Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement by Rich Farmbrough: no case needed |
|||
Line 467:
Certainly I thought the Zoe Quin and Depression Quest articles had achieved a reasonable state of balance.
===Statement by Jehochman===
I closed the community sanctions discussion and started [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate]]. Since then 43 warnings have been logged and 3 sanctions have been handed out. I don't see what arbitration could accomplish here because the community based sanction appears to be functioning smoothly. Unless somebody has evidence that an administrator or established editor has been acting as an enabler, there's no case to be heard. The probable result would be what's already in effect. If there are a parade of [[WP:SPA|single purpose accounts]] acting badly, the page can be semi-protected or protected long-term by any administrator, and disruptive accounts can be warned and then topic banned. Once the bad actors realize that we aren't going to tolerate them, they will go elsewhere. It would help if the arbitrators, instead of spending time on a case, would spend that same time using the Checkuser tool to clear out sock puppets. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
=== Statement by (user) ===
| |||