From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Banning Policy

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 17:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1 [[4]] (couldn't find in archives)
  • Link 2 [[5]]
  • Link 3 [[6]]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

There is a lot of dispute if WP:EVADE is covered under talkpage posting. It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted. If in an article and it's not vandalism another editor may take responsibility for that edit but posting on their behalf or attempting to repost their concern is not appropriate. Enter User:Tarc. Tarc has been blasting insults, incivility and outright trolling on Jimbos page. Edits such as [someone has a hissy fit again, I'll just post yoour comment as my own, with attribution. Let em stew on that.] or this edit summary [try ONE revert, and see if that's enough to get the serial harasser goes and finds another house to haunt. If not, either I or someone else can bring Smallbones to ANI again, then I'll just re-post this user's concerns to Jimbo's under my own name]. Apparently the word cunt is not ok but telling a editor [you think you have the balls to remove something I post under my own name, then come at me bro] or telling me [can go the the first part of my username] or the attitude that this is a game [challenger appears]. There are many more edits stating that Smallbones and myself are whiteknighting, overzealous and etc. Jimbo has not replied and there is an impasse as Smallbones and I are within policy to revert on sight edits on or on behalf of a banned user without regard to 3rr. Why will we ban people then let them post if it's good contributions, there are plenty other editors with lots of great contributions banned and there is no question about it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Konveyor, if there was significant doubts you are correct but in this case all three accounts were spouting the same thing, terms of use nonsense, it was a very very clear duck case. It was clear enough theat a checkuser was done but I didn't have the correct beginning user which from the Block log the TheKohser isn't actually the master either but an older account User:MyWikiBiz, at least according to this block log. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Tarc that's why we are here you can't understand the difference of usage of the word as a word and an epithet. Please point out where I called someone a cunt? If you want people to be CIVIL you have to actually be civil yourself, not ask if they have the balls. I do that's why we are here, you are trolling and as User:KWW rightfully says trying to pick a fight. Arbcom has dealt with the last comment you can drop your WP:STICK now, your horse is dissecated now, now move on to your disruptive trolling, time for a new issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Smallbones Arbcom has or the community has handed down blocks, if there is to be an interpatation that allows talkpage edits and the community can not come to a consensus as this can be a sitewide issue this can be a good way to stop disruptive edit wars. I will say that even being right about removing the comments it's still disruptive for us to revert war too. If talkpage are the exception and Arbcom agrees then problem solved but maybe we can address what it means to post on behalf of banned users, when it's ok to revert and where banned users may post and under what conditions. Multiple admin disagree and obviously the community does too, Tarc is only the face of a larger issue here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
On another sidenote User:Tarc, asking someone if they have the balls is pretty sexist in and of it's self [[7]]. So there again if that's why you are having a problem then this can help you understand how a simple comment can be misconstrued as sexist nonsense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Deltahedron, this edit summary shows the willingness to proxy [[8]] so do this one [[9]], Here Tarc is stating he doesn't care who they are [[10]] this was after checkuser said they had no sleeper socks and needed behavioral evidence so I corrected my info. The sock came back to Tarc's page and left this [[11]], now if User:Tarc was acting in good faith he would be able to see 3 editors, brand new accounts all of them going with terms of use questions. You'd have to be blind not to see the connections, that's why blocks were handed out to two of them already. If anyone has questions you can look at the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. The bad thing is that this apparently unconnected user knows a lot about SPI's and now look surprise surprise [[12]] it's a checkuser block too. Congrats Tarc take a bow for helping them troll Jimbo. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's my intention to take a wikibreak, if my conduct needs to be reviewed please do so in spite of my absence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Konveyor Belt

@Hell in a Bucket: "It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted." This is not the central argument here. Tarc or anyone else does not deny this policy. Rather, the debate is whether uninvolved editors can revert suspected socks with no proof of socking, as this is what you and Smallbones have been doing. KonveyorBelt 18:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: You are right. Admins may decide what users are and aren't socks. Herein lies the problem. Neither Smallbones nor Hell in a Bucket are admins. They cannot make this decision themselves and carry out enforcement or revert it. Until an uninvolved admin decides based on CU or quack evidence that it is indeed a sock, they cannot do anything with the edits of merely what they "suspect" to be socks. Similarily, Tarc cannot revert reversions either until an admin judges that it is not a sock. The best thing to do is leave the edits alone. Focus on the edits, not the editor. If they are truly derogatory, revert like you would anyone else. KonveyorBelt 20:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @28bytes: It's not that he won't respond. Perhaps it's just because he doesn't care. The open door policy is his own and is laid out very clearly on his page. That should be response enough. KonveyorBelt 23:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Herostratus, WP:DUCK is an essay. It has always been an admins job to confirm and/or block socks, CU or no CU. Extending this to ordinary users is unmistakable power creep. KonveyorBelt 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I think it's pretty obvious that Tarc is doing this solely to stir up a fight, a.k.a. to disrupt Wikipedia. There's no possible improvement to an encyclopedia by restoring talk page comments by a banned editor, so WP:IAR is inapplicable. As for Konveyor Belt's argument: so long as we have our restrictions on checkuser in place, an admin's best judgement is all we generally have to go on when it comes to socking and block evasion. It's apparent from the discussion that Tarc agrees that the edits are likely from a banned editor, and is "taking ownership" only as fig-leaf to preserve the comments.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor betafive

It seems to me that if an edit from a banned user introduces content of sufficient quality that another editor in good standing sees fit to restore it after a revert, in the absence of evidence that the user in good standing is acting as a sockpuppet, the restored content should not be subject to reversion on-sight, as the alternative allows banned editors an effective heckler's veto. betafive 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Hell in a Bucket is mounting a rather superlative misdirection campaign by highlighting my use of silly internet memes ("a challenger appears", come at me bro", etc...) in edit summaries. For someone who casually throws around misogynist c-bombs into discussions in this project, and someone who acts as deplorably as he did at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Word usage in defending the c-word, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to call anyone out for incivility.

This whole mess is about a few different things, but one in particular; a fundamental difference in opinion regarding what it means to edit a page in this project, be it a user talk page or an article-space page. One site has a strict interpretation of "banned means banned", and that all edits by socket (whether proven or unproven) can and will be reverted on sight. This means that any possibly banned user who posts a question to Jimbo's talk page is automatically reverted, as well as a possibly banned user who adds a freely-licensed image to an article is automatically reverted. The other side wishes to evaluate the merits of the post or the article addition and believes that either should remain in place unless there is something egregiously wrong, e.g. WP:NPA or a topic ban violation. This is a collision of a draconian interpretation of the ban policy vs. how things usually flow in this project, and have flowed for years. Users have traditionally been granted a bit latitude in allowing banned users to post to their talk pages; I do that myself with a few people on mine. Users have also been traditionally able to "take responsibility" for revert article content and have been able to re-add it as their own if deemed a "good edit". Both of these have been denied lately; here at Jimbo's page, and one here involving a suspected sock of Russavia. I asked Kww if he plans to call for a block of the user, as he threatened to do to me, who restored the image at Dassault Falcon 7X, but have yet to see a response.

Note: despite Kww's as-yet-uncorrected false assertion here and here, I have not actually ever restored content added by a Russavia sock, though I believe his situation and the one we're going over here are two aspects of the same problem.

The other aspect of this is the situation of editors reverting suspected socks of banned/blocked users...and no, not that they are literally flagged as a suspected sock, but that the reverter him/herself is the one with the suspicion. That is how I got embroiled into this mess initially, when Hell and Smallbones were reverting an account with no block log and no SPI. The account is now blocked, but I and others are rather uncomfortable with regular users patrolling another user's talk page and removing content based on their own guesswork alone.

If this case is accepted, I would urge the committee to not focus on the who but more of the substance of what is at stake here. "Russavia" and "Mr. 2001" (alleged to be "thekohser") are being invoked here as boogeymen, people that quite frankly no one, even myself, particularly care for. We shouldn't craft policy or make decisions with the aim in mind of punishing specific editors.

So this is where we're at... "banned means banned" vs. "if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: If my at-times flippant edit summaries were misconstrued as incivility, then I apologize. After this, please stop pinging me here, as I'm really not going to engage in this now move on to your disruptive trolling rhetoric, esp on an Arbitration page. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the matter of whether or not the accounts actually were socks or not is largely academic. As I and others have noted, there has traditionally been a degree of latitude given to users over their own talk space; doubly so Jimbo's talk page which serves as a de facto secondary Village Pump. I believe Jimbo has also declared that bringing a matter to his talk page is not subject to WP:CANVASS'ing guidelines. At the time of the first brouhaha, the "SpottingTOU" account was neither blocked nor confirmed as a sock of anyone. The account was posting simple questions and comments within a discussion on Jimbo's page, and I found it rather offensive that the comments were being reverted on mere suspicion. The 2nd time, the user [[13]] at my talk page asking for assistance, which I granted. At first I made it abundantly clear that I was posting on the user's behalf by pretty much relaying their ToS question verbatim; this was reverted as "blatant proxying". I then rephrased the ToS question 100% in my own words, but that was reverted as "proxying" as well. I did not then and do not now see the ToS question as inherently trolling or disruptive. If Jimbo wanted to responsd, he could, or other editors can (and did) too. Then the thread slips off to the archives in a few days. After I took on the question as my own, the drama should have ended then and there. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Smallbones

I think it is too early for an ArbCom case. For one thing, Jimmy W. is said to be on vacation and may return and clear up the whole thing one way or another with just a few words. I've also offered a couple of compromises, including an offer of mediation, which Tarc has yet to answer. Finally, Tarc will essentially ask you to repeal WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned Mean Banned and this doesn't seem to be the proper place to do that. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus Thank you for reminding me where I saw Jimbo's words on the matter of who is invited to edit Jimbo's talk page and how. From the 5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales (and it has been there forever):

"Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. This is a wiki, so (apart from bad faith alterations and vandalism) visitors are welcome to edit."

Bad faith, i.e.duplicitous, fraudulent, or deceptive, seems to perfectly describe the banned editor in question.
In any case, all those folks who have been harassing me and others in the last 2 weeks saying "Smallbones can't delete the banned editor, unless he has explicit permission from Jimbo" now have an explicit answer straight from Jimbo. I'll also say that I have always edited within the letter and spirit of WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned means banned, and, with one possible small exception, only reverted the one banned editor.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has left a note User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 170#Away essentially saying he was on vacation and will start a discussion (AFAIK on this topic) in a few days (or more). I would guess that that discussion will take at least a few days, and then any questions at issue here will be moot. In line with that, I'll suggest that this case request be closed, and if anybody has anything leftover they want to pursue, they may open a new case request later.

I also want to remind folks that I did not propose this case. HIAB, the proposer has given himself a 2 week ban and essentially dropped out of the case. (what's that all about?) I would not have proposed the case, and I do not consider myself an ally of HIAB in any way. He did jump in and do a few things that I approved of, but he also confused the issues at times, and took the bait, at times, of folks who were clearly trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't think he has broken any Wikipedia rules however. I don't think he will want to reopen the case after the discussion at Jimbo's talk page, and doubt that there could be any sanctions against him if he did.

I'd also like to point out that nobody has made any credible accusation that I've broken any Wikipedia rules, so that if anybody decides to reopen this, I'll request that they specify exactly what rules they think I've broken.

Yes, there are some folks who say that I've edit warred, despite WP:NOT3RR and

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules - "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

Some have accused me of some vague violation of our user talk guideline, despite

Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages - "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space .... Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users."

Some seem to suggest that I have reverted Tarc for WP:PROXYING. Check the record - I have not.

Some have accused me of violating some special unstated rule of Jimbo's talk page, despite Jimbo clearly stating:

"Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. " (5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales

And everybody should reread WP:REVERTBAN

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So if you'd like to accuse me of anything on this page, I think you have a long row to hoe.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Monty845

As I see it, there are three separate issues intersecting here. First is that User talk:Jimbo has historically been a kind of neutral zone where we would often over look an editors blocked status on the project when they wanted to talk to Jimbo. People from many projects come there to raise issues, and as such we should be a bit more reluctant to strictly enforce policy than on other pages. Second, this is the second major spat in a month that revolves around a WP:3RR exemption, where there is a lack of consensus on whether the reverts count. (The other hasn't made it here yet, but has a massive RFC ongoing) Some people think the exemption applies to the removals, others think it doesn't, as its now an edit war between editors otherwise in good standing. This is exacerbated by the language of WP:BANREVERT that doesn't require reversion if there isn't a problem with the edit, using a permissive may, and then allows editors in good standing to assume responsibility for the edit, but then says edits at the direction of a banned editor are prohibited, which is now being argued to apply to the talk page reverts. Editors on both sides have massively violated WP:3RR even though the restore side has no claim to an exemption. That no one was blocked speaks to just how much of a mess the conflicting policy interpretations have created, and the danger of 3rr exemptions. Monty845 19:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Adding myself as a party in the event ArbCom decides to accept this case. I do not believe that this matter is ready to be heard by ArbCom at this time, since the community has not reached a stalemate. Perhaps there will be blocks and bitterness down the road which make a case necessary here. I don't think that policy on the matter at hand here is unclear — people need to simply stop selectively reading what they want it to say. A block or two might prove to be a boon to literacy... Carrite (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved statement by Hasteur

Great Gravy Marie... We're back at ArbCom to get annother swing at the "words that should not be said" debate? If ArbCom wanted to do something about this they could go with the A plague o' both your houses route and sumarily block the leading advocates on both sides to demonstrate that the time for drama farming is over and to drop the entire line of debate lest we do this again in 2 weeks. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Being that the entire conversation revolves around what can/cannot be posted on the BDFL talk page, perhaps the most reasonable (and potentially least disruptive to enWP) solution is to encourage Jimmy Wales to move his Circus of Open Pleas and Philosophical Introspection to another site/host so as to that the talk page goes back to it's intended purpose and not a exception to end all exceptions purpose including having to bend/break enWP rules/policies/guidelines/best practices. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

While this may not be ready for ArbCom today, the general pattern of behaviour suggests we are going to be back here in the future. The accounts that people are fighting over are, IMNSHO, ban-evading socks at worst and scrutiny-evading socks at best. Seems an odd hill for Tarc to be willing to die on, but that is his choice. Meanwhile, Smallbones and HIAB may be technically correct, but the actions of all three are really serving only to cause a great deal of distracting drama. There comes a point where the solution is more damaging than the problem. You guys are just feeding the trolls at this point. In this case, denying the throwaway accounts the attention they seek by simply ignoring them may be of greater benefit. Resolute 20:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Floq

in three easy steps:

  1. Accept case
  2. Figure out which users think this is a vital issue
  3. Siteban them

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

What Floquenbeam says is harsh but mostly on the mark. Sometimes an issue is said not to be ready for arbitration. Sometimes an issue really isn't ready for arbitration. However, sometimes an issue becomes ready for arbitration when the filing party throws the boomerang. This is such a case. The filing party, by repeatedly deleting the comments of an editor who is accused of being a sock, but not found to be a sock, has been disruptive. It isn't as if the comments, on the founder's talk page, which is something of an anything-goes zone, were interfering with developing the encyclopedia. The real reason, as I understand it, for the rule about reversion of posts by banned users is that banned users are known to be not here to develop the encyclopedia. The development of the encylopedia isn't at stake. The disruption by the sock-reverters is at least as great as the disruption by the possible (unproved) sock. It may not have been ready for arbitration until the filing party requested arbitration.

The filing party now has requested that ArbCom accept the case. I suggest that ArbCom accept the case and file their own SPI, or conduct their own SPI (since some of the clerks are also CheckUsers). Regardless of whether the editor whose comments are being reverted is a sock of a banned user, the edit-warring over the posts has been disruptive, and I ask ArbCom to determine appropriate sanctions for the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At least one editor, Count Iblis, has proposed that this case be dealt with by motion. I disagree, and think that is the wrong answer. Either a full evidentiary hearing is needed to identify and sanction misconduct, or the issues do not rise to the level of requiring a full evidentiary hearing to identify and sanction misconduct. My own thought is that there has been misconduct, and that a full case is in order, but dealing with this case by motion to make rules about a special page is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally involved editor Herostratus

De facto Jimbo's talk page has kind of a special status (and so does Jimbo) and so I'd give a great deal of weight to how he thinks his own talk page should be run, and he's expressed that banned users can post there even if they can't post anywhere else, for various good reasons and within reasonable bounds (a possibly important point). And so Jimbo's talk page is not a good test for the long-running argument: "banned means banned" versus "banned has exceptions". And so I'd like to hear what Jimbo has to say and if he doesn't weigh in I'd be pretty reluctant to take the case. If it was any other page, it'd be useful to have an ArbCom decision bearing on the general question though, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones, right. Of course you were justified in reverting, or anyway arguably so, on grounds that the edit wasn't within reasonable bounds. And it wasn't, really -- in it, the person hinted very broadly that they were a banned user, described how (as a banned user using a different account) they had posted to the Reward Board and compromised it... it might be OK for a banned user to post to Jimbo's talk page within reason, such as to appeal their ban or for other reasonable purpose, but it's not OK for a banned user to post to the Reward Board especially when the effect of that post was to compromise and abuse the purpose of the Reward Board. I don't think that Jimbo opened his talk page to banned editors so that they could crow about destructive edits made elsewhere.
In addition to that, this was part of an attempt to demonstrate that commercial editors cannot be reverted provided they channel some of their earnings to the WMF -- that it would a civil tort to do so, if I'm reading "intentional interference with contractual relations"[14] correctly. Which one doesn't want throw around the term "batshit insane" lightly, but if one ever did want to use it this might be a good time. And in fact the person accused you of committing a civil tort (I think... it's hard to read since it was (figuratively) written in crayon) which is pretty inflammatory.
That being said, it's complicated, and at some point the batshit insane part was removed (but not by Tarc, at least not immediately),[15] and I myself wouldn't have advised reverting the material -- look what happened, sterile contention plus you yourself personally maybe being in trouble, which are desired outcomes for the original poster I assume -- whatever happens, he's already "won" this round and is doubtless chuckling from the sidelines. But it was reasonable to revert the material, yes. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Konveyor Belt:, what do you mean? The original poster was Mr 2001 (unless it was someone pretending to be him), and I daresay everyone else here believes this and it's not at issue; he didn't just quack but climbed up on our laps and laid an egg, what more do you want? Unless your stance is "Yes, we all know he was a banned editor, but we always need to go through the kabuki of running a CU and so forth for procedural reasons" which I suppose is defensible but awfully bureaucratic, I don't see what you're getting at. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, you're saying not that he wasn't pretty clearly a banned user, but rather that conferring the authority to revert banned users to editors without checkuser rights, in any circumstance, is power creep, so it's a bad thing to countenance generally. OK, reasonable, but checkusing is an art, even checkusers use behavioral clues and so forth, which normal people can also use. So for obvious cases I guess I don't agree. I don't know what the rule is or if there is one. Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally involved editor Nick

The banning policy specifically states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

There is no absolute requirement anywhere to revert immediately and instantly, editors can (and do) allow edits made by blocked and banned editors to stand. That's a small window of opportunity that is clearly going to extend and expand at Jimbo's talk page, as long as comments being left by blocked or banned users aren't disruptive (using the terminology as it relates to editors otherwise in good standing). Jimbo is still an important cog in the governance of Wikipedia, although not typically exercising his powers, he does have the authority to overturn bans and blocks and allowing those people who are blocked or banned to appeal at his talk page is not a massive hardship for the project.

I have always felt we're too quick to cast out bad editors we no longer like, locking bolting and chaining the door behind them. We lock their talk page, disable their e-mail and generally force them to appeal to BASC or if we're especially generous, we (administrators) might organise an unblock discussion at AN/ANI. We don't actually make it technically possible for a blocked or banned editor to appeal to the other person on the project, Jimbo, who can in theory hear their appeal and reverse any sanctions against them. I think, by placing obstacles in their way, reverting them quickly, blocking their socks, and doing things like protecting Jimbo's talk page, we always look like we're trying deliberately to stop them appealing to Jimbo for some sinister reason, which for some banned users can add to their theories of administrator abuse. If we let some of those people freely and openly ask Jimbo to review their case, even though we're fairly certain of the response, it might well cut down on disruption further along the line.

The banning policy further goes on to state When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content... ...Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

I realise this is slightly towards clutching at straws, but reinstating a banned users posts on a talk page, especially that of Jimbo, may have the potential to be constructive, if they get a decision from Jimbo regarding their final appeal and can then be persuaded to stay away from the site for a period of time.

I'm going to drift from the core of the discussion here, but I think the biggest issue that has developed with the banning policy, is that it's so far out of date and there's too few viable options to assist in controlling the behaviour of undisciplined editors. We're sadly seeing editors with track records of good content being banned from the site because of editing carried out away from the article namespace, with the likes of Russavia harassing Jimbo or Kumioko persistently disrupting over RfA. If administrators had a wider range of tools available to block editors from individual pages, from pages present in one or more categories (a way to enforce topic bans, essentially) and to allow things like editing of pages within their own user space whilst blocked (but which could be revoked if abused) it may be possible to corral editors in the right direction, keeping them firmly out of areas where they may get themselves into trouble, and allowing them to focus on the areas of the project where they can continue to make a positive difference.

I have listed myself as peripherally involved as I'm the editor who restored the edit to the Dassault 7X article originally made by Russavia (I've not actually asked him for confirmation, but I agree with the assertion it's one of his edits) and I reinstated around 10 other edits made by Russavia around the same time, these were listed at an ANI thread, and after carefully examining all of the edits, I'm happy that they constituted an improvement to the project, were not disruptive and fell in line with the above mentioned sections of the Banning Policy concerning reinstatement of 'good' edits. I reason that continuing to show banned users that good edits are appreciated and bad edits are not, we at least attempt to stop them turning into vandals, damaging the project in a fit of anger or frustration at being forcibly ejected from something they enjoy and even love doing.

My feeling with editors like Russavia is that they need to be banned from sections of the site, where they cause disruption and trouble, but they need not be banned from the entire site, if better tools were available to administrators to deal with such behaviour. I don't think being able to better control editors would be a bad thing for assisting in editor retention either, giving us the ability to sanction editors in more appropriate ways, instead of having to block them, protect pages and rely on people being reported for interaction bans, we could have a suite of click and forget tools to enforce IBANs, page bans, topic bans and the like.

The current policy doesn't really appear to be doing much to help with editor retention, so hopefully the ArbCom will look at what might be done with regards to banning and the huge amount of egregious behaviour needed which so poisons the project before something snaps and the community has enough. Nick (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved editor Deltahedron

I asked User:Tarc and User:Smallbones to stop edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales over edits by and on behalf of banned editors when they reached 19 reverts between them. Each of them took the view that it was the others fault. Not surprisingly the matter was referred (not by me) to WP:AN/I where I formulated a possible way forward [16]:

if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Wikipedia by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Edit_warring_at_User_talk:Jimbo_Wales suggested that there was some support for that, if not universal consensus. It seems that Tarc has explicitly taken personal responsibility asking a question which may have been posed originally by a banned user (I cannot say whether that's correct). If so, then to claim the protection of WP:EVADE for unlimited reversion, User:Hell in a Bucket needs to establish (1) that Tarc is posting at the direction of a banned user: in other words, that the user actually is banned, and that Tarc is actively acting in bad faith by claiming to post independently but actually at the behest of another person. That's a very high bar to meet and in practice it seems insurmountable. Of ocurse, it might be that (2) the question is inherently disruptive. If so, the status of the posters, whoever they may be, is irrevelant, as is WP:EVADE: whoever posts an inherently disruptive question is behaving disruptively. Of course, establishing that a question is inherently disruptive is also a high bar to meet. I have yet to see evidence supporting either (1) or (2). However, it may help frame the discussion for participants to say whether they wish to assert propositions (1) or (2) or both. I would also suggest that the proposal I enunciated before might be the foundation of some behaviours which would allow those of us with topics to discuss with Jimbo Wales to do so in relative peace and quiet. Deltahedron (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket, perhaps I was unclear about (1). I meant that an editor such as Tarc should believe in good faith that the question is worth asking whether or not it comes from a banned user, not that he must believe in good faith that the editor is not banned. Indeed, I would say that if an edit is known to come from a banned user, but another editor in good standing believes in good faith that the edit is worth making, that second editor is entitled to repeat the edit and make it their own, taking full responsibility for the consequences, and stating explicitly that this is what they are doing. Under these circumstances, EVADE would only come into play if it could be established that the second editor is consciously and deliberately acting at the behest of a banned editor and that they have not in fact exercised their independent judgement about the value of the edit, even though they claim to have done so. As I said, refuting that is a pretty high bar, and I see no evidence yet that Tarc is acting in that way (but it might be the case for all I know). I see it as quite possible that an editor in good standing can quite legitimately agree with a banned editor's opinion and choose to repeat it, again adopting it as their own. If an edit is disruptive for any reason, then a second editor, having taken full responsibility for repeating the edit, is thereby taking responsbility for acting disruptively and any sanctions that might arise. But I think I'm repeating myself here. Deltahedron (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I consciously headed this section as "marginally involved" because in view of the two comments of mine mentioned above I am not quite uninvolved, but on the other hand I don't see myself as being involved in any substantial sense, and certainly not in any way a principal in any case here. So I assess my involvement as "marginal", that is, precisely as standing on the margins of this case. If "marginally involved" is not a recognised category, then no doubt someone whose job it is to change these things will change it. Of course if someone disputes the accuracy of what I have said and challenges my self-description, they are free to make that case, in their own section, on the basis of evidence and reasoned argument. Otherwise I would expect other editors to respect my considered choice of words. Deltahedron (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved editor Sitush

My involvement has been limited to initiating this request at ANI and whatever comments I made within it. That the situation has continued is regrettable. I have no particular interest in wikilawyering over which policy might be most applicable/which should be given more weight etc but the warring has been ridiculously disruptive and unseemly on what is allegedly a high-profile talk page. It is unfortunate that Jimbo hasn't been around to comment. That said, Jimbo can't over-ride policy himself and he is probably stuck between a rock and a hard place because of the potential PR consequences. The issue needs to be resolved one way or the other and, since some people really are taking sides and the ANI reports got nowhere, ArbCom seems to be the only realistic way to do that. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by no more than marginally involved editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Given the disruption engendered by this situation and the similar dispute at WP:AN/I#Russavia disruption, requesting multiple article protection, it would be a good idea for the Committee to accept the case and resolve it by a motion to this general effect: When an edit by a banned or blocked user is restored by another editor in good standing, it is no longer subject to summary removal simply because it originated with a banned/blocked editor. Ordinary editing principles apply. If the restoration is challenged as falling outside the exceptions in WP:BANREVERT and WP:PROXYING, that dispute should be taken to an appropriate talk page or notice board. While the policy presumption against inclusion in most circumstances holds, sufficient discussion should occur before determining whether to remove that content again. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Sometimes a picture says 500 words

AGKs comment people not here to build an encyclopaedia smacks of Jclemens' Not a Wikipedian gaff. For Shame. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Accept case. Ban one or more editors for relentless drama mongering that disrupts people from writing articles. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Would a clerk please clean up the headings on this request? Jehochman Talk 03:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If somebody thinks a banned editor needs to be reverted, they can do so. A user, such as User:Jimbo can request an open door policy, and that should be given consideration as long as the comment is not seriously disruptive. It takes clue to make that judgement. If a comment removal gets reverted by an editor in good standing, that's an indication not to repeat the removal, and to discuss the matter rather than edit warring. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Receiver" is the original title of the image. Whether that correlation was intentional, or an accident, any account with that name making provocative edits, as User:The Receiver 0814 was, ought to be reverted, and anybody restoring such content ought to be blocked. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Pass a motion saying that Jimbo's talk page is closed until Jimbo returns from vacation. Suggest that Jimbo formally nominate one or more editors who will maintain his talk page in his absense. Also make clear that only Jimbo or editors named by Jimbo are allowed to revert edits made to his talk page. Jimbo has made it clear in the past that, in principle, banned editors can post on his talk page, so Jimbo wants editors to have immunity against editing restrictions on his talk page. E.g. a transgender editor who was under an topic ban posted about the problems on the Manning page some time ago, her posts were first removed for violating the editong restriction, but Jimbo reverted that arguing that in principle problems can be mentioned even by topic banned editors. When that editor was blocked for violating her restrictions, Jimbo objected to that. But the problems mentioned by the editor were noted by the community and it led to the Manning ArbCom case.

Jimbo's talk page policy should be formalised by an ArbCom motion, it should always be the case that what happens on his talk page is being closely scrutinized by Jimbo himself or editors he trust. Simply leaving the door wide open for any banned or restricted editor to use his page as a free firing zone while anyone could intervene is a recipe to turn his talk page into the Wild West. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the way Jimbo's talk page is being used makes it like any other project page, except that it doesn't have a talk page to discuss the editing of the page. Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JMP EAX

Regarding Jehochman's statement: I doubt anyone lording over Jimbo's talk page is actually doing that as part of his/her article writing process. I surely don't. I comment there sometimes (perhaps too much recently) myself but even in this circumstance I completely missed the supposedly famous edit war. And even if I hadn't missed it, I don't see how it could have prevented me from writing any article. It seems to me this is the proverbial mountain from a molehill, as stupid as edit warring gets. I'm not sure that everything in WP:LAME needs an ArbCom case though. I see that Hell in a Bucket gave himself a two-week block. As for Count Iblis' proposal: that sounds like a lot of WP:CREEP, even assuming ArbCom has the power & stomach to tell Jimbo how to run his talk page... 00:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rlendog

Smallbones correctly quotes the banning policy as "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." However, WP:BANREVERT does permit editors in good standing to reinstate such edits under their own responsibility "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." So anyone is permitted to revert edits by the banned editor as often as necessary. But unless Tarc has been banned and I am not aware of it, his edits are not "edits made in violation of a ban" and should be subhect to to 3RR. If that is not the case, the banning policy should be restated to say that ""Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, or any edits by editors in good standing restoring such material, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." But I don't think that would be a good idea. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

If you take this case, to consider "not here to build" you should add User:The Rewarder and User:The Receiver 0814 as parties, which appear to be, at the least SPA's, engaged in breaching experiments of different types across pages, and which were the proximate edits leading to this case. (The accounts are currently both blocked [17] [18] but obviously their conduct will be part of any review, especially if a user in good standing is taking responsibility for some of it. See also, [19] and [20].) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple

I was away for a while and returned to find myself pinged four times in the identical Jimbo talk page post [21], the multipleness due to this same post being deleted and reinstated. Digging down a little, it was apparent that this is probably a particular banned user trying to make trouble and start a fight. He has succeeded. Unfortunately, a user in good faith has taken the questionable step of heightening the drama and bringing it to arbcom, all to the intense satisfaction of the same banned user. I think that this is a mistake, that this entire exercise is a waste of time, and that there should be dispute resolute first which has not been tried. I have reverted this same banned editor in the past, which I guess is why he pinged me, but haven't gone the extra mile and reverted nonbanned editors who have reinstated edits by this person. My feeling has been that it just isn't worth the trouble, and at the end of the day, who gives a f**k? Frankly I find the whole paid editing drama boring and tedious, and a Foundation problem that should not excessively trouble editors who make their living doing other things.

As to the merits, there is, as usual, conflicting policy. WP:EVADE seems to conflict with WP:BANREVERT, because the latter says "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." But the question is whether it means that nonbanned editors have carte blanche to revert what banned editors post, in effect negating the purpose of their bans. I don't think they should, but the solution, if anyone cares, is to clarify the conflicting policy and not to begin an enormous time-wasting drama. If arbcom takes the case, and I hope you don't, you should resolve this by closing that loophole. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What 28Bytes said, below. He's right, this is not any old venue but Jimbo's talk page. As on any user talk page, what he says, goes. Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

... and if he declines to take a position, then my position is that banned editors can post willy-nilly on his page, and if he doesn't like that he can personally revert them. I am not going to be more Catholic than the pontiff. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

Why not wait to see what Jimbo has to say before deciding whether to open the case? It's his talk page, after all. If he says he has an open door policy and that banned editors are welcome to ask him questions on his talk page, then presumably other editors will have the good sense to leave such questions alone and let Jimbo decide whether or not to answer them.

If instead he says he'd rather banned editors contact him by email (or not at all) instead of via his talk page, then presumably editors will have the good sense not to restore material that's reasonably known not to be wanted by the talk page "owner".

If editors keep edit-warring on his talk page in contravention of his wishes, then it makes sense to escalate the dispute resolution process. Until we know his explicit wishes, though, all of this is premature. We don't have to hash out a month-long War of WikiAcronyms regarding the banning policy, we just have to ask the guy whose talk page the battle is raging on how we wants his talk page to be managed (or not managed.) Let's wait for his answer. He'll tell us; he's not Godot. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

My involvement on this has been strictly limited to restoring the edits made by "The Receiver" after Smallbones reverted them. I would note that this conflict between attitudes regarding banned editors and support of constructive questions or edits on s matter by banned editors is a recurring source of disruption beyond just this dispute. While ArbCom cannot make policy, they can present a non-binding opinion that serves as the basis for action in a case. Establishing that the presence of banned editors in a discussion or content dispute does not take away from one's own bad behavior and acting accordingly would be a good way to mitigate such disputes. Once an established editor in good-standing restores material, reverting should be based on something other than "a banned editor did this" as otherwise it leads to disruption. That includes the non-policy WP:DENY that is often invoked despite being a mere essay.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

There is at least one potential issue here that probably requires clarification and that is specifically related to whether Jimbo's open door policy at his user talk page given his formal position with the foundation falls within the range of pages to which policy applies and I would really think it might be best to see him make a statement on that matter before deciding here.John Carter (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Banning Policy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • I'll allow some additional time for statements, but I'm leaning toward acceptance. I think there are several people here whose behavior is due (or well overdue) for a review, and I don't think that is going to happen any other way at this point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not going away and is the exact type of situation it's our responsibility to handle. Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm more than happy to take a case reviewing the behaviour of people not here to build an encyclopedia. Several names here qualify. Accept. AGK [•] 07:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like Jimmy's open door policy specifically and the idea of an open wiki generally are rubbing up against the "banned means banned" ideal that some people want to subscribe to. That's always likely to happen and finding the balance is difficult. What's more important is that it's the same old names appearing again and again. I'd be willing to accept a case with the strict scope of looking at the behaviour of a small number of people. WormTT(talk) 10:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Initiated byGuanaco at 08:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Guanaco_desysopped arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Posted to their talk pages. —Guanaco 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Guanaco

Eight years ago, it was decided that I would be ineligible to reapply for adminship. I was 16 years old at the time. I have no particular interest in reapplying in the near future - I haven't actively participated in the Wikipedia community in several years. But this black mark is something that has bothered me, and I hope to rejoin the community at some point with a clean slate. —Guanaco 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This is a long time ago, and I think practice has since changed to generally leave whether to restore tools up to the normal community processes. I'd be inclined to remove the restriction and allow normal reapplication at RfA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested # Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request





Champaign Supernova

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

Edit-warring has been happening at Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes. (They are the incumbent, seeking re-election, and the opponent in the upcoming election for United States Senate from Kentucky.) The article for Grimes has been placed under full protection.

User:Champaign Supernova has had discretionary sanctions explained on his or her talk page, and that I notified all of the recent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


History for Alison Lundergan Grimes

History for Mitch McConnell

Reverting a fund-raiser

Add endorsement

Remove endorsement

Add information

Remove information

Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes#Censored content – See repeated claims of censorship, a common indication that POV-pushers object to removal of undue POV

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

I'm not familiar with what a discretionary sanction is, and I don't understand what this proposal means or how it would affect me. I'm confused by my involvement here because none of the diffs listed above were edits made by me, or reverts of my edits. Is there anything I need to do right now? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I certainly see the potential for problems to worsen here. I'm minded to grant this request. @Champaign Supernova: You can find the full details on what discretionary sanctions are here. In short, they're a way we can allow administrators to quickly address problems in areas where they're very likely to occur, and establish restrictions or remove editors from that topic area if the need arises. Establishing discretionary sanctions over the articles wouldn't change a thing for any editor who isn't engaged in misconduct, and can in any case only apply to misconduct that happens after the sanctions are imposed. It's not an action against any individual, and your inclusion on the request doesn't mean you're accused of any misconduct. The only reason you were probably included is because you edit in the area, so you should have the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to, or (as you did) ask us any questions you might have. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Appeal request: Prem Rawat

Initiated byMOMENTO (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Discretionary sanction

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
  • Momento(initiator)
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Notified The Blade of the Northern Lights.[22] MOMENTO (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Information about amendment request
  • Prem Rawat [[23]]
  • I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by Momento

On Nov 15th, 2012 I was indefinitely Topic Banned from all Prem Rawat articles for “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” by The Blade of the Northern Lights.[24] TBOTNL gave no warning to me nor did he provide any diffs to support his claim I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Fifteen months later when I appealed my ban at WP:AE he provided three diffs to justify continuing my ban with the disclaimer “I'm not giving my own point of view on the truth or validity of any additions or removals”. [25] I believe the three edits TBOTNL provided are fair, correct and in accordance to all Wiki policies and spirit. The first edit I made was the result of a discussion by two other editors who came to the conclusion that “the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader.” [26] I waited two weeks for any objection to their opinion and then I proposed making the appropriate change. When no one objected to the proposed edit I waited a further 24 hours and then made the edit.[27] There were no objections or reverts. The second edit I made was on the talk page in response to a proposal by another editor (“Good suggestion. I'm happy with that”). [28] The edit proposed was to remove a superfluous material, the majority of which was a quote from Prem Rawat. [29] There were no objections or reverts. The third edit involved removing excess opinion, both positive and negative, not necessary to express the crux of the matter which was that “Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s” which I retained.[30] There were no objections or reverts. None of the edits I made, or the talk discussion that preceded them, show “Persistent Battleground Behavior," incivility or tendentious editing and the attached synopsis of the other edits made at the same time show that I was editing according to the best policies of Wikipedia. [31] My criteria for every edit was to improve the accuracy and readability of the article. I am a writer by profession and knowledgeable on the subject of Prem Rawat. I have removed both positive and negative material that bloated the article without adding value. At the time of the editing Prem Rawat was being watched by 446 editors and seventeen editors edited the article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my edits.

Additional statement by Momento

I do not believe I'm being treated fairly here. I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address. I thank NewYorkBrad and Salvio for giving me the opportunity to respond to their concerns. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Seraphimblade - I misunderstood the instruction above - "You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private". Should I remove it?MOMENTO (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade - Editing a variety of articles is not a requirement to launch an appeal. I have no interest in editing other articles. My area of expertise is the history and teachings of Prem Rawat and as long as I am editing according the guidelines for WP:SPA I should be accorded the same rights as any other editor.MOMENTO (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade - As regards my "lack of judgement" in using a sandbox to prepare my appeal, the instructions above say I can use my "user space ... to compose my request in private". Neither my user page nor my talk page is private. The only private user space I can have is a sandbox.MOMENTO (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade -As you may have seen Gaijin42 has started a discussion on the talk page which concludes "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Please reconsider your position on "my lack of judgement.MOMENTO (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Gaijin42 - Perhaps you, Seraphimblade or another editor can explain to me what is allowed and what isn't and I can amend my appeal accordingly. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Gaijin42- Thank you for having the integrity to open a topic on the talk page to point out "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Let's hope Seraphimblade will now reconsider his position on "my lack of judgement".MOMENTO (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Blade of the Northern Lights - Your statement doesn't address the issue of this appeal - "Do the three edits you provided show evidence of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” warranting a 22 month topic ban".MOMENTO (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Newyorkbrad - It's very easy to accumulate a list of sanctions when the fact that you've been sanctioned before is reason enough to be sanctioned again. The evidence presented here shows how easy it is to be sanctioned without a shred of evidence. This vicious circle will never end unless someone decides to judge me on what I actually did according to the diffs of the case.MOMENTO (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Newyorkbrad - I'm male. It's hard to specify what I would do differently going forward until I hear from the other Arb Com members. I'm hoping they'll have valuable input about my editing and how I could be a more productive editor.MOMENTO (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad - I'm not sure who you're asking for a link to my AE appeal but here it is.[32]MOMENTO (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Worm, GorillaWarfare,Salvio - So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. In fact, no one has been able to produce a single diff that shows even "Very Occasional Battleground Behaviour". The worst that anyone has been able to say about me is that I put material in my sandbox, I've been sanctioned before, I'm a SPA and I've got an attitude. So why are you denying my appeal? The claim that the Prem Rawat article would suffer if I am editing is demonstrably untrue. TBOTNL stood by for months while an anti Prem Rawat editor waged war on several editors and soon after my ban another editor (admonished during PR2) made 53 edits in two days without one word of discussion on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted. [33][34]MOMENTO (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Salvio - Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" -if you had looked at the other edits I made around that time you would see that I was also removing pro Rawat material.MOMENTO (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Salvio - Thank you for giving me a chance to address your concerns. You're correct, it doesn't matter what you call it, what matters is whether it is evidence of wrong doing. These edits don't show “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and they don't show "tendentious editing". Nor do they show edit warring or incivility, nor are they reverts or done without considerable discussion. They are three innocuous edits that even Sandstein wrote "I wouldn't have imposed the topic ban based on the evidence presented here by the sanctioning admin. The diffs they provide are not on their face problematic, and valid editorial reasons are imaginable for them".Regarding my comment about your statement - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" - my emphasis is on your view that something non-neutral is "evidenced by the diffs provided by TBOTNL. TBOTNL's diffs are not evidence of non-neutral editing, one removes positive Rawat material, one removes negative Rawat material. As for whether I was also removing positive Rawat material I provided this link in my initial statement to a summary of the seventeen edits I made in the week before I was banned and the reasons behind the edits [35] But here are three of those edits that show me removing pro-Rawat material and Rawat's own words. 1) I removed this glowing praise "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees."[36] 2) I removed the opinion of Rawat supporters that - "there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong...Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West".[37] And 3) I agreed to the removal of "Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world".[38]. In fact, in the week before I was banned I removed more pro-Rawat material than anti. Thanks. I am more than happy to respond to any charge of improper editing if diffs are provided.MOMENTO (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Francis Shonken - Regarding your claim that "In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved". You are right but not because I was banned but because PatW was banned. PatW, is a fiercely anti Rawat critic who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page and countless times on the PR talk pages but numerous admins including Will Beback allowed him to continue undisciplined, making only one 24 hour block in 2008 despite years of spiteful ranting.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] In the three months before I was topic banned without warning PatW was warned twice by The Blade of the Northern Lights for his incivility. On August 25th - ‘'everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button”.[57] And again on September 3rd on PatW's talk page - “(Pat) you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen".[58] On the same day as TBOTNL allowed PatW to continue his attacks a new uninvolved editor remarked - “I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Momento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point.[59] As for your comment "allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations". After I was banned you made your first appearance to the PR article in two years and made 53 edits straight in two days without one word on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted.[60][61] TBOTNL was aware of FS's edits, the removal of impeccable soured material and the injection on numerous POV edits and did nothing. I hope the Arb Com now have a clearer picture of how TBOTNL allowed extreme editing by PatW and Francis Schonken whilst topic banning me for 22 months for being a victim of this harassment.MOMENTO (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Gaijin42

Separate Momento's userpage content into two issues. 1) content. 2) location.

If the only issue is the location (IE he should have made that content directly as part of this appeal, not in a draft) then I strongly suggest that that particular issue be taken out of consideration, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

If on the other hand, the content of that page would not be a valid/appropriate appeal even if it had been in the correct location, then by all means proceed using that as a bit of evidence against his appeal.

Also if one thinks that that content was not indented to be part of his appeal at all, and was just a naked violation, then obviously use it in that situation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive

If those responding here have looked at the AE on Moment, have looked at the diffs Blade presented in context of other edits, if past sanctions are being used to support a decline, if tendentious editing is also being used to support a decline (and with due respect, there probably is no more obscure way to present evidence against an editor, since evidence of tendentiousness does not, as Salvio pointed out, require any diffs, and remember, Blade had not been too in touch with the article when he made his blocks, (yes, more than one, three at first, and one of those 3 editors had made only 3 or so edits in several years while a fourth editor, the one who had been warned multiple times, and whose behaviour was abusive was not sanctioned until later), if one does not ask why it was that Jimbo Wales went right to the Prem Rawat article and added a pejorative to the lead which he had tried to add in the past and had been reverted, and if no one here believes that an uninvolved editor came to the article and saw that editors, with possibly the influence of an outside influence, began to improve collaborative skills, then I have nothing more to say except emphatically, Blade, a good admin., made a mistake. Momento was showing improvement and should be given another chance, and the atmosphere on that article was designed to bait him.

And while bold, I'd like ask, do any of you believe that Timid Guy was the first that Will Beback tried to remove, or was he the last, in along line of those who got in his way. Will Beback (who was a regular editor on this article and who was banned from any NRM articles). Why was he banned, and does that mean that those who faced him day in and day out on NRM articles should be reevaluated?

No one is perfect and editors, just people, make mistakes: Will Beback a hugely productive editor, Blade of the Northern Lights, by all accounts a good admin, and Momento a knowledgable SPA editor. Momento had improved and I see no evidence here that proves he hadn't except the few diffs of the original sanction taken out of context.

He's asked how to improve further. Maybe someone could advise him?

Salvio:Thanks for the advice on how Momento can address concerns. I was interested in that advice coming directly from an arb familiar with this case and who was hopefully neutral about Momento. I believe the original advice came from Mastcell.

  • This decline rests on the idea that Blade's sanction of three editors of which Momento was one, was called for. Its easy to prove guilt In the Wikipedia system. Its harder to show innocence and its almost impossible to show improvement that requires and understanding of what the base line behaviour was, and what other factors come into play on a talk page.

The arb clarification /appeal system seems to be a guilty unless you can prove innocence system.

This isn't my appeal, but I am heartened by the fact that arbs actually responded in a substantive way. That's a net positive in my mind. Thank you. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC))

  • Francis and arbs: I found Momento very easy to work with. I didn't have an agenda one way or the other either nor did I necessarily agree with him. Further, the lead of that article hardly looks neutral. [62] How many times can you say cult in one paragraph? And as well academics in the field of NRMs like Chryssides are not overly anxious to use the word since its a known pejorative with overtones that are non-specirfic. So three times in a lead seems overkill. Having both watched that article and spent time on the talk page I dissagree with Francis vehemently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC))
  • Per Francis' comment on discussion of other editors: : Editors do not exist in isolation from one another, in vacuums. Context is critical. People are hurt, damaged, angry, tired, and also just make mistakes. Looking at all of the behaviours, the talk page, and the edits on an article is necessary. Diffs are important, but so is context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Short statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

At the last AE appeal, User:MastCell summed up the concerns I have quite well. I haven't paid an enormous amount of attention to the Prem Rawat topic area since December 2012, but I'm failing to see how this request addresses any of those concerns. Not sure if there's anything else you need to hear from me, except that I stand by my decision on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

Momento is a WP:SPA. Not a single mainspace edit since his topic ban in November 2012 [63]

In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved, allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations. I'm involved while I contribute to those edits and discussions, was part of the Prem Rawat ArbCom cases etc. Currently all views on Rawat are represented fairly in talk page discussions and edits to the article, and the respect not to edit the article before unanimity is reached is held by all participants.

Momento is a tendentious editor difficult to work with (just speaking from general experience), doesn't fit in an environment where people allow themselves to be persuaded by arguments given by others (as it is now in Rawat-related articles). He hasn't shown otherwise in the intermediate period of topic ban. He doesn't even show to understand why he was banned. I support the commenting arbitrator's inclinations not to lift the topic ban under these conditions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment", i.e. (in my understanding):
  • no content discussion, not on the lede of any mainspace article, nor on any other content of the encyclopedia
  • not on behaviour of anyone else but Momento (his newly added comments on a fellow editor are irrelevant for the above amendement, except that they show Momento's bad choice in current behaviour: slurs on editors, whether justified or not, don't show an improvement on better fitting in in the dynamics of content editing)
IMHO Momento can't see the bigger picture (e.g. Writing for the opponent is totally lost on him), and it's that that hasn't improved a bit afaics. For Momento the bigger picture limits itself to the teachings of a single person. That makes him an excellent follower for all I know, but a terrible editor (and indeed, difficult to work with in this environment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(disclosure:) above I already mentioned my involvement: for completeness: in 2008 I was blocked 48h for edit-warring with Momento on the Prem Rawat article [64] I'm OK this might diminish the weight of my statement here, just expressing my current view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: regarding Momento's "...and did nothing" above: that's not true is it: you warned me — which I took at heart, leading to the current more positive editing environment in the area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Momento: In your latest edit above you added: "...I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address...":

  1. Nobody suggested you drag in PatW. Afaik, PatW didn't ask her topic ban be lifted, nor is there any indication such request would be more successful than yours. Nobody is assessing you "in comparison to" PatW, so I don't see how you ever thought that could have worked as support against TBOTNL's claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Trying to make PatW's past behaviour look much worse than yours is really not helping your case, independent from whether that past behaviour was de facto worse or not, while all we see is you at your worst criticising others (which is about the opposite of you showing your best behaviour, and that's what we'd presumably rather like to see).
  2. Instead of dabbling in PatW's past, maybe it would be more advantageous for you to have a look at Rainer P.'s successful topic ban lifting — Maybe the differences aren't all that big:
    1. The biggest difference is probably the past. The past can't be changed. Thus far your main line of defense in your appeal has been to try change the perception of that past, which is almost impossible (as also Littleolive oil pointed out, quoting Mastcell). Here's the small difference with what happened in Rainer P.'s ban-lifting discussion: after elaborating to some extent he was "unjustly" banned, further on in the discussion he wrote this little sentence which made a world of difference (in my view) for influencing those that deliberated the case: "I still think the ban was inappropriate to begin with, but I have no inclination to fight over this" (bolding added).
    2. Although also qualifying himself an SPA, here's the small difference: after his topic ban he contributed to Wikipedia outside the Prem Rawat topic area. These other edits were very limited ("almost none" as observed by the reviewers), but again there's a world of difference: Rainer P. showed he can contribute to the encyclopedia outside his main field of interest, unproblematically. I think in making the right impression this is exceedingly more valuable than trying to change a perception about the past.
    3. In the whole ban-lifting case Rainer P. didn't need to blacken any of his fellow-editors (past or present). Really, it is possible to sketch a context without the murky stuff.

Don't forget its who you are now who is going to be allowed or not to edit in the topic area again. It is who you are now who is weighed whether or not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. The sum is easy: useful edits to the encyclopedia since topic ban: zero. Antagonistic behaviour against fellow editors (past and present) as of the start of these amendment proceedings: level: high to very high. Sum = near bottomless energy sink for other editors. The factors making that sum are things you can start changing as of today. And then you'll see your current or next petition to be reallowed in the Prem Rawat topic area will be a piece of cake. I wish you good luck. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Moments is, as recently as this month, maintaining and editing a Prem Rawat related page at User:Momento/sandbox. I'm not inclined to lift a topic ban when it's actively being violated. Momento, it was made very clear to you at AE that you would need to show productive editing in other areas unrelated to Rawat before modification of the sanction would be considered. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Littleolive oil, I'm not sure what you think I misread. The exception to a topic ban for appealing is not to edit regarding an appeal anywhere, but rather on the appropriate pages. For an appeal at ARCA, the pages that may be edited are this one to present the case, and talk pages to provide any necessary notifications. Maintenance of a userspace archive with updated counts of editors, records of appeals, etc., is not appropriate when topic banned. It's a somewhat common misunderstanding and it's not one I'm going to block for, but it doesn't show the good judgment I'd want to see before considering modification of a sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With due respect, I do not view the issue concerning sandbox edits as significant, given that the only edit to that page in months was drafting this appeal. What is more troubling, at least to me, is Momento's multiple instances of sanctions before the topic-ban; this was not a sanction imposed for a first offense, or at least what the AE administrators perceived as a first offense. Speaking of AE, may we have a clear link or links to the relevant AE or DS discussion(s)? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Repeating, we need clear links to the relevant prior discussions in order to evaluate this request. It would also be helpful for Momento to tell us how he or she would edit differently going forward from in the past if this request were granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      NYB, there's a lot here, but the discussion I felt most enlightening, especially pointing to Momento's general attitude, was his recent AE appeal WormTT(talk) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm rarely willing to overturn topic bans. When I do, it's because I get the impression that the topic ban is no longer necessary. In this case, the topic ban still appears necessary and removing it would be a bad thing. Decline. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It can sometimes be difficult, when it comes to tendentious editing, to point to a single diff (or a group of few diffs) and say "gotcha", especially when the editor in question seems to be using the letter of a policy against its spirit – which makes this type of tendentious editing all the more insidious. A good example of this – and one which might also guarantee plausible deniability – would be the repeated adoption of stricter criteria for the inclusion of positive (or negative) items of information about a subject, so as to make our coverage thereof more (or less) favourable. Also, WP:TEND should be read in conjunction with the principle that editors – especially SPA – ought to take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. Moreover users sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour; failure to do so may lead to increasingly severe sanctions, even for comparatively less serious violations of policy. In this case, your conduct *has* created the impression that your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL and, so, also taking into account your recidivism, I see no reason to overturn TBONL's decision. Finally, since you have not demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, I cannot support lifting it at this time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. The fact that an admin correctly identified what appeared to be disruption but failed to employ the correct "nomen juris" does not invalidate the fact that there actually was actionable disruption. What he called "persistent battleground behaviour" I call "tendentious editing", but it does not alter the fact that the sanction was, in my opinion, warranted.

      Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL", actually my comment was that your edits gave the impression that your focus was non-neutral, which is rather different, as a matter of fact. And I stand by my comment, but if you wish to provide evidence of your removal of pro-Rawat material, then I'm interested.

      Finally, in response to Olive's request for advice, Momento has already received the standard suggestion to edit in an unrelated topic area for a bit, to demonstrate his knowledge of policy and willingness to follow it and after six months come back and ask for the sanction to be lifted. However, he has clarified that he is not interested in following this procedure. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not think removing the topic ban would be wise here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Initiated byArthur Rubin (talk) at 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 8.1
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


Information about amendment request

Statement by your Arthur Rubin

It has been 7 months since my last reported violation of the topic ban, although this may be a technical violation, which is part of the reason for my request. Per a previous clarification, I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I was going to make an arguably gnomish edit on Citizen Koch (combining 3 references which all support the same statement into one), and, today, I discovered a MonkBot error on Tea Party movement which I technically cannot fix without violating the topic ban. I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion. If I'm the second and fourth in A → B → A'b → B → B'A', I have made 2 reverts, but I'm actively working on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion. I admit that I consider the IP's edit on Citizen Koch, restored by a real editor, absurd. But I wasn't planning to actually revert it. Consolidating 3 references (including the one added by the banned IP) into one isn't reverting the addition. And I was planning to revert a bot on Tea Party movement. My further discussion on a potential edit war was hypothetical, but in that particular configuration, I would be trying to improve the article, while the opponent would be attempting to revert to the present state. However, I would agree to a 1RR limitation if the committee feels it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I didn't mean to imply that I would be edit warring; I would prefer to be able to try variations, which would technically be "reverts", as it would probably be changing the wording (which I don't like, or find objectionable, or in violation of Wikipedia policies (but not BLP)) to something more like what was there previously, but it would never be exactly a revert. I'm willing to abide by 1RR per section or 0*RR (never revert reversions of my edits; 0RR is problematic, because of the expansive definition of "revert") if you feel it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In regard possible changing the topic ban to 1RR; obviously I cannot dictate the form of the remedy, but I do think the 1RR/area/week allows more legitimate editing than 1RR/article/day. Even a restriction from article-space would allow me to suggest or discuss edits which have made some articles absurd, but not a policy violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Arthur was swept up in the prior case for fairly minor sins, and the "time served" argument which is rarely pertinent actually does apply here as he has "noted" - especially where a result occurs which makes no reasonable sense to any outside observer. Collect (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

The Committee based its findings of edit-warring on the following 4 diffs:

Yep, that's right. Four reverts over the course of 5 months. Had this occurred in a 24 hour period, then sure, yes, this would be edit-warring and would warrant a 24 hour block. But it didn't happen over 24 hours. This is 5 months of editing. We don't topic ban for 4 reverts over 24 hours nor should we topic ban for 4 reverts over 5 months. If we topic-banned every editor who was at 4RR over a 5 month period, there would be scant editors to edit.

Nevermind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.

Face it, the Committee f***ed up and f***ed up royally. Not only should this request be granted, the Committee should apologize for such a ridiculous, absurd ruling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Absolutely the Committee should grant this request. Arthur Rubin is a generally non-combative editor of long standing, and a good contributor. Even in this vexed area (TPM) his editing does not amount to anything sanctionable it would seem. I would urge the Committee to go further and remove the topic ban altogether. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Thinking about the request, but in the meantime I'll just say this is the first time I've seen an edit-war described in sonata form notation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something, this does not seem to be such a good idea. Just to clarify ... the request is about restoring access to someone who has been topic-banned for edit-editing so that they may return to edit-war. No?  Roger Davies talk 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin I was just taking at face value what you'd written: "I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion". Can you clarify what this means please?  Roger Davies talk 08:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Edit warring policy as from you've just said you probably won't be sticking to 1RR at all,  Roger Davies talk 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to downgrade Arthur's sanction to an indefinite 1-rr coupled with the standard one-year keep-your-nose-clean topic ban suspension. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I sympathise with Arthur Rubin's frustration that the Tea Party movement articles require further work, I think an insufficient amount of time has passed since the original case for it to be in the interests of the project to reduce or remove the sanctions adopted a year ago. I would therefore decline this request, with absolutely no prejudice to considering it again in the future. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to consider 1RR, but it would be a standard 1RR, that is, one revert per article per (day|week). I would not be willing to consider a complex system depending on exactly where in the article a revert occurred. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As there seems to be a reasonable level of support for it, I'll put together a motion changing the topic ban to 1RR/week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd potentially support a 1 week duration 1RR, but I'd like to read over the past evidence a bit more. NativeForeigner Talk 08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support a 1-week 1RR or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Arthur Rubin topic ban suspension and 1RR

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.


Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.
The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. I'd prefer 0RR (or Arthur's 0*RR) and would recommend he at least attempts to hold himself to that. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments by arbitrators


Requests for enforcement


Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )