Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173

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

Request concerning Roscelese

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality : specifically "making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert" and failing to "discuss any content reversions on the pages's talk page"

2) is subject to the following restrictions. She is: These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
 * indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
 * indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
 * indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.


 * Passed 8 to 2 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 22:23, 3 May 2015 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=660693403&oldid=660415140 "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em"] This reverted a week and a half's worth of contributions, over 70 edits total.  There is no discussion with SY86 pertaining to this, on the talk page, or on either user's talk page.  Even so, there was absolutely no attempt by Roscelese to explain the reasons for the mass revert, every explanation claimed there were previous explanations provided, yet previous explanations have been addressed and un-responded to.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : None that I'm aware of


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

Not applicable. User is under restrictions from previous arbcom case above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Between April 26th and May 2nd, made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_accusation_of_rape&type=revision&diff=660415140&oldid=659234919 several] good faith edits to False accusation of rape. While the bulk of the changes were fine, there were a few reverts by other users, including, , and. After seeing these reverts, made an effort to discuss them on the talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Survey_of_20_police_officers 1], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#DiCanio 2] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Statistics_in_the_lede 3], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#FBI_statistics 4], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Further_reading 5], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Attempt_to_conflate_false_with_withdrawn 6], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Forensic_Victimology 7], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#British_Home_Office_study_.282005.29 8], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Proposed_Introduction 9], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#British_Home_Office_study_.282005.29:_the_percentage_rate 10], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Edit_Summary.2C_repeated.2C_for_removing_a_piece_from_Comment_is_Free 11], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Section_.22Police_opinions_on_false_rape_accusations.22 12], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118#Brownmiller_.281975.29_and_the_claimed_rate_of_2.25 and 13]. Actually, every section in the current revision of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&oldid=661010118] has EllieTea attempting to explain and discuss his/her edits. Maybe a little overkill in the number of sections, but nothing too bad.

During this time, Roscelese's only responses to EllieTea were:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&diff=659618630&oldid=659616460] EllieTea responded here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&diff=659646769&oldid=659627986]


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&diff=659867571&oldid=659860165] (more uncivil "blatantly nonsensical", "I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources") EllieTea responded here (showing sources and asking for an explanation): [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&diff=659870391&oldid=659867571]


 * And so forth... Every section in the talk page goes on like that. With EllieTea providing sources, quotes, etc. while Roscelese and Sonicyouth generally ignored rebuttals and sources provided.

Finally, Roscelese reverted the page back over a week (with the first diff I listed above). At this time, the only explanation she provided was "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" (in the edit summary), and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_accusation_of_rape&diff=660693650&oldid=660624290 on the talk page]: "I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved." I was unable to find any such discussion, and even then I found Roscelese unilaterally reverting the entire article to a week before a bit extreme given all the attempts by EllieTea to discuss it. I reverted the change [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=660696272&oldid=660693403 "Undid revision 660693403 by Roscelese (talk) WAY too large a revert. You owe it to EllieTea to go through and carefully revert the edits that are bad, not just flip the table. WP:REVERT"] and left a response on the talk page Talk:False_accusation_of_rape. My revert was later undone by an editor who had never been involved in the discussion and did not get involved in any discussion (but from the Arbitration case, has a clear history of helping Roscelese). This discussion went on for a while between myself, Roscelese, Sonicyouth, and EllieTea. EllieTea and I repeatedly asked for Roscelese and Sonicyouth to explain what was wrong with the bulk of the edits, all requests for specifics were refused with WP:IDHT accusations and refusal to even link the section where it was discussed. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While putting this together, a related ANI was opened, here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Responses to discussion
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=661478610&oldid=661475423] That is correct.  I do not know much about other incidents involving Roscelese, but judging from User talk:Roscelese it seems like there may be more if someone is interested in looking into it.  Regarding the second question, there was nothing for her in the Enforcement log for the arbcom case, so I don't believe so.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree that just because an edit summary was provided that the revert was properly explained. There is no explanation here as to what the problem was with the edits, and there were many good non-controversial edits that were reverted in this en masse rollback despite improving the article.  All previous explanations had been addressed, and some of the changes by them were discarded. Yet these explanations do not apply to the revert in the diff above. I do agree this is not clear cut. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not and have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues, and that they were rightfully reverted. What we are discussing here is the revert en masse of all of EllieTea's changes to the article, with no discussion and no explanation.  As for SPA and "Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic." that is blatantly false.  If we look at the [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=EllieTea&project=en.wikipedia.org analysis], only little over 1/3 of EllieTea's article namespace edits have been in articles remotely related to the topic of rape. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no presented evidence to support 's ridiculous accusation that "it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign." I give permission for a CheckUser to examine my email logs. The only email I received, related to this, was an email from a user un-involved in the dispute on 5/4 informing me of Roscelese's sanctions. This request is not out of malice intent towards Roscelese. As for the timing of this arbitration enforcement request, that is unfortunate, but I was too busy putting this together (and you can look at its initial length) to notice that an ANI was filed while I was working on it.  However, I quickly mentioned and linked the other discussion both here and at ANI, which is easy to verify, so that point is moot. I would have gotten to opening an AE last week, but I have been busy with a lot of final projects and papers for university the past few weeks. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If any uninvolved admin feels I have acted wrongly in attempting to resolve this dispute on the talk page and eventually bringing it to Arbcom enforcement to discuss whether Roscelese's actions violate previous arbitration committee decisions, I will happily accept a warning (as suggested by Sonicyouth86) for my actions. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I categorically deny any involvement in canvassing (as accused by "Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA") as I have never edited Cubancigar's talk page. (misunderstanding, redacted 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)) The only editors I notified of this discussion are those that saw my linking of it in the ANI, and those I linked above.(Roscelese herself as well, of course, as required) The supposition that because I asked Roscelese to provide more of an explanation for her en masse revert, that I am somehow in cahoots with EllieTea is absolutely ludicrous.  I simply feel that EllieTea put in a lot of work, most of which improved the article, and should not have been reverted in its entirety, especially with no explanation provided, nor other attempts at dispute resolution. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try to respond to all of these.
 * Regarding SPA: You can't really count talk page discussions (nor this meta-discussion) as being part of the rape topic. That is why it's best to discuss article-namespace edits when discussing whether someone's an SPA.  It is true, that many of the recent edits EllieTea has made in Article namespace are on these related articles, however, I do not agree that they are all problematic, and SPAs usually have much fewer edits, never reaching even 100.  It is common, and understandable that editors may have a specific interest in a broad topic which leads them to direct their work to those topics.  There are plenty of experienced editors that I have a lot of respect for that do so in articles related to rape.
 * Regarding support of EllieTea's edits: As for my first comment in this dispute (where I said I had no problem with EllieTea's edits), it should be read as there being no significant policy issues with the edits as a whole, not that they are not up for discussion, and it was following a comment earlier that day by Roscelese threatening to revert EllieTea's edits wholesale. Try not to think of me as defending EllieTea's edits, I do not agree with every single one, some were rightfully reverted as they happened, others could use a few additional un-involved opinions (perhaps by RfC or DRN), but there were also a fair number of non-controversial edits which improved the article. My point has been that more explanation and more discussion on both parts would have been fair, and a mass-rollback such as what took place here is rarely called for, nor the solution.
 * Regarding "no discussion": You are correct that there was discussion, from all parties (Except ), though incorrect that I have said that there was no discussion. What I have said is that the concerns were discussed and EllieTea attempted to address them, in some cases dropping the change and moving on to others.  But for many of the changes, EllieTea made multiple attempts to bring them up for discussion, which he/she is allowed to do, though these attempts were ignored.  And when the rollback came, no explanation was provided.
 * Regarding timing: I'm not really sure how the end of the protection could have been the trigger for the ANI or AE, I haven't checked the time the protection ends, I've been busy all week. I forget who it was (I looked earlier) but the protection was requested by some random editor who hadn't been involved in any of this. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Part of this seems okay to me, I note you recently struck the exception of non-controversial maintenance. Could you explain why this was struck?  Note: before seeing it struck I went and alphabetized the see also list (something non-controversial per MOS:SEEALSO that was bothering me and was undone with the revert above) Willing to self-rv, wasn't intending to sneak it in or whatever.  I'm not sure warnings about being banned from the article and it's talk page are warranted, though I would have no issue with standard discretionary sanctions notices. I agree with 's additional solution of an edit notice though.
 * Perhaps this whole thing would work better as a talk page notice of the sanctions and an editnotice cautioning any editors seeking to make changes, and standard ARBGG discretionary sanctions notices for the editors in the listed group. If I am to have a warning on my talk page by an admin explicitly saying that my future editing could lead to a ban from an article, I'd prefer to know exactly what I've done wrong here so I can do differently in the future.  Also because I've had people dig through my talk page and bring up irrelevant warnings/notices I've received in Deletion Reviews and AfDs I've been involved in. Such a warning would provide context of my actual actions, and not actions of the group.
 * For example, this AE request has already been mentioned by the article creator of an AfD I nominated claiming that it shows evidence of my collusion with an editor that isn't even mentioned anywhere in this discussion in a conspiracy to harass him and his articles. A more experienced editor went on a similar rant against me in a deletion review. No objection to cautions in general or handling future changes through RfC/WikiProjects/DRN/etc. I really need to walk out the door now, I may add some more later today. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me go through this latest comment of yours:
 * "EllieTea, the reasons were stated, but you ignore them." Show me a single discussion in the talk page where EllieTea did not respond and address your concerns.
 * "Some of your additions like your overlinking were merely unhelpful rather than harmful but still."


 * Regarding these 4 wikilink changes you are now criticizing [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=prev&oldid=659295742 1&2] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=prev&oldid=659313969 3&4], they were good edits, your 'overlinking' claim is ridiculous :


 * One of them (the top change in the '3&4' link) was retargetting to the correct disambiguation article, and was not already linked elsewhere.


 * The remaining 3 were all inside References, which are footnotes (See H:FOOT), and are therefore explicit exceptions to the overlinking style guideline.


 * "I asked you to post your desired changes on the article talk page so that we could discuss them and get consensus but you kept restoring your edits and ignoring the BRD cycle." The talk page shows clear proof that EllieTea made several attempts to discuss these changes. You can see the long list of talk threads where EllieTea attempted to discuss the changes at the start of the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section.
 * "Your comment shows that you have no intention to change your behavior, you don't even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with your editing." Let's be fair here, yours do as well. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "EllieTea and you have claimed here and on numerous other occasions that no reason was provided for opposing and reverting EllieTea's edits. This claim is obviously incorrect, as a glance at the talk page shows. The reasons were stated many times, but ET refuses to WP:HEAR the explanations because they regard them as "bogus"."
 * They were at the beginning, and then responses that attempted to address yours/Roscelese's concerns were ignored, as has been stated many times now.
 * "I shouldn't have mentioned the overlinking because it allows you to detract attention from the persistent mirepresentation of sources, POV editing and edit-warring, but alright."
 * You shouldn't have mentioned it but you did, and when you do, the other side is allowed to refute them. You don't get to just make a false accusation and then claim that any response to it is irrelevant.  I answered everything in your comment.
 * The talk page shows that I and other users demonstrate EllieTea's original research, and EllieTea declaring all objections invalid. For example, here ET was given quotes from one of the sources which directly contradicts their assertions. Here ET starts a new section to discuss the same issue, provides some pretty fancy original research ("the other records were apparently lost"...), and continues to insist that their interpretation is more valid that the source's.
 * I see EllieTea attempting to discuss the changes, and your claims of WP:OR fail because of WP:CALC. Different editors are allowed to disagree on topics, as well as interpretation of sources, that is why we discuss them and attempt to reach consensus on articles.
 * Furthermore, the revision history shows EllieTea restoring their edits multiple times against consensus, that is, not following the BRD cylcle.
 * I see you both violating the WP:3RR rule between April 30th and May 1st, but that does not justify the later mass rollback of all changes. In fact, you violated WP:BRD yourself, whatever your intentions were. BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle says:
 * I see you both violating the WP:3RR rule between April 30th and May 1st, but that does not justify the later mass rollback of all changes. In fact, you violated WP:BRD yourself, whatever your intentions were. BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle says:


 * If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version.  If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.
 * Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset.
 * I might consider changing my behavior if you show me how I violated Wikipedia policy. But you know that I didn't, and neither did the three other editors who reverted EllieTea's edits.
 * See above. WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that your comments have become repetitive and that my earlier responses already address your most recent claims.
 * The problem here is you keep repeating yourself without addressing my claims.
 * If you feel comfortable with EllieTea's interpretation of sources (216/2643≠9% --> WP:CALC?), it's your decision and your credibility.
 * I already said that EllieTea's changes had both some good and some bad, several times. And your misrepresentation of what EllieTea said just isn't right.
 * For future reference, not following the BRD cycle looks something like this: bold edit -> first revert -> re-revert to preferred version -> second revert. EllieTea usually restores their bold edits at least once without consensus.
 * You're correct, it does look like that. But what I said was that you both violated WP:BRD, not just EllieTea.  As quoted above, WP:BRD says "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version."  This is actually said several times in WP:BRD.  The WP:BRD-NOT section says "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." and "BRD is never a reason for reverting."' It later says "If you encounter BRRD (bold, revert, revert...), do not escalate the situation to BRRRD.".  While EllieTea is a new editor and not likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of WP:BRD, you are far more experienced, and surely knew of the many other avenues to resolve the dispute.  You are also the one that brought up WP:BRD in the first place in your edit summaries.   A better course of action would be to take it to WP:DRN or WP:RFC. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it does look like that. But what I said was that you both violated WP:BRD, not just EllieTea.  As quoted above, WP:BRD says "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version."  This is actually said several times in WP:BRD.  The WP:BRD-NOT section says "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." and "BRD is never a reason for reverting."' It later says "If you encounter BRRD (bold, revert, revert...), do not escalate the situation to BRRRD.".  While EllieTea is a new editor and not likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of WP:BRD, you are far more experienced, and surely knew of the many other avenues to resolve the dispute.  You are also the one that brought up WP:BRD in the first place in your edit summaries.   A better course of action would be to take it to WP:DRN or WP:RFC. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection here to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=662403354&oldid=662400770 proposed sanction] &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  05:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=661473248&oldid=661469134]

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

Statement by Roscelese
I was just going to ignore the wall of text at ANI, but now that the same dispute has been dragged here for no apparent reason, I suppose I ought to leave a sentence or two. In brief: The offending user's refusal to acknowledge my explanations of why their edits violated policy repeatedly != my violating my sanction by not explaining my reverts. Moreover, "the source does not contain that statistic or anything approaching it" is not remotely personal, and "that editor is an SPA" is obvious from their edit history. Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA, too: –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I mean, clearly I don't agree that my editing here was sanctionable; I reverted a few of the most ludicrously bad edits on EllieTea's part (false accusations are just like lynching, courtesy of a pay-to-print publisher; bizarre number juggling) but left the rest sitting during discussion and didn't wholesale revert until several days later, after discussing the issues with EllieTea on the talkpage, confirming that EllieTea either is unfamiliar with or doesn't care about WP:NOR etc., and running the idea by other users. Discussing the situation with Sonicyouth, I had initially recommended not pursuing action under the Gamergate sanctions, because I didn't realize how broad they are. So whatever else happens, I think an edit notice or talkpage notice indicating that the page falls under sanctions (Gamergate and/or MRM) could be useful. However, again, I don't really see the point of warning me or Sonicyouth personally: we have been making sincere good-faith efforts to discuss the edits with an obvious single-purpose account and point out why their edits (eg. 8 of 52 accusations are false) or fundamental assumptions (any report not proven true is false) were factually wrong, under the evidently mistaken assumption that this would result in the person amending their behavior. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions for Padenton by Beyond My Ken
Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are reporting is essentially a single incident between Roscelese and EllieTea, is that right? And the AN/I report you cite is about the same incident as well, not an additional incident, yes? Do you have evidence of any other incidents besides this one?Also a general question to whomever can answer it: has Roscelese been warned or sanctioned for violating this restriction before? I see nothing in the Enforcement Log. BMK (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sonicyouth86
As I stated at ANI, is an obvious SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. All that Roscelese did was discuss those edits, explain how they violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and revert some of those POV pushing edits together with other experienced editors like and. I think that it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign. I listed some examples of EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, and POV pushing on the ANI noticeboard. Padenton has clearly been unhelpful in the topic area, claiming over and over again that I and Roscelese have been uncivil to EllieTea or accusing me of refusing to discuss, which is demonstrably false. I suggest a warning for Padenton and a topic ban for EllieTea who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. -- Sonic Y (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You keep trotting out this myth that EllieTea's edits were reverted "with no discussion and no explanation." Even a cursory glance at the talk page reveals that your statement couldn't be more incorrect.
 * As for the SPA thing, EllieTea made 222 article edits since registering their account in June 2009. More than half (134) of their article edits were made this year, and of those 134 edits almost 100 were about rape, campus rape, rape charges against an NFL player, false rape accusations. If we exclude the 13 edits to the Leila Araghian article and 6 edits of the article about a bridge designed by Araghian, all other non-rape related edits this year were minor like adding wikilinks, changing the date format , italicizing text , small copy edits . With the exception of one edit in 2013, all of their article talk page edits had to do with rape . So it's more than fair to say that the vast majority of EllieTea's edits and especially all of their substantial edits are limited to one topic area which is (false accusations of) rape.
 * You claim that you have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues. But you actually did say that you see no issue with EllieTeas edits to the article. Your contribution to the discussion was to a) post blanket approval of EllieTea's extremely problematic additions (see previous link), and b) defend EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources like here. You have actively enabled EllieTea's disruptive behavior and persistent original research. And here you are, requesting sanctions against an experienced editor whose only "mistake" was to engage with an SPA and explain over and over which edits were problematic and why. -- Sonic Y (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that you received emails from EllieTea or that you coordinated your complaints against Roscelese off-wiki. What I meant to say was that you were the only other editor who supported the same POV and same content as EllieTea, and you defended even the most obvious misrepresentation of sources. So I regard it as no coincidence that you and EllieTea would request sanctions against Roscelese after the article protection expired and after I mentioned that I intended to take ElliTea and your behavior to ANI or AE. -- Sonic Y (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Short reply re your second and third point:
 * Yes, there were significant policy issues with the edits as a whole. You just basically repeated your blanket defense of EllieTea's problematic contributions. There were persistent OR and NPOV issues with the edits as a whole. Actually worse than OR, blatant misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation that corresponds with EllieTea's stated POV.
 * EllieTea refused to follow the BRD cycle, restored their edits without consensus and while discussion was ongoing (e.g., ). Even when EllieTea participated in discussion they refused to listen on many occasions, simply repeating their original research even after it was conclusively demonstrated to them with long quotes from sources that their edits misrepresented the sources (e.g., discussion -> refusal to listen). -- Sonic Y (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions – the GamerGare ArbCom case does. I intended to request sanctions against EllieTea under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions and I made the mistake of mentioning it to Padenton, and he took it to AE first. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions apply to "any gender-related dispute and controversy" and probably cover the false accusation of rape page. Should I start a separate AE request? -- Sonic Y (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that Roscelese was aware that the GamerGate discretionary sanctions are in force for the false accusation of rape article. And I don't see how Roscelese could have possibly violated those terms by sticking to 1RR and by removing original research and POV. The editor who is aware because they received a DS alert and whose behavior has been problematic is EllieTea. -- Sonic Y (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody would be allowed to make any edit unless it is supported by consensus. So, no bold edits. I don't understand. Why should users who reverted bold edits that had no consensus, i.e. users who followed your proposal of not editing without consensus, be warned about not making bold edits without consensus? A warning not to edit without/against consensus implies that I and the other editors who opposed EllieTea's edits actually edited without consensus on that page, but that didn't happen. It's like warning a user who didn't demonstrate conduct X to not demonstrate conduct X. At least one more user edited the page between April 26 and May 5 and would receive a warning just for reverting one of EllieTea's clearly disruptive edits. Please clarify: If an IP user or SPA or someone else edits against consensus, are editors allowed to revert the edits or is the revert itself also considered a "bold edit"? Prohibiting editors from removing edits made against consensus would open new ways to game the system. Another thing: EllieTea's edits extent to other articles and sections about rape. For example, here they added a cherry-picked quote from a copy of a legal document. Does the "no addition of content without consensus" extend to other articles? Re balancing out the issue. Warning editors who reverted edits that violated our content policies and that were made against consensus, doesn't balance out the issue. If it creates balance, it's a very false balance. I (and other editors except EllieTea and Padenton) didn't try to add content against consensus, I didn't add content at all. It's disappointing that EllieTea's disruptive editing and my evidence seems to have been ignored. -- Sonic Y  (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * EllieTea keeps claiming that no reason was given for reverting their edits. EllieTea, the reasons were stated, but you ignore them. It has been explained why withdrawn and not prosecuted accusations aren't the same as false accusations, why opinion pieces and tales of personal experience aren't the same as statistics and research, why it's not a good idea to attribute opinions to a "reference work" that really isn't a "reference work" at all, and so on. You believe that there's nothing wrong with your additions. Others disagree and have demonstrated on numerous occasions that many of your additions consist of inaccuracies and original research. Some of your additions like your overlinking were merely unhelpful rather than harmful but still. I asked you to post your desired changes on the article talk page so that we could discuss them and get consensus but you kept restoring your edits and ignoring the BRD cycle. Your comment shows that you have no intention to change your behavior, you don't even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with your editing. -- Sonic Y  (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're on a roll. What might seem like "an obvious fact" to you and men's rights types is far from obvious to everyone else. But your support for EllieTea's kind of editing is duly noted. -- Sonic Y (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * EllieTea and you have claimed here and on numerous other occasions that no reason was provided for opposing and reverting EllieTea's edits. This claim is obviously incorrect, as a glance at the talk page shows. The reasons were stated many times, but ET refuses to WP:HEAR the explanations because they regard them as "bogus". I shouldn't have mentioned the overlinking because it allows you to detract attention from the persistent mirepresentation of sources, POV editing and edit-warring, but alright. While a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, I see no reason to repeat the wikilink in the same section, especially when the link already appears in the text and references . I only mentioned it to say that not all of EllieTea's edits violated content policy, some edits were merely unnecessary, but not harmful. The talk page shows that I and other users demonstrate EllieTea's original research, and EllieTea declaring all objections invalid. For example, here ET was given quotes from one of the sources which directly contradicts their assertions. Here ET starts a new section to discuss the same issue, provides some pretty fancy original research ("the other records were apparently lost"...), and continues to insist that their interpretation is more valid that the source's. Furthermore, the revision history shows EllieTea restoring their edits multiple times against consensus, that is, not following the BRD cylcle. I might consider changing my behavior if you show me how I violated Wikipedia policy. But you know that I didn't, and neither did the three other editors who reverted EllieTea's edits. -- Sonic Y (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that your comments have become repetitive and that my earlier responses already address your most recent claims. If you feel comfortable with EllieTea's interpretation of sources (216/2643≠9% --> WP:CALC?), it's your decision and your credibility. For future reference, not following the BRD cycle looks something like this: bold edit -> first revert -> re-revert to preferred version -> second revert. EllieTea usually restores their bold edits at least once without consensus. -- Sonic Y (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean any type of edit that they restored without consensus or a specific type of edit? If you mean the former, then the last time EllieTea restored their preferred version was here. If you mean the kind of edit where they remove sources that say that false accusations are rare and/or incorrectly summarize sources to say that false accusations are more frequent, then the last time they restored such an edit was here (it's not marked as a revert but it's a follow-up partial revert to this bold edit). -- Sonic Y (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EllieTea
If I have understood this discussion, an important issue is whether Roscelese justified the mass revert of my edits. Roscelese did give an explanation for the mass revert, on the Talk page. That explanation states that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR.

Consider the diff between before and after the mass revert. Roscelese should be able to specify some aspect of the diff that shows a violation of VERIFY and some aspect that shows a violation of OR.

I ask that Roscelese be required to specify such aspects. EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

___________________

The second part of the restriction on Roscelese is “indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert”. If Roscelese made a rollback-type revert and provided an explanation, but the explanation was bogus, surely that would count as a violation of the restriction. I believe that that is what happened with her revert of my edits.

The explanation that Roscelese gave in her edit summary and elaborated on in Talk asserted that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Yet Roscelese has failed to show any aspect of the before–after diff that violates those policies&mdash;or indeed any WP policy. That is, it seems that the “explanation” was just some words to allow her to claim that she was not technically violating the restriction. If the claims in her explanation were valid, she would be able to show such.

EllieTea (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There has been no valid explanation for the rollback-type revert by Roscelese. In particular, Roscelese’s “explanation” suggested that there is something in the before–after diff that violates WP policies, and yet Roscelese has not specified any aspect of the diff that does so, despite my repeated requests.


 * Sonicyouth86 (May 12, 22:46) has now specified something in the diff that supposedly violates WP policy: my alleged overlinking. The alleged overlinking is for the journal Violence Against Women. Yet the main text of the WP article only wikilinks the journal once. There are other wikilinks for the journal, but they are within cite–journal templates—in the footnotes or the Further reading section. My interpretation of WP policies is that wikilinking a journal in those places is acceptable (and it is helpful for readers). Even if I have not interpreted the policies correctly, though, is this justification for a rollback-type revert? Sonicyouth86 can apparently find no other alleged policy violations.


 * Roscelese has specifically suggested that something in the diff violates VERIFY and NOR. I ask, again, that she specify something in the diff that violates those policies. If she continues to fail to do so, then it should be clear that her explanation for the rollback-type revert is bogus, and so she has violated the restriction on her.


 * EllieTea (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone
I agree with the suggestion of, however, I just believe that this kind of rule should be officially imposed on this article for everyone else. Restricting these few editors is likely going to introduce some trouble, there is clear possibility of having any other editor who would edit against consensus. We can solve that problem, by installing a editnotice on the article, Template:Editnotices/Page/False accusation of rape, and it should warn against making any major edits without consensus. Whoever would edit against consensus and refuse to self-revert might be reported here or to any admin who wants to keep a watch in this area.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Edjohnston is busy and it should be taken into consideration, that's why I still think of editnotice since it is going to remind without much efforts. Whole article should be put under 0rr restriction because 1RR promotes tag teaming. Allow only those edits that have consensus. Edits having no consensus should be reverted.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When it was the last time that EllieTea restored such a edit without consensus?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is what I had asked for, thank you for the diffs. In fact some of your concerns sounds fair, it is not just about the content but also about the usual conduct, and we will have to observe if there are any chances to solve them with the help of this board.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal of Callanecc. They don't address cure for bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources and some other disrupt signs at first sight, but a deeper look would.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (anonymous)
Was just going over the page and felt the need to point something out, in response to ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. That is not "POV"; it is an obvious fact. The way that a rape accusation becomes "known to be true" is a guilty verdict in a court of law, because that is the only venue where the accusations are both (a) tested and (b) held to an actual standard of proof (as opposed to "preponderance of the evidence"). Guilty verdicts at court are greatly outnumbered by accusations; both sides of the discussion around rape (particularly campus rape) and false rape accusations agree on this. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir
I'm on quasi break, but if I'm named in a AE like this, it would have been nice to be notified of it.

This whole thing seems fishy. The page was protected by on May 4 so the content dispute could be resolved. This request was filed 4 days later and the edit in question was from May 3. The talk page for the article was last edited by anyone mentioned here on May 5. So why the delay? Smells like sour grapes to me. This filing deserves a trouting.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

This complaint may be closed unless it identifies exactly where Roscelese broke the Arbcom restriction. The three parts of her restriction are:
 * ''indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
 * indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
 * indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

I don't see a complaint here that Roscelese broke the 1RR. And nobody has presented diffs showing Roscelese reverting with no edit summary. The only clause where you might have a case is the third one, about casting aspersions or personalizing disputes. What I can see is Roscelese using some harsh language, but there is intense disagreement about how to interpret some of the sources about false rape allegations. There is some indication that more than one party is descending into minute analysis of sources that may violate WP:NOR. Charges of misreading sources are not exactly aspersions if there is good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sources. As yet, this does not add up to a clear case against Roscelese. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What we have here is a set of people who appear to be ineffective in finding consensus. In lieu of sanctions for this complaint, I think we should consider a period of full protection of False accusation of rape. That would require editors to reach consensus on the talk page before an admin would change the article through the Edit protected process. The alternative of topic banning all the people whose collaboration is deficient isn't available to us because this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions. The only person in the current complaint who can be sanctioned is User:Roscelese because she has a specific restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to use discretionary sanctions, you can invoke WP:ARBGG, which authorised DS for "any gender-related dispute or controversy" (see Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the pagelinks for the article:

Let's assume that WP:ARBGG is applicable and gives us the authority for page bans, I'd be tempted to close with warnings to all the people who reverted at False accusation of rape between April 26 and May 4. That group would include
 * EllieTea
 * Padenton
 * Roscelese
 * Binksternet and
 * Sonicyouth86.

The warning would be a caution about their future editing at False accusation of rape. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of WP:DRN or any other recognized method of WP:Dispute resolution. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit that they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus unless it is routine text editing or uncontroversial maintenance unless it is supported by consensus. So, no bold edits. Of course, only those who choose to make further edits to the article would be risking anything, and the only parties to be warned at this time are those in the above list. I invite comment on this strategy from the parties, admins or anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. It balances out the issues and doesn't assign blame. I'd suggest just saying that all edits (except obviously uncontroversial text editing or maintenance) to the article must be supported by consensus as that avoids the wikilawyering around "they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus" and what "routine text editing" is. Good idea Ed! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If others show up to revert the article after this request closes I'm prepared to give them individual notices of the same thing. It may also be worthwhile adding an editnotice to the article, as you recommend., I revised the wording of my proposal in light of your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, I'd probably add in something about uncontroversial maintenance though. You could also impose the restriction on the article as a whole (as you would 1RR for example) and just specifically warn/notify the people above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This restriction on the article is basically 0RR except that you can't make any edit (whether revert or not) without consensus. However if someone breaches the restriction they get blocked and/or page banned and their edit can be reverted to return to the status quo until their is consensus for the change the sanctioned editor made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and warn them, Ed. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC).
 * User:Callanecc, do you want to take care of this and close the AE? If you want other admins to agree on the wording first, then you can give a final proposal and I assume we will sign off, since we have the same idea. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed sanction
 * Under WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions False accusation of rape is placed under the following sanction (that is, it applies to all editors of the article):
 * No edits (apart those those which are blatantly uncontroversial) may be made to the article without first being proposed on the talk page for at least 24 hours and a consensus in support of the change.
 * Enforcement will be through blocking or other sanctions as normal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Callanecc that this page-level sanction is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate: TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.


 * Additionally: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate 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.


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


 * 1) 22 March 2015 comment on other editors i take it as a sign of how poor the american education system is.
 * 2) 1 May 2015 inflammatory, battleground? we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them.
 * 3) 8 May 2015 inflammatory, comment on other editors it is   whining campaign by people who want think the wikipedia article should not represent the reliable source coverage of the subject. We are not here to be their therapists and listen to them whine.
 * 4) 24 April 2015 cautioned about battleground behaviour after
 * 5) 24 April 2015 insulting another editor qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent (Translation from Latin: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas)
 * 6) 3 May 2015 BLP violation? Has Sommers used this quote, or called anyone a feminazi? This seems to be the most actively that Sommers has indicated her affiliation with GG. In the past it has always been ... a full throated "Those feminazis are bad bad bad for trying to take the games away from the boys."


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 17 January 2015 blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and creating a hostile editing environment at Draft:Gamergate controversy


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

I am doing this third filing, because the first was rejected as a dynamic IP's (not me) filing, and the second was rejected due to a topic-banned editor filing. I believe that TheRedPenOfDoom is still creating a hostile editing environment, adding heat to the already controversial area. My last edits to the GamerGate article and talk page were in March 2015. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * - I am immensely disappointed that even this third filing has been hijacked, driven off course by the 500/30 thing. If you could close this and let me open a fourth filing exactly the same as this one, I would be much obliged. Otherwise, please weigh in on TPRoD's behaviour. Also, Zad68, you commented on MarkBernstein's dog innuendos, but took no action. Perhaps you are unaware, MarkBernstein has been previously topic banned for disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing, as well as blocked for using insulting innuendo during an enforcement request. These dog innuendos are clearly repeated disruptions that do nothing to improve the project. I implore you to act. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  03:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Andy Dingley
To repeat the filing above: I have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda.

As to the closures of this, and the month-long first block of Retartist, then they would have been egregious, except we're getting used to that sort of behaviour on WP. They are both far too close to appearing as an attempt to avoid criticism of a friend, rather than a justified closure because the filing was invalid. This is just the same shoot-the-messenger tactic that Future Perfect used for so long to defend his colleague Betacommand when it was obvious he'd returned as Werieth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (anonymous)
I'd just like to contribute some diffs here that I discovered while reading the current talk page, encountering an editor name I didn't recognize and looking through that editor's history for context.

The new editor in question,, cited existing, well-source page content and proposed that it called for a balancing edit to the lede (as it ignored part of the story entirely despite the weight given to it in the RSes). Less than 4 hours later, TheRedPenOfDoom collapsed the discussion, claiming that there is nothing here to discuss, using an edit summary noting the same lack of supporting materials. Which is to say, the substance of the argument, directly pointing at claims already in the article supported by multiple reliable sources, was completely ignored.

But I want to go a little beyond that, for essential context. It's worth looking at the replies that Mythiran got before the discussion was collapsed. Almost immediately, misrepresented the argument (as Mythiran had not claimed the "gamergaters" to be completely blameless), arguing that it "seems like it might be undue weight". subsequently argued that Mythiran's claim has nearly no support in reliable sources, despite having just been shown the considerable support in reliable sources. This was followed up by explicitly marked sarcasm from, further misrepresenting the argument (as Mythiran's claims were well sourced).

That we keep seeing names like MarkBernstein and PeterTheFourth in situations like this is unsurprising to me, and I think that there is a clear pattern of behaviour here that should be of interest to the arbitrators. Seemingly every time any kind of objection to bias in the article is raised, it gets shut down with a similar combination of mockery, dismissiveness, strawmanning, and general failure to consider the argument. Whenever any view contradicting the tone of the existing page is proposed, it is treated as "undue" because only a few sources are presented at a time; meanwhile, the existing reliable sources are summarized in a way that discards all nuance and overstates their claims, and then this distorted version is held up as "proof" of statements being "untrue" (note the wording of PeterTheFourth and MarkBernstein's comments). In my mind, it's clear that the page is being treated as a battleground by a small group of editors who agree with each other - just as things stood before the Arbcom case. They are apparently a small minority of the people seeking to edit the page, yet they demonstrate a compulsion to keep out other views of the situation, and even points about the content of the existing reliable sources in the article. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it a little suspicious that you were the one to immediately respond to my take on policy (and the common-sense interpretation of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" branding) in the first attempt to file this request; turned up in that series of diffs on TRPoD's side of the discussion; and seem to have a particular interest in the Gamergate controversy and Zoe Quinn pages in spite of claiming a primary interest in Ancient History, law, some music, and some geographies on your user and talk pages. I am pretty sure that the history of the Gamergate controversy cannot properly be called "ancient", except perhaps in a colloquial, Internet-specific sense. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to provide any meaningful citation for your claims, or demonstrate the relevance of the Hugo awards? Or are you just posting a bunch of dog puns in order to show contempt for the process? How does the addition of a CN tag constitute an argument for ignoring the sources? How does vandalizing a BLP page constitute a death threat? If someone were to vandalize a BLP page by claiming that the subject was a rape victim, would that be a rape threat? 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I note that you have repeated your claim about off-wiki coordination without evidence, and in fact doubled down, claiming that recruitment and training at 8chan, reddit, and elsewhere [is] glaringly apparent. Again I ask you to support your claims with something factual. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to avoid the appearance of WP:TAGTEAM, you could probably do better than to emulate MarkBernstein's dog-pun schtick.

They're inflammatory for the same reason that it's been inflammatory in previous Arbitration actions when MarkBernstein has seen fit to reply in sonnets, haiku etc. or just plain obfuscated language. Like I indicated above, it suggests contempt for the process.

This is fundamentally the same request - note that the diffs are the same. All that's changed is that the request is finally being brought by someone who can't be dismissed on procedural grounds. As others have noted, that it's taken this much effort to get arbitrators to even entertain the case, in spite of the quantity and quality of diffs presented, is concerning.

TRPoD was already formally admonished, and as far as I can tell, that decision was based on the same behaviour being presented here. Am I to understand that "counsel" constitutes an "increasingly severe sanction" vs. an "admonishment"? Or is there a more subtle distinction being made here? Is TRPoD perhaps allowed one "freebie" of every possible way of insulting other editors?

74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Administrators may be interested to know that off-wiki planning of a campaign to reclaim Wikipedia for Gamergate have been especially active and ambitious in recent days.

This complaint calls for The Red Pen Of Doom’s efforts to defend Wikipedia from ongoing, coordinated attacks by Gamergate supporters to be cur-tailed. It it true that TRPoD has doggedly upheld Wikipedia policy; as the last of the Five Horsemen not banned in ArbCom's infamous debacle, TRPoD has been hounded on-wiki and off by sad puppies of Gamergate longing for further sanctions. (They don't like me much, either.)

TRPoD is now accused of using Latin dog- tags in the course of discussion, perhaps in emulation of the heinous Benjamin Franklin, who famously used the proverb.

TRPoD has shown the patience of a saint -- Saint Bernard? -- in the face of endlessly rehashed insistence from a parade of dormant and throwaway accounts [] that the Gamergate pages should disregard the sources, the media being bias lapdogs of social justice. That administrators have done so little to enforce policy and to restrain Gamergate is deeply unfortunate, but of course ArbCom handed them a dog’s-breakfast.

[No question] is ever settled in this world where “new” accounts appear at uncannily regular intervals to re-raise the same propositions, to dog-whistle on sexual innuendo or insinuation of fraud that might be shoehorned into one of the articles, or simply [to play with hats]. Here we are again, chasing our tails; it’s enough to drive one barking mad.

The only way TRPoD could satisfy Gamergate’s proponents, as we know, would be to allow them resume the use Wikipedia to punish their targets. It is worth remembering that one of the first Gamergate threats to the life of Zoe Quinn was delivered by writing an obituary into her Wikipedia article. TRPoD has resisted countless efforts to use Wikipedia (and Wikipedia talk pages) to smear Gamergate’s intended victims and deserves your -- and our -- support and assistance. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course: the very worst of the “battleground” behavior complained of is that TRPoD borrowed an apposite proverb from Poor Richard’s Almanac. As to being insulting, at the outside I'm insulting to ArbCom -- but I’m not saying anything they haven't heard from me already, and I expect they're having too much fun with the Lightbreather case just now to worry about little old me! I’m critical of administrative inaction, true, but that's hardly insulting. I'd have mentioned that the whole point here is to get you all looking at TRPoD and not at actual policy violation, but I couldn't quite find the right image for that particular [Three_Bags_Full|canine behavior].  I forebear for the moment to mention "sea lions" as leading to a mixed menagerie metaphor, but of course we can take that as read, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * complains that pointing to 36 pages of previous discussion is unkind to “new” accounts who have just arrived at Wikipedia and who coincidentally want to revisit questions that have already been discussed many times as great length. There’s the brand-new editor just today who wants to rename the page -- a question discussed many times before. There’s another brand-new editor yesterday who wants to apply the NPOV tag, a question discussed many times before. All this might be more convincing if the “new” accounts were themselves more convincing, or if their recruitment and training at 8chan, reddit, and elsewhere were less glaringly apparent. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The term “sea lion” is widely used in discussing Gamergate to describe a pattern of passive-aggressive hijacking of discussion by seemingly well-intention interlocutors. It's been a central Gamergate tactic from the inception of the movement. [] [] []. See PeterTheFourth below for precisely how this plays out on Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Anonymous: for details of the use of Wikipedia to deliver death threats to Zoe Quinn, see the feature story in this month’s Boston Magazine. For the Hugo Awards, a pair of Gamergate-affiliated groups called the "sad puppies" and the "rabid puppies" exploited a voting loophole in this year’s nomination process; in consequence, it is likely that many of the 2015 Hugos will be awarded to No Recipient. "Sad puppy" is also an image conjured by Gamergate off-wiki regarding their unjust treatment at the hands of Wikipedia, the press, and public opinion. And yes, I'm suggesting that treating a 16th-century chestnut about the hazards of unsavory associates as "insulting" and meriting stern punishment is silly. The appropriate response to the ridiculous is, sometimes, ridicule. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The 500-edit 30-day requirement is worth trying, but might merely shift the mix of “new” accounts back toward the (re)use of dormant accounts, an approach which was characteristic pre-Arbcom. It’s conceivable that the use of fresh accounts indicates that Gamergate ran out of disused or "zombie" accounts to repurpose, but after Arbcom called for fresh voices, Gamergate may have decided to shift tactics to accommodate them. As you say, the Gamergate pages are a terrible starting point for new or “new” editors, both because they feature more than a million words of fresh backstory and because they are an invitation to BLP violation -- especially for people coming from the Gamergate forums and steeped in "facts" about the sex lives of Gamergate victims. My personal opinion is that intense moderation by active administrators who will tolerate no BLP violations and countenance no further time-wasting WP:FLAT or WP:FORUM posturing is the only solution, but your proposal might help. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Re requests from anonymous editors demanding proof of offsite recruitment for Gamergate brigading: evidence is well known to the administrators who have previously been active in this area. Relevant boards are not hard to find -- a new subReddit was launched for this purpose just a few days ago -- but these cannot be linked here. Note, too, the number of brand-new editors who have rushed into Gamergate, violated BLP, received topic bans, and promptly vanished from the project; again, the passage PeterTheFourth quotes is pertinent. Note the number of Gamergate supporters on this page with sophisticated knowledge of WikiLaw and sparse editing histories. The use of demands for proof of offsite collaboration was, in fact, boasted of offsite by a (prolific, now-banned) Gamergate editor as a valuable tactic for Gamergate because answering such demands can then be used to complain of WP:OUTING. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that RfA has become, in the view of some, an onerous process, but I'm surprised to see AllMyEasterEggs, with six edits under their belt, participating in here as an administrator. And uninvolved administrator at that. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth
Hi! I got pinged here (although that editor may be barking up the wrong tree), so I may as well make a statement. There's an ongoing effort to drive particular editors out of this topic area by making it a less pleasant place for them- I posit that TRPoD is not engaging in driving people out so much as he's being targeted for expulsion. Perhaps a statement from José Antonio Zapato, the blocked sock of EmonyRanger (seen here attempting to create a page for 'GameJournoPros', a gamergate talking point) would illustrate things more than I could:
 * "Ha! Implying you or one of the other "usual suspects" wouldn't love the opportunity to decline it. Not here for your enjoyment, sorry bub. This account is done and that's cool, it was more a question of when than if. I'll be back in a bit with another dozen, same as the next guy and the next. We're not trying to "win" the way you define it, we're trying to waste your time (score!) and make wikipedia an increasingly unpleasant experience for y'all. How's that going?
 * What you don't seem to get is this is asymetric warfare, mostly in the sense that for you all every loss is significant (hai Dreadstar!) - for us "loss" is expected but we can afford it. Every little victory or nuisance makes it just that much less pleasant here, just that one fewer editor/admin - and bit by bit the ratchet clicks. Click click buddy :) Talk soon. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)"

Source here. Hopefully these continued efforts to drive editors such as TRPoD out of Wikipedia bear no fruit here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
(Note that this is taken partially with some edits from the previous closed request that Starship.paint notes.)

As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page; from my own recollection, it was only to a degree that the isolated incidents would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But the total sum of the diffs shown above shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus exhibiting a possible COI with editing the article.

One example of this attitude is this diff which in context is a reply to an editor that wanted to keep unhatting a talk page discussion. I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision.

It also doesn't help with attitudes like Mark to make humorous posts when Poe's law readily applies to such discussions that have been mistaken as serious issues on the GG page. It's a mocking attitude that contributes towards the battleground situation. Humor is fine once in a while but not when its used insultingly. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: It doesn't matter if there's 36 pages of archives and FAQs to look through, civility says that we should at least give new voices to the conversation to opine. What has been done: asking "do you have anything specific you want to change to the article" and/or pointing to the FAQ when a new editor comes along complaining on POV is perhaps blunt but civil, and in most cases, this results in no return statement, and thus allowing the thread to be closed effectively. But when people come along with actionable ideas and that have not participated before, closing down those threads just because its claimed the ideas were discussed in archives and you don't want to talk about it any more is very much a battleground mentality, the exactly same that Ryulong and the others exhibited at the time of ArbCom. This is contributing poorly to the current decorum of the GG talk page in general that makes it hostile to any new voices, when in reality, that's what we need the most including what ArbCom asked for. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, if we are dealing with someone that is clearly coming to be disruptive and making inactionable suggestions, shutting that down quickly can be done with the aid of an uninvolved administrator. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 : I would have no issue with having a higher qualification of contribution to use the talk page (30 days seems fair) at the present situation. I will admit there are people coming on as editors to poke at the discussion without any intent of helping to improve, so that should be fine. --M ASEM (t) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher
Given that tRPOD has not edited in a few days, it would perhaps be best if we pause this until he returns, instead of carrying out a trial in absentia.Bosstopher (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hardly see what's inflammatory about these dog puns (but maybe it's because I dont get what they're a reference to). The atmosphere has improved tonnes since the constant Effing and Jeffing of the pre-Arbcom days (but stil admittedly has issues).Bosstopher (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dumuzid
I've been called "suspicious" by an IP! I feel like a real Wikipedian. Just a note with regard to that, if I may indulge: I AM interested in the gamergate business, and I AM occasionally sarcastic, though I try to be fairly gentle when so. What I say on my talk pages also happens to be true. I hope that doesn't mean I am subject to recurrent arbitration enforcement attempts. On to the business at hand. In my experience, TRPoD can be acerbic at times, certainly, but it always seems to be in reply to something that appears to be offered in bad faith; e.g., the same suggestion for the umpteenth time. I suppose he or she could be more decorous, but I am still in the midst of getting a sense for how much toleration WP has for sharp elbows. Count me as one who would think it unfortunate should anything drastic happen to someone I consider an otherwise good editor.

Statement by (anonymous two)
As a person who has been following the internet drama known as gamergate, I too had encountered a hostile attitude back when IP's were allowed to edit the talk page of said topic, when I suggested, I guess as anyone who is following the issue up-close noticed, that the wiki article seemed not reflecting the reality. Granted, at first my "it's biased, fixed it" attitude was not good, but that was not because I was writing it in bad faith, I did not know the correct procedure, later when I suggested specific changes,(after being familiarized with policies) I was shut down by what I now see was the stock answers like, undue weight, not representing the majority of RS'es etc. When I contested and further argued my point, they said HORSEMEAT, SOAPBOX, NOTAFORUM etc, from the sheer hostility of the talk page, mind you I did not even edited the article itself, I decided to drop from the discussion. This was my first experience with editing wiki, i did edit before, to and fro various topics, but never even needed to communicate with fellow wikians. After this, I watched the talk page, and saw almost every time people that came to that talk page treated like me, if not worse, by the same users, TheRedPenOfDoom is the chief among them. I also see that people using the term "sealioning" which refers to a cartoon with an ill conceived humor that can be considered racist. But I believe, ironically, it really represents their way of thinking, which is "I can assert anything, however baseless it is, but when you ask for evidence, I don't have to provide any! And you being polite is somehow wrong, go away!" 195.174.183.35 (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said they are using it to make racist points. The cartoon itself is, as I said, ill conceived and depicts someone telling he doesn't like sea lions out of the blue, then a Sea lion rightfully questions this baseless opinion, as he is a Sea lion, he has every right to do that. The obvious interpretation of this allegory is someone telling a racist thing like I don't like Hispanics. Then neither trying to defend his statement nor acknowledging the error of it. But I think it would be far fetched to think that the cartoon can be used to illustrate "a type of aggravating behavior of a person interrupting a productive discussion other people are having by incessantly asking questions and demanding that people pay attention to you." All I can see in that cartoon is someone saying some idiotic thing without any evidence and knowing it will be contested/inflammatory (e.g gamers are sexist) then refusing to give any evidence to support that claim. And to top that treating the opponent's politeness as disingenuous and somehow wrong. I believe it is just a weak attempt to quash any criticism by using a buzz word that don't even make any sense. And as it is used, it's a good candidate for a new type of fallacy, just not the way you think. As for your decision to address the only part in my comment that can be used as a straw-man, it was a bit tacky. 195.174.183.35 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (cmatrix4761)
This is getting silly guys. This is the fourth arbitration request regarding battlefield editing and most of the complaints have involved Red Pen in some way. It's starting to spill into social media and you're even getting criticized by outside sources. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the editors for letting things get this far. Stop using op-eds as "reliable sources" when it comes to libel and personal attacks and stop letting editors treat these hallowed servers as their personal turf wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmatrix4761 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 May 2015‎ (UTC) Note:  This is the first edit ever made by this account   17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Original IP Filer
Examining the contributions of the editor and sock you mention as examples of the behavior TRPoD has to contend with ( and ) - out of hundreds of edits between the two accounts I only found one tangential relation to Gamergate (GameJournoPros) and no interaction with TRPoD whatsoever. We all know sock puppets and bad actors exist. Do you have examples relevant to this case, for instance sock puppets focused on the Gamergate article/talk page (the scope of this filing) or TRPoD (the subject of this filing) ? 107.107.60.14 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your attempts to keep on topic do you have any comments on the merits of the case or potential resolution?

In terms of a broader solution, while there's merit to your suggestion it focuses on the symptom. The root cause of these new (and unhelpful) accounts is the poor state of the article which isn't the result of new accounts but established accounts. Address the POV editing, TAGTEAMing, BITEing and incivility (demonstrated in other editors' comments) and you'll remove the impetus for most of this disruption. That's not to say treating the symptom isn't also appropriate but this should be in addition to not instead of treating the cause. I'd like to hear suggestions to that end.

I'd also suggest an addendeum to your 500 edit hurdle - the edits must be in areas unrelated to Gamergate. I'm not sure whether that would best be construed narrowly (i.e. Gamergate and directly related: Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian, etc.) or broadly (progressive/conservative, anti-feminism/feminism, etc.) but the goal would be to discourage editors from registering just to push a POV, encouraging more moderate and uninvolved voices. 107.107.62.221 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not admin but it seems trivial for an admin to click the "500" link in an editor's contrib history to see if the overwhelming majority focus on Gamergate. Am I missing something? Keep in mind this would only be necessary in cases where the editor has more than 500 edits, which hasn't been the case at all so far. It takes a while to rack up 500 edits so at most we're talking once, maybe twice per month which I can't reconcile with "too hard to enforce."

As it is your new rule effectively says: "New single purpose accounts in this space are forbidden, but old single purpose accounts (whose 500 edits come from gamergate) and who've most likely contributed to disruption in this area are just fine!" Is that really your intent? 166.171.185.192 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

RE: "if the editor is a SPA behaving badly throughout 500+ edits, bring them to AE and it should be easy to see" -Zad68

This enforcement had to be brought 4 times in succession before it was finally addressed, new rules were created to prohibit the previous 3 and thus far between 3 administrators and 10 comments not a single one has addressed the substance of the filing. The outcome is leaning towards a caution to behave better if anything at all. So when you say "it should be easy to see" perhaps, but as this filing demonstrates it's been made exceedingly difficult to enforce.

Meanwhile, contributions like this made minutes after your last edit continue and are surprisingly encouraged by at least one admin (.) Such comments are chiefly responsible for the disruption and battleground attitude  but nothing you or anyone else has suggested will have the effect of addressing them. Instead we've fixed the minor annoyance of new accounts whose contributions are hatted shortly before they're banned. Well done. 107.107.62.96 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ColorOfSuffering
I've had several interactions with TheRedPenOfDoom, and in my mind this user has done the most to foster a hostile environment on the Gamergate Controversy talk page. It's clear that this editor seems to be more interested in the battle than the resolution, ostensibly due to a steadfast belief that there is some dedicated, persistent off-site campaign to destabilize Gamergate-related articles. Consequently, every incoming editor with a dissenting opinion is treated as a member of this supposed campaign. New editors are viewed with suspicion and silenced, while established editors are shouted down; sometimes literally (if capital letters, large fonts, or bold text for emphasis count as shouting) or they are accused of beating a dead horse if they so much as bring up what is perceived to be an already-discussed topic.

This behavior is not helpful, it is not productive, and it is clear-cut intimidating behavior which is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. These are troubling actions, especially for a user who has been previously admonished by ArbCom for battleground behavior and creating a hostile editing environment. There are enough stewards and watchers on the Gamergate Controversy page to prevent even the tiniest value-based word change (see this productive discussion as an example of how difficult it is to change even a single well-sourced word in the article space) much less widespread disruption. Does this unfounded and paranoid belief that there's some ongoing, nefarious cabal trying to undermine the sanctity of the Gamergate Controversy article give certain editors carte blanche to ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL? Is this a good precedent? Would this behavior be tolerated (even endorsed) on any other article talk page? Enough is enough. If editors like TRPoD do not stop treating this article like some kind of fortified bunker under ceaseless attack, then it's time for them to take a step back and consider that there are, quite possibly, some valid issues being raised by the new editors. If they can't do that, then administrative action needs to be considered. The ArbCom decision specifically requested "knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles" to come and review the article. The behavior exhibited by TheRedPenOfDoom is chasing those users away. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that this article has 37 archived pages is completely irrelevant, unless you'd like to quote some kind of policy which links the two unrelated points. Gamergate controversy is a contentious article that's been through ArbCom, so it's been the subject of a lot of discussion. Using that irrelevant fact as a justification to shut down discussion is battleground behavior. Writing it in large font is rude. Using vulgar language in that context is uncivil. Further, discussing the article's perceived bias with new editors is not compulsory -- it's just as easy to ignore these requests as it is to collapse them. Unless there's an exception to WP:5P4 that allows for editors to delete and hide recurring topics of discussion (and if there is such a section, by all means point it out) this is nothing more than battleground mentality at best, and intimidating behavior at worst. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
That sounds like a good solution. This article, and those of people associated with Gamer Gate, have suffered from newly created accounts that pop in to the talk page and yell, "This article is BIASED!" If I had a dollar for every time this has happened in the voluminous talk page archives, I could probably pay off the last of my student loans. The situation isn't as bad as it was in November or even January but this additional safeguard would ensure only experienced editors could work on the page. Whether or not the talk page should also have this restriction, is another question. That page is the site of the most personal and divisive disputes over the past 9 months. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 37 archived talk page for an article that has only existed 9 months. When I was a closer watcher of this article, the same questions were continually brought up again and again but the GG situation hasn't changed. I do not think it is rude to refer to previous discussion on the same topic rather than fill a page rehashing the same arguments especially when there has been very little new information to add to the article. The entire GamerGate situation has fallen off the radar of most online news sources so it is a matter of polishing up the article and preventing vandalism. If there were new developments occurring, I might agree with you but it was an event that happened and, aside from posts on message boards and reddit, it's over. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that "sealioning" is a racist reference is among the biggest red herrings I've seen on Wikipedia. The sealion cartoon illustrates a type of aggravating behavior of a person interrupting a productive discussion other people are having by incessantly asking questions and demanding that people pay attention to you. It is a tactic or strategy to wear people down that is independent of any particular point of view, gender, race, political party or nationality. I will say that it is definitely not a compliment but any person can sealion or be a victim of sealioning behavior.  Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ScrapIronIV
Begging your pardon, but there are plenty of new and decent users who have never touched that article and would be affected by that sanction. While I am relatively inexperienced and try to stay away from controversial topics, there may come a time when I have the confidence to do so. I don't think that newer users should be automatically sanctioned. How this committee handles these situations has already appeared to generate a lot of controversy. The focus needs to be on problematic editors, not on special rules for individual pages that will impact a subset of users.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the "account creation date" sanction in that comment. I actually support the idea of a minimum number of edits for controversial pages.  That is a milestone that an editor can eventually overcome.  A fixed date for account creation can never be met, as it is set in stone.   Scr ★ pIron IV 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AllMyEasterEggs
Sorry to hop in ex-post facto, but on the 500 edit+ 30 day rules requirement, is there any precedent for this? Is it going to be the case that if enough editors with gaming knowledge try to edit the page going forward that these increasingly draconian measures will be escalated without limit? Will there be a 5000, 300 day requirement? 50000 edits, 3000 days? Are there precedents, and do ones to this level really need to be set on account of the Gamergate page?

This restriction is simply not needed given the already firm level of control of the article by the editors and admins involved already, as evidenced by its current state. I doubt anyone point to a single case of a user who actually managed to successfully insert material contrary to the wishes of the controlling group. Their control is all but absolute.

The purpose of this seems to be sooley to spare the controlling editors the embarassment of having to actually contest their position. I'd like to hear about previous applications of pages restrictions of this magnitutude, in order to compare whether the issues faced by this editing group are really so dire as supposed in comparision. Without any, this measure simply serves to spare a clique of editors the overhead of even achieving consensus. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Monkeyfoetus
Note the number of Gamergate supporters on this page with sophisticated knowledge of WikiLaw and sparse editing histories.
 * Are you implying that knowing Wikipedia's rules is evidence of off-site collusion/meatpuppetry? Because that seems like an awful catch-22. Anyone doesn't know the rules can't successfully argue for or against a change to an article, nor defend themselves when accused of a rule violation. Meanwhile, those who can make successful arguments demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's rules and bureaucracy, which is then held as evidence of ban evasion, sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, on the basis that the only way one could know enough about Wiki-law to rebut the arguments of an experienced editor is through counsel by another experienced editor (meatpuppetry/off-site collusion) or by her/himself being an experienced user (sockpuppetry/ban evasion). Nevermind that the rules and principles are explained clearly and concisely on their associated pages, which are frequently linked in talk-page disputes. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
500/30 - Yes, please. This isn't a breaking story or an article that requires frequent updates so Wikipedians with some level of experience should be able to keep up with and evaluate new material. A specially crafted restriction would help ensure users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, not just to advance a POV on a very specific subject. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Side-note: I did this as AllMyEasterEggs has been checkuser blocked. I assume a clerk or admin should strike out their section if necessary. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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

I'm sorry are you just having fun with a running dog-related joke or are you actually hinting at or pointing to something or some editor with the dog allusions? 15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you just riffing on this?  15:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, the request is to look at tRPoD's behavior, relative to the ArbCom remedies in place. This request is well-formed and we're supposed to do that.  What do sea lions have to do with anything?  If this is some other jokey metaphor can you please drop doing it.   15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes for now: I'm digging through what's here, in the ArbCom archives, at the Talk pages, and elsewhere. There's some merit to the complaint about tRPoD's behavior, but there are also a valid point about what appears to be efforts by those who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's goals in mind to exploit a soft spot in Wikipedia's editing model. Focusing on just the second point now, I'm considering the option of placing the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page under special page-level sanctions that would increase the editor qualifications requirement from the current 10 edits/4 days to something like 500 edits/30 days, and some further qualifications on what would count toward "500 edits"--meaning, it couldn't be 500 trivial edits to a sandbox page. I don't think anybody would argue that that particular article, in the current environment, would be a great place for a truly new, good-faith editor to start their editing career. ,, as you appear to be the most invested here and are coming from differing perspectives, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm working on setting up the 500/30 page-level sanction now.  19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ page-level sanction notifications, but leaving this open to review behavior, haven't done that yet, but I have to step away at the moment.   19:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up note, I decided against trying to qualify by the quality of the 500 edits, that would just be too hard to enforce. It's easy to see when an account was created and how many edits it has.  Let's just start there and see if it has a beneficial effect.  If it works, the same can be applied to other related pages.  I can also create an editfilter that would automatically disallow edits by accounts that don't meet the qualifications.  If it turns out that this new page-level sanction drives the creation of 31-day-old socks, I can implement a sanction that says "No accounts created after 1 August 2014," which is about when this mess started.  That can be left in place indefinitely, until it appears the articles aren't targeted any more.   21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To those concerned about "what if all 500 edits are GG-related", at this point it is too risky to allow invested editors to be the ones making such a judgment call. If the editor is a SPA behaving badly throughout 500+ edits, bring them to AE and it should be easy to see.     21:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I counsel TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid references to the quality of editors' educations and/or their perceived need for therapy. I support no other action against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A related requirement of different treatment of accounts with less than 500 edits was imposed at Nagorno-Karabakh (and is still in effect now) per a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112 (Arpil 2012). Reason for doing this at Nagorno-Karabakh was the extreme problem of sock editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly support Zad's 500/30 page sanction, and I also agree that it would be counterproductive to set rules for the character of the 500 edits, such as they must have a certain quality, or must not all be GG-related. We can never foresee every possible wrinkle or sharp practice, and we can't fix them in advance by throwing instruction creep at them. Instead, we must trust admin discretion. With the special discretionary powers administrators have in the area, they can sanction any user who is obviously attempting to game or skirt the rule, in whatever manner. @ User:AllMyEasterEggs (five edits): Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor a quasi-judicial body; it doesn't work by precedent. To have special rules for special cases is in perfect harmony with the project's principles and culture.


 * I don't support any action against TheRedPenOfDoom at this time. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Closing notes - I reviewed the behavior of TRPoD in the context the comments were made, and reviewed the histories of the accounts they were interacting with. Sanctions are preventive and not punative. I believe the page-level sanction havea a good chance of dealing with the entire issue, and I do not see a need for any further action beyond the 500/30 minimum applied. 's advice is sound, if he would like to further draw TRPoD's attention to that advice he may do so as an individual outside of AE action. 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Debresser

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA:


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


 * 1) 23:41, 16 May 2015 This is when Debresser gave up on removing "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land" and instead began changing to "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land"
 * 2) 09:30, 17 May 2015 Debresser changes again to "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land"


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

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


 * Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing
 * Made two revert of those who put in an ARBPIA template and gave a reason why he thinks it does not belong there
 * User talk:Debresser
 * ARBPIA template at the top of Talk:Sur Baher

There has been much dispute and discussion on Sur Baher and Talk:Sur Baher since 4 May. There have been mainly two disputes and one of them this is about is the statement added by Sean.hoyland that "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". See Sur Baher. Debresser reverted it on 12 May with this edit summary. The source does say that: "... East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land".
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Debresser has not wanted to refer to any source for his assertion. Even if someone accept the last one (the first one is not true as the statement is in the source), that other parts of East Talpiot's area are from another village, the statement does not, as Sean.hoyland described it, imply that "All/most of East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". It is about what happened with most of Sur Baher's expropriated land. The newest wording, "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land" is not a proper description of what the source say. I said that "That changed the meaning of what the source say. See talk page" and he reverted me by saying "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself".

I would keep discussing this on that talk page, despite that he is not giving any source for his arguments against a RS, and not come here, as I have also already looked away two times that he reverted two editors in the same time on that article recently, if it was not for that Debresser keeps on insisting that the statement added by Sean.hoyland can't be there and as he said on the talk page: "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". I see his edits as a violation of WP:1RR and more broadly, it is a conduct problem to not offer any reliable source and still removing the statement and then changing the meaning of what the source say and then say others who revert him once more, who base in on a RS in contrast to him, will "force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page" is a very problematic view. Notice also that it is me, Huldra and Sean.hoyland who has reverted him on that part and he has not had any support for that part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, now you are making many claims of different types against me to defend yourself but they are not correct. First of all, I decided to go to WP:AE after you insisted, by making another revert, and saying that "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". And your two other 1RR violations in that article were ignored by me and so were your constant reverts before that, which I decided not to revert but instead wait and discuss, unlike you who made many reverts as can be seen at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sur_Baher&action=history.

Your description of what has happened is not correct. Anyone can look at the talk page and see that you refused to give any source, with me and Sean.hoyland telling that you can't argue with a source based on your own assertions. We both also said to you what the source write does not contradict the scenario you were describing. That does not take much space to explain, it was not like your argument was detailed to respond to. You were repeating your own assertions. So I also therefore did "not completely ignore" all your arguments, it is so easy to just look in my report here and see what I wrote.

You also say that I have "this habit of ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments" and links to an answer you wrote in a previous discussion and a revert you made. Yes, in the first answer you wrote that but that is not a proof of something and I answered back then:


 * You have made seven reverts so far to get the word "occupation" removed. I have also mentioned several times why it is unacceptable to include some type of disclaimer when mentioning that word, amongst others by mentioning WP:VALID five times now and what it says. So it is not me who have to "adress" your argument and stop "repeating" the same thing.

What is the second diff showing except that you reverted me by saying "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself"?

Not either is it true that you have "have extensively participated in the discussion" and you describe it like "... that the present issue is still under active discussion". The discussion about East Talpiot and Sur Baher was pretty short and you ended it with "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". How can that be interpreted? That you now, after I got to AE, finally started giving sources is good but don't make it look like that was the case before. The thing is clear: you did not bother to look up sources but still insisted on that your assertions should be accepted and no one could revert you once more as that would then "force" you to "seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". That can never be acceptable.

I had wished you would have done what you are doing now, namely referring to sources, and it is also good you did self-revert. A 1RR violation can happen by mistake as you describe but combined with a refusal to mention any source and write what you did about "any further reverts...", I saw no other way than to write here. Now the situation is different. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not clear what he referred to do but it was clear he made a 1RR violation and insisted there could be no more revert on his edit despite I had support from a source and still do. I thought that is not a good thing to insist on when you are one against three editors in this question.

I agree nothing should be done now that he has self-reverted and is open for discussing it further, combined with finally referring to sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Done

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

Statement by Debresser
I have already explained on the talkpage how it came about that I by mistake violated the 1RR editing restriction. Please read this. I self-reverted. I hope that it is clear that I had no intention to violate the edit restriction.

I was not surprised to see that User:IRISZOOM decided that the best defense is offense. I was surprised to see that he had gone to WP:AE instead of WP:DR, were I was planning to take this issue. I think it is telling in this regard that he has written three long paragraphs which concern themselves exclusively with the content issue at hand. I can not escape the notion that User:IRISZOOM sees coming to WP:AE as a convenient way to decide the content issue in his favor.

As to the content issue. In his abovementioned three long paragraphs, User:IRISZOOM completely ignores all my arguments. Not a mention. He has this habit of ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments, and that does not reflect nicely on him. I would like to ask him to read my posts on the talkpage. It should be noticed, that I have extensively participated in the discussion on the talkpage, where I have explained my reasons at length. Please notice that the first issue was resolved with a compromise, and that the present issue is still under active discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I think IRISZOOM just misunderstood Debresser's comment about "outside input". This perhaps meant WP:DR, RfC etc., not WP:AE. Because there has been a self-revert, nothing to see here, move along. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Debresser

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


 * Mistake has been realised I think we can close with no action. I'm just going to ignore the comments directed at each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:IRISZOOM said above at 18:24 on May 18: "I agree nothing should be done now that he has self-reverted and is open for discussing it further.." It sounds like he is OK with this request being closed with no action, and I suggest we do that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Hell in a Bucket

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ANI discussion Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. :


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


 * 1) 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
 * 2) 23 May 2015 Edit warring on prohibited page (Lightbreather's talk page)
 * 3) 23 May 2015 Prohibited interaction


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
Well I figured this might happen, perhaps if the illustrious User:Hawkeye7 had been more on top of his game he would've reverted it. It was indeed a violation of the Iban. I waited a couple of minutes and when no one was reverting it I decided the right thing to do was to remove it. As Sitush mentions there is some very serious accusations being thrown about editors off wiki. At least one person has been victimized and it's possible both mentioned in the post were. The allegations are something that could have effect in real life and there has been threats made to make it happen. I certainly will not violate the ban under ordinary circumstances but I thought that this was worth an exception and if not I'll take the block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't agree with others that the filing party should be sanctioned. The judgement was questionable but requesting a review is hardly a hanging offense. I personally wouldn't support anybody being sanctioned. Shit happens sometimes and unless there is some history I'm not aware of a non action close is good enough for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
C'mon! HiaB was removing very insulting/disruptive posts by anons. This has been spreading from off-wiki harassment of a very nasty nature and while maybe they could have left it to someone who was not IBANNED, the sooner it went, the better. You'll note that the stuff (which I saw in some cases) got revdeleted. You've been waiting to pounce, Hawkeye, but this is not the moment to choose. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone
Even if the editor in question is I-banned or T-banned, it is still one of the usual standard to revert socks or harmful speech, like Fut. Perf mentions.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Wasting the community's time on asinine "gotcha" complaints like this is disruptive. (If it matters, I'm not a Lightbreather fan.) There need to be consequences for such behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Hell in a Bucket

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


 * Obviously frivolous request. HiaB was reverting edits by some IP sock troll that were subsequently fully oversighted as severe BLP violations. I don't know what those edits were, but given the oversighting I assume they were of such seriously harmful nature that their removal must have been justified under WP:BANEX. I don't know, nor really want to know, if those IP edits were attacks against Lightbreather or against HiaB himself, or against some third party, but I don't think it matters either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous complaint. HiaB was removing anonymous posts so nasty that they have since been suppressed. I suggest some sanction or at least a serious reprimand against Hawkeye7 for wikilawyering and pointy timewasting. In fact I was considering blocking him briefly myself, in view of the rules for this page ("groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions"), but I see he has a clean block log, and so I hesitate. What do other people think? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Filing this complaint is evidence of a fundamentally flawed attitude. Perhaps, in lieu of blocking the OP, a ban on making any further AE reports? Leave AE reporting to people with more clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be a gesture, Floquenbeam, but on checking Hawkeye's contributions for the last couple of years, I see it's not a habit; they have not posted to this board previously. (If I'm using the search function right — I always worry when it finds nothing.) So an AE ban would be sort of pointless from a practical point of view. They're getting a bollocking right here and now from indignant admins; perhaps that'll do. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC).


 * I think Hawkeye7 needs at least a severe reprimand for this astonishing complaint. Even the most cursory examination of what was happening (even if the posts in question were already suppressed) would have given anyone with any clue the reassurance that HiaB was acting quite properly and should be thanked for his prompt action, rather than be the subject of this attempt to get him sanctioned. <font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch  <font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)  14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think HiaB's actions fall under the ban exemptions given the nature of the reverts. As for the filer I think a meal of trout will suffice. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, closing this per consensus. Hawkeye7 is severely reprimanded and will be required to upload a scanned restaurant bill or equivalent document as evidence of the consumption of at least one trout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Erlbaeko

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant :


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


 * 1) Revert on a 1RR restricted article
 * 2) Revert on a 1RR restricted article
 * 3) Revert on a 1RR restricted article
 * 4) Revert on a 1RR restricted article
 * 5) Revert on a 1RR restricted article

There's at least two separate violations of the 1RR restriction active on the article in those five reverts.

Add: IP addresses are NOT exempt from the 1RR restriction, nor are these edits clear cases of vandalism. Nor is it the case that Erlbaeko discussed any of these changes on talk (although they demanded in their edit summaries that others do so). This is clearly edit warring by Erlbaeko of the kind that the 1RR restriction is supposed to prevent. Add to that the fact that they are doing the same on other articles, per the warning on their talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


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


 * When an editor tries to make change to the article a big warning box pops up which states: "In accordance with Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction may lead to blocks." Hence, obviously User:Erlbaeko was clearly aware that they were violating a discretionary sanctions/ArbCom restriction when engaging in the edit warring.
 * Previous warning over related edit warring:
 * My notification with a request for a self revert: . User:Erlbaeko's response was to refuse the opportunity and responded with "No need to wait. Just, go ahead" (as in, "go ahead and report me").


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The account was active briefly in 2011 in regard to the Norway attacks of Anders Behring Breivik. It then went dormant and was reactivated in 2014 to focus on the war in Syria and the troubles in Ukraine.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Erlbaeko
All reverts are done within our 1RR-restriction polisy, and revert 4 and 5 are not even in the same 24 hours periode as revert 1, Ref. WP:GS/SCW.

Erlbaeko (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Is a revert of Volunteer Marek.
 * 2. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.
 * 3. is a revert of clear vandalism from an ip.
 * 4. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.
 * 5. Is a revert of an ip, which are exempt from 1RR.

Update. #5 is a revert of this ip-edit. Instead of just re-reverting, I tried to find a third version (according to Alternatives to reverting) of the text that addressed the IP's RS-concern (by attributing the statement). After no consensus could be reached for my version, I reverted to a previous consensus (according to WP:BRD). Imo #4 is therefor also a IP-revert, but even if that is considered a revert of Kudzu1, it is within our policy of 1RR per 24 hours. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 92.3.5.255

 * 1) 4 is a revert of Kudzu, not an ip, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.5.255 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Statement by Darouet
Earlbaeko is incorrect, edits #4 and #5 are reverting users, not IPs. However, Earlbaeko never reverted any user within a 24-hour period, and of the IP edits, one was obviously vandalism (it is deeply unfair of Marek to cite this as a revert, since they or anybody should have reverted it), and the other is almost certainly a recently banned editor. The only reason I haven't reported the IP yet is that their edits haven't yet become particularly egregious. -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kudzu1
While Darouet appears to be correct regarding Erlbaeko's reverts of users, and I agree it is probable that there is a connection between a blocked editor and the IPs that have been active on the page, I think it is a slippery slope to begin ignoring reverts of IPs as counting toward 1RR -- especially considering how Erlbaeko handled his reversion of my edit (describing it as reverting an IP) and the fact that he reverted Volunteer Marek less than a day and a half later (with more IP reverts in between). Whether Erlbaeko is deemed to have violated 1RR or not, the article in question clearly needs greater oversight, and probably more stringent page protection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mnnlaxer
I think engaging both Erlbaeko and the content and sources of the article is vastly preferred to any administrative process against Erlbaeko in this situation. While there are some things I find problematic about some of Erlbaeko's edits, in no way are they worthy of sanction. In general, Erlbaeko is open to collaboration, is operating in good faith, and has worked to improve the article. - Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I find it amazing no one here, who are very interested in engaging or policing an edit war, felt the need to start a Talk page discussion on the content of the edit war. I have done so here: Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
User Erlbaeko believes that their very obvious edit warring was just fine, even after being warned about edit warring in general and specifically on the article talk page. Therefore, she/he will continue doing the same. Why the edit warring? Here is the diff. This is removal of a reference to UN report and insertion of a speculation that "the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line". That shows the bias. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Erlbaeko

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


 * I've semiprotected Ghouta chemical attack and Khan al-Assal chemical attack. At least one of the parties involved was an IP-hopper. As to User:Erlbaeko, I suppose we can consider the matter here to save bureaucracy, but the WP:GS/SCW sanctions are not from Arbcom, they are community sanctions. Any admin actions in closing this request would be 'community' admin actions, not AE decisions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this 1RR restriction doesn't count reverts of IP editors toward the 1RR. So there isn't actually a 1RR violation here. At most, you have a case of long-term edit warring. But if so, more than one party needs to be looked into. My own review of the content suggests that User:Erlbaeko wants to include a speculation about the motives of the insurgents for staging a gas attack to embarrass the Syrian government, sourced only to editorial opinion, which seems adventurous. Anyone is free to open an WP:RFC about this. It would be tedious to impose full protection but unless anyone here wants to propose active WP:DR that might be the result.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Mnnlaxer, we now have a properly focused discussion taking place at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack, about the claim that the gas attack was a false flag operation. I would like to close this report as "Not an issue for AE, take to AN or AN3" and do nothing beyond the semiprotections. My personal editorial opinion is that User:Erlbaeko is on thin ice. But he wouldn't be the only who is making reverts that are not fully justified by talk page discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning OccultZone

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone


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


 * 1) 23 May 2015 - OccultZone is violating his temporary injunction by going beyond the scope of ArbCom's permission to use SPI to report a sockpuppet. In this diff, OccultZone was asking to email a copy of a SPI (here) against me. It is related to this case, because I was one of the mostly-uninvolved participants in the Workshop phase, and OccultZone opened a SPI based on my Workshop participation.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Not applicable.

Not applicable.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There are also disruptive editing concerns, see proposed editing talkpage and deleted SPI that should be counted in the final decision.


 * You were only allowed to open a SPI, not request administrative action off the SPI page nor keep holding the stick and request a copy. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 03:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



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

Statement by OccultZone
Misleading report at best.

You are obviously allowed to ask for deleted copies, since SPI has to do nothing with "personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case",(discussion) this sock puppetry issue took place after the evidence phase was already ended. Although I thought that it is not going to make much difference since all admins have access to deletion files. That's why I had self-reverted too.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, there was no violation, 2nd there was forumshopping by the OP, who previously posted this on talk of PD. Second thing is that even if my edit included anything else, self-revert had to be counted. Here, a warning to OP is clearly warranted.
 * What do you think about the IP hopping earlier in relation to this complaint?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You observed, that 's suggestions are really helpful, but he talks about "allegations pertaining to parties ", the editors in question are not parties. Other than that, upon the discovery of far newer evidences, now I observe that suspicion has also taken place on other case where the OP has contributed. I guess that the only route is DRV. What do you think?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and talking of Arbcom, I am allowed to go for DRV by Guerillero and I just asked you what would be the better suggestion. It is clearly up to me, where I would lead myself. How can you say that I should drop the matter on which I have already worked further, you haven't seen my evidence yet and I can assure that it is much compelling than what I had before. How others would even find a single account or multiple IPs, the way I did? It is simply impossible for others to, especially when they are stale for nearly 10 days or have limited scope.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not an uninvolved admin, you have significantly participated in this case in question, thus you cannot talk as a sanctioning admin.[  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the disruption is taking place here, first there was IP hopping over the report and now Magioladitis, who didn't even knew where to comment a few minutes ago, is pretending to be an uninvolved admin when he has significantly participated in the case in question, and now he is making similar unnecessary accusations by removing my comments. He has never contributed on WP:ARE ever before. Would you move his comments back to "statement by"?
 * Since I am exempted from SPIs, his comments are clearly misleading. Would you consider closing? Any ruling related to the SPIs are up to Arbcom, this board is only for addressing the violation of restriction, and there wasn't any.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning OccultZone

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


 * I hatted the section on the arb pages and gave OZ three routes of appeal (Reaper Eternal, DREVIEW, and Arbcom). I'm not sure what is left to do. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  06:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Recommend closing with no action. In my opinion the responses of User:Guerillero in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision are an adequate action. There is nothing more for us to do here. Arbcom obviously has jurisdiction if they want to sanction OccultZone for this. I read that particular SPI, which is now deleted. OccultZone would have shown better judgment by not filing it at all. If the Committee feels their time is being wasted they might eventually grow restless. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with EdJohnston that this can be left in the hands of the Committee in the context of the pending case, but I think OccultZone would be well-advised to stay completely off the SPI pages until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OccultZone, now you are really becoming disruptive. I instruct you to drop this matter. If there really turns out to be an issue, which certainly did not leap off the page based on your SPI submission, then it is best left for someone else to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The SPI was deleted by an admin. OccultZone now discuss, via this page, with a second admin over the same matter. And this matter is also connected to the ArbCom case he is involved. This the same pattern continued. I suggest that we take some measures about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I get from OccultZone's comment: He realises that the SPI is connected to the ArbCom case and this is a violation of his restrictions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view User:OccultZone is just digging the hole deeper with his comments here. Since I don't believe any AE action is needed, I suggest this request be closed promptly before OccultZone embarrasses himself any further. My reading is that Guerillero won't pursue any sanction for your possible violation so long as you don't ask other single admins about it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)