Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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 Lecen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#MarshalN20-Lecen_interaction_ban and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Cambalachero-Lecen_interaction_ban:

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

1. 1 Oct 2014 Makes reference to a "someone" from the Argentine history case. Uses "someone" as an example. Adds that this "someone" was "banned forever from editing anything related to Latin American history." It doesn't take a detective to figure out that Lecen is indirectly talking about Cambalachero.
2. 6 Oct 2014 Makes yet another unnecessary mention to "the other users," followed by a discussion that again continues to indirectly mention Cambalachero and me (as evidenced by the next diff).
3. 7 Oct 2014 Lecen again unnecessarily writes about "the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban." He follows this indirect mention with a rant rampant with claims on racism & anti-Semitism.

There is also less-evident examples, such as and , but these are not actionable. It is the clear indirect mentions listed above that are actionable.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 29 Nov 2013 Lecen violated their interaction ban by commenting on a clarification request opened by MarshalN20. Lecen continued to violate the interaction ban in their response at this enforcement board. In spite of kind offers to prevent his block, Lecen defied requests and wrote: "You should block me for 30 days."

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Misplaced Pages's banning policy (WP:IBAN) has four clear orders, one of which is the following:

• Make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly

Lecen is clearly violating this by consistently making references to "the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban." Lecen is doing this with purpose. What purpose? The usual, which is that of associating Cambalachero and me with Fascists, misogynists, and other offensive groups. These insults are obnoxious, and I previously complained about it in the arbitration board (). This continues to besmirch my reputation (which goes against the casting aspersions principle), and exhibits battleground conduct that is unacceptable. Moreover, for what it's worth, Lecen clearly disregards Misplaced Pages's rules because he also disregards the community who enforces them ("I'll have to deal with a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators" ).

To conclude: My name, whether directly or indirectly, should not be associated with any claims of anti-Semitism, racism, or misogyny. There is no reason for it. Lecen is a repeat offender who consistently skirts the interaction ban (let's not forget the proxy editing! ). I plead the enforcement board to take swift action in this case.--MarshalN20 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: The Arbitration Committee has explained, numerous times, that it does not rule on content. Moreover, the discussion that occurred on a prior clarification request () was also in relation to this topic. ESL was very clear in his statement that twisting or misrepresenting Arbcom's ruling was inappropriate and inexcusable. Lecen below writes: "I did warn the editor that using revisionist sources isn't a good idea, since one who attempts to use it may be topic banned. See here and here." That's just more of the same bullshit. Lecen doesn't want to drop the stick. I'm sick and tired of this constant bullying I have to put up from him and his friends. Enough is enough!--MarshalN20 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @KillerChihuahua and HJ Mitchell: Friends, I am not interested in taking my topic ban case back to ArbCom; if I want to review my topic ban, I will follow the standard procedures established by the community and arbitration committee. The problem here is that three users (Lecen, Astynax, and The ed17) continue carrying sticks to beat a dead horse. One of these users was already warned "to conduct himself in accordance with Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines" (). In fact, Lecen's statements in this board continue to show lack of decorum, with claims of: conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, racist political movements, etc. All of these are serious insults, and they are all from the same user who claims that Misplaced Pages is filled with "a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators" (). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. Please, help me.--MarshalN20 19:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dear administrators, arbitrators, colleagues. This whole discussion has turned way too complicated. I am not here to discuss sources or history. My only concern here is that of being continually harassed, both directly and indirectly, by a group of editors who think it is acceptable to consistently harangue talk spaces and noticeboards with the same bullshit on Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, Hitler, Nazis, conspiracies, etc. I am here to request that an interaction ban's remedies (as set by the arbitration committee) be upheld to the fullest, and that it be upheld on a user who has been warned (or "reminded") a considerable number of times to improve his behavior towards other contributors ("to conduct himself in accordance with Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines"). Having x amount of FA stars does not entitle anyone with the right to be a bully towards others; the pillars of Misplaced Pages still apply to all who volunteer their time to this project. Lecen now asks for clemency; but I remind you that this is the same individual who is quick to turn around and insult the hand from which he sought leniency ("incompetent administrators and arbitrators"), and who is open to misguide and twist a private conversation (with Wee Curry Monster) to fit his own battleground agenda. As I wrote above, enough is enough. This circus has to stop.--MarshalN20 12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified on 7 October 2014 ()

Discussion concerning Lecen

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 Lecen

One editor has repeatedly requested to provide an explanation to why revisionist sources are not acceptable. I warned said editor that I had an interaction ban with other editors (without mentioning either Cambalachero or MarshalN20) and thus I could not further elaborate the reasons. I told him to see the ArbCom case to understand the matter regarding revisionists. The focus of my comments weren't Cambalachero nor MarshalN20, but the question of whether revisionism is a reliable source. I was pretty clear about that:

• "Sorry, but I have my hands tied, since I requested a mutual interaction ban with the other users. What I could tell you is to look at the "evidence" page and read my stuff there, then you should go final decision."
• "I already told you where to look at. I can't do no more than that or I'd have to mention the editors with whom I have a mutual interaction ban."

I did warn the editor that using revisionist sources isn't a good idea, since one who attempts to use it may be topic banned. See here and here. I was also explicitly clear that I wanted to avoid at all costs having to deal with the ArbCom again:

• "For all your answers, please see this Arbitration case. Last time someone tried to push Argentine revisionist sources on this article got banned forever from editing anything related to Latin American history."
• "In fact, I really wish I could avoid that ordeal again if possible. What I tried to say was that using Revisionist sources is sou serious that can cause you to be banned."

When I asked for a mutual interaction ban with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 my idea was to prevent them from harassing me again (see the ArbCom case), and not to prevent me from mentioning the ArbCom case. Again: my intention was not to mention, comment on, to talk about Cambalachero and MarshalN20, but to warn an editor of the gravity of using revisionist sources.

If, however, the ArbCom believes that I crossed a line here, I'm sorry. It was not my intention. --Lecen (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Obs.: I removed my previous messages, as I learned that I'm supposed to bring my concerns to another forum, not this one. --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

The administrator comments belong raise many questions. The most pertinent: we're going to sanction an editor for engaging in a low-level content dispute that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this AE? No. This isn't Malleus pt. 2. Go to AN for that. Arbitration enforcement would only be applicable if said dispute was between Lecen and Marshal/Cambalachero.

Now, onto less important things. @FPOS: if we have so-called "revisionist" sources a, b, and c, and an editor keeps trying to use b, continually labeling b as a revisionist source isn't a "weapon". It's a statement of fact. Now, should they be included? Great question, and it's one they're trying to hash out right now. Ed  23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Astynax

As MarshalN20 has again posted diffs containing an entirely unjustified complaint made against me, let me note that the insinuation that Lecen, I or others have been waging a campaign of personal attacks against him (what he terms a "Black Legend") both here and at ANI, allow me to note that MarshalN20 has offered not a shred of evidence for this fantasy. It simply has not happened and, unless it is just an offensive way to raise his side of the case, inexplicable. His insinuation that Lecen is "proxy editing" through myself and Neotarf is equally offensive. Saving a single report on the Arbcom case in a Signpost article, MarshalN20 is the one who keeps bringing up the subject of his participation in WP:ARBARG, along with unsubstantiated charges.

MarshalN20 may also have been skirting the boundaries, and perhaps techically violating the Tban (this despite the AN topic ban review that somehow concluded history does not apply to articles involving the history of sports).

Since the conclusion of WP:ARBARG, the Juan Manuel de Rosas article has lain fairly fallow and largely unfixed. There are as well many related articles where the pushing of revisionist theories has not been corrected. It is only now, when Lecen and I have finally been closing in on removing the last of the PoV and filling large gaps in the Rosas article, that suddenly a couple of editors (who have almost no previous history with the article) again have begun pushing the same fascist/Peronist neo-revisionist sources that were at the root of the arbitration, and MarshalN20 again and simultaneously raises yet another complaint to Arbcom. Something smells fishy, whether this is an attempt to pay back Lecen, whether it is a way of supporting editors who are pushing his PoV while circumventing his topic ban or whether this is simply bizarre coincidence. It is extremely frustrating to have PoV-pushers interrupt constructive edits. The PoV-pushing and chasing away of editors who attempted to make the article reflect mainstream reliable sources began before Lecen's involvement with this particular article, and I have not the slightest inkling why at this juncture the cause of pushing the exact same revisionist PoV seems to have been taken up anew. I'd also like MarshalN20's sniping from the sidelines to stop, but am most concerned that the pushing of the revisionist PoV has again raised its ugly head. • Astynax 23:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @MarshalN20 – You say "My only concern here is that of being continually harassed, both directly and indirectly, by a group of editors who think it is acceptable to consistently harangue talk spaces and noticeboards with the same bullshit on Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, Hitler, Nazis, conspiracies, etc." Neither Lecen, nor anyone else has called you, Cambalachero or any other editor by those names. Period. Nor has there been any finding that this has occurred. Period. Yet you have intransigently raised the same false charge time after time, baiting Lecen and using any pretext to again reargue the topic and level charges, despite your topic and interaction bans and despite having been warned against this: e.g., "to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement.". Lecen has only noted that Fascism, etc. are threads found within Argentine revisionism in discussions regarding that subject, and he has done so when discussing Argentine nationalist revisionism/neo-revisionism based upon reliable sources which do note these characteristics when discussing the mainstream's rejection of revisionism. He hasn't mentioned you at all during those discussion or outside of the scope of ARE/ARCA where WP:ARBARG has been discussed. It has been you, not Lecen or anyone else, who keeps provoking these interactions and leveling blatantly false, incivil charges. I agree with you: it needs to stop. • Astynax 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

As I'm mentioned in this discussion, I guess I should say something about it. I just want to say that I'm not involved with any of this, and if someone indirectly said something nasty about me, then I forgive him, so we can move on.

As for the ongoing discussion itself, if the arbitrators do not want to see it escalate up to all the discussion venues and end in a similar arbitration case yet again, you may consider placing the article under discretionary sanctions, as in my original proposal. That option is better suited for cases like this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As this discussion keeps escalating, I will have to make a few more comments. I have only talked with Langus twince: first, to give him the welcoming template for new users (on April 2011), and second, when he asked for assistance on a copyright discussion, in February 2012. See here and here. I have never talked with Gaba p before: see here and here. As for my suggestion of placing discretionary sanctions, I mentioned it because Future Perfect at Sunrise and HJ Mitchell were wondering what to do. By the way, Discretionary sanctions do not prevent anyone from editing the article or talking in the talk page; they just place a higher bar on the required civility and enforcing of policies. Still, it just a suggestion, as HJ asked; if you don't think it's a good idea, then you can ignore it. I will also mention that I have never been blocked for breaking the ban, I have never even been reported. As I said, I'm minding my own business since more than a year ago and I don't have anything to do with the ongoing discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC) By the way, I don't think I'm breaking the interaction ban with this comment, because I am talking only about me, to defend myself from claims made about me at this same discussion. If this comment is not within the rules, tell me so and I will remove it immediately.

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

It has been brought to my attention that a private email I sent to Lecen has been quoted here out of context to infer that I believed MarshalN20 and Cambalachero were co-ordinating with other editors off-wiki to push a POV on the Rosas article. I am perfectly willing to share that email but wish to state that I made no such accusation.

I saw two editors who have collaborated in a WP:TAG team before, repeating the same behaviour on the Rosas article and I wanted to make him aware of that. I resorted to a private email, not something I do often, since the same two editors have previously monitored my contribution history and followed me to other articles and talk pages. I simply wished to avoid further confrontation. In addition, email allowed me to speak rather more plainly than I could otherwise.

I do not believe either Marshal or Cambalachero are connected in any way to those editors.

There is a Revisionist Historical movement in Argentina, which has published prodigiously and whose views are considered mainstream in some circles in Argentina. Outside of the country, they are not widely regarded, as the scholastic standards are somewhat lacking and the content heavily influenced by internal Argentine politics allied to the Peronist movement. In the original arbcom case, Cambalachero based edits upon sources from the revisionist movement. One of the reasons he was sanctioned was an edit he later acknowledged used an unreliable and revisionist POV source. One of the few positives things to come out of the case was a comment on the use of unreliable and biased sources but that has never been followed up.

I acknowledged the problematic personal interactions and the problems in sourcing in my original evidence, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by Wee Curry Monster, I still stand by my evidence in that case.

Like most arbcom cases there has been a lasting legacy of ill-feeling amongst the parties. I have seen the case referred by Lecen and Asyntax to in manner that has unfairly maligned Marshal in a way that he believe affronts his personal reputation. Marshal may well be over-sensitive about this and had he asked me I would have advised this case was a bad idea on this occasion. However, since it was launched it has been used as a pretext to repeat the same comments. This is unfortunate and I would suggest that perhaps now is the time to consider appropriate remedies to prevent a recurrence.

Lecen believes I am compromising my standards because of an alleged friendship with both Marshal and Cambalachero and would charge that my commenting here is motivated by that personal relationship. I acknowledge Marshal as a wiki-friend and a copyright editor whom I have great respect for. Cambalachero as an editor I believe is flawed by his inability to recognise when his own POV is compromising a NPOV and his patriotism. Nonetheless I have been able to interact with him despite our differences and I would acknowledge that he has been able to put aside his personal POV as part of the consensus process. However, I doubt he or I would ever consider ourselves friends. Lecen needs to note that I have always disavowed the reliability of revisionist sources but arbcom considers user behaviour not content.

I do agree with Lecen that the issue of unreliable material published in what would normally be considered a reliable media is a problem for content in wikipedia. The Revisionist movement is a case in point and the normal recourse in WP:DR is not really set up to handle POV pushing based on such material. WCM_email 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Lecen asked me, then withdrew the question as to what alerted me about this request. It was the private email he sent me at 14:55 UK Time urging me to comment about Revisionist Historians. Assuming of course that he is happy for me to share private correspondence, I can furnish a copy to any admin here requesting one. WCM_email 23:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Lecen

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

• This does not look like an interaction ban violation to me. I see no readily identifiable reference to the other users at issue in these diffs.

  However, what concerns me is that the three users sanctioned in WP:ARBARG can't let go of one another despite mutual interaction bans. From the AE archives:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20: 28 June 2013, complaint by Lecen against MarshalN20, no action
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20: 13 August 2013, complaint by Lecen against MarshalN20, no action but ArbCom interaction bans
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145#Lecen: 24 January 2014, complaint by Cambalachero against Lecen, no action
• This request, 7 October 2014: complaint by MarshalN20 against Lecen

So what can or should we do from stopping this from going on?  Sandstein  19:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Lecen has not violated any existing sanctions, and the Argentine History case provides no discretionary sanctions that might justify any widening of bans. So there is nothing more for us to do here unless we want to file a request to Arbcom. Or if we think we should take action under normal admin authority. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• (ec)Like Sandstein, I don't really see this as a interaction ban violation as such. However, there clearly is something going on that needs some action, I'm just not yet certain if it can be pinned down on just one side. If the same people keep clashing on that one article over and over again, something is wrong. I'm definitely not happy with the amount of edit-warring going on (there have been almost 200 edits on the article since he beginning of October, and at least 7 or 8 reverts by Lecen among them, at a rough count). I'm also definitely not happy with the way Lecen is using the Arbcom ruling and the "revisionist" labelling as a weapon to browbeat content opponents, as if the Arbcom had given him a permanent guarantee that he is always right about the content. This article edit by him, at the very least, comes across as quite tendentious. I am tending towards some kind of sanction against Lecen, but I'm not sure yet it's the only thing that has to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's clear that the interaction bans aren't having the desired effect as the editors in question can't seem to just keep their distance. Frankly, Lecen's attitude here and in the diffs smacks of a battleground mentality. I recommend we kick this one back to ArbCom and let them deal with as they see fit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I generally agree with what's been said above, but I personally would not escalate this to ArbCom unless it's clear that it impedes article work, in which case I would expect an interested editor rather than an admin to seize the Committee by way of WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• This reads to me like a low level interaction issue, similar to a slow moving edit war. Not quite enough to say "yes, this crosses a line!" yet clearly enough to cause issues. I'd like to see if we can find a solution to this before we toss it back at ArbCom. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not sure what we can do. If we're enforcing the ArbCom remedy, the only sanction ArbCom authorised is blocks; we of course have the ability to act independently of the remedy as administrators, but I'm not sure what we actually could do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• @MarshalN20: If that's the way you feel, you'd be better off at WP:ARCA than here—all we can do at this board is enforce the original remedies using the methods specified by ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lecen: If you want a new arbitration case the amendments requests page is thataway→. Despite this page confusingly being a subpage of WP:Arbitration/Requests, it is actually run by rank-and-file admins, not ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• (using my non-admin account) This is an obvious and clear violation of an IBAN. Lecen has indeed, for the umpteenth time, crossed the line - so much so that it's bled directly into flat-out harassment. Lecen should be blocked for 30days minimum for the continual bullshit. However, is the IBAN and harassment part of the Arb case? Lecen's crap has to stop for the good of the project. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree about the originally reported diffs, but the lengthy third statement by Lecen above certainly violates the interaction ban because it is not needed for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, to respond to this enforcement request (WP:BANEX). I therefore recommend blocking Lecen for a week. As to the substance of Lecen's complaints, we can't address them here even to the limited extent that they are comprehensible, because there is no remedy that covers them that we could enforce. I would otherwise close this request with a reminder that any editor who believes that there are ongoing conduct problems related to the WP:ARBARG case may request action by the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be implementing the 1-week block, as per the above the panda ₯’ 23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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 Gamergate controversy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Article on which enforcement is requested

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

BLP discretionary sanctions

Request

I'd like some other opinions on whether it would be worth putting the Gamergate controversy article under 1RR. Two things I'm particularly after

• Firstly procedural question, is enough of the article covered by the BLP sanctions that would make it reasonable to apply 1RR to the whole article?
• Second, do others agree that it would be a worthwhile tool to prevent the disruption?

If there is agreement I'll implement it for the purposes of WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clarifying that I'm bring this here per WP:AC/DS#Expectations of administrators as uninvolved but asking for others opinions.

Some evidence on why I think it's necessary:

• The page has been fully protected three times in the last week and a half (including just then by me).
• It is a controversy which will continue to develop (hence letting people edit is better than preventing them) with people coming by with very different ideas.

Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Gamergate controversy

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 Sandstein

I offered an opinion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GamerGate (edited to add: and have edited topically related articles), so if anybody believes that I should not express myself as uninvolved here, please say so.

In principle, this article is a valid target for WP:NEWBLPBAN sanctions because it contains BLP content. Personally, I'm not a fan of 1RR restrictions because of the enforcement overhead they generate. Also, the BLP sanctions are intended to help counteract BLP violations, whereas revert restrictions are a tool best employed against recurring edit wars, which are a different type of conduct problem. If there are recurring BLP violations on this article, I recommend sanctioning the individual users who are responsible for them instead. But if an admin thinks that 1RR would help here, I'm not opposed to such a restriction.  Sandstein  11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Pinging User:Dreadstar and User:Cuchullain who are two of the admins who imposed full protection at Gamergate controversy during the last thirty days. (User:Callanecc is the third admin but he is also the filer here). A frequent need for protection could be the sign of an ongoing problem with the article. These admins might have an opinion on the value of a WP:1RR. Also leaving a ping for User:SirFozzie who was the closer of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GamerGate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland

I am definitely involved, having commented on the chief issue that has led to edit-warring, the addition of {{POV}}, so I am not speaking as an administrator.

I do not think a simple 1RR restriction would be appropriate here because the article has and continues to be heavily discussed at external venues. A simple 1RR restriction would effectively hand the article over to single purpose agenda accounts.

However, I would suggest a WP:ARBPIA style 1RR restriction may be worth considering. For those not familiar, 1RR applies to all WP:ARBPIA articles but reverts of anonymous users do count towards that (but do count towards the normal 3RR). In the case of the Gamergate article, it would only make sense if extended to accounts less than 4 days old (i.e. not autoconfirmed) as there is no chance the article will not be semi-protected for the forseeable future.

This is just a suggestion for consideration, however. I am personally somewhat squeamish about anything which might lead to two tiers of users, no matter how militant some of the new faces might be. CIreland (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Something definitely needs to be done on Gamergate controversy, related articles and their talk pages. There's probably more disruption and BLP violations on the talk pages than in the actual articles. 1RR may give the single purpose accounts an advantage; the discretionary sanctions are very helpful, but we need more administrative eyes on the pages - that would be the biggest help. Another problem is editors repeatedly raising the same points over and over and over again, it's a tiring process to keep tabs on the talk pages. Need help please! Dreadstar ☥ 22:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, yes, please comment and feel free to take admin action if you see it's necessary, I don't see any conflict with that at all. Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think 1RR will help, I see too many edit wars going on. Although it may require some modification to handle any WP:TAGTEAM editing going on. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Full protect longer.

Sandstein I don't see any problem with you commenting here based on Afd participation. NE Ent 22:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Sandstein, I think your participation in the very closely related Gender representation in video games should probably keep you from asserting yourself as uninvolved on this matter. On the issue raised here, it seems to me that most of the issues leading to the article being locked are not strictly related to BLP and are thus not a basis for invoking the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cuchullain

I'm responding by request from EdJohnston. I don't know how much help I'll be here as an admin from here on; I haven't been involved in the article, but it has grown to discuss topics I have been involved in. In my opinion as an editor, however, something absolutely needs to be done. I think a 1RR restriction will cut back on some of the edit warring, but as CIreland says, the real problem here is the large number of single-purpose (or limited-purpose) accounts coming to the article with an agenda. I worry the restriction won't stop that issue while still hamstringing positive editors on either side. What we really need is more regular attention from admins, as well as admins making use of the tools at their disposal for preventing the obvious problems: preventative blocks; discretionary sanctions for repeat offenders; and closing discussion sections that violate WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:TEND.--Cúchullain /c 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gamergate controversy

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

• At the moment I don't see a strong case for a WP:1RR restriction at Gamergate controversy. Would listen to more detailed evidence. Some people are periodically reverting the POV tag back and forth. Most likely an admin could warn such people of the consequences of edit warring, though it's not the most vital issue in the world. Generally the article appears to be settling down as of October 9. If the article gets out of hand again, another period of full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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 Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 02:46, 10 October 2014‎ revert of
2. 15:03, 10 October 2014‎ revert of

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 12:18, 28 January 2014 notified in 2014
• Involved in AE request (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119#Plot_Spoiler in which Editors involved are strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After restoring material a few days ago I left a message in the relevant section of the talk page saying why I had done so. Plot Spoiler has twice reverted, today, and as in the past has not said one word on the talk page. See Talk:Quds_Day#removal_of_protest_against_occupation

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

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 Plot Spoiler

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

• Plot Spoiler is clearly aware of the 1RR as he's been sanctioned for violating it before. I've blocked him for 24 hours (the duration takes into account that his block was several years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You continuously and insistingly accuse me to be sockpuppettry of some other man.}}

Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody.
Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense!

It is fair not to insult others who do not share your opinions, isn't it so? Did you look every Article/Talk Page of Misplaced Pages I edited? I have countless edits in Misplaced Pages (more than 60 Misplaced Pages pages, more than 200 different topics, since 2010). Though it is a fact that there are many Wikipedians who opposes me, there are many supporters as well (not closing the eyes suffices to see this).
walls of text: You already accused me with this phrase, and many many others. Remember:
See: your 10 edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&action=history
You accused me almost everything (you embellished your accusations with almost all sort of spices):
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=592725296&oldid=524695112
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725296
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725419
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725546
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725698
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592726502
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727227
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727548
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592734707

Then, against your non-stopping and countless accusations, I even feared that someone else may block me without my disproving your claims. Fortunately, some Wikipedians acting with common sense and prudence, allowed me enough time to reply your millions of accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592735526

I replied to your countless accusations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592766108
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592771272
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592772379
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592773832

After my above defence, you continued to attack me with your new claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592780998

Against your new further accusations, I defended myself (look the edit summary: Further accusations and further proofs):
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592796962

Misplaced Pages authorities analyzed both your accusations and my defence. And, your claims found to be inconvincing. The case was closed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592803341

I hoped you would stop your sockpuppetrry accusations towards me; I hoped you stop insults to me. You continued to your accusations whereever you find: here are the places you accused me: User talk:Lfdder, Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots

These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016

These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots:
"As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ).

"This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Misplaced Pages policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive":
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594533973&oldid=594531437

I kindly alerted you that the place of sockpuppetrry accusations are not the Talk pages of articles or Talk pages of other Wikipedians. I alerted you to make such accusations in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alexyflemming
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Furthermore, I think most importantly of all, you are building and collecting "proofs" (in quotation!) from various places and various arguements to use against me in directing me a new sockpuppettry accusation. You even highlight them with different color and text style like (I collected your embellished text from various places):
shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention".
To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it?
By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

What does all of these efforts, countless accusations, insults show? OBSESSION! OBSESSION!

(By the way, since my academic career, I had a break in my Misplaced Pages during 2011-2013; defending towards your numerous accusations and insults, I remembered and learnt Misplaced Pages syntax a little further. Though there are myriad things I have to learn: you are accusing me WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME-violations. You enlighten me what I should deeply learn next!)Alexyflemming (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)