Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision

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

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

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

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

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (minor copyedit) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Full support, but as a matter of style, I might introduce the principle by describing what the policy does cover before turning to what it does not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I understand Euryalus' concerns, I still think this is a necessary principle here. SPAs who edit appropriately and neutrally are welcome regardless, but hyperfocused editors not staying neutral or behaving badly can be very disruptive indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but see my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is useful guidance for editors and sysop going forward, as we are about to authorise discretionary sanctions in this topic area: this principle lets people know what the standards of behaviour are likely to be at AE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Although we have used this wording before, I think the emphasis should be on the importance of the editing remaining neutral rather than on trying to evaluate whether an editor's subjective "focus" is neutral. It also bears emphasis that while an editor's being an SPA on a controversial topic may draw additional scrutiny to the editor, it will not ordinarily be a basis for sanctions in and of itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade - agreed, but the issue is hyperfocused POV-pushing rather than whether the POV-pusher has also edited other topics. I accept this principle is a fair rendering of the policy and is in any case a sideline to the heart of this PD - just wanted to register opposition to what is occasionally an unfair presumption against SPA's. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad - a reading of the second last sentence of remedy 10 indicates it will be possible to sanction an SPA solely on the basis that they are an SPA. Any SPA with an expired Gamergate topic ban will need to cease being a SPA by making edits to unrelated topics, or risk blocks of up to one year. This is regardless of the merit of their post-topic ban contributions. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Salvio's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With the understanding that the occasional outburst should be forgiven and that the fact an editor was trying to protect Wikipedia and uphold its policies may be invoked in mitigation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This probably should be moved up a little in the list of principles. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of Monsieur de La Palice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Working with Salvio is always educational. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See also my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


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

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


 * Support:
 * Revived from the 2008 Mantanmoreland case as it stills holds true today. (After NYB.)  Roger Davies  talk 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 16:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This definitely applies here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Locus of the dispute
1) This dispute is focused on the and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The links are to the article entitled "Gamergate controversy." I express no view as to whether there actually exists an identifiable real-world thing that is best described as a "GamerGate controversy," or whether a different designation would better describe the entire fiasco. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The dispute" actually comprises an entire series of disputes, some serious and others less so, some legitimate and others less so, some between two sides both acting in good faith and others less so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Brad -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * agreeing also with NYB's comment  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ala NYB. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes on soapboxing; less convinced that these diffs prove "battleground." Supporting in the context of the proposed remedy below. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * added some diffs from the talk page -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a clause about their topic ban -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


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

Gamaliel
4) has used administrative tools in relation to this article (examples:, , ) while also offering personal commentary on the article subject (example: ).
 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not egregiously bad, but admins involved in taking an administrative role should avoid substantive discussions of content. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He did what is said here, though  it may not rise to the level of a sanction.   DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not egregious, but definitely bothers me quite a bit. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * True on its face, but I do not believe the conduct rises to the level of passing an arbitration finding against this editor. Courcelles 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The question presented as to Gamaliel is whether his engagement with the substance of "Gamergate" or related issues reached the level that would disqualify him from taking administrator action in this topic-area. I conclude that it did not. That said, there are times that even a borderline "involved" admin may best serve the project by stepping away from the area, given that if he or she does not, his or her participation may itself become a focus of dispute. But the argument for taking that step is mitigated when accusations of "involvement" are flung against substantially every admin working on the topic-area, and when for whatever reason, other admins are reluctant to intervene. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just no. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that this finding shows Gamaliel to be involved to a degree that he should avoid administrative actions. More or less per Newyorkbrad. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NYB -- Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, there isn't much point in a FoF of this sort if we cannot support a sanction. L Faraone  18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I'm not sure whether what follows in the relevant remedy should also be mentioned here to some degree, for maximum clarity. L Faraone  02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps having this might help to show we're aware of the issue, and chose not to sanction.   DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof
5) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ), improper use of sources (e.g.,   ), and battleground conduct (e.g., ). They have made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article and over 2300 to its talk page.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This feels like a content decision, but I agree that the sourcing was wrong. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switching to a support, albeit a weak one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * on balance  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring yes, though mitigated by context. Improper use of sources is arguable. Battleground not made out on this evidence. Supporting as enough of the claim is technically accurate, but this is a weak endorsement only. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * I can't support this as written. The "improper use of sources" diffs are weak, and more generally I don't like stepping into the role of trying to decide whether someone was accurately representing sources. The "battleground conduct" diffs are too few and too weak to support also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "sources" diffs, which David has now expanded below, aren't weak at all. It's a simple matter of comparing text A with text B and seeing if they match. They don't.  Roger Davies  talk 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per . Not seeing this as written as anything that rises to the level of an arbitration finding. Courcelles 01:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The battleground conduct is weak and I am not going to touch a misuse of source like this -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why aren't you going to touch misuse of sources? It's a well-established misconduct issue.  Roger Davies  talk 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough here to support a finding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my comments below. Misuse or misleading use of sources is a serious conduct issue for which we have sanctioned people in the past, where it is intentional or habitual, but in this case I am satisfied (partly by the explanation on the talkpage) that the diffs cited here are isolated errors. Of course, every effort should be made to avoid such errors, especially in the BLP context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Courcelles 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I believe that this editor sought in good faith to address BLP violations and other issues within the topic-area, although some specific instances of conduct were suboptimal. I incline toward opposing, but would like to see any response by the drafters to the opposers before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The misuse of sources is pretty straightforward. North adds "which mocked and criticized those in the movement who were harassing" sourced to, which only states "This one, Brianna Wu, because she dared to tweet some jokes about the ongoing drama." Next, North adds more, citing Wu as mocking "the movement and its supporters for, among other things, making illogical claims and misogynistic threats" to [The Boston Globe https://web.archive.org/web/20141202115648/http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html], where the actual text is "But Wu was thrust into the spotlight on Oct. 9, when she tweeted what she intended as a joke. It mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, ridiculing them for, among other things, “fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent". They are appending the sources to statements they do not support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I share some of GW and Courcelles's concerns, but I think that this will roll -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the alternative proposed by GW (and may propose it myself), but this can't pass by with no finding at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternate definitely preferable, but I could live with this. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * I have the same commentary as in the NorthBySouthBaranof with respect to "misuse of sources". Furthermore, I don't think the single diff for "needlessly personalized or degraded discussions" is sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that I intend to switch to support if these are strengthened or struck—I can also propose an alternative if people would prefer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sharing the same concerns with GorillaWarfare here, again. The "needlessly personalized or degraded discussions" diff is totally insufficient for justifying a finding of that sort of misconduct.  Courcelles 02:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'd support such an alt. And I agree some finding is necessary. Courcelles 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per other opposers and my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of this is correct, but the alternate wording below is a more accurate reflection of the evidence. Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


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

Ryulong (alternate)
6.1) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ) and battleground conduct. This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past (2009, Block log).


 * Support:
 * First choice to 6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice to 6 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thanks for doing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice,  Roger Davies  talk 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


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

Tarc
7) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., ) and battleground conduct (e.g.,, , , ). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014).


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True as written, though I wish there was more there, there. All four diffs of edit warring are from the same day, a pretty clear 3RR violation, but not evidence of a prolonged edit-war, more along the lines of evidence that, in my experience, would have gotten a 24 hour block at ANEW. Courcelles 02:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting as factually accurate, though I also agree with the comment by Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added three more diffs for "battleground conduct." GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FoF true, although what should be done as a result is somewhat independent. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is technically true. Battleground is not made out. Previous sanctions are a matter of record. Supporting, but only just. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * He deserves a week block for edit warring. Nothing else, that I can see after looking over the evidence, is that serious. The battleground comment diff is for a single less-than-thought-out comment. Strangely for Wikipedia, Tarc seems to have changed. I, like Brad, do not see the WP:POINT vios that have come up in the past. I strongly suggest to Tarc that he find an area of the encyclopedia to edit that is not related to a modern-day dispute. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

The Devil's Advocate
8) has engaged in edit warring, battleground conduct , and BLP violations ([Private evidence]). The Devil's Advocate has previously been sanctioned for his conduct in controversial areas (1st t-ban Nov 2011, 1st t-ban vio block Dec 2011, 2nd t-ban Apr 2012, 2nd t-ban vio block Sep 12, I-ban Oct 2012).


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It works -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As corrected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This works now. Courcelles 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is arguable that every online community sometimes needs a devil's advocate, but effective devil's advocacy requires a certain set of skills, including good judgment as to both what points to press and how far to press them. These are skills that The Devil's Advocate does not possess, and he therefore ought to find a very different role within the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that I imposed the October 2012 interaction ban as an AE admin, and that I do not believe this requires recusal, per the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:ARBPOL. T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * The two 2013 "sanctions" are not actual sanctions, and have no place being mentioned here. One goes to a DS the committee overturned as unreasonable, the other to a mere warning that DS exist n a topic area. Courcelles 02:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but while the 2013 stuff is wrong the FOF also underreports. What he has is two separate t-bans, with a subsequent block for each for breaching them. (The actual history is: t-ban (30 days) 30 Nov 2011; blocked for t-ban vio 5 Dec 2011; fresh t-ban (6 mths) 3 Apr 2012; blocked for t-ban vio 16 Sep 12.). Plus, there's an i-ban from Oct 12. So that's five AE sanctions in total. I'll sort the FOF out tomorrow.   Roger Davies  talk 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying may not be an FoF that is warranted here. Just, not as this is written at present. Courcelles 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FOF updated. I've commented out the earlier erroneous one.  Roger Davies  talk 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Minor change, but I've changed the "May 2012" sanction diff to "October 2012". The review of the Race and intelligence case happened in May 2012, but The Devil's Advocate was not placed under an interaction ban until October. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's now called "I-ban Oct 2012".  Roger Davies  talk 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom
9) has engaged in battleground conduct  and has been sanctioned for edit warring and creating a hostile editing environment.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weakly. The third diff is, IMO, the worst.  And the block is part of the record here. Courcelles 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as the proposer -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The third diff, especially, is well out of line. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The proposed wording is true as far as it goes. but the supporting evidence here and on talkpage over time is too thin to support significant sanction. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered this second sentence in the context of what we are looking at from others in the same battleground. Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a few more diffs and moved to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As amended. L Faraone  18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Agreed with Courcelles that the third diff is worth mention, but it may be the only one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated by GorillaWarfare. L Faraone  14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

Titanium Dragon
10) has repeatedly engaged in combative behavior and BLP violations (, , , , ). They were topic banned under BLP enforcement.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Tutelary
11) has repeatedly engaged in battleground conduct by edit-warring to re-open threads in GamerGate dispute resolution  and has reinstated BLP-violating content.


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for the thrust of the finding though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

TaraInDC
12) has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. )


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was a little too far. Courcelles 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also added a few more diffs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * As stated above, I find the concept of "battleground conduct" subjective and in this case, I find the evidence insufficient to support a finding of it. I agree that this editor sometimes lost her temper and used strong language, though some would say understandably, but I decline to support the finding against her based on that either, especially since she has not edited in two and one-half months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But is back now,  Roger Davies  talk 10:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * It looks like, by our definition, TarainDC is also an SPA. Of 1000 or so edits, while only 30 edits are to related articles, about 500 are to broadly GamerGate-related stuff including talk pages, Examples: Gamergate controversy (30); Talk:Gamergate controversy (394); Talk:YesAllWomen (67); Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings (7); Talk:Zoe Quinn (1); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate (6). The fact is that 394 talk page edits to the same article is invested. I won't add this to the FOF myself but it probably should be included for balance,  Roger Davies  talk 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, the other 500 of her 1000 edits, or 50%, are to other topics. That's not an SPA under any definition (and in any event I'm not sure why it matters here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our definition (Remedy 11} is "focused primarily on Gamergate". If 50% of someone's edits are to one topic, it looks to me as if they are primarily focused.  Roger Davies  talk 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reiterating my earlier view that being a SPA is not an offence and should not be relevant to the Findings or Remedies in this case. But also agree with NYB that even if being a SPA is of note, SPA status is not made out on these figures. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't really see "SPA" here. Certainly not to the point of a finding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and . I agree entirely that being an SPA is not an offence and as I've just written elsewhere think the focus on them is unhealthy. More to the point, if we cannot agree between us what defines an SPA (compare TarainDC and Loganmac, with very similar editing stats and editing patterns) what hope is there that any SPA-related remedy won't be used for playing favourites in legitimate content disputes?   Roger Davies  talk 10:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Works for me,  Roger Davies  talk 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (forgot to support) GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Courcelles 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Addid another diff. Courcelles 21:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems clear enough.  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * this needs to be in here -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But the title should be changed; the problem is the manner of editing by the SPA, not the simple fact of SPA-hood. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think the wording of the finding as well as the former caption (thanks for the edit) places too much emphasis on the account's alleged SPA status rather than the actual problems with the editing. However, I do agree there were some problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a SPA is not an offence. Weak support re "battleground." -- Euryalus (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar line of thinking as Euryalus. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NF and Eury. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Have edited the header for consistency with other proposed findings, and because someone being a SPA is not an offence, nor is it the principal point of the proposed subsequent finding (being that Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just adding some edit numbers as this has been discussed elsewhere. Articles: 8chan (36), Talk:8chan (12); Gamergate controversy (31), Talk:Gamergate controversy (202); plus assorted Wikipedia space pages (189). Total: 470 Gamergate-related edits out of about 800 edits to date, and that's doesn't include user space.  Roger Davies  talk 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed
15) has engaged in edit warring . battleground behaviour, and point making behaviour.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. I think the next to last diff is the worst, but the rest establish a pattern here. Courcelles 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Courcelles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a finding against this editor is essential, but I can support the thrust of the finding, though not necessarily each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I do note, though, that the editor voluntarily disengaged from this topic-area some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Masem
16) has edited in a manner inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy..


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * None of these are article edits. Masem is discussing aspects of policy, including the "Verifiability not truth" paradox. They're also questioning whether crude characterisation of the sides into white hats and black hats is not just polarising the issues further and making it more difficult to resolve. I guess this is what talk pages are for and, if it isn't, it ought to be.   Roger Davies  talk 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no article edits here. Discussion of how reliable a given source is or is not is entirely in line with NPOV, and is indeed one of the ways we come to a neutral article based upon the most highly reliable references. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per Roger Davies and Seraphimblade. Euryalus (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like there might be something here, but this doesn't fit the definition of POV-pushing. Courcelles 21:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not as written. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't believe his participation in the topic has been helpful, but that is not a basis for an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) On reflection, that comment comes off more harshly than I intended, so I withdraw it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per NYBrad.  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. NativeForeigner Talk 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

Discretionary sanctions
1.1)


 * Support:
 * I'd like to emphasize my personal appreciation for the admins who have been working this difficult area. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto,  Roger Davies  talk 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also echo Beeblebrox. Courcelles 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 to all of the above. Administrator activity in AE is critical to the effectiveness of community and committee sanctions, and I greatly respect all those so willing. L Faraone  03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With some doubts about the very wide scope of point b.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC), modified 21:21 25 January (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed with many thanks to those willing to wade into this mess. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per all above. Subject to possible tweaking concerning the scope. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


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

Sanctions available
1.2)


 * Support:
 * Reminder of what's available to support this case,  Roger Davies  talk 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With a small copyedit. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some minor copyedits (including the reference to pending changes). Any arb may revert the copyedits in whole or part if undesired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * this replaces 11 for all practical purposes -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Scope of standard topic ban (I)
2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.


 * Support:
 * Housekeeping to reduce extensive multiple votes. Plus the authorisation for the DS needs to sync precisely with the areas covered by the topic ban. This can be done as a copy edit when we know whether this or 2.2) becomes the default provision,  Roger Davies  talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will help calm the entire general topic area if this is the scope. And, yeah, this should be the DS scope as well, keeping in mind that it intersects with Sexology and the soon-to-be-renamed Footnoted Quotes in scope, though all three cover content the other two do not. Courcelles 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice, (though I have some doubts about the extent of "gender-related")  DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * only choice -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the topic-banned editors probably need the broader scope while for others the narrower scope would likely be sufficient, but I well understand that there's no appetite for parsing things that fine, so I'll just say equal preference with 2.2. I am not a proponent of prohibiting any appeals for a full year, but prior discussions within the Committee appear to support it. I agree that the scope of the DS should be parallel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Abstain:
 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


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


 * Oppose:
 * Too narrow. Courcelles 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2.1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Gamaliel reminded
3) (was 2) is reminded that the boundaries of 'involved' are frequently blurred and that the exercise of administrative discretion often requires the exercise of circumspection.


 * Support:
 * If anything at all is needed ...  Roger Davies  talk 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear here that I do not believe he actually did anything improper, but he did blur the line between being involved and uninvolved, and in such cases it is always best to leave enforcement actions to someone who is unambiguously uninvolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contingent on the passage of the relevant FoF, and with emphasis that this is a very mild reminder, not a finding of any serious misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * As I said in the FoF, I cannot support any arbitration finding concerning this editor over what they did in this case. Courcelles 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per my vote at the FoF -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the finding of fact. There is a more general, and frankly more interesting, discussion to be had somewhere about whether we are better off with admins specializing in specific sanctions-enforcement areas (who as a result may over time draw accusations of becoming embroiled or partisan in the controversy), or urging much wider admin participation in this role (with the tradeoff that admins will come to enforcement situations with less background on what has gone before). But I am not willing to single out a particular admin for a remedy (albeit a reminder only) in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned
4.1) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See fresh comments below,  Roger Davies  talk 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of puzzled that arbs who supported the FoF are opposing this remedy... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To disentangle the area. NativeForeigner Talk 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switching to support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * switching to support. This is sadly needed -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence to support this remedy, per my comments on the Finding. I'd back an admonishment, but conduct issues here will otherwise be addressed via the inevitable application of Discretionary Sanctions. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see sufficient evidence for this. Any future incidents can be dealt with at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I can't decided and I will leave it to the rest of the committee -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * While I understand where the opposers are coming from, this is not any ordinary topic. In NBSB, we have a prolific editor who has made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article, and over 2300 (yes, 2300) more to its talk page. They have also made around 700 edits to this case. This is evidence of deep investment. Simply put, it is difficult to imagine how a person can be part of the problem one day, and part of the solution the next. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that such a determined editor can met their editing opponent half-way to resolve an editing dispute. Our role is to get the article back to normal as rapidly as possible and we will not do that by handing it back to the poor admins having failed to pass an obvious remedy.  Roger Davies  talk 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be added to the FoF then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to support, but looking at some edits independently to get a better feel. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof admonished
4.2) is admonished for edit warring and for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground, and advised to better conduct themselves.


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice,  Roger Davies  talk 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the topic ban does not pass. Still thinking about that one. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Second choice. L Faraone  20:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain:
 * Courcelles 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Ryulong topic-banned
5.1) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * I take his comments on the PD talk onboard, but still feel it would be better if he stepped away from this topic. Courcelles 16:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Distant second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per Courcelles  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 5.4 and 5.5. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with other remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


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


 * Comments:

Ryulong: other topics restriction
5.2) (Was 4.4) may be topic-banned from any topic if in a consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard he has caused disruption in that area. Any such sanctions must be logged in Enforcement log below, and may only be appealed to the Committee directly.


 * Support:
 * Will prioritise later if need be,  Roger Davies  talk 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My preferred solution, though I admit it will not pass. Courcelles 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't like this sort of sanction as it seems like an admission that this person is disruptive, and that we don't expect it to stop, but we will do anything we can to avoid just banning them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My thinking mirrors Beeblebrox's here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Too vague & imprecise  DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per Beeblebrox. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated by Beeblebrox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per Beeblebrox, and also because I see no reason why this should require a consensus of AE admins. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switched from support,  Roger Davies  talk 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Beeblebrox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit of a strange way to go about it. I have no problem with the concept, but for this particular use and this particular case it does feel like we are doing anything to stay short of a siteban. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per other opposers, though I would have favored this over a siteban if things came to that. Ryulong should, however, ask himself why this is even being considered. "Everyone trolls me on all topics all of the time" is not the answer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Ryulong banned
5.3) (Was 4.5) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * (first choice) As always, banning someone is not something we should want to do, but sometimes it is the best thing for the project. Ryulong has acted very poorly in this topic area, and it is clear that previous sanctions and blocks have failed to have the desired effect of ending disruptive behavior. A revolving door of speedy topic bans, chasing the problem from area to another, is not the answer. This is. I sincerely hope that at some point in the future he will be able to return and be a productive member of this community again, but for now he needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will prioritise later if need be,  Roger Davies  talk 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last Choice I would love to not do this but I don't think anything else has a snowball's chance of passing --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing in line with the fact that other things are passing. I don't want this to skate by under the radar --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last choice of presented options (Right now). I think if we're dealing with this on a purely pragmatic level this might be best for the project, but I do think that it would only be fair to attempt to apply some of the alternatives first, although I'm a bit concerned as to their potential efficacy, given the history. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, support. NativeForeigner Talk 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By which I mean a normal support, albeit with some mixed thoughts. NativeForeigner Talk 20:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a support iff clarifies, in an edit made after 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC), whether his supports for 5.1, 5.4 and 5.5 are conditional on all three passing. Otherwise this is an oppose. T. Canens (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indented because I believe as Guerillero broke his slate, this goes to oppose. Doing this for clarity's sake. Will a clerk please check for me? NativeForeigner Talk 20:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the 1RR does not pass, then first choice of what's left. Still oppose if the 1RR somehow moves back to passing.   The more I look at the history here, the more I am sure the problems are far wider than just this single topic, as I see it, Ryulong doesn't seem able to "hold his fire", and not get into edit wars.  This also, per his block log, is independent of topic areas. Without very, very strong measures to stop them from continuing to edit war throughout the encyclopedia, I don't think we have any other choice. Also, even to this morning, I still see evidence of ongoing battleground mentality.  I really, really don't like this, but I can't support their staying on the project without a strict 1RR and a topic ban at this point. And only one of those is going to pass. Courcelles 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was really on the fence on this one, and I'm really unimpressed with Ryulong continuing the behavior we previously highlighted as problematic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switch from oppose. Evidence and case/block history suggests that this user will be a continued source of sanctionable behaviour regardless of topic area. L Faraone  22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * My mind is open on the other proposed remedies, but I will certainly not be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither will I. Need to contemplate the rest of it, but this is not the solution. Courcelles 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excessive in the circumstances. I'm open to some alternative.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to try something else. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've decided to oppose this, albeit weakly. I'm hoping that the other remedies regarding Ryulong will end this situation, but I don't quite think a siteban is the best course forward here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances here, I don't think this is called for. For clarity's sake, though, this is very likely the absolute last chance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally decided, on the basis of arguments submitted to arb com.  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

Ryulong warned
5.4) (Was 4.6) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Wordsmith as needed (and I suspect it needs some), but this is what I think is needed here. A last and final chance to conduct themselves appropriately. (Note that this makes sense if and only if the ban fails.  So, oppose if the ban passes.)  Courcelles 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 5.1 and 5.5. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to any other sanctions, but not in place of them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't hurt, but definitely not an alternative to other sanctions (unless, of course, the siteban passes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to the other sanctions, if he is not immediately banned.  DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alongside other sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I should think all the previous sanctions served as warning enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Beeblebrox,  Roger Davies  talk 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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

Ryulong: 1RR
5.5) (Was 4.7) Subject to the usual exceptions, is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.  This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Ryulong's own user space.  This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Looking through his block log (linked in the FoF above) the ready and apparent problem is that Ryulong has a tendency to edit-war, and that this problem extends across topic areas, it is not a GG only issue.  So, proposed as a solution if 4.5 fails to pass. Copyedit as needed. The third clause is because he sometimes gets a little too passionate, and reverts a single editor across multiple pages rather than discussing, but feel free to remove that one if needed.  I think the combination of 4.3, 4.6, and this 4.7 are preferable to a site-ban, and Ryulong will either change his conduct to not cause future disruption, or he won't.  And if he doesn't, 4.6 makes it clear what will happen.  Courcelles 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with the other sanctions, if the site ban does not pass.  DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the site ban does not pass & in addition to all other restrictions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with any other sanctions. Ryulong has a long history of disruptively edit warring and that must stop. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 5.1 and 5.4. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring has definitely been a major issue here, so perhaps this will calm things. I agree with Beeblebrox that edit warring was not the only issue, but between this and the topic ban, I'm hoping we have a workable solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alongside other sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain:
 * Comments:
 * Comments:

TaraInDC topic-banned
6.1) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The battleground behavior here was repeated and appears deliberate. This wasn't one intemperate comment but a pattern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Still think no more than the admonishment is needed. Courcelles 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No sanction is warranted against this (former) editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my strong opposition to this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They're fairly far gone. If they return with the same problematic behavior bring them to ARCA, or apply the passed sanctions, but I don't see a reason to sanction this user, although I will note that their behavior was poor. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * on further reflection. If they become problematic DS will fix it -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For balance, considering the nature of her infractions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * upon reconsideration,  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but user has returned and is editing now, hence no longer comfortable opposing on that basis. NativeForeigner Talk 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

TaraInDC admonished
6.2) (Was 5.4) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. This is as far as I'd go for this editor. Courcelles 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice to topic bans; I don't think that this and a topic ban are necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * iff the topic ban fails -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak support. Their behavior probably did warrant it, although the benefit of sanctioning them after they left is limited. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would support if 6.1 were not currently passing, so vacuous support. L Faraone  18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the topic ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per T. Canens,  Roger Davies  talk 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For balance, considering the nature of her infractions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Insufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Move to conditional support,   Roger Davies  talk 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No sanction is warranted against this editor (though I would support this over any version of the topic-bans). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Tarc banned
7.1) (Was 6.1) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


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


 * Oppose:
 * As I say above on the proposed finding, Tarc has behaved horrendously in past disputes. However, he has done nothing sitebanworthy in this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on the FoF. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think this is one of those cases where conduct has improved from prior appearances before the Committee. This development should continue. Courcelles 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc's behavior here wasn't perfect, but it was better, and notably the deliberately disruptive point making was not at issue here. I'm willing to hope that continues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at the siteban threshold. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

Tarc topic-banned
7.2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * second choice Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 7.3 and 7.4 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, no preference. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support, per my comment on the Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comments:

Tarc warned
7.3) (Was 6.4) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 7.2 and 7.4 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to, not in lieu of, any other remedy (excepting 6.1). Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade,  Roger Davies  talk 13:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 19:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Third choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, not as alternative. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

Tarc: 1RR
7.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period.  This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Tarc's own user space.   This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Not sure what the specific hour level should be here, 24, 48, or 72, but I'm fine with any of those. I think there is a little too much of a tendency to revert on Tarc's part, that needs to be fixed. Courcelles 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 7.3 and 7.2 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to other remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Again, if edit warring were the only issue this would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

The Devil's Advocate banned
8.1) (Was 7.1) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * Roger Davies talk 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find myself wishing I could find some way not to support this. I kind of like TDA, but like other parties in this case, they appear not to have gotten the message from previous lesser sanctions so this would appear to be the only remaining option likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like this but I can't see another option -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last choice -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are only so many topic bans that can be placed before we have to question whether someone ought to be participating here at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last choice given the new alternatives provided. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice. Courcelles 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Indenting. Would like to vote on some other stuff. Courcelles 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice to all of 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last choice. L Faraone  18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my comment on the finding of fact, his days as an in-everyone's-face devil's advocate should end, because in that role he does a lousy job; but I think he could remain a useful editor if he changed his editing model of locating the editorial controversy of the moment and hurling gasoline on it. I'm willing to allow him one more chance, anyway (and perhaps therefore the more fool I). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find Brad's synopsis of his editing model to be fairly accurate, but I'm not convinced we've come to this point yet. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Explicitly oppose. Other things are passing that I believe will work. Courcelles 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

The Devil's Advocate topic-banned
8.2) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to 8.1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice,  Roger Davies  talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice as this just seems like "kicking the can down the road" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the site ban does not pass   DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 8.3 and 8.4 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice in a package with 8.3 and 8.4. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to 8.1, if that one passes. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with 8.3 or 8.4, if either or both pass. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

The Devil's Advocate: 1RR
8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period.  This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space.   This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. Not sure what the specific hour level should be here, 24, 48, or 72, but I'm fine with any of those. Courcelles 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the site ban does not pass  DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 8.2 and 8.4 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice in a package with 8.2 and 8.4. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with 8.2 and 8.4 provided they pass. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is more restrictive than necessary in my view, but I can support it as part of an alternative to a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Open to being gamed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * This needs some (major?) wordsmithing. I've never liked the idea of site-banning TDA, and I think the combination of the three proposals would solve the problems, even though they are strict, even combined they are a lot less so than a site ban, and I think he can still be a productive contributor under them. Courcelles 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is more restrictive than necessary in my view, but I can support it as part of an alternative to a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a package with 8.2 and 8.4 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice in a package with 8.2 and 8.3. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With 8.2 and 8.3, if they pass. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

The Devil's Advocate warned
8.5) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.


 * Support:
 * In a package with the others -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please break the slate and consider each vote individually -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, though the other sanctions seem like they'd be warning enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While GorillaWarfare has a point, the point of this is a remedy is the formal notice we can (and reserve the right to) ban by simple motion. Courcelles 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff the site ban does not pass. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per T. Canens,  Roger Davies  talk 15:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comments:

TheRedPenOfDoom admonished
9) (Was 8) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.


 * Support:
 * I sincerely hope this will be taken seriously and no further action will be required with regard to this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as the proposer -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Misconduct wasn't as severe or repeated as many others, hopefully this will suffice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration, moving to support. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * On balance I don't think it rises even to admonition level. A simple "don't do it again" suffices. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is more worthy of a formal reminder than the stronger admonishment. Courcelles 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think we need an 8.1? --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though there was poor behavior here, I don't think a formal admonishment is needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Tutelary topic-banned
10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban.   is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Tutelary banned
10.2) (Was 9.4) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * Will prioritise later if need be,  Roger Davies  talk 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last choice -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * This seems severe given the accompanying finding. If there is indeed ample evidence, the finding should be updated with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Overly strict in view of the evidence.  DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excessive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on present evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switch to oppose,  Roger Davies  talk 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my remarks below. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Human error, apologies all. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)  Indented by clerk, has already voted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain:


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

Editors focused primarily on Gamergate with agendas
11) (Was 10) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Gamergate and (ii) reasonably appears to be engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Editnotices to this effect should be added to relevant pages. The topic ban prohibits the editor from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (i) the Gamergate controversy or (ii) gender or sexuality, all broadly construed. The topic bans can be appealed to the enforcing administrator, to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and then to the committee at "ARCA". Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be blocked, for up to one year, if on the expiry of their topic ban they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban. All topic-bans and blocks must be logged in the Enforcement log below.
 * Support:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Switch to oppose.
 * L Faraone  03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this does not require prior warning, should that be made explicit? Courcelles 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends how tough on SPAs/Newbies we wish to be. I believe we should always have a warning especially as whenever I ask the consensus always seems to be that nobody reads editnotices anyway. Whether this deals with existing SPAs hovering around the topic quickly enough is another matter ...  Roger Davies  talk 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the person who dug this up. I don't think warnings are needed here because this is meant to be an ulta-fast but light-weight version of DS to deal with the waves of SPAs that have and will enter the topic area to push an agenda. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see warnings required, but this is an exceptional case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Oppose point (i) and also the sentence commencing "Any editor topic banned under this sanction..." Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. It is not less disruptive if the editor has also made a hundred other contributions to other topics. Nor should an editor with a previously expired topic ban be arbitrarily blocked for legitimate post-ban contributions, just because they couldn't find unrelated subjects to edit as well. I acknowledge the problem of throwaway accounts but the remedy for this is a combination of Discretionary Sanctions and swift administrator action against POV, not stigmatising SPAs as bad editors regardless of the actual post-ban edits they make. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to oppose. This is a tricky one because I wrote the remedy from which this derives. The context is that it was six years ago, and well before the well-developed system of discretionary sanctions we now have. What's more, I see from the logs that it only seems to been used eight times. The principle enforcement mechanism in Scientology is DS, and before that a customised special enforcement provision. I have no reason to believe that the usual route of alerts/admin action cannot be used effectively to deal with POV-pushing etc from SPAs, zombie accounts, and throwaway accounts. Anything more serious, like tampering with BLPs or personal attacks, can be handled without an alert under existing site policies. In short, we don't really need this and it sends the wrong signal,  Roger Davies  talk 09:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I agree with Roger. We have already authorised discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict; on top of that, administrators can still use their "traditional" powers to deal with disruptive editors who haven't yet been warned. In light of that, this remedy would be superfluous. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree with Roger and Salvio. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the impetus behind the proposal is sound, I think this is unnecessary in light of the DS remedy that is passing unanimously, and risks triggering too many debates about which accounts fall within the scope or not. I do, however, believe that an account's overall editing history (or lack of one) may be relevant in deciding whether a discretionary sanction is warranted, and if so what the sanction should be. This cuts both ways, and administrators must use good judgment is trying to, for example, distinguish new good-faith users making rookie mistakes from new bad-faith disruption accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Salvio, Brad. NativeForeigner Talk 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Should this one have been included in the Standard Topic Bans you've added, as well? Courcelles 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, not without a warning. The standard topic area is a bit too broad. I am a troubled by this remedy because the editing community has changed a lot in the intervening years and it easily be misused. That said, the scope needs to adjusted so that it precisely reflects the t-bans/DS. Given the widespread support for Scope (I), this can probably be amended as a copy-edit.  Roger Davies  talk 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar concerns to Euryalus, but I'd like to look it over in a bit more detail. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have to oppose this in its current form, in part because the mismatch between "SPA" in the title and "editors primarily focused" in the body will cause confusion (we already don't agree among ourselves as to which of the parties here is an SPA or not, which I now realize was largely because of the non-standard definition). I do agree that if a new account appears tomorrow and starts its editing career by playing games on the Gamergate page, it shouldn't be given a whole lot of slack. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point, Brad, and think I cna make this as a copyedit to sync the terminology up. Yes, it results in a long sanction header, but, whatever. Courcelles 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the change, though wind up still opposing per my vote comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned
12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing, , and from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of how a couple of the topic bans came about, but this is a reasonable step. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Titanium Dragon topic-banned
13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the relevant FoF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Loganmac topic-banned
14.1) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * second choice -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just barely. The diffs in the Findings are insufficient to support this remedy, but a review of on-wiki contributions indicates a topic ban would be beneficial in resolving the overall dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * There is evidence of misconduct on this editor's part, but I'm not comfortable sanctioning him. A topic ban, considering the evidence contained in the finding of fact would already be somewhat on the harsh side; however, what pushes me to oppose is the consideration that other editors whose conduct was comparatively worse are not being sanctioned or are being sanctioned more leniently. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Loganmac banned
14.2) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Not supported on this evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excessive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very excessive, in my opinion. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just arbitrary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per all the above,  Roger Davies  talk 12:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not supported by the current evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I rescinded the FoF that would have supported this -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Willhesucceed topic banned
15) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.


 * Support:
 * Courcelles 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to applaud the voluntary disengagement, this is likely not necessary, but it makes some sense to have it on the books. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


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


 * Comments:

Masem topic-banned
16) (Was 15) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Gamergate controversy broadly construed.


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  08:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The FOF doesn't describe any misconduct,  Roger Davies  talk 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FoF supports no such restriction, as it describes no wrongdoing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the mindset that Masem should take a step back from the area, though. Courcelles 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No FoF justifying this is passing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

DungeonSiegeAddict510 banned
17 (Was 16) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Support:
 * as proposer -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the revised FoF, I do not believe this editor will follow his topic ban. Courcelles 18:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of additional diffs in the FoF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Switch to oppose.
 * per Courcelles and GorillaWarfare  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain:


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

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


 * Support:
 * Adapted from the Scientology case. This topic needs experienced editors who haven't been involved already to come in and ensure the articles follow policies such as RS, NPOV, etc. Not sure how much remedies like this actually do anything, but I do live in hope. Courcelles 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Scientology is stable, six years on. This was probably achieved by encouraging all the major players to move on, mainly with topic-bans, and the egregious ones to move out, with site bans. It took much of the invested heat out of the pages and left a calmer environment for neutral editors, who had been driven out, to work in.  Roger Davies  talk 09:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess. Echoing Courcelles that I don't feel like these remedies do much of anything at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that I'd like to see it happen, but I don't really know that these do any good either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, though the real influx will come about as a result of a calmer environment. It means that neutral editors are able to drift in without being accusing of having agendas.   Roger Davies  talk 09:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I am rather doubtful that our saying this platitude will make a difference one way or another.  DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually do think this sort of remedy is potentially helpful. If even one or two solid, uninvolved, experienced editors were to enter the area, that could be very worthwhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


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

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * Notes

^ Iff site ban fails

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

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

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

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


 * Support
 * Appears remedies are settled and clearly pass/fail on most accounts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done, and this whole case needs to be done ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is effectively done. Courcelles 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner has now voted, and I don't see anything else to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 08:en13, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Reinstating. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done voting now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  20:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Couple of things left to sort out, most specifically whether the scopes of remedies 1 and 2 should match exactly. Courcelles
 * Please note that I've done this per the comments on 2.1 and the list. Would prefer to hold off closing the case to see if anyone feels this needs a revert and an alt. Courcelles 20:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While that's resolved, I'm still here until P14 and R1.2 find majority. Courcelles 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to let NF vote -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose. We are close, but I believe there is a bit more finalization to be done in the next 24 hours or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. I want another day to think about it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here. I haven't really made up my mind on one remedy yet and would like to think about it a little more. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. L Faraone  18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another day is needed,  Roger Davies  talk 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still a couple things to work out. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are still somethings unresolved in our discussions, including the calculation of remedies. I continue to think we should not yet close.  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Short delay requested. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments