Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

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

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

Appealing user: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ubikwit

The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.
@NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
It has just dawned on me that I forgot to list the Arbcom Teaparty case, during which you were serving on the Committee, and which occurred after the sanction being appealed.
@Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
@HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.

I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.

First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.

Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.

I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling? Harassment?[1] It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.

Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deskana

I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Statement by is not a

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss,[2] despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP ([3], again [4] despite [5], [6] despite [7]) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus [8] I am happy to report.
Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [9] [10] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [11] [12] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [13]. Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [14] and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek [15]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [16], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[17]
Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist [18].

This is just one page, but the pattern of edits suggests that the problematic editing is not just limited to edit-warring violation, which was Ubikwit's removal of Israeli Jews from a list of indigenous populations. Examination of Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons should be done before making a decision about Ubikwit.

Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.

Thank you. is a 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit's behavior over this weekend reinforces the concerns stated above. is a 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deskana: Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking. Sandstein 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. ~~Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes.~~ I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
  Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Is not a: I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac

Request is premature given timing with respect to case close and that a normal admin block was applied promptly anyways. Repeat behavior will be appropriate for AE action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions

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

13:18, 28 January 2015 Loganmac, on the eve of the decision being posted banning Ryulong goes to a little-trafficked page that had previously been the subject of harassing edit warring by anonymous individuals ([19], [20], [21]) to revert with the linked demeaning, aggressive edit summary.

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

Mentioned in final decision - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was blocked for 24 hours for this behavior as a standard administrative action. This is not enough (it is, however, the most that could be done as a standard administrative action). User should be unilaterally and indefinitely prohibited from interacting with anyone mentioned in the Gamergate Case, if not just shown the door.

AE was given authority over this action which took place just before the closing of the case per [22].

GoodDay Arbiters specifically permitted AE action per my above link. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel 1 day is not sufficient because spitting in someones face as they are hopefully trying to exit gracefully really makes the whole departure process harder for everyone. Loganmac won. He got Ryulong kicked off Wikipedia for at least a year (and we all know those 1 year bans always last longer). Nothing is worse than a winner who kicks an opponent when they are down - nothing. Those of us trying to get Ryulong to walk away gracefully are tremendously harmed by the gamergate sleepers and partisans showing up on Japanese toy articles. Nip this in the bud. Hipocrite (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning Loganmac

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Loganmac

Statement by DHeyward

This seems moot considering the remedy imposed on Ryulong and the block imposed on Loganmac. The block prevented interaction until the case was settled and the site ban on Ryulong prevents interaction for at least a year. Disruption through interaction appears impossible at this point. If I'm not mistaken, the letter of the rules would allow a revert of Ryulong to Loganmacs version though I wouldn't recommend it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-post-facto reading of enforcement would also allow ex-post-facto reading of the site ban. Banned users are subject to being reverted with regard to any other provision. Let's just drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. The Arbcom case is finished. Interaction between the two editors has been solved presently. Loganmac is also unable to comment here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TRPoD, blocking people on the basis of an essay is weak sauce and the edit wasn't under GamerGate sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gamaliel, this seems to be a request to increase a block under the auspices of GG. It's clear that Loganmac was baiting Ryulong, but it was outside GamerGate. The reality today is that increasing the block will do nothing to further limit the baiting. Ryulong is banned. Extending Loganmac's block does nothing productive. He can no longer bother a banned editor. Maybe ban him from Ryulong's talk page but there is no reason to believe an extension of a block is anything but punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ries42

Two notes.

First, how can LoganMac know about discretionary sanctions that hadn't officially taken effect yet, as by your evidence they were informed of them 1/29/15 @ 00:38, when he made that edit @ 1/28/15 @ 13:18. Seems you're jumping the gun.

Second, Hipocrite has a history of being uncivil and battleground mentality in this subject area. He makes mountains out of mole hills. In this case, moving toward getting another editor punished twice (as it appears he was already blocked for this occurrence), despite not procedurally being the best place to take this. That place already ruled. At best this is forum shopping. Bounce this. WP:BOOMERRANG it. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading a lot into the arbitrator's comment. Yes, he said to take it to AE and it'll be looked at, but that doesn't mean your intended remedy is appropriate or that action by AE is appropriate. This particular issue has already been acted on. Ries42 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPUser: The situations are very different because of the relative WP experience between Mr Auerbach and the filer here. Ries42 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

If Loganmac did not know their edits were deliberately provocative and disruptive, then they obviously lack the WP:COMPETENCE to work in the collaborative environment. Either way the 24 hour block is inappropriately short. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamergate community sanctions were fully in effect and the user had been notified of the same. The committee has officially converted the GG community sanctions and so only Wikilawyering would say that is any basis for not acting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People are blocked for lack of competence all the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it does fall out of the technical scope of the sanctions, this would be a clear case of WP:IAR for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Purposeful WP:DICKish disruption in expanding the area of conflict should be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcoms own rationale for the vague broad inclusion of "gender" in the topic ban description was cited by them as specifically intentional to prevent the spread of disruption (their crystal balls were just ineffective in determining where the disruption would be spreading). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

I'm not certain that any Enforcement action can be taken, when remedy wasn't in effect at the time of the reported situation's occurance. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoldenRing

Let's be clear, this was not clever editing by LoganMac. It's hard to think of a clearer example of tendentious editing. However, I don't see what AE can do about it; the scope of the sanction this request is made under is "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. It's hard to see how an obscure Japanese cartoon series falls under GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with either of them. Do the sanctions extend to every article ever edited by any editor who's ever been involved with GamerGate now?

All in all, a very unattractive piece of grave-dancing, but outside the scope of the quoted sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by coldacid

Are we saying that pages for which Ryulong acted as owner for are considered covered as per "all broadly construed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to hinge on 1.1(c) encompassing not just articles on persons involved in GG or gender-related controversies, but also editors involved in those articles, and from there the articles that they camp as well. I'm not sure if that's a valid interpretation. That said, Loganmac really made a bone-headed move with that edit, and perhaps if there was an I-ban put in place between him and Ryulong via GS/GG it could be something actionable here, especially given how baiting that was. That alone is probably cause for further warning him, even if Ryulong is gone. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I believe so. He also stated, though, that it's not an AE or community sanctions block[24]. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ries42: WP:BOOMERANG is a bit far considering that one of the arbs even said that Hipocrite should bring this here. The AE request isn't actionable, but it's not worthy of boomeranging either. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by <IP user>

@Coldacid: Agreed. If we construe the scope of the topic ban in that way, then Arbcom would be forced to endorse the finding of WP:OWN regarding a page/topic that didn't come up in the proceedings until the later stages of bickering over the PD, and certainly had no real evidence presented concerning it. I also rather doubt that there's precedent for this kind of tying-together of topics - certainly not without a finding (which I would have to oppose on principle) that Ryulong is himself a notable figure in the Gamergate controversy.

@Ries42: While the Arb's statement is certainly no guarantee that the case is actionable, it seems to me to be unreasonable to WP:BOOMERANG an action that was explicitly proposed by Arbcom. Reminds me of the nonsense AuerbachKeller (talk · contribs) was subjected to, being redirected various places to voice his complaint only to be accused of forum-shopping.

76.69.75.41 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

It's just one (or two immediate) edits and Loganmac has already been punished. Think no further action is needed without further provocation from Loganmac upon return. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loganmac

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

Isn't this the same edit User:HJ Mitchell already blocked Loganmac for? To clarify, please let's focus on the issue of why this may or may not be sufficient and not re-litigate Gamergate. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult case in that it seems to be a continuation of a dispute that originated with the Gamergate issue, but doesn't actually fall within the scope of the case. Behaviour like this during the case is likely to have resulted in a site ban. On the other hand, this earned a quick block from HJ Mitchell, and if Loganmac were to return to the same sort of editing post-block, they're likely to be re-blocked. That said, Loganmac isn't the only editor who went from editing Gamergate articles to editing articles that Ryulong had been the primary contributor to. Again, grave-dancing and expanding the conflict to other articles are both looked upon poorly, arbcomm sanctions or not. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, if this is a sign of things to come from Loganmac, he won't last much longer. If it was a one-off lapse of judgement, I think the 24-hour block is sufficient. I don't object to another admin imposing further sanctions if they think it's likely to help in preventing disruption, but the snow is is so fresh on he ground that "wait and see" might be the best approach. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an entirely personal view: I believe Arbcom sanctions should only apply from the moment the case is closed, unless the Committee specifically authorises retrospective or interim action. This conduct precedes the case close. So what we have is a common or garden disruptive editing with a routine admin action in imposing a 24-hour block. The block seems a bit short, but that's at the discretion of the blocking admin, as it always is. Should the same edit be repeated now, it would need to also be viewed with the subsequent Arbcom findings in mind. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

We only need one of these. Please see discussion on The Administrator's Noticeboard. I've chosen that one to keep open as the oldest one. Courcelles 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Protonk

Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat[ing] ignoring policy" and "repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by Strongjam

Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Which is the operative appeal, this one, or the one at AN? BMK (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

shrug*, but there clearly shouldn't be two. Delete the one there or here. Your choice. AN is listed as an alternate to AE for appeals. Whatevs. jps (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk

Result of the appeal by Protonk

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

Inthefastlane

Inthefastlane blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell. This is only the second edit warring related block and they aren't an SPA so let's see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Inthefastlane

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Inthefastlane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction

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

21:19, 29 January 2015‎ Editor reverts another editor to make a controversial claim
23:26, 29 January 2015‎ Reverts another editor to make the same claim
04:49, 30 January 2015‎ Repeats the same edit
19:48, 30 January 2015‎ Further reversion, making the same claim in different words

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11:47, 29 November 2014 Blocked for 3RR (in another article)

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.10:02, 29 July 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am one of the editors who has reverted this editor on the article covered by restrictions. The editor has followed me to another article in which they have previously shown no interest, in a completely different topic area, and has started to edit-war to keep a poor edit by a spamming IP.[25][26]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Inthefastlane

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Inthefastlane

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Inthefastlane

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

Inthefastlane was notified of the discretionary sanctions last July and has previously been blocked for edit-warring in the same topic area, so is clearly aware of the standards of conduct. This is a pretty clear breach of the 1RR and possibly even a breach of the standard 3RR and is certainly the sort aggressive reverting that the restriction is intended to deal with, so I've blocked Inthefastlane for 72 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Rhoark

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

23:02, 30 January 2015 Ignores talk-page consensus, or at least lack of consensus, that calling the essay nothing more than "essay," was in violation of policy. See more comments for evidence of talk page opinions.
23:02, 30 January 2015 Ignores talk-page consensus, or at least lack of consensus, that engaging in novel research to cast doubt on Newsweek's conclusion was in violation of policy. Again, see more comments for evidence of talk page opinions

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

General Sanction notification was upgraded for 1 year to DS notification per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions part iii.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rhoark is a single puropose account focused on GamerGate, with a minor amount of near-vandalistic, but certainly pointy editing regarding feminist topics ([27], [28]), along with some very minor general edits.

The first of the two major edits described above remove all descriptors from the Ejoni blog post. This is discussed on the talk page at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Pruning_Superfluous_Additions. Beyond not evidencing any consensus to remove the topic, Rhoark's edit isn't an appropriate bold edit, as it makes no attempt to compromise with those that disagree with him, nor does it offer to revert on request. It is a pure "this is what I want, I ignored the talk page."

The second of the two major edits includes the following language - "The number of game developers and journalists worldwide is significantly larger than seven." This statement is a textbook violation of SYNTH - it is a true statement included only to cast doubt on other statements by implication (As a parallel, imagine if every time we referenced an opinion poll, we said "This poll was conducted by asking 2,800 US Citizens. There are over 300 million people living in America). The count of game developers and journalists is nowhere in the story. Edits similar to this were substantially discussed at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Cherrypicking, where there was near unanimous agreement that digging into the piece to discredit the piece was a violation. The edit did so anyway.

I ask that this user be indefinitely topic banned from all topics related to Gamergate and Sexuality, broadly defined. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing other recent edits by this user, I am struck also by this misrepresentation of sources (explained here).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rhoark

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Rhoark

General statements

First of all, I am a relatively new but not a single purpose account. The largest volume of edits I have made have been to Talk:Gamergate; however, this is for this simple reason that any progress in that article requires orders of magnitude more effort and discussion than in another article. Representative edits I have made outside the Gamergate area include: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] This is not an exhaustive list of edits I have made with this account outside the area of Gamergate, broadly construed, nor am I able to provide evidence of my constructive editing as an IP user.

The accuser has misrepresented the character of my editing in the broader area of feminism. My edits to Microaggression theory were preceded by several editors attempting to introduce the concept of microaggression against males into the article, all of which were rightly rejected on the basis of verifiability or NPOV. My first attempts, linked by my accuser, were also inadequate. What he or she neglected to link was the well sourced and understated claims I provided [35], effectively ending a long-standing dispute on the page that began well before my registration, nor my present constructive participation in the talk page [36].

My editing within the Gamergate area has been with meticulous attention to Wikipedia policies and project-wide consensus about how to apply those policies. Some might say I have taken this tendency to a fault [37]. However, my tendency to carefully examine policies rather than rely on a surface reading has been appreciated by others [38]. Being able to call to mind the right policy to deal with a dilemma is very helpful when dealing with editors who are prone to "ipse dixit", such as my accuser [39].

Details

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

Regarding the first contested diff

Now, for the edits that are central to the accusation. First is the matter of the Newsweek article. As it stands, the way it is cited is totally unacceptable. It is a textbook example of what WP:Cherrypicking warns against. There is essential qualifying information in the article, that when left out of Wikipedia serves to mislead the reader. It does not matter that the source did not consider the information to contradict its thesis - reliability is not infallibility. WP:Cherrypicking is an essay that rests on the foundation of WP:EP which sets out a very primal principle that it is better to have no information than misleading information. It is not original research to include the qualifying information, as it is sourced directly from Newsweek. No synthesizing statement was made, such as directly saying that the qualifying information made Newsweek incorrect. The edit I made enjoys the support of easily a dozen provisions of WP:NOTOR and WP:SYNTHNOT.

There has been opposition to my suggestions on the talk page. Objections that no change was necessary or that the change was OR were met with specific policies to the contrary, and those policies were ignored by people who raised the same objections again. I outlined how WP:Cherrypicking and Wikipedia:Inaccuracy suggested dealing with the qualifying information and invited people to suggest or endorse ways to handle the incorporation. No one participated. I was not alone in my views [40] [41], but unfortunately Thargor was drawn away [42]. Gamergate is a battleground article that is a thorn in the project's side, and it is full of people who will simply never compromise under any circumstance, ever. It is not possible to win everyone over. It's not necessary to - consensus is not unanimity or a vote.

Consensus was not disregarded, because every objection that was raised helped inform the wording I eventually used. WP:EP made it clear that leaving the status quo was simply not an option. I acted, and do not consider it to be in error.

Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs

The second edit that forms the basis of this accusation concerns the matter of whether or not to describe a particular piece of prose as "rambling". I think a link to the thread [43] would be more informative than a series of diffs. A plurality of editors, including (again) Thargor Orlando, AnsFenrisulfr, Shii, Kaciemonster, and an IP editor concurred that describing the prose in this way was unwarranted. Some others agreed that a change from the status quo was warranted, including my accuser [44].

However, consensus is not a numerical matter, but must look to arguments. The arguments deployed in favor of "rambling" or the status quo more generally were:

To ensure the reader was aware of reliable sources' low opinion of the matter. This is addressed by saying the allegations it made were false.
To ensure the reader knows it was bad. This is NPOV, and I disregarded it.
To characterize the type, seriousness, length, etc. of the prose. In the interest of satisfying these concerns, I settled on the phrase "online essay".
It sounds better to have an adjective than not. I used "online".
There was a substantial previous discussion about adjectives that settled on "rambling" as not as bad of an NPOV violation as alternatives. Consensus can change, and none of those alternatives were endorsed this time around, so the point is moot.
Various opinions to the effect that reliable sources said it, so we have to also. This is not at all in the spirit of WP:RS, and I disregarded it.

Rather than ignoring consensus, I crafted a sentence that accounted for all the valid concerns that had been raised. Several hours passed without activity on the thread, and I concluded the most productive step would be to follow BRD conventions.

Finally, there is the exchange where my accuser attempts to paint a picture that I am attempting deception [45], while leaving out the context that it was a misunderstanding [46].

Were the edits I wrote the best of all possible edits? Certainly not, nothing ever is - but they improved the article. An imperfect edit does not preclude further improvement. They did not ignore consensus, rather they incorporated the most salient feedback. This was not an attempt to do an end run around opposition. I expected pushback, and would have valued a invigoration of new arguments that could result. I did not expect an attempt at enforcement. This was not disruptive. There was not a barrage of edits or an edit war, but single edits preceded by hours of discussion. I think it should be abundantly clear this accusation is inappropriate, and that I am here for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. Rhoark (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I feel it prudent to also mention that I am a feminist. Additionally, if I have in any way incorrectly followed procedure in making these statements, I apologize in advance. It is not an area on which I am knowledgeable. Rhoark (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by user AtomsOrSystems

My editing is goal-oriented and policy-driven. I know that can seem brusque, and I will increase efforts to consider the feelings of other editors. The edit you link that is an unadorned list of policy pages is the most pertinent response I can think of to what was Hypocrite's flat refusal of further good-faith discussion. Such is most of the opposition I face. Since I have been occupied with this enforcement issue, I was not aware of any request to revert. It's moot anyway. Someone else has already reverted the change on the basis of WP:OR. No one has yet identified any way in which what I have done is OR. I expect they never will. They cannot. Everything I said was sourced from Newsweek, and juxtaposition is not OR. People sticking fingers in their ears may be a consensus, but it is not one that ought to be observed. Making a better encyclopedia is what matters most. Thanks for bringing your perspective. Rhoark (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by 192.249.47.186

I sincerely apologize for any distress my edit has caused you. Let us keep in perspective that we are discussing only two edits, of a few sentences each, that are not BLP, did in fact incorporate the trends of consensus, and were performed in the spirit of BRD. Several users have suggested the use of a noticeboard; however, each board has specific expectations on the scope and framing of a request. I did not have a question to pose that seemed to fit, and indeed thought a healthy BRD cycle might expose the right question and framing. What we have had is a very acrimonious and unhealthy response, and assuming I am able, I think a new RfC is needed to address very systemic problems. Finally, regarding feminism, I thought it was an important point to raise given that aspersions have been cast regarding my editing of articles related to feminism. I would hope that it does not become a significant factor in any administrator's decision, but if it does I do not mind detailing the ways in which I consider myself a feminist. Rhoark (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going dark

I will be unavailable for the purposes of WP for approximately 24 hours beginning from this post, so please don't misinterpret any failure to respond in that period. For the week following I expect to only be active as necessitated by this enforcement matter. (The sustained activity of the past few days is something I cannot ordinarily balance against other responsibilities, another contributor to what may have been undue haste in finalizing due edits.) It has been brought to my attention that my comments may exceed length limits. If so, I ask for forbearance. It doesn't seem possible to respond to the allegations against me with any more brevity. Rhoark (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably final statement

Per Kaciemonster's suggestion, pinging the users I named above. @Thargor Orlando: @AnsFenrisulfr: @Shii:

Having had a day to reflect away from any keyboards, I concur that the pace and volume of my activity at Talk:Gamergate_controversy was problematic. I still hold that the consensus against the Newsweek edit was a consensus against following policy. I still hold that the edit regarding "rambling" was a good-faith application of BRD in a case where consensus was more towards action than inaction. However, in the matter of the Newsweek article the pace of discussion made it difficult for others to participate. It's not a pattern I'm capable of or interested in sustaining. My intention as of this moment is to do the following:

Make a brief concluding remark at the talk page
Not look at the Gamergate article or talk page for the following week
Begin an RfC and refrain from further edits in the (narrow) Gamergate area while it is active
Thereafter not edit the Gamergate article more than twice in a week, or make more than two passes through the talk page in a day.

Since administrative action is meant to be preventative rather than punitive, none should be required. I am open to trouting. Rhoark (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my concluding statement on the talk page. starship.paint has made a new proposal, and I'll stand back and see where it goes. Self-imposed GG blackout begins now. Rhoark (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor AtomsOrSystems

As Roark "quoted" me in a diff [47], I feel it's appropriate for me to comment here.

Beyond "meticulous attention," Rhoark seems to have a tendency to weaponize Wikipedia polica and essays on the talk page, I think shown most clearly here [48], as well as the diffs linked by both Hipocrite and Retartist above, and possibly others. While it's possible he is making a good-faith effort to hew closely to all established policies and guidelines (and essays), he certainly has a tendency to use them as part of editing combatively on the talk page.

Regarding the two edits, I think the diffs of the edits and discussion on the talk page speak for themselves. In my opinion, they were at the very least non-constructive and done in a combative manner, with no attempts (and overt refusal) to wait for or be guided by consensus. As stated above, the edits seem to go some way beyond "bold," make no offer to revert on request, and indeed, he neglected when a request that he revert was made. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I think it's pertinent for me to add that, in my opinion and based on my admittedly limited interaction with the editor, I am persuaded that they have the encyclopedia's best interest in mind; they simply seem to be going about it in what I consider the wrong way. I think they, and the project, might benefit most by them taking a temporary step back, from the topic area or the encyclopedia in general. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 192.249.47.186

I second Atoms' description, and would like to add that i have several times recommended that rhoark petition the or noticeboard for verification if he feels my arguments are incorrectly applying the or policy. I am appalled that rhoark decided it was appropriate to ignore talk page consensus or any other avenues for mediation before pushing through his desired version of the page.

Also, I don't (or rather, am very afraid I do) see rhoark's goal in stating that he is a feminist as part of his statement. Identity should not be part of this discussion, I think.66.87.77.218 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ries42

Ries, we're here to talk about Rhoark's behavior, not anyone else's. I think your post would be better served as a separate request for enforcement against Hipocrite.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ries42

This is irrelevant to the matter at hand and nothing more than an ad hominem. Additionally, Hipocrite's proxying for Ryulong has been discussed at length on my talk page and at AN and has been found not to be in violation of policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am uninvolved in this particular incident, but not uninvolved in the subject area, or with the filer, Hypocrite. I would like any acting admin to note that Hypocrite has acted in ways that have caused more disruption in the area than his accuser.

Above, on this very page, Hypocrite attempted to institute punitive additional punishment for an editor who was already punished by a 24 hour block. He attempted to make an absurd case against myself where he blew up a minor disagreement and eventually "demanded" I be topic banned. Please feel free to review that case.

I would also point any reviewing admin to the evidence provided in this block appeal against Hypocite for his WP:OWNing of articles previously OWNED by a now banned user. He states that his defense is that he was not solicited "offsite" and he has independent reason for his edits, despite previously never being active in those areas.In fact, he offered on site to a now banned user to keep an eye on articles for him. Although he clearly says the right words so that he skirts the letter of WP:BAN, he is clearly offering to a banned user to act as his proxy. The fact that the above issues mentioned in the above evidence appeal was in one of the specific articles that said banned user asked Hipocrite to keep an eye on...

Hipocrite seems to be a decent editor. He has become too involved in this area though, and is being more disruptive than those he constantly accuses otherwise.

I personally have taken a step back from the page because I felt that I personally was starting to be affected by the atmosphere there. Not the least of which was because of Hipocrite. I have not posted there in several days. I suggest Hipocrite needs to take a break himself. Either voluntarily, or maybe less then voluntarily so. Ries42 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

I think two months will be long enough for Rhoark to disengage and reflect on GamerGate, and to edit other subjects as well. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kaciemonster

From the "Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs" section: " A plurality of editors, including (again) Thargor Orlando, AnsFenrisulfr, Shii, Kaciemonster, and an IP editor concurred that describing the prose in this way was unwarranted"

I'd just like to mention that this was a misinterpretation of my comment. I think they took me saying "Honestly though, I don't see the big deal with just removing the quote entirely and leaving it as is. We already describe the allegations made by Gjoni and the harassment Quinn faced as a result, I don't think any reader will look at that and not understand that the blog post was an attack on Quinn and her integrity." as agreement, when I meant it to relate to the sentence I wrote directly before it, where I said we should remove the quote and write our own sentence about it, "I think replacing the quote with a sentence describing it is the best option. There are enough sources that describe it in similar ways that I think we can get a good descriptive sentence without relying on a single source's description." I was suggesting we remove the quote from that sentence and leave it as-is, and add on a sentence describing the blog post.

Rhoark, please ping me next time you're going to use me in a discussion, especially if it's about certain points of view that I endorse or don't endorse. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I post here because Rhoark has continued to advocate for his proposed changes to the page. His edit here [49] seems to be highly problematic, and continuing an issue where he uses policy as a weapon and disregards consensus. His closing words are especially unpromising in regard his continued editing- he writes "Rather than fighting change, editors' attention would be better spent discussing the best wording for the change."

That is, it seems he is not going to stop until he is stopped or he gets what he wants. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rhoark

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

The two diffs on the Gamergate controversy article and talk page do indicate a failure to follow community norms (ie, waiting for and following a consensus) and the pointy and disruptive edits to Microaggression theory do indicate a problem (however those occurred before the general sanctions notification so the long term consensus/precedent is that we consider it inadmissible). The edits regarding Gamergate indicate that this is a single purpose account and is editing disruptively so I'd advocate a 3 month topic ban from 'Gamergate controversy, broadly construed' and a final warning that any further disruptive edits will result in a broader, longer TBAN or a block. I'm also considering a page ban from Gamergate controversy instead of the topic ban only as I'm not totally convinced that their edits to the talk page have been disruptive in and of themselves, but it's not waiting for and having a supporting consensus which is the problem. Having said that I'm open to changing my mind based on further comments, including Rhoark's statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the edits to the talk page are problematic, I think the sheer volume of posts on the talk page are problematic in and of themselves. The "Cherrypicking" section goes on and on, despite the fact that it's obvious consensus (are they arguing for the addition of editorial comments on the source?) isn't going to be reached. And Rhoark seems unwilling to let it go. On a page like that, such a high volume of posting does seem to be part of the problem (since it drowns out other voices and prolongs arguments). A long topic ban seems appropriate - if, as Rhoark says, they are not an SPA, then an enforced vacation from the GG area will give them time to contribute to other areas (which have got to be more fun to edit). Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The war of attrition approach is disruptive, as is the failure to wait for (or disregarding of) consensus especially on such a contentious subject, and the addition of original research and editorialising suggests that Rhoark's attitude is one of "my way or the highway". It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the reliance on a particular source, the context in which information from it is used, and whether the information is presented with sufficient qualification, but to continue asking until you get the answer you want, and then to make the edit anyway, is not the way Wikipedians should be doing business. Similarly, as with the adjectives around the essay, it is legitimate to discuss the way the essay is framed in the article, but the talk page seems fairly clear that its notability is not that an ex-boyfriend wrote an essay, but rather the length and nature of the essay. Narrower sanctions, such as a ban from the main article and its talk page or on making multiple edits to the same thread, might work but I don't oppose the proposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theobald Tiger

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Theobald Tiger

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theobald Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Discretionary_sanctions_.28January_2015.29 :

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

30 January 2015 Personal attack in edit summary, mass revert without discussion
30 January 2015 Mass revert, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
30 January 2015 Personal attacks
30 January 2015 Mass revert of multiple edits, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 BLP violations on article talk page
29 January 2015 personal attack
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 January 2015.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 January 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was significantly involved with the Landmark Worldwide topic on nl-wiki. There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is. It appears that the nl-wiki block has been lifted. Upon arrival here, the editor displayed in-depth experience with the Landmark subject,[50] and appears to have a strong POV (evidenced in the diffs above).

@Astynax: 1) Yes, I am aware of DS. That is why I came here to ask for enforcement of DS. 2) I don't see anything at the ANI link you provided that makes any sense of what you are saying. I made a single comment in that discussion, effectively asking that editors stop fighting over POV. Obviously that did not happen. 3) Multiple reverts to the article are not justified when there is dispute and discussion underway. There was no consensus for the material and yet it was reinserted into the article multiple times. 4) I'm not sure if you are saying that I have been intransigently unilaterally reverting, blanking, hectoring, or entangling. If you are, please stop and use the appropriate mechanisms (such as an enforcement request) to report such behaviour. I obviously disagree and I welcome any and all examination of my editing. Tgeairn (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As three different editors have all responded to the mention above of blocks on nl-wiki and the linking to the relevant block log, it was and is my understanding that the proper form for filing a request here includes linking previous actions taken. As these actions were not on en, but were recent (the most recent three blocks were within the last six months, the prior blocks are much older) I listed them as an additional comment rather than as a recent or current sanction. I also requested and received a review of the form of my filing from a clerk, who said it was correct form. If including the log from .nl was incorrect, I request that a clerk strike my relevant comment(s) or alert me. Tgeairn (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

31 January 2015

Discussion concerning Theobald Tiger

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Theobald Tiger

I will comment briefly on the difflinks provided by Tgeairn:

Ad 1. Tgeairn is, in my view, a contributor with a clear COI who tries to keep Landmark Worldwide free from encyclopedic content by all possible means. Tgeairn is sometimes reasonable, mostly frankly unreasonable, often intimidating, always taking the moral high ground. Tgeairn has also violated WP:Point by nominating Margit Warburg for deletion, an article started by Astynax with whom he happens to have an argument on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, and by deleting whatever he/she comes across that has something to do with the sociology of (alternative pseudo-)religious movements (like Landmark). Therefore I reverted his blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 2. The discussion on the talk page did by no means support the blanking of the new history paragraph. Therefore I reverted Tgeairn's blanking, with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 3. This is no personal attack at all. My conclusions might have been unpleasant to Tgeairn, but they seem to me well-founded and even inescapable.
Ad 4. See Ad 2.
Ad 5. This allegation of a violation of WP:BLP seems to me not only far-fetched but wrong. Tgeairn had objected to some article text on the topic of Werner Erhard's lack of education. I replied by saying that such information is to be expected in cases like this, because (as I said) "Erhard is in large part an autodidact and a dreamer". This remark does, as far as I can see, no harm to Erhard's reputation. Moreover, it is well-founded (autodidact, Erhard is frequently called a 'visionary', having had a decisive 'vision' on the Golden Gate Bridge), and it was a remark on the talk page, not in the article.
Ad 6. I recommend to read the complete Reliable Sources Request. This request, done by Tgeairn, is plainly absurd. I have answered it to my abilities.
Ad 7. Revert of unmotivated blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 8. See Ad 7.

A topic ban for Tgeairn seems to me indicated. My blocklog on nl.wiki has absolutely nothing to do with Landmark as two admins on nl.wiki (Josq & CaAl) and a Dutch speaking admin on en.wiki (Drmies) have attested. I wish the Arbitration Committee wisdom and understanding when investigating the case and passing judgment on our actions. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Tgeairn pulls an angelic face confronted with criticism of having mentioned my blocklog on nl.wiki, but the way he/she did it - "There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is" - is outright insinuating, offensive and malicious. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Astynax

Tgeairn was also explicitly made aware of discretionary sanctions[51] and hopefully admins will take his own activity into account. Tgeairn is almost certainly aware (as he commented here, where it was a notable part of the discussion) that the calumny recently raised at ARCA[52] regarding Theobald Tiger's participation on nl.wikipedia has no more merit or relevance here than it did a week ago. Nor were Theobald Tiger's reverts unjustified, as they merely restored massive and incremental blanking reverts of referenced material. Tgeairn himself participated in the blanking of this material. Arbcom invited new eyes to the article, yet those who have arrived (Manul, Cathar66, Legacypac, IronGargoyle, in addition to Theobald Tiger) have been subjected to the same intransigent reversion/blanking and talk page hectoring (including unilateral reversion, citing an invalid rationale, of a Move survey by a non-involved editor[53][54]) behavior by Landmark advocates which I attempted to describe in the original arbcom case. This is also not the first attempt to entangle fresh eyes who have come to the article in WP:DR processes, which is itself very off-putting. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

1. BOOMARANG this - the edit history on Landmark Worldwide shows the tactics clearly of systematically deleting material. 2. The Editor who filed this unfounded complaint is the subject of an active Sockpuppet investigation [55] over conduct on this article. Let's see where that goes before taking this too seriously. 3. It was well established that th nl-wiki block was nothing to do with this issue. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theobald Tiger

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Obsidi

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

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

Appealing user: Obsidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Obsidi (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Protection Pending Changes Level 2 of the page Gamergate controversy as can be seen in the Protection Log and the Discretionary Sanctions Log

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

Notification of that administrator: [56]

Statement by Obsidi

This page is currently under Discretionary Sanctions which means that all editors are expected to take extra care that they “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines.”. In this case HJ Mitchell has protected the page in direct contradiction to the Protection Policy which states that Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1. I have asked the admin to reconsider their actions, but he refused citing Ignore All Rules. There is nothing in the arbitration decision that suggests that it is appropriate to ignore the current protection policy, and even if there were The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. If even the Arbitration Committee does not change policy, why should the actions of this one administrator, acting alone without community consensus, do so? If this case is a proper exception, I ask that reason be explained and that we get community consensus that we should use PC2 in those situations. Until such time, I ask that the page protection level be raised to Full Protection or lowered to Semi-Protection.

@RGloucester These are not "political positions," they are policy positions. The policy position currently taken by Wikipedia. And they have relevance as to why PC2 is not currently allowed by policy unlike most other protection levels. It is not the letter of the rules that is important it is the principles. I was trying to express the very principle upon why PC2 is not allowed but in this case is being violated. I am not "filing this appeal to make a point", I am appeal it to get the protection level changed. I requested that the admin change the protection level himself, he refused. I would prefer not to have to appeal this at all. There is nothing in the "ArbCom sanctions regime" that even suggests violating policy in this way. --Obsidi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Can I just copy and paste what I said on my talk page instead of wasting more time on this non-issue?

I'm keeping the situation under review, but I consider this to be a legitimate invocation of IAR—"if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". That's policy. There are very few legitimate invocations of IAR (I can count on one hand the number of times I've invoked it to justify an admin action, out of some 40,000 logged actions), but where we have unusual situations, it can be applied to slightly unorthodox solutions. In this case, the intention of PC2 is to keep BLP violations and other crap out of the article, and reviewers are under instructions to let everything through that isn't grossly inappropriate, even if they decide to revert it afterwards. Semi-protection alone would be insufficient given the sheer number of good-faith but inexperienced editors and bad-faith editors with sufficient determination to make ten edits and sit out for four days who are and have been active in the topic area, and I suspect the very application of PC2 will act as a deterrent to the latter. Especially given the high-profile nature of the article, I think concerns for the real lives of real people discussed in the article far outweigh our internal policy wonkery.

I'd just add:

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy—we don't enforce policy for its own sake, though ironically both IAR and NOT are policies (compared to a suggestion in the protection policy made as the result of an RfC which reached no clear consensus).
I believe this to be a necessary measure to prevent and deter drive-by BLP violations while keeping the article open to editing. Given the nature of some of the edits to this and related articles (many of which have been RevDel'd or even suppressed), I believe extreme measures are both necessary and justified.
Long before Obsidi's complaint, I offered guidance to reviewers on what to accept, including the instruction that all legitimate edits should be accepted, even if the reviewer decides to revert them as part of the BRD process. I've even pitched in with the reviewing myself to keep delays in acceptance to a minimum.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGloucester

This is an absurd request, as I said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, and is exactly the type of bureaucratic nonsense that Wikipedia discourages. As I asked the filer at that talk page "Is there any reason why it shouldn't be used in this particular instance? That's the better question. Why should this particularly policy be enforced in this particular instance? If it is just for policy's sake, that's bureaucracy hindering the encylopaedia's improvement, and a waste of time". PC2 may not have consensus for general usage, but in this very specific and unique case, with an ArbCom sanctions regime behind him, Mr Mitchell made the right choice. As I said at the talk page, "WP:IAR applies. If a perfectly good tool is available for use, and an ArbCom sanctions regime gives an administrator the power to do whatever he needs to do to halt disruption, there is no reason for him not to use it, old RfC be damned". We're all aware of the disruption that has surrounded this article, and of the unique nature of its circumstance. If a tool that has not been tried before is available to stop disruption, it should be used. I'm really saddened by the filer's behaviour, because he is filing it to make a point. As he said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, "It shouldn't be used because it adds to stratification among editors. It says that those with the reviewer right are first class wikipedians who get to decide what the content of the article is and everyone else just makes suggestions". These kind of political positions, which he has taken, have no relevance in this particular case. Preventing BLP violations is an imperative, as is curtailing disruption. Let's not start attacking the people that keep our encyclopaedia intact, as was done during the GG case. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I see no reason to remove the current use of pending changes/semi-prot on this article based on past behaviors all around per the ArbCom case. The GG situation will continue to remain a hotbed for some time, and given there continues to be evidence of off-site organized attempts to affect this article from multiple areas, this maintains reasonable order. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

The protection should stay per WP:IAR as the it intended to prevent disruption and is more practical than a fully protected article.Avono (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AtomsOrSystems

I agree with everything said above by RGloucester, Masem and Avono. The article is still a source of considerable interest from a variety of sources, both within and outside Wikipedia. It seems to me that full protection would be overly restrictive, while semi-protection wouldn't offer enough, well, protection. PC2 appears to offer a good balance.
I think it's also worth noting that I personally have had no sense of "stratification" among the editors of the article based on the implementation of PC2 (or anything else, for that matter). AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

I agree with the majority here about the PC2 protection on the article, but I feel this might be a good time to ask: With PC2 doing this good work, do we really also need it to be under 1RR?

It hasn't exactly been a problem yet, but considering that one of the big factors in this whole debacle has been the nigh-endless horde of gamergate supporters ready to throw themselves into the grinder, it seems like 1RR could end up being a hindrance to a minority of legitimate editors.

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Obsidi

A few factual notes here.
- There are, at this writing, over 7700 individuals with permissions that allow them to "review" pending changes. This encompasses the majority of Wikipedians who were active editors at the time pending changes was first adopted for its trial run, all administrators, and anyone who has been granted the permission since the first trial.
- Any of those individuals can accept changes, and none of their edits require pending changes review.
- Several of the individuals recently sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in relation to this topic area hold permissions that will allow them to edit without being subject to pending changes review and can also accept/decline pending changes.
- Although PC2 is essentially not permitted by policy, there have been a few very specific exceptions to date. To the best of my knowledge, they have all been discussed at an appropriate noticeboard and the exception has received consensus. Although in this case there has not been such a discussion, I think it is probably reasonable to assume that if such a discussion was held, there would be community approval for this application. After all, the community had already approved exceptional action in this topic area long, long before the Arbcom case.

My own opinion is that, while it may restrict some accounts from directly editing the article, we already know that editors who hold the necessary permissions have been sanctioned for their actions by Arbcom, community sanctions, or other processes in relation to this topic area. It also invites any editor with the necessary permission to review the edit and accept it, whether or not they have fully reviewed the talk page for consensus, or are aware of the subtle and creeping nature of some of the changes that have been proposed. Remember that essentially only vandalism or obvious BLP violations can be flat-out rejected, under the pending changes policy; the vast majority of edits being proposed through PC should actually be accepted. I would actually prefer seeing full protection of the article over PC2, so that it does retain the high level of control that is probably needed at this point; PC2 just isn't strong enough, because it still allows a lot of editors to make modifications without requiring consensus. Risker (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Isotalo

I would gladly support full protection, but only when or if all-out edit war breaks out. I'm not a fan of preemptive protection, especially with articles that are being watched by so many experienced users. Peter ^Isotalo 12:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Obsidi

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

I am inclined to accept HJ Mitchell's statement and decision in this case. It appears not to have been taken lightly, and at first glance HJ Mitchell seems to be putting in a dedicated effort to make pending changes work with this particular article. Balancing the desire to leave as many of our pages open to contributions from as many people as possible (the first sentence, after all, of Wikipedia:Protection policy) with the strict requirement to prevent the publication of defamatory, harrassing, or otherwise damaging content about living persons (WP:BLP) is sometimes quite difficult. HJ Mitchell's choice seems to strike a balance for this specific unusual circumstance; it's an application of WP:IAR in the way it is intended.

Beyond the philosophical objection, is there evidence to indicate that PC2 is not working correctly or is being abused in some way? Looking at the logs, PC2 has been in place for five days now; has it made things better or worse than they were before? Obviously I would support lifting PC2 (or converting it to some other form of protection, now or in a future appeal) if there were evidence to indicate that it was detrimental. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been presented to demonstrate how removing PC2 would benefit the article or the encyclopedia. Months of contentious editing, general sanctions, and a hotly disputed ArbCom case have proven that the normal way of doing things is inadequate in this case, so merely saying "we're not supposed to do this" is insufficient here. Besides, as ToAT said, is there any evidence that it's not working or being abused? Given all of this, I see no reason not to support HJ Mitchell's action here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see bureaucratic arguments in favour of removing the protection, but not pragmatic ones (other than Risker's argument). Is it hurting the project? Is it helping? Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline appeal. Apart from the beaurocratic reason to grant the appeal I see no reason to remove PC2, regarding Risker's point if PC2 does end up working then it can full protected later at the moment I'm not seeing a justification for it. One thing I will say though is that I don't believe that invocations of IAR should not be protected as discretionary sanctions but rather should allow other admins to modify them if they don't believe that there is sufficient justification for them, however that is person opinion and not a reason to decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gouncbeatduke

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Gouncbeatduke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gouncbeatduke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :

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

The user repeatedly behaved in uncivil manner towards me, bordering on personal attacks. Any attempt to reach a conesnsus was ignored and responded by edit warring, often in seeming teaming with a similar minded editor. The user demonstrates battleground mentality, treats every user in disagreement as an "anti-Arab POV-pusher".

Here are examples from a single discussion/edit war in the lead of Israel. I understand that you will not go into a content dispute, the content is only mentioned to explain the user conduct.

GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that this source proved irrelevant.
Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)". I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment.
Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (actually one edit and one revert), that I removed all references to the UN partition plan (actually it remained referenced two sentences above) and that I was "pushing" a certain version (actually the stable version that existed before their edits). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me of "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts", renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" and moved a statement together with an unrelated quote, effectively restoring half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing another source misrepresentation.
I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking to remove the attack in the talk page section name. The user responded again accusing me of edit warring and pov-pushing without any actual details, and refused to change the section name. Note that the user actually renamed the section on their own talk page, demonstrating understanding of how take page section names matter. Eventually GregKaye renamed the section to something more appropriate.
The user removed the misrepresentation tag while leaving the misrepresentation, with the comment saying "Please discuss in talk section before reverting again" (so far I reverted once in the whole discussion, while Gouncbeatduke reverted at least 3 times). The user insists to keep dispute tags for other matters, so they clearly understand their importance.
The discussion continued for a while then Gouncbeatduke "contributed" another baseless accusation. I expected the user to understand the uncivility of such accusation after having explained it on their talk page, so I asked the user to retract the statement, with no response so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the user is well-intended but unready to collaborate. They seem to think that NPOV is some magic word, once they say it everybody is obliged to accept whatever unexplained and unsourced edits they make. The best possible outcome of this request would be to have the user drop battleground mentality and collaborate in order to achieve their stated goal of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gouncbeatduke

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards