Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lecen (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 9 October 2014 (→Statement by Lecen, part 2: request for arbitrators and administrators). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Important informationShortcuts 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}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

John Carter

Wlglunight93

Lecen

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)

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)

Statement by Lecen, part 2

Honestly, I rather prefer if we take me, Cambalachero, MarshalN20, LangusTxT and Gaba p and open a new ArbCom case. The greatest problem here is that the Arbitrators are unable to understand, to perceive that we have four South American editors who insist on forcing Argentine revisionism as mainstream historiography across several articles, especially Juan Manuel de Rosas, when it's not. Argentine revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist political movement. It's regarded as fringe theory by historians. Open your eyes, I beg you. This is not about a bunch of immature editors who can't stand each other. We're dealing here with something far more serious: a coordinate effort to blemish Misplaced Pages's neutrality. Open a new ArbCom case with all five editors and allow me to show you the evidences to my comment. --Lecen (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain why I'm being ignored? --Lecen (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lecen, part 3

I'd like to raise a few points for the Arbitrators about the matter:

• 1) Since June Juan Manuel de Rosas had been untouched.
• 2) The moment I declare on the talk page (on late September) that I'll finish the remaining sections, LangusTxT and Gaba p appear.
• 3) LangusTxT and Gaba p both argued that Pacho O'Donnel should be included as reliable source. Pacho O'Donnel is a neorevisionist. As the arbitrators saw in the ArbCom case, mainstream historiography consider Argentine revisionism (and neorevisionism) as an authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist political movement (please see the ArbCom case evidence page). It's unreliable as source and they are not taken seriously by mainstream historians, not even as an "minority alternative point of view".
• 4) Pacho O'Donnel was the exact same author that Cambalachero argued over and over that should be used as source, and which led to his indefinite topic ban.
• 5) LangusTxT and Gaba p are both Argentines, close friends to Cambalachero and MarshalN20. Both have a well known history of pushing tendentious POV (i.e. revisionism) on Argentine History articles.
• 6) If you see my talks with them on Rosas' talk page you'll see that I was for long time reasonable, patient, explaining over and over that Pacho O'Donnel was unreliable because of X and Y.
• 7) Langus erased sourced content, made unsubstantiated accusations, and threatened to disrupt the article, which draw an editor to comment: "Mmm, I don't think the none too subtle threat to disrupt a GA drive unless your content is accepted is helpful. Lecen is actually correct that most mainstream historians regards Revisionist historians as fringe, their habit of making stuff without hard evidence is one reason why."
• 8) Gaba p kept goading me into mentioning the ArbCom case, complaining that he couldn't find anywhere any mention of Pacho O'Donnel in the evidence page. I told me him and over that it was there, and that I couldn't further elaborate on it because I didn't want to mention Cambalachero and MarshalN20.
• 9) MarshalN20 opens this request to have me blocked. It means at least that he keeps following my activities. It's quite obvious that he is trying to to prevent me from finishing the article.
• 10) If any doubt remained that they wanted to prevent me from finishing the article, that certainly disappeared once Cambalachero wrote here: "you may consider placing the article under discretionary sanctions, as in my original proposal". First: the present enforcement request is about whether I crossed a line regarding my mutual interaction ban with them, not about the article. Why would Cambalachero mention the article, then? And clearly to make a request that would prevent me from editing the article? Second: why wasn't Cambalachero sanctioned for discussing the article? Isn't that a violation of his topic ban?
• 11) If you still doubt that there is a coordinated effort between Cambalachero, MarshalN20, LangusTxT and Gaba p to scare me off from the article and rewrite it according to revisionism POV, see the following message sent to me by e-mail by one of Cambalachero and MarshalN20's closest friends: "I can see that both Langus and Gaba are back to their old tricks of tag teaming on the Rosas article. As soon as I saw Gaba had turned up, it was pretty clear to me that this is being co-ordinated somewhere. He's never edited or shown any interest... Its got to be more than a co-incidence... I'm not a Rosas expert but I am very familiar with the Revisionist movement in Argentina. Rest assured, they will browbeat anyone who comments in talk and turn the place into such a battleground that no one will want to edit there. Then they'll try and turn it into a Revisionist view of Rosas. They're not interested in presenting a NPOV, their only purpose is to push Peronist propaganda." I'm keeping his identity anonymous, but I can send you the e-mail if you'd like to.
• 12) Isn't odd that two editors with a long history of Argentine revisionism POV pushing, suddenly be helped in their attempt to prevent me from writing the article by two other editors (friends of theirs) who were topic banned precisely because of previous Argentine revisionism POV pushing?
• 13) I wrote 14 Featured Articles in my time here on Misplaced Pages, you can accuse me of anything you want, but you certainly cannot accuse me or using unreliable sources or of pushing POV. Why I only run into trouble in Juan Manuel de Rosas and nowhere else? And for the same reason always: editors teamed together trying to push Argentine revisionism POV?

I beg you all, arbitrators and administrators, to hear my words. To take them seriously. This is not about three editors who can't stand each other. This is one experienced editor trying to warn you over and over that there is a coordinate attempt by a small group of editors (who are friends to each other) to push fringe theories of the worst kind on Argentine history articles. Please, wake up. Listen to me. I'm begging you. --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 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)

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)

Statement by (username)

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)

Gamergate controversy article

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 (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.