Wikipedia 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
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 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a 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.

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:

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 Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battlefield conduct

2) Wikipedia 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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. (minor copyedit) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. 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) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single purpose accounts

7) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia 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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. 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 ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support, but see my comment below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. 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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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) reply

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) reply

@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) reply

@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) reply

Decorum

8) Wikipedia 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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

    I strongly agree with Salvio's comment below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. With the understanding that the occasional outburst should be forgiven and that the fact an editor was trying to protect Wikipedia and uphold its policies may be invoked in mitigation. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 01:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

12) All Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. This probably should be moved up a little in the list of principles. T. Canens ( talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Per my comments on the workshop. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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 Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero | My Talk 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. In the spirit of Monsieur de La Palice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   Working with Salvio is always educational. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

4. See also my comment below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 18:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Courcelles 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. T. Canens ( talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Limitations of arbitration

14) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:

1. Revived from the 2008 Mantanmoreland case as it stills holds true today. (After NYB.)   Roger Davies ^talk 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. This definitely applies here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Euryalus ( talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus of the dispute

1) This dispute is focused on the Gamergate controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic.

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. L Faraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. 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) reply
9. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. T. Canens ( talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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: [1], [2], [3], [4]), 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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. L Faraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. "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) reply
9. I strongly agree with Brad -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. agreeing also with NYB's comment DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Agreed with Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Also per NYB. T. Canens ( talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Ala NYB. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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., [5] [6] [7]) battleground conduct ( [8] [9]), broken their topic ban twice ( block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ( [10] [11]).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 01:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. 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) reply
7. added some diffs from the talk page -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   Added a clause about their topic ban -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

8. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. T. Canens ( talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. L Faraone 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Gamaliel

4) Gamaliel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used administrative tools in relation to this article (examples: [12], [13], [14]) while also offering personal commentary on the article subject (example: [15]).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. This was not egregiously bad, but admins involved in taking an administrative role should avoid substantive discussions of content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. 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) reply
7. Not egregious, but definitely bothers me quite a bit. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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) reply
2. 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) reply
3. No, just no. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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) reply
5. Per NYB. T. Canens ( talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Per NYB -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. @ DGG: in my opinion, there isn't much point in a FoF of this sort if we cannot support a sanction. L Faraone 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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

@ 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) reply

NorthBySouthBaranof

5) NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]), improper use of sources (e.g., [22] [23] [24]), and battleground conduct (e.g., [25] [26]). They have made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article and over 2300 to its talk page.

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. 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) reply
6. Switching to a support, albeit a weak one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. T. Canens ( talk) 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. on balance DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. 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) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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 ^talk 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Why aren't you going to touch misuse of sources? It's a well-established misconduct issue.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

1. I don't see enough here to support a finding. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. 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) reply

Abstain:

1. Courcelles 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

• The misuse of sources is pretty straightforward. North adds " which mocked and criticized those in the movement who were harassing" sourced to [27], 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 [The Boston Globe https://web.archive.org/web/20141202115648/http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html], 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^{( talk)} 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Ryulong

6) Ryulong ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [28] [29] [30]), battleground conduct ( [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]), misuse of sources ( [38] [39] [40] [41]), and needlessly personalized or degraded discussions (e.g. [42]). This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past ( 2009, Block log).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. 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 ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Alternate definitely preferable, but I could live with this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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) reply

   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) reply

2. 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) reply

   @ GorillaWarfare:, @ Seraphimblade: I'd support such an alt. And I agree some finding is necessary. Courcelles 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

3. Per other opposers and my comments below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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) reply
5. L Faraone 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Ryulong (alternate)

6.1) Ryulong ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [43] [44] [45]) and battleground conduct ( [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]). This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past ( 2009, Block log).

Support:

1. First choice to 6. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. First choice to 6 -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Lovely, thanks for doing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. L Faraone 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. T. Canens ( talk) 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

    Euryalus ( talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. 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) reply
2. Moving here from support, on reconsideration of the comments by NYB. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Tarc

7) Tarc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [53] [54] [55] [56]) and battleground conduct (e.g., [57], [58], [59], [60]). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases ( Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Supporting as factually accurate, though I also agree with the comment by Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. I added three more diffs for "battleground conduct." GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. T. Canens ( talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. FoF true, although what should be done as a result is somewhat independent. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. 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) reply

Oppose:

1. 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 Wikipedia, 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) reply

Abstain:

1. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Agree in part, disagree in part. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 ( [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]), battleground conduct ( [66] [67] [68] [69]), and BLP violations ([Private evidence]). 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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. It works -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. As corrected. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. This works now. Courcelles 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Euryalus ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. 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) reply
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. 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) reply
12. L Faraone 14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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 ^talk 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

TheRedPenOfDoom

9) TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct ( [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]) and has been sanctioned for edit warring and creating a hostile editing environment ( [77]).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Weakly. The third diff is, IMO, the worst. And the block is part of the record here. Courcelles 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. as the proposer -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. The third diff, especially, is well out of line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. 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) reply

   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) reply

9. T. Canens ( talk) 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Added a few more diffs and moved to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. As amended. L Faraone 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

As stated by GorillaWarfare. L Faraone 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. 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) reply

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 ( [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]). They were topic banned under BLP enforcement ( [83]).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Euryalus ( talk) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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 ( [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]) and has reinstated BLP-violating content ( [92]).

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. T. Canens ( talk) 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Euryalus ( talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TaraInDC

12) TaraInDC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98])

Support:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Yeah, this was a little too far. Courcelles 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. I've also added a few more diffs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 03:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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) reply

   But is back now,   Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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); Wikipedia: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 ^talk 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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 ^talk 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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 ^talk 10:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. T. Canens ( talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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 ( [99]). Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]).

Support:

1. Works for me,   Roger Davies ^talk 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. (forgot to support) GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Yep. Courcelles 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   Addid another diff. Courcelles 21:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Seems clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. this needs to be in here -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. 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) reply

   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) reply

10. T. Canens ( talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. L Faraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Being a SPA is not an offence. Weak support re "battleground." -- Euryalus ( talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Similar line of thinking as Euryalus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Per NF and Eury. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Willhesucceed

15) Willhesucceed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring ( [105], [106], [107]). battleground behaviour ( [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]), and point making behaviour ( [114], [115]).

Support:

1. 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) reply
2. -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Agreed with Courcelles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Euryalus ( talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. T. Canens ( talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. L Faraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. 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) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Masem

16) Masem ( talk · contribs) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy.( [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]).

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- Guerillero | My Talk 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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 ^talk 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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 ^{Talk to me} 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. per Roger Davies and Seraphimblade. Euryalus ( talk) 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. 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) reply
7. Not as written. T. Canens ( talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. 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) reply
9. L Faraone 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. per NYBrad. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. No. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. 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) reply
2. Ditto,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I also echo Beeblebrox. Courcelles 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. +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. L Faraone 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. 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) reply
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. I agree with the comments above -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Indeed with many thanks to those willing to wade into this mess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Per all above. Subject to possible tweaking concerning the scope. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. T. Canens ( talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
14. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Sanctions available

1.2)

Support:

1. Reminder of what's available to support this case,   Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. With a small copyedit. T. Canens ( talk) 19:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Euryalus ( talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. L Faraone 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. 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) reply
10. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. this replaces 11 for all practical purposes -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. 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 ^talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. 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) reply
3. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. First choice, (though I have some doubts about the extent of "gender-related") DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. only choice -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. T. Canens ( talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. 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) reply

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:

1. 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 ^talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Solves this particular problem, interpreting "relating to" to include people involved in" DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Equivalent or lesser preference to 2.1 over this. Not sure which, but I don't think this is better. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. See my comments on 2.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too narrow. Courcelles 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 2.1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. If anything at all is needed ...   Roger Davies ^talk 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. 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) reply
4. 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 ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 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) reply
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. per my vote at the FoF -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. 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) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Euryalus ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. L Faraone 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   See fresh comments below,   Roger Davies ^talk 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

3. Kind of puzzled that arbs who supported the FoF are opposing this remedy... Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. To disentangle the area. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 10:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Switching to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. switching to support. This is sadly needed -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 20:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

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

L Faraone 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

1. 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) reply
2. I don't see sufficient evidence for this. Any future incidents can be dealt with at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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 ^talk 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps this should be added to the FoF then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm inclined to support, but looking at some edits independently to get a better feel. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

NorthBySouthBaranof admonished

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

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Iff the topic ban does not pass. Still thinking about that one. T. Canens ( talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Guerillero | My Talk 20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Euryalus ( talk) 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Second choice. L Faraone 20:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

1. Courcelles 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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:

1. 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) reply
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Equal first choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Distant second choice. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
7. per Courcelles DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
8. In a package with 5.4 and 5.5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

   Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

9. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Euryalus ( talk) 05:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
12. T. Canens ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
13. In conjunction with other remedies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply