of an alternative to a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Open to being gamed. Salvio 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate: Noticeboards

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Support:

This needs some (major?) wordsmithing. I've never liked the idea of site-banning TDA, and I think the combination of the three proposals would solve the problems, even though they are strict, even combined they are a lot less so than a site ban, and I think he can still be a productive contributor under them. Courcelles 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This is more restrictive than necessary in my view, but I can support it as part of an alternative to a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In a package with 8.2 and 8.4 --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Second choice in a package with 8.2 and 8.3. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
With 8.2 and 8.3, if they pass. Seraphimblade 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

I don't really like this, as the restriction is a bit too vague for my taste and too open to gaming. Why not just use the more usual formula of prohibiting from the boards altogether unless it is to comment within threads specifically discussing his own conduct. And even with this tighter approach, these kinds of restriction have often lead to a welter of WP:AE and WP:ARCA requests from friends and foes. Roger Davies 09:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

The Devil's Advocate warned

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (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. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

Support:

In a package with the others --Guerillero | My Talk 23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, though the other sanctions seem like they'd be warning enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
While GorillaWarfare has a point, the point of this is a remedy is the formal notice we can (and reserve the right to) ban by simple motion. Courcelles 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Per T. Canens, Roger Davies 15:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

The warning seems unnecessary given the above, and the suggestion is too open-ended. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my previously made comments on the value of warning users who have already been subject to numerous sanctions and warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary and redundant with passing remedies above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

TheRedPenOfDoom admonished

9) (Was 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)
T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 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)
LFaraone 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Tutelary (remedies)

Tutelary topic-banned

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tutelary banned

10.2) (Was 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)
Last choice --Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 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)
LFaraone 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per my remarks below. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)~~ Human error, apologies all. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Indented by clerk, has already voted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 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)

Editors focused primarily on Gamergate with agendas

11) (Was 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)Switch to oppose.

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)

~~I'd prefer to see warnings required, but this is an exceptional case. Seraphimblade 05:40, 23 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)
Move to oppose. This is a tricky one because I wrote the remedy from which this derives. The context is that it was six years ago, and well before the well-developed system of discretionary sanctions we now have. What's more, I see from the logs that it only seems to been used eight times. The principle enforcement mechanism in Scientology is DS, and before that a customised special enforcement provision. I have no reason to believe that the usual route of alerts/admin action cannot be used effectively to deal with POV-pushing etc from SPAs, zombie accounts, and throwaway accounts. Anything more serious, like tampering with BLPs or personal attacks, can be handled without an alert under existing site policies. In short, we don't really need this and it sends the wrong signal, Roger Davies 09:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree with Roger. We have already authorised discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict; on top of that, administrators can still use their "traditional" powers to deal with disruptive editors who haven't yet been warned. In light of that, this remedy would be superfluous. Salvio 12:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, I agree with Roger and Salvio. Seraphimblade 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the impetus behind the proposal is sound, I think this is unnecessary in light of the DS remedy that is passing unanimously, and risks triggering too many debates about which accounts fall within the scope or not. I do, however, believe that an account's overall editing history (or lack of one) may be relevant in deciding whether a discretionary sanction is warranted, and if so what the sanction should be. This cuts both ways, and administrators must use good judgment is trying to, for example, distinguish new good-faith users making rookie mistakes from new bad-faith disruption accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Salvio, Brad. NativeForeigner 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

@Roger Davies: Should this one have been included in the Standard Topic Bans you've added, as well? Courcelles 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Courcelles: No, I don't think so, not without a warning. The standard topic area is a bit too broad. I am a troubled by this remedy because the editing community has changed a lot in the intervening years and it easily be misused. That said, the scope needs to adjusted so that it precisely reflects the t-bans/DS. Given the widespread support for Scope (I), this can probably be amended as a copy-edit. Roger Davies 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Similar concerns to Euryalus, but I'd like to look it over in a bit more detail. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have to oppose this in its current form, in part because the mismatch between "SPA" in the title and "editors primarily focused" in the body will cause confusion (we already don't agree among ourselves as to which of the parties here is an SPA or not, which I now realize was largely because of the non-standard definition). I do agree that if a new account appears tomorrow and starts its editing career by playing games on the Gamergate page, it shouldn't be given a whole lot of slack. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Brad, and think I cna make this as a copyedit to sync the terminology up. Yes, it results in a long sanction header, but, whatever. Courcelles 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, though wind up still opposing per my vote comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756: remedies

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned

12) 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. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Courcelles 16:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of how a couple of the topic bans came about, but this is a reasonable step. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Titanium Dragon: remedies

Titanium Dragon topic-banned

13) 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 restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Courcelles 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the relevant FoF. Seraphimblade 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Loganmac: remedies

Loganmac topic-banned

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Courcelles 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
second choice --Guerillero | My Talk 02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just barely. The diffs in the Findings are insufficient to support this remedy, but a review of on-wiki contributions indicates a topic ban would be beneficial in resolving the overall dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 10:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

There is evidence of misconduct on this editor's part, but I'm not comfortable sanctioning him. A topic ban, considering the evidence contained in the finding of fact would already be somewhat on the harsh side; however, what pushes me to oppose is the consideration that other editors whose conduct was comparatively worse are not being sanctioned or are being sanctioned more leniently. Salvio 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Loganmac banned

14.2) Loganmac (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:

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not supported on this evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Excessive. Seraphimblade 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Very excessive, in my opinion. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is just arbitrary. Salvio 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per all the above, Roger Davies 12:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not supported by the current evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I rescinded the FoF that would have supported this --Guerillero | My Talk 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Willhesucceed: remedies

Willhesucceed topic banned

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Support:

Courcelles 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to applaud the voluntary disengagement, this is likely not necessary, but it makes some sense to have it on the books. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not sure this is necessary considering the editor voluntarily disengaged from the topic-area some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Masem topic-banned

16) (Was 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)
LFaraone 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No FoF justifying this is passing. Seraphimblade 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

DungeonSiegeAddict510 banned

17 (Was 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)
Roger Davies 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Switch to oppose.
per Courcelles and GorillaWarfare DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Salvio 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Violations of the topic ban can be dealt with swiftly at AE. This editor was given a final warning on the violations by HJ Mitchell and no action has been necessary since then. Seraphimblade 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This user is clearly dissatisfied with their topic ban. They may break it. If they do, bring them to AE, I see no compelling reason to move this to a full ban at this time. NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
DSA has certainly been obnoxious and I don't care for his flippant attitude, but so far he appears to be respecting the tban. If that changes in the future, by all means, ban away, but this is premature at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox, Roger Davies 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Per other opposers, but this user seriously needs to clean up his act or he is not going to last. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

It truly boggle my mind that some of the same users who support this oppose banning Ryulong. I honestly don't understand how someone could support banning a user who has caused problems in one area and been a party to one arbitration case and oppose banning a user who who has caused disruption in many areas and been previously sanctioned many times for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of articles urged

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Support:

Adapted from the Scientology case. This topic needs experienced editors who haven't been involved already to come in and ensure the articles follow policies such as RS, NPOV, etc. Not sure how much remedies like this actually do anything, but I do live in hope. Courcelles 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Scientology is stable, six years on. This was probably achieved by encouraging all the major players to move on, mainly with topic-bans, and the egregious ones to move out, with site bans. It took much of the invested heat out of the pages and left a calmer environment for neutral editors, who had been driven out, to work in. Roger Davies 09:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
--Guerillero | My Talk 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess. Echoing Courcelles that I don't feel like these remedies do much of anything at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In that I'd like to see it happen, but I don't really know that these do any good either. Seraphimblade 05:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, though the real influx will come about as a result of a calmer environment. It means that neutral editors are able to drift in without being accusing of having agendas. Roger Davies 09:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Although I am rather doubtful that our saying this platitude will make a difference one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually do think this sort of remedy is potentially helpful. If even one or two solid, uninvolved, experienced editors were to enter the area, that could be very worthwhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
LFaraone 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvio 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Would be good if this occurs, but It will or it won't regardless of this PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Euryalus. These sort of "feel good" remedies don't actually do anything, so what's the point of voting on them? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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) 04:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC) by GorillaWarfare.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Misplaced Pages	14	0	0		·
2	Battlefield conduct	14	0	0		·
3	Biographical content	14	0	0		·
4	Administrators and BLPs	14	0	0		·
5	Accuracy of sources	14	0	0		·
6	Administrators and 'involvement'	14	0	0		·
7	Single purpose accounts	13	1	0		·
8	Decorum	14	0	0		·
9	Conduct during arbitration cases	14	0	0		·
10	Recidivism	14	0	0		·
11	Enough is enough	14	0	0		·
12	Neutral point of view	12	0	0		·
13	Harassment	10	0	0		·
14	Limitations of arbitration	12	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	14	0	0		·
2	History of the dispute	14	0	0		·
3	DungeonSiegeAddict510	13	0	0		·
4	Gamaliel	7	7	0		·
5	NorthBySouthBaranof	11	2	1		·
6	Ryulong	4	5	0		·
6.1	Ryulong (alternate)	12	0	2		·
7	Tarc	11	1	2		·
8	The Devil's Advocate	14	0	0		·
9	TheRedPenOfDoom	12	0	1		·
10	Titanium Dragon	13	0	0		·
11	Tutelary	13	0	0		·
12	TaraInDC	12	1	0		·
13	Parties topic-banned by the community	14	0	0		·
14	Loganmac	14	0	0		·
15	Willhesucceed	13	0	0		·
16	Masem	2	11	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	Discretionary sanctions	14	0	0		·
1.2	Sanctions available	12	0	0		·
2.1	Scope of standard topic ban (I)	13	0	0		·
2.2	Scope of standard topic ban (II)	3	6	0		·
3	Gamaliel reminded	6	8	0		·
4.1	NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned	8	4	2		·
4.2	NorthBySouthBaranof admonished	6	1	1		·
5.1	Ryulong topic-banned	8	0	1		·	See below
5.2	Ryulong: other topics restriction	1	11	0		·	See below
5.3	Ryulong banned	8	4	1		·	See below
5.4	Ryulong warned	4	5	1		·	See below
5.5	Ryulong: 1RR	4	7	0		·	See below
6.1	TaraInDC topic-banned	6	6	2		·
6.2	TaraInDC admonished	11	2	0		·
7.1	Tarc banned	5	10	1		·
7.2	Tarc topic-banned	11	2	1		·
7.3	Tarc warned	8	2	2		·
7.4	Tarc: 1RR	5	6	3		·
8.1	The Devil's Advocate banned	2	4	1		·
8.2	The Devil's Advocate topic-banned	13	0	0		·
8.3	The Devil's Advocate: 1RR	10	1	0		·
8.4	The Devil's Advocate: Noticeboards	10	1	0		·
8.5	The Devil's Advocate warned	8	3	1		·
9	TheRedPenOfDoom admonished	10	4	0		·
10.1	Tutelary topic-banned	13	0	0		·
10.2	Tutelary banned	0	11	0		Cannot pass
11	Editors focused primarily on Gamergate with agendas	7	7	0		·
12	ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned	12	0	0		·
13	Titanium Dragon topic-banned	12	0	0		·
14.1	Loganmac topic-banned	12	0	0		·
14.2	Loganmac banned	0	9	0		Cannot pass
15	Willhesucceed topic-banned	11	0	1		·
16	Masem topic-banned	2	10	0		·
17	DungeonSiegeAddict510 banned	5	9	0		·
18	Review of articles urged	12	0	2		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default

Notes

^ As F6 is failing second choice votes on finding R6.1 have been counted and second choice votes on R6 have not been counted.
^ As R2.1 is passing, second choice votes have not been counted on 2.2.
^ As R4.1 is passing, second choice votes on R4.2 have been counted in the total.
^ As R6.1 is failing, second choice votes for R6.2 have been counted.
^ As R7.1 is failing Beeblebrox and David Fuch's second choice votes for R7.2 have been counted and their first choice on R7.1 have not. David Fuch's third choice vote on R7.3 has not been counted.
^ Votes from R8.1 have been distributed as it is not currently passing (Beeblebrox & Euryalus). T. Canens' conditional vote on R8.1 has not been counted.
^ David Fuchs' and Guerillero's second choice votes on 10.2 have not been counted, their first choice votes on R10.1 have.

Ryulong remedy calculation

Arbitrator	R5.1	R5.2	R5.3	R5.4	R5.5
Beeblebrox	2	o	1	o	o
Courcelles	3	3*	2	3	1
David Fuchs	2	o	1	+	+
DGG	1	o	a	1^	1^
Euryalus	1	o	o	o	o
Guerillero	1%	1	2%	1%	1%
GorillaWarfare	1	o	1	1	1
LFaraone	1	o	o	1	1
NativeForeigner	1	o	3	o	o
Newyorkbrad	a	o	o	a	o
Roger Davies	1	o	1	o	o
Salvio giuliano	2	2	1	2	o
Seraphimblade	1	o	o	1	1
Timotheus Canens	1	o	1	1^	o
TOTALS	8	1	8	4	4
total needed	7	8	7	7	8

^ Iff site ban fails

* I'm ignoring "my preferred solution" given comments on later votes.

% Guerillo's vote is contingent on a package of 5.1, 5.4 & 5.5; as 5.5 is not passing his votes for these remedies do not count and his next preference for 5.3 is counted.

+ support is not conditional

Italics means that their vote has been distributed to their next choice, and/or that its conditions have not been met so it has not been counted.

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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

Appears remedies are settled and clearly pass/fail on most accounts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm done, and this whole case needs to be done ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is effectively done. Courcelles 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Agreed DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)~~
NativeForeigner has now voted, and I don't see anything else to be done here. Seraphimblade 01:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Euryalus (talk) 08:en13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)~~ Reinstating. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm done voting now. Salvio 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger Davies 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Couple of things left to sort out, most specifically whether the scopes of remedies 1 and 2 should match exactly. Courcelles

Please note that I've done this per the comments on 2.1 and the list. Would prefer to hold off closing the case to see if anyone feels this needs a revert and an alt. Courcelles 20:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

While that's resolved, I'm still here until P14 and R1.2 find majority. Courcelles 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

to let NF vote --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Temporary oppose. We are close, but I believe there is a bit more finalization to be done in the next 24 hours or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Per NYB. I want another day to think about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Same here. I haven't really made up my mind on one remedy yet and would like to think about it a little more. Salvio 10:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)~~
Per NYB. LFaraone 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Another day is needed, Roger Davies 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)~~
There's still a couple things to work out. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There are still somethings unresolved in our discussions, including the calculation of remedies. I continue to think we should not yet close. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

~~Short delay requested. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Comments