Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
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.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT

Initiated by Twitbookspacetube at 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Twitbookspacetube

The subject of a recent arbcom case, The Rambling Man (Hereafter TRM), has found themselves suffering abuse and attacks due to a poorly worded sanction that allowed other editors, including the admin mentioned above (Hereafter AR), to game the system and abuse TRM in a variety of ways. The wording is currently subject to an amendment request.

In addition, AR has participated in conduct unbecoming of an administrator in violations of WP:ADMINACCT, WP:3RR, WP:INVOLVED and WP:NPA - as such, I feel that, while a block (Which can be achieved via community consensus) is too severe, but removal of admin tools (Which can only be done here) would be an appropriate remedy. But, what I feel isn't how arbcom makes decisions.

Relevant diffs/links

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

TRM can provide more in their statement if they so desire. Twitbookspacetube 05:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin

  • History
    • I did make a mistake in stating in Talk:2017 that TRM lied. Although true (or, that, at least, he made implausible interpretations of policies, guidelines, and statements by other editors), what I should have said at Talk:2017 is that there were misstatements, and that the RfC(s) needed to be closed by an admin. I later attempted to redact my statements to the appropriate degree, which TRM seems to consider inappropriate or inadequate.
    • I repeatedly reported (on my talk page, mostly; diffs can be provided, if needed), that I felt the only appropriate places to report the diffs was on his talk page or in an official report. He claims I am banned from his talk page.
    • I did not want to make an official report until I got "all my ducks in a row", because I believed he did not receive appropriate sanctions from previous reports. (Diffs of previous threads can be provided, but I don't think they are relevant.)
  • Last Wednesday, before being hospitalized, I reported that I would not edit Wikipedia until I returned with a status update or to make a statement. I did not say that I would not not edit any social media sites before returning to ANI or this report.
  • Specific diffs of implausible (or, in some cases, impossible) interpretations:
    1. [14] misinterpreting WP:3RR
    2. [15] [16] [17] [18] denial that WP:RY is a guideline
    3. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] implausible interpretation that the 3-continent rule of WP:RY is sufficient for inclusion
    4. [25] implausible interpretations of WP:RY that international media coverage is indicative of international importance or significance
    5. [26] [27] clear misinterpretation of editors' comments
    6. [28]; a clear indication that he did not understand that [29] and some others were intended to give him credit for pointing out a problem.
  • I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • [30] is a serious misstatement about the contents of WP:RY; the version ratified as guideline has two clauses which clearly state being "the oldest person" is not "important" for the purpose of WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Bullying is difficult to prove, but, by mass (not weight), repeating the same argument in multiple venues, TRM convinced Wrad that it was wrong of Wrad to declare WP:RY a guideline (which does appear to be accurate under Wikipedia guidelines), and that the proper thing to do was to revert his action, which is absolutely wrong, as WP:RY had been promoted to a guideline by a properly advertised RfC. His reversion was properly reverted. Wrad then retired. It seems obvious to me that TRM bullied Wrad into doing the wrong thing. Diffs will be provided within 24 hours. On my phone, it's hard to scan 100s of TRM's edits to determine which of them are part of his bullying campaign. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Bullying is difficult to prove, but, by mass (not weight), repeating the same (previously rejected) arguments in multiple venues, I feel bullied by The Rambling Man. (I cannot prove Wrad was bullied, but a rational editor in his position would feel bullied.) (I know, WP:Consensus can change, but repeating the same argument hundreds of times is not the way to establish a new consensus.) I could give 10 diffs, but selecting 10 of the hundreds of repeated statements making the same few arguments would be difficult, and it really is the bulk of the hundreds of attacks against WP:RY and edits attempting to maintain the recent year articles that seems to be the problem. I don't have a suggestion as to what needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • How many diffs of TRM repeating the same argument in posts of more than 100 words do you want? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

Having returned to editing following the over-turning of the CBAN, amongst Rubin's first edits was this which contained new personal attacks, amongst them that I "bullied" an recently retired editor called Wrad. I have requested diffs of this so-called bullying, but I'm not holding my breath, even though Rubin claims to have mastered the art of diff pasting on his cell phone. (I do have diffs where I congratulate Wrad on his edits, where I tell him I'm sorry that he's been bullied off the project etc...) Once again, this is not indicative of a user who understands how to interact with people, let alone an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

How odd, despite me making a plain request for diffs where I am allegedly bullying Wrad, this admin has ignored those requests entirely and continued to edit. This is becoming something of a farce. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubin, still waiting for those diffs where I bullied Wrad, per ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin you're still editing (reverting) at leisure but have failed to respond to my request for diffs per above, where did I bully Wrad? I guess if you don't respond I'll request your CBAN is reinstated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin is this some kind of a joke? Do you have diffs? Do you have anything solid? Perhaps we should ask Wrad how he feels about Rubin? EVIDENCE please Rubin, not just speculation and personal opinion.. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, Arthur Rubin, provide diffs which substantiate your latest claim that TRM convinced Wrad that it was wrong of Wrad to declare WP:RY a guideline . Diffs please Rubin, assuming your fever has subsided. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Diffs will be provided within 24 hours. these were requested nearly a week ago, your ongoing abuse of ADMINACCT is evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin so diffs of me bullying Wrad then? Please redact your accusation as soon as practicable. By the way, this case is about your misbehaviour and abuse of position, not mine. I'm sure you'll start a revenge strike as and when, but for now, we're just looking at why you fail, time and again, to meet your responsibilities as an admin, coupled with unfounded personal attacks across Wikipeida. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin wow, I looked at all those diffs it took you four weeks, an ANI post and an Arbcom case request to provide. Mate, they're junk. I could respond in kind to each of them a dozen times over, or else they're simply not relevant, or you've got the wrong diff. They don't get close to substantiating any claims of yours. Honestly. If you could pull together some genuine response to my questions, my request for diffs (including your latest accusation of "bullying Wrad") then we might stand a chance, but right now, this doesn't end well. Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 yeah, difference being the numerous unfounded personal attacks and failure to meet ADMINACCT on Rubin's behalf. And mark my words, if Arbcom thought there was infraction of my restrictions, they'd be the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh to jump on it. Reminder: this case is about personal attacks and failure to meet admin responsibilities by Rubin. You are, of course, as Rubin is, free to start you own revenge case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Were some of the comments heated? Yes. Does TRM need the white knight actions of twitbookspacetube? Probably not. Is this rising to the need for an emergency petition for desysop? Hell no. I encourage the committee to reject the case as currently filed as I have read all the way to the back of the issue, and see that while both TRM and AR have acted with less than full civility, it's not an intractable dispute yet. Would TRM and TBST like us to apply the same "We want an apology NOW!" argument to them as well? Walk a mile in the other editors shoes to see if there might be cause for the situation. Trout for TBST for trying to stir the drama pot. Trout for TRM for knowing better than disruptively bringing up the same arguments that a guideline that had been recently reconfirmed as a guideline (even if by no change default) can't be talked down without checking the community's consensus again. and trout for AR for not providing those diffs on the talk page earlier or taking the case to AN or 3O to get an outside view of the commentary. None of this ever needed to boil up to ArbCom or ANI (Action needed NOW). Hasteur (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Procedural objection withdrawn as it appears that the disputants have moved the issue here. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

After seeing this "Fire and Fury" mob and TRM's haranging of ArbCom, I request that the committee censure TRM for needlessly causing disruption by shrill exclamations. Unless TRM is volunteering to pay each one of the committee members and clerk's salary for the duration of the case (and especially in light of other casework already on the table) in order for the committee to dedicate time to this dispute, they should calm down. If AR take's leave of their administrative senses, a injunction to prevent action (or suspending of AR's administrative privileges) will happen. Enough people are paying attention to this that it won't ANI-Flu. Any harassment of the committee to get on with it only serves to disrupt the request further and leaves open the option of sanctions on TRM. Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

Are we playing Wikipedia bingo? We have a frivolous ANI, an WP:ARCA, and now a frivolous RFAR, all on nearly the same subject and all happening nearly simultaneously. Twitbookspacetube, administrators, like other editors, are allowed to strongly disagree with other editors, to name names, to file AEs, and even to claim that they are not being accurate or completely forthcoming. They don't get de-sysopped for that. I recommend that ArbCom decline this case request. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: CBans (by definition) are enacted by the community, not ArbCom; the community enacted that editing ban, not ArbCom, so it's not ArbCom's place to undo it. Especially since there is now a (currently) unanimous motion to undo the CBan at ANI: [31]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You are not a blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted user. ArbCom cannot overrule or undo a community-enacted sanction unless there is an appeal by the sanctioned user, usually via email. Even then that would take time and discussion and rounding up votes and opinions from various far-flung Arbs. There is no need for any of that, since there is already a unanimous (with 11 participants so far) motion to undo the CBan at ANI [32] which was proposed by the original ANI filer himself. --Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

You should have seen this coming TBST. Arthur Rubin claimed at ANI he is ill -- not only making this premature but also a sign of bad faith. Unlike some of the editors above, I believe the request for Arthur to present diffs in a timely manner needs to be reviewed at ANI. But to get de-syopped without a meaningful discussion at the aforementioned forum? That should never happen and I recommend Arbcom decline this request.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • My previous statement has been stricken with the knowledge that AR has reappeared and is continuing to make personal attacks on TRM. I encourage Arbcom to accept this case, and evaluate his behavior over the past three weeks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin: how about, if you accuse TRM of any offenses (like the alleged "bullying campaign"), you have diffs supplied as well? Either have the diffs or wait until you do before making unfounded accusations, which I consider personal attacks. Please, spare us of the "in 24 hours" or "it's too difficult on my phone" routines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin: you need to strike your previous comment, not simply alter it. TRM has responded to the earlier statement, asking for diffs. Since you are accusing him of bullying yet again, he will most likely ask for diffs another time. So diffs for both the bullying of Wrad and of you would be greatly appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kostas20142

First of all, I would like to mention that, in addition to the steps described above by the filer, there is also an open discussion in ANI regarding all these issues described in the filer's statement. It should also be noted that Arthur Rubin has claimed being ill stating that the first thing when back will be to provide the diffs requested at ANI. And he has not returned yet. Under this scope, ANI is the most appropriate venue for this discussion, and this request is at least premature. Additionally, involuntary ArbCom desysoping is very serious , not something that should be taken lightly. This means that it cannot even be considered as a potential solution unless there is a history of repeated misuse of admin tools and/or status (which is not the case) or there was an extremely serious incident. The 3RR violations, the significant delay in providing the requested diffs , as well as the lack of civility in some o the diffs provided by the filer are indeed serious, but not in a way that makes this process needed. At least not for the time being. They should of course be discussed, but the already-open ANI discussion is the most appropriate venue for now. It is also needed to mention that the admin in question has already agreed that their actions might be sanctionable. For these reasons, I propose that this case is declined. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the statement by Arthur Rubin is much less than convincing. Also, more evidence against them, such as repeated violationsof WP:CIVIL have been provided, that are sufficient to support concerns about whether this user can continue holding admin privileges. In my opinion, the statement of Arthur Rubin itself indicates at least lack of understanding of the situation. Therefore it will be necessary that ArbCom takes up this case, focusing on this user's behavior. --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

The same admin has made multiple baseless personal attacks and allegations against me while refusing to supply any evidence. They even stripped NPP user right with no evidence of any abuse of the right (it was restored quite quickly by two other Admins). I was completely unsurprised to see this report because it fits the pattern of negative behavior and abuse of Admin powers I've experienced from the only Admin I distrust. I'll supply diffs if the case is accepted. I'm uninvolved in and previously unaware of the dispute brought here. I created this User:Legacypac/AR for ANi and based on this and TRM diffs the community has almost SNOW BANNED AR from editing and there is a strong case we BLOCKED him too but that was closed in favor of the BAN. In face of an, about to be closed, site ban, he went off editing other pages!

Statement by Dweller

Just to note for the record, further to the statement by Softlavender, that TRM has had little role in the proliferation of matters involving him. The clarification was brought by me despite some effort by TRM to dissuade me from doing so, and he also appears to have had no role in opening this case. Yes, he opened an ANI, but I would strongly dispute that the ANI discussion was "frivolous". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

TRM's reply to me, above, kind of explodes the idea that the ANI was "frivolous" - it was Arthur Rubin's choice. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Mjroots assertion that "Accepting this case would also allow scrutiny of The Rambling Man's behaviour." Lord preserve us. Why does Mjroots suggest this? Because, it seems "his behaviour since that case may well benefit from further scrutiny" Let's just think about this for a minute. TRM has surpassed Eric I'd say as the Wikipedian whose actions are most under scrutiny. Constantly. As any number of post-ArbCom nonsenses at his talk page, ANI and AE bear witness. And because being repeatedly accused of wrongdoing by an administrator who refuses, absolutely refuses, to give any evidence of wrongdoing deserves an ArbCom investigation of the victim. Yes. Definitely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Per WP:RUC, claims of incivility are addressed by redaction. When Arthur Rubin redacted weeks ago, that seems like it should have been the end to any spiraling escalation of WP:DR, or, at least more redaction should have been the next requested step, not all this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

TRM: Go back, identify specifically and request that he redact more then - since he has demonstrated a willingness to redact, you two should be able to work that out before escalation of DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
TRM: Chasing? Making a specific request for redaction is not chasing, it is dispute resolution. The next step, if outside action is needed and the editor will not redact his own identified comments, an uninvovled admin or editor redacting them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mjroots

I ask that the arbitration committee accept this case. There are claims of long-term breaches of CIVIL and NPA by Arthur Rubin. Such conduct is not that which would be condoned in an editor, let alone an admin. The question of whether or not Arthur Rubin is fit to hold Administrator privileges needs to be looked at IMHO. Also to be considered is the removal of Legacypac's autopatrolled new page patroller user right, which was swiftly restored by another admin. Is this further evidence that Arthur Rubin is not now fit to wield the mop? Accepting this case would also allow scrutiny of The Rambling Man's behaviour. I am aware that he is no stranger to ARBCOM, and that there was a case last year involving him which led to his relinquishing his Administrator privileges under a cloud. His behaviour since that case may well benefit from further scrutiny in relation to remedies imposed therein. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - If you've not misbehaved, you have nothing to fear, have you? Also, it strengthens the complaint against Arthur Rubin. If you have misbehaved, then you should be called to account for it, exactly the same as Arthur Rubin is being called to account for his actions. I'm not singling either of you out. There are two sides to every story, including this one. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller: As I said to TRM above, it may well be the case that scrutiny of TRM's editing clears him of any wrongdoing. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kostas20142: - things have moved on since you posted. You may wish to re-evaluate the situation. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

The belated diffs provided by Arthur do not seem, to me, in any way sufficient. I'm also entirely unconvinced by the long series of excuses about when/where this response could or could not be made. Once, eventually, "diffs" were forced to be posted, I don't see how they really address the fundamental concerns here at all. Regardless of all that, they were certainly not timely, so ADMINACCT has undeniably been breached, imo.

As a community we cannot decide to remove admin privileges, and have that decision enacted by any means other than coming here. That sucks, and we need to change that.

If you decline this case, Arthur will likely suffer no consequences for what is unacceptable conduct for an admin (or, indeed, any editor). That's not a good outcome.
If you accept it, and it broadens, as these things do, it could end with also, or solely, shooting the whistleblower. That shouldn't happen, but there's some history here, and we are all human, so I can't discount it.

I really don't know whether to recommend acceptance, given my concerns about how impartially this could truly be handled here, however good many intentions may be, but I do know we need to change the avenues of resolution for circumstances such as this. You can't do that for the community; the community can only do that for itself. -- Begoon 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I was not going to recommend that this case be accepted, but given the quite ridiculous statement by Arthur Rubin, I think that it probably should. After trying every option possible to avoid being called out on his comments until being forced to by the current WP:ANI thread (I won't comment on the illness issue), his first sentence seems to accept that he was wrong about accusing TRM of lying - but then basically says "except, yes he was". I am reminded of politicians, knowing they're not allowed to accuse others of lying, claiming that they're "economical with the truth". Not content with this, he then gives a series of diffs which don't address the issues raised by Twitbookspacetube and are accompanied by comments that don't reflect the actual diff, finishing off by doubling down on TRM by claiming that he may well be incompetent at editing ("I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR"). This is in no way something we should be seeing from an administrator. A simple "I don't agree with you, but I apologise for accusing you of lying, because I see now that you weren't" would have defused this whole issue a long time ago, and it's ridiculous that AR doesn't seem to be able to do this. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Edit: And now he's continuing to cast aspersions on TRM at other pages [33]. Quite ridiculous behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

This IMHO should be accepted, As I've said at ANI it's unbecoming of any editor or admin, AR's comment above "I'm not sure if this rises to the level of WP:CIR" puts the final nail in the coffin for me, Instead of simply realising they've messed up and apologising they instead try to accuse TRM of being incompetent and thus are digging themselves a deeper hole, IMHO AR should atleast be desysopped, Preferably I would prefer blocked but I think that may well be overkill, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Please accept this and either get this trainwreck back on the rails or decide it's not salvageable and send the wreckage off to be scrapped. I'm not at all convinced that the conduct of Arthur Rubin, and certainly not that of The Rambling Man, are remotely approaching the level where anything stronger than "could the two of you please try to stay away from each other?" is required—if we blocked or sanctioned editors routinely for the type of comments given as evidence by both Twitbookspacetube and Arthur Rubin, Wikipedia would have about five editors left and most of the current arbcom would be indefblocked—but this is clearly an issue that isn't going to go away. The brief timesink of everyone involved compiling a dossier of the alleged failings of the other party and arbcom reviewing all those diffs neutrally and assessing whether they demonstrate significant problems will be far preferable than a slow-burning war fought across noticeboards and high-profile talkpages with other people constantly being sucked in on one side or the other. ‑ Iridescent 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • (adding and striking more of the above) I appreciate Arthur Rubin is under stress, but I see no way to interpret this diff as anything other than an admission of lying. This is now a trust issue—if you're not going to accept this case at least sort it out by motion. ‑ Iridescent 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Simply because I don't see it mentioned here, please note that

Arthur Rubin is community banned from editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, WP:ANI and any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it]], broadly construed. [34]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 It looks very much as if the community editing ban imposed on AR is well on its way to being lifted, if the SNOW response to TRM's proposal to do so is any indication [35], so I rather doubt that the committee will have to do anything in regard to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The community ban on AR has been lifted as a result of TRM's proposal to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Arthur was topic banned by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and subsequently blocked for violating that request. Considering this, it should lower the threshold for case acceptance IMO. --Rschen7754 01:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Noting that the topic ban was eventually lifted [36]. --Rschen7754 04:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

Please accept this case. And please note that whatever else Arthur Rubin is or has done, he is an expert editor who has made many productive contribution to our mathematics content, and who, because of this issue, is currently community banned from editing. Paul August 13:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I agree with pretty much everyone else that the committee should take this case and determine what sanctions might be appropriate. That being said, AR is currently under a severe editing restriction that will likely last at least for the duration of this case, which I assume will be accepted. By the time this case has concluded, AR will have been effectively blocked for longer than the hypothetical non-admin that, as we've been repeatedly told, would have already been blocked. Contrary to the repetitive complaints about admins protecting admins, AR will likely endure a harsher penalty than a non-admin in a similar situation. Moreover, due to what I perceive as an erroneous application of the sanction, AR's indefinite restriction will not conclude at the end of this case. If the ANI thread is any indication, he may have great difficulty getting the restriction lifted after the case closes, especially if the committee doesn't hand down strong sanctions. And if the committee does hand down strong sanctions, they'll be piling onto an already harsh punishment. I'd like to echo what Paul August has said about the value AR provides to Wikipedia, something that has received little attention during the furor at ANI. AR has received a severe, indefinite restriction, a public humiliation, and remains vulnerable to more punishment with the outcome of this case pending. At some point, enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: From my perspective, it would be humiliating to endure the wave of criticism AR has received. I'm certainly not denying that he is responsible for this mess and, as I've said, I hope the committee will examine this case and render the appropriate sanction(s). My primary desire is to see that the punishment fits the crime. Lepricavark (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

The community has essentially left the ArbCom with no choice but to take this case. However, it almost certainly needed to be taken anyway. I have not researched the original issue between User:The Rambling Man and User:Arthur Rubin. I agree with the comment that TRM has taken the place of Eric Corbett as the single most scrutinized editor of Wikipedia, but Eric brought that status on himself, and TRM has brought that status on himself, including by personal attacks. ArbCom should look both at AR and at TRM. (I respectfully disagree that TRM should be given any sort of free pass due to recent scrutiny.) The scope of this case with regard to AR should not be limited to this interaction with TRM but should include recent uses of administrative tools, and should also include any other editors who may have provoked AR. (It will of course also include whether AR has provoked TRM, which would have been fun and easy but wrong.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I'm commenting narrowly to encourage the Committee to repeal and replace (heh) the preliminary community ban that was just placed on Arthur Rubin. At this thread, the community banned AR from editing at all except in connection with this case until the case has concluded. This seems to be an attempt to "help out" the Committee in lieu of a preliminary motion. I see it doing nothing but damage. As far as I can tell, this case is about ADMINACCT, a policy that applies only to administrators. There seems to be no indication from any party that this case could result in anything more severe than desysopping. In past similar cases (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1), the Committee has made a preliminary motion to bar the admin from using administrative tools. This allows us to retain an editor while we question whether we should retain an administrator as well.

The community ban places a rather severe cloud over these proceedings. It puts substantial pressure on AR to resign the bit now to avoid a lengthy case if he wants to regain the right to edit. That is not an incentive the Committee should allow to exist. The Committee previously resolved by motion not to handle ban appeals unrelated to its proceedings. While this particular type of ban does not meet the literal text of that motion, it certainly meets its spirit; the ban will interfere with this case by creating perverse incentives for AR to walk away from adminship without being given his due process. Please replace this with an appropriate preliminary motion prohibiting the use of admin tools. ~ Rob13Talk 08:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Softlavender: I'm not sure if you're making a philosophical statement or a statement about policy. If you're making a philosophical statement, okay. I'd usually agree, but this particular ban would cast such a spectre over this case that I believe it's worth breaking from my usual philosophical leanings. If you're making a statement about policy, you are incorrect. Per WP:ARBPOL, it is within the scope of the Committee to "hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users". They regularly did just that for all bans, including community bans, for many years. In late 2015, they resolved by motion to restrict their review to just AE blocks/bans, functionary blocks (CU/OS), and blocks/bans involving non-public information, but the current Committee is not bound by that motion. As a point of policy, they very clearly could decide to alter the ban. ~ Rob13Talk 12:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: Would evidence supporting a pattern evident in TRM's behavior specific to this case be in-scope? ~ Rob13Talk 15:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

Current word length: 706 (limit: 500). . Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

I recently had a disagreement with Arthur Rubin in which he declared in this ANI thread that I had clearly violated WP:NPA and endorsed an IP's view that I am WP:NOTHERE. I was shocked, and sought input from Bishonen, who commented that the claims did not make sense to her either. Arthur subsequently did strike one of his comments, I requested that he strike the other comment, which he did, and I thanked him. My request that he strike his other comments asked: "that you be more careful in declaring experienced editors as WP:NOTHERE or as having violated behavioural policies like NPA – as an admin, your words carry substantial weight". He did not offer any written response to my comments, nor did he ever offer an explanation or apology. It left me wondering about his admin judgement, and I offer it as an observation for ArbCom in case there are other examples of poor judgement. I hope, in my case, that AR commented without actually understanding what I was saying and so struck his comments when he realised his mistake – and we do all make mistakes.

My other reason for posting this interaction with AR was because of a comment above from Robert McClenon, above: The scope of this case with regard to AR should not be limited to this interaction with TRM but should include recent uses of administrative tools, and should also include any other editors who may have provoked AR (emphasis added). The assumption implicit in this statement seemed to me to be that any situations where AR has acted in a less-than-ideal manner were due to provocations from others. I do not believe that I engaged in any violation of NPA, and I think that my record shows I am here to build an encyclopaedia, yet AR declared that I had violated NPA and endorsed that I was NOTHERE without any provocation from me. I don't doubt that admins are the target for a lot of provocation, but that does not make them immune from misjudgement, over-reaction, and outright mistakes. Starting a case with the assumption that AR is in the right and has been provoked in all interactions is neither sensible nor fair.

@BU Rob13: I made this comment to BU Rob13, expressing disagreement with his interpretation of the ANI thread on AR's now-rescinded ban. I expressed the view that the ban was not meant to pressure AR into doing anything but responding to the concerns raised on hiss return, as he has done. Rob responded and I am now removing the content because of ArbCom evidence limits.

@ArbCom: See this discussion from talk:TRM for issues with how word counts are handled. Forcing editors into making these kind of edits to make space for relevant new evidence is not helpful to you, and it does not leave a coherent discussion here nor on the main case page's talk page. Amortias is following ArbCom procedures, and it is those procedures that need re-evaluation.

Statement by Purplebackpack89

  • Support decline and restoration of status quo ante prior to the original ANI I support lifting Arthur's community ban, and no additional actions against Arthur or against TRM, with the possible exception of an interaction ban between the two. I would note that neither Arthur nor TRM has behaved particularly admirably in the past few weeks. Arthur said some things he probably shouldn't have. Meanwhile, TRM hasn't dropped the stick, blown this way out of proportion, and probably violated his civility sanctions. There easily could be pretty harsh actions taken against either user. But I think the community would be best served if we just moved on from this, with both editors continuing their work in their respective fields. However, it should be crystal-clear that future interaction between these two is unlikely to be productive, which is why I am OK with an interaction ban. I realize that what I'm suggesting is unlikely to leave TRM happy, and may not leave Arthur happy either, but I firmly believe this is the right path forward here. pbp 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

This case is clearly going to be accepted at this point, and that's probably for the best. I've long been of the opinion that a case need not result in sanctions for it to be of some benefit; if the Arbitration Committee reviews the evidence and determines that this is an isolated incident (excluding the edit warring and topic ban, all of which happened several years ago), then we will have it on record that they've reviewed the evidence and found no real cause for concern. Conversely, if there is indeed a case to be made regarding Arthur's overall suitability for adminship, then the Arbitration Committee will deliberate on how best to proceed.

My sole interaction with Arthur Rubin (as far as I can recall) was almost negligible, yet I still came away with a positive impression. As you can see, I made an edit request in early 2013 over a minor link correction. Arthur Rubin was already participating in discussions on the article's talk page, so he went ahead and handled it himself. I knew of him beforehand, however - he is one of the few editors notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Needless to say, he is a very accomplished mathematician, and as Paul August says above, an equally valuable contributor to mathematics-related articles. The benefit he brings to Wikipedia, both as an editor and administrator, should never be in doubt. Kurtis (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Please keep statements to 500 words or less. Mkdw talk 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem: The instructions are quite clear that case requests are for the purposes of statements and not discussion. We are here to determine if this case will be heard (future tense), not for us to hear everything now. These restrictions were intentionally implemented to prevent issues from being entirely litigated during the request phase rather than during the actual case itself. Restrictions on limits here do not ultimately affect whether details or discussions between named parties are excluded or not from consideration. Mkdw talk 16:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept we can scrutinise the actions. The onus is on Arthur to provide diffs or not to defend himself, but we need to at least gain an impression of the problem ourselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept, grudgingly - while Arthur Rubin's posts since his return have been unsatisfying, I do get a sense of teapot-tempestry here. Although the usual line is that cases examine the behavior of all parties, I would envision this one to focus on Arthur Rubin; material about TRM that is unrelated to this specific dispute should be raised elsewhere (AE, ARCA, or if at all possible, into an unsent draft email, text file on your own computer, or /dev/null). Also, I really don't want to hear much about how so-and-so was posting on Facebook, tweeting cat memes, texting their parents, out at the bar, desperately trying to feed the dog their homework, whatever. WP:VOLUNTEER. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Regarding some of the more recent posts: this case has already, for all practical purposes, been accepted. You don't need to continue posting in a venue designed to decide whether a case will be accepted - better to save your energy for the evidence page. It hasn't been opened yet for the boring reason that people are busy and some arbs are at Wikimania and mid-August is a good time to go outside and do non-internet things. (Highly recommended for all participants, really.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept as necessary, agreeing with Opabinia regalis about the material that should be excluded. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept considering the comments, it seems a case will be need to clarify the situation. I too agree with O.r. about limiting the case. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept and I agree that the case should be limited per OR. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept. Conduct was serious enough. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year

Initiated by Supermann (talk) at 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Supermann

After self-exiling from the ANI discussion for about 9 days, I am back with a cooler head. Instead of reiterating the same old arguments seen above towards the same group of editors that do not represent the vast majority of Chinese readers of English Wikipedia, I think I am going to let go, since they have fallen on deaf ears with groupthink. I do want to experience the arbitration process and see if it can be indeed more unpleasant. My main goal is to seek additional voices that could comment back to the content disputes. Again I am fine with the one-year ban punishment, since I need to focus on gainful employment that does pay rent in NYC instead of maintaining a page against the stream. However, since bonadea commented that the ban will affect the resumption of two deleted pages of Bliss Media and Wei Han, I felt like I have to ask for arbitration to see if there could be an exception made. I'm willing to trade in an additional 6-month ban to make it a total of 18-month ban in exchange for those two pages to be undeleted by Dec 2017 if not earlier by arbitration committee member @DGG:, whom I have self-identified in person. I am not dropping names here, but whenever and wherever I left the impression of citing IAR all the time, I do think the socketpuppetry policy shouldn't be trumped. Still, I think the Wikipedia community should not lure naive editors in and then punish them so severely afterwards. The fifth pillar and IAR should be removed, in my humble opinion.

@Ian.thomson: I have been staying away from Bliss Media-related stuff for a good record of time, despite talk page participation was allowed. I am aware of the new ban now and will not do any talk page going forward. In fact, the ban has led me to believe I won't contribute to other topics as well to finish my promise of self-exile. But I still believe the ban should not preclude the resumption of the deleted pages which were really not advertising in nature. Explanation is on my talk page and DGG has seen the deleted content at least once and he tends to agree, but I'm ok if he has since changed his position. The dishonesty in earlier misrepresentation has no intention to deceive or hurt wikipedia, but rather my naivete in unprotecting a film page. I wish I had known about the unprotection steps first! The new gainful employment is off-site in accounting in case you wonder, not some agent of a little known actor. You could ask DGG to perform a search of my real name here at http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm for the CPA profession. I had also told him I have no interest in writing anything related to accounting. It's just a boring job. Not a passion. So you could rest assured. And I have not greedily profit off volunteerism by any editor, so I don't know what you had meant by that. I have gained knowledge here and that's why I have contributed. Finally, I want to thank you for showing me the punitive model of administering should be reined in. I think I am being conciliatory here if you still have difficulty realizing. Supermann (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: What I meant to say was I can continue to stay away from Bliss Media broadly construed for life. I could give up the Dec 2017 appeal. But I do want people who have access to deleted pages to see for themselves what I had created is not shameless paid editing. It's time to invite @Yamla: who first said back on May 17 he was willing to restore then changed his mind. Therefore, @TenTonParasol: I think this arbitration is about two things: 1) can external voices comment on the runtime columns from a content dispute perspective and 2) can the two if not three deleted pages be undeleted despite the one-year film topic ban. Again, even if they could be restored, I can continue to stay away for life. My insistence is purely from an encyclopedic point of view. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

Statement by TenTonParasol

I... generally am having trouble understanding the statement made by Supermann and what the topic of arbitration here is even about. The Bliss Media/Wei Han restriction is an indefinite ban from editing on particular production company, one that could be appealed in December. But, seeing as Supermann is asking that those pages be... restored in December 2017, it feels to me he doesn't even understand exactly what that indefinite topic ban and appealing it meant.

I will say that many of the disputes I was involved in with Supermann stem from what I felt to be Supermann's inability to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines and his refusal to edit Wikipedia by its policies. His immediate violation of his topic ban, despite the notice clearly stating that talk pages were covered, and bargaining here for the undeletion of Bliss Media and Wei Han does not inspire confidence in me that Supermann is willing to read what is laid out before him and learn how to become a proper contributor. I can't make a more specific comment, seeing as I don't exactly understand what is going on here, and if things become clearer to me, I'll issue a second statement. But, at this time, I don't see a reason the current editing restrictions on Supermann be amended, even if they do produce a stacking effect on all Bliss Media related topics. I just don't, at this time, based on comments here, feel at all like Supermann is trying to even understand the restrictions and grievances laid against him and how to edit properly within policy. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that Supermann has clarified what the topic of arbitration is for me, I am reissuing my statement.

Supermann is WP:FORUMSHOPPING the dispute at Film censorship in China and this behavior is one of the elements that led to his current topic ban on all film articles. The request to have the Bliss Media related articles undeleted shows a complete lack of understanding of how to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and generally, the current topic ban on all film related articles came about in part because of Supermann's unwillingness to understand Wikipedia policy. The immediate violation of his film topic ban, despite the wording of the notice being clear talk pages were part of it, the apparent lack of understand as to what the Bliss Media topic ban mean in regards to deleted material, and now this undeletion request for the Bliss Media articles as bargaining all speak to me of an editor who is unwilling to understand what Wikipedia policy is, how Wikipedia works. I'm, at this point, not even convinced that Supermann understands what he did wrong in the first place or what the substance of the disputes brought against him even are. It is my opinion that the current restrictions are appropriate, and they should not be amended in any way. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is bizarre. I was not entirely sure that I understood why Supermann was requesting arbitration, and, after research, I am still not entirely sure that I understand what is being requested and why. I am also not sure that the filing party understands what the implications are of requesting arbitration, which will open all of his conduct, under multiple accounts, to review. I see that there has been sockpuppetry. I see that there are two topic-bans, not only the one with which I was involved. I see that there are questions about paid editing.

Due to the complexity and weirdness of this case, I ask the ArbCom to accept the case to determine all of the facts (including any facts that must be kept in secrecy) and to take appropriate action. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Follow-Up by User:Robert McClenon

I respectfully disagree with the characterization of this dispute as a content dispute, and so with the conclusion that it is outside the scope of ArbCom. It is true that this dispute originated in part as a content dispute. I tried to mediate a content discussion, which, however, was then taken to WP:ANI because the filing party, User:Supermann, was disruptive, which required a community-imposed topic-ban, which is a conduct remedy. I am now also aware that there were deletion discussions, which are content disputes if editors accept the results. I am now also aware that there has been sockpuppetry, which is a conduct issue within the scope of ArbCom (not a content issue at all). I am now also aware that there are allegations of paid editing, which is a conduct issue within the scope of ArbCom. This is not a content dispute outside the scope of ArbCom. It would not have resulted in action at WP:ANI if it had been only a content dispute. I am asking ArbCom to accept this case to look into the filing party’s conduct, including disruptive editing, misuse of multiple accounts, and possible paid editing. It is true that the filing party is the offending party, but that is why there is a boomerang essay. The community has tried to deal with the disruptive editing, and the filing party doesn’t accept their actions, so that this case is now, unfortunately, ripe for arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lugnuts

Statement by Hoverfish

I am neutral on whether this arbitration should be accepted. I will not be able to participate. I am on wikivacation, as stated on my talk page since earlier today and will be back next month some time. Whatever I had to say I have already said it elsewhere. There is nothing new to add. Hoverfish Talk 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by bonadea

In the ANI case, I pointed out that a one-year topic ban would also mean that Supermann's pre-existing topic ban would be affected, because it concerns edits related to a film production company. My post is here. I did (emphatically) not state that the ban will affect the resumption of two deleted pages of Bliss Media and Wei Han - it would not occur to me to suggest that those articles, both of which have been deleted after AfD discussions and subsequently recreated and deleted again, would be "resumed" in December. That Supermann assumes that the possibility to appeal his topic ban for Bliss Media, a ban that was a result of his socking and other disruption to keep the articles, equals recreating them makes me think that it may be a good thing that the topic ban is extended. --bonadea contributions talk 22:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson

OP claims to represent a majority in a case, while also claiming that he is opposed because of groupthink? Uh... I see that Supermann/Supermansaga/Shxiyi was blocked for sockpuppetry and editing WP:PAID and "Unblocked as per disclosure of sockpuppets, agreement to stay away from Bliss Media, broadly construed."

  • one-year ban punishment - It's not about punishment, it's giving you time to learn how to properly edit instead of just blocking you.
  • focus on gainful employment - hopefully this is off-site and not on Wikipedia.
  • I felt like I have to ask for arbitration to see if there could be an exception made - The exception would be that you were unblocked on the condition that you stay away from the Bliss Media article, instead of left permanently blocked.
  • I'm willing to trade in an additional 6-month ban to make it a total of 18-month ban in exchange for those two pages to be undeleted by Dec 2017 if not earlier by arbitration committee member - This does not help the site at all. Even suggesting the deal misses the point of your ban so badly that it suggest that you are still acting in violation of WP:PAID and are not here to help the site but Bliss Media instead.
  • I think the Wikipedia community should not lure naive editors in and then punish them so severely afterwards - It is not our fault that you didn't bother to look into our policies or guidelines, nor is it is not our fault that you dishonestly misrepresented your identity, nor is it our fault that you came here to greedily profit off our volunteerism. This is your fault and until you acknowledge that you will not successfully appeal anything.
  • IAR should be removed - IAR has nothing to do with your ban or with the deletion of Bliss Media. If I were to ignore IAR right now, I would block you for violating the conditions of your unblock here as well as violating your topic ban here. Instead, I'm thinking in terms of "what is best for the site?" instead of "what are the rules?" Right now, you're giving me little reason to believe that your primary interest here is what is best for the site.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

Echo RMClenon about the weirness of the request.As a DRN volunteer who dealt with him very recently, I was involved with his antics for long.Will be adding more details soon.Winged Blades Godric 13:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Here goes my observations:--
    • I had my first interaction with this editor at this dispute-resolution held weeks back, where I had the immense luck to be the moderator.The first impressions were that he seems to have an immense liking for one and only one policy:-- Ignore all rules.
    • Reading through the different discussions he participated after the DRN reinforces my belief. To Supermann, IAR is a magic-wand that could wave away all opposition to his utterly useless and mindless edits.And he has continued in his efforts unabated, despite mine sternly asking him at DRN to shift his arguments from the IAR axis.
    • Supermann's continued battleground mentality, unwillingness to adhere to reliable sourcing and an un-mitigating tendency to engage in the highest order of original research does not help a bit to their cause.
    • Initially, I was in two minds about whether this was intentional or plain incompetency.I have come to believe in the latter.He is plainly incompetent.Without a bout of incompetency no editor at his opening comments in an ArbThread hopes to draw external comments in an RfC.
    • Further stunning was his bargaining skills! The request to have the Bliss Media related articles undeleted shows a complete and abysmal lack of understanding of editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy.The immediate violation of his film topic ban also points to this conclusion.
To summarise:--We have given him enough rope.........}Winged Blades Godric 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Also echo Ian.thomson; specifically about the concerns of gainful employment.Winged Blades Godric 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But since ArbCom ever accepts content-disputes and execute these type of bans there is nothing actionable in this thread.Winged Blades Godric 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

I recommend rejecting this case as complete nonsense and not within ArbCom's remit. A subject cannot file a case request to sanction himself. If he wants some kind of (temporary) self-requested block from Wikipedia, he can ask any individual admin on their talkpage. In any case, this looks like a fairly clear case of trollery, which (considering his block log) seems to indicate that this editor is probably going to end up eventually indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

The Committee should reject this case request as falling outside the scope of arbitration. While there are a number of issues present in the underlying dispute—and the Committee certainly could take the request and open a case addressing those underlying issues in an appropriate manner while essentially disregarding the form of the request—those issues are more properly handled through Community processes (i.e., noticeboards for the individual disputes and and RfCs for the policy issues). Furthermore, what I understand to be the motivating factor behind this request, a hope to get the topic ban removed, should not be handled by the Committee at this point. From what I can see, the requester has yet to seek any direct appeal of the initial sanction or otherwise attempted to have it lifted. Collateral attack through a proceeding before the Committee is not proper in this case. Therefore, I would respectfully recommend that the Committee reject this case request. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I closed the discussion at AN/I which imposed the topic ban. I just want to note that, in my opinion, consensus for the ban was as clear as is possible in an AN/I discussion. While the committee could overturn it, I can't see anything in the request that indicates they should — or even anything that really indicates that this is what the filer is requesting.

I, along with others, am having a hard time making out exactly what the filer is hoping to achieve with this. The only things I can make out are that he wants people to comment on a content dispute and that he wants the committee to override community deletion processes to restore some articles. For the first, quite apart from the rather... non-traditional forum for advertising a discussion, the filer is prohibited from involvement by the topic ban. For the second, it's outside the committee's remit in the same way that Sydney Melbourne Brisbane is outside of Canada. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane

The Committee should refuse this request forthwith. The framing of the case request is 1) a declaration of bad faith against all the editors who participated in the ANI thread that led to the topic ban, 2) effectively a RFC and 3) some bizarre attempt to negotiate the terms of their sanctions with ArbCom when it is the community that levied the sanction(s). For an editor who has been around since 2006, there is a spectacular lack of understanding of even the most basic of WP policies. Blackmane (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

If the committee wanted to do something with respect to this request they could enact by motion a WP:CIR block coterminal with the December ending ban on discussing the issue. The Boomerang is so strong here that there seems to be little to no good results the user will recieve out of this. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I can't see anything in this request that is actually within the scope of arbcom. The underlying issue appears to be a content dispute, and the specific goals cited are outside our remit. Attract more outside editors to comment on a dispute? Definitely not what the arbitration process is for. Remove IAR? We're not the policy committee. You want to "experience the arbitration process"? Arbitration isn't entertainment. Sounds like the filer should just respect his topic ban and move on with editing in unrelated areas.
    Unrelatedly, Winged Blades of Godric, every so often I notice comments like this and it makes me cringe every time - the fact that we have an essay about "giving people rope" does not mean it's appropriate to use violent imagery like "now hang him!" about another editor, even one you don't like. You should really remove that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. I don't see anything useful that the Committee can do here. I agree with Opabinia regalis' comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ArbCom lacks the authority to exchange or modify bans for content and falls well outside of our jurisdiction. Even if it were, it is not a precedent or practice I would personally support. Wikipedia has already defined what drives content. It has been my longstanding hope that when newcomers join, they are welcomed and provided the resources required to productively contribute to the project. Likewise, there is an onus and degree of expectation on the newcomer, when entering a space, to inform themselves to the purpose and whether it aligns with their intentions. Directly, Supermann has maintained a minimum presence here since 2006 with more activity recently, and it should stand to reason that during that time, any conflicts between goals and our policies could have been raised at the appropriate venues. Mkdw talk 14:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline Mkdw talk 16:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline I also agree with Opabinia. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. The content issues here are not within ArbCom's scope, and I don't see any indication that ongoing conduct issues can't be handled by the community dispute resolution processes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Recused, on this particular case, but if it should be accepted, I might give evidence. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline per above (particularly OR). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by Dweller at 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Replace "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors" with "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians"

Statement by Dweller

Since the Arbcom case, TRM has been approached from time to time by editors and administrators who have warned him, taken him to AE or even blocked him over breaching remedy 4 of the case. It is my belief that at least some of these approaches have been 100% in good faith, nonetheless, some have undoubtedly been problematic and they are having an unfortunate impact.

It seems to me that the vague wording you applied is having an unintentional effect. It gives license to users to wave the banhammer at TRM for too wide a range of wording. Pretty much anything other than the meekest and mildest behaviour can be cast in these terms. For an example, please see this warning, which was definitely made in good faith but the community strongly disagreed with, and the filing editor himself has agreed was incorrect.

I agree with the comments on TRM's usertalk that we shouldn't expect him to behave better than others, including admins who feel free to use appalling language without of being warned or blocked. And the constant hauling over the coals must be very wearing.

The standard for behaviour on Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL and this policy applies to all, whether ArbCom targets or vested administrators. I'd suggest that you focus the problematic remedy on the policy language at Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment: "Editors are expected to avoid ." as far too much can be construed (especially by anyone with an axe to grind, which has happened) as "belittling" or "insulting".

It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL. As is using foul and abusive language, which TRM doesn't do, but has received. It's right there, in the messy section that begins "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not", and that half sentence is all you need to understand why it is everyone ignores it, including successive ArbComs who've danced around thorny CIVIL cases for years and years.

TRM is worn out by ArbCom processes and has little faith in you, but I am an undying optimist. I hope you will agree to consider and then agree to this request. I also hope I've not broken this insanely tricky template --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Doug Weller specifically not. My point is that the language there includes matters that Wikipedia seems to tolerate, (ie "rudeness") from admins and in ArbCom cases over the years, or find difficult to define (ie "belittling"). I'm very happy for you guys to open a big case and work out how you're going to untangle years of neglect of CIVIL, but this is a simple suggestion that limits the remedy to "harrassment" and "insulting", which we understand well and police ish well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Reply Opabinia regalis and GorillaWarfare. You say that the wording I suggest won't help with curbing the "annoying" behaviour of TRM, but I'd say that your current wording is equally unhelpful, but worse it has negatives on top, being unclear, too broad, and setting parameters easily gamed by those with an agenda. On the basis of do no harm, you might therefore be better off revoking the measure altogether.
Those advocating pointing to CIVIL more generally should be aware that doing so takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire, as it takes the too broad parameters and makes them even broader! The terms that I'm objecting to here (and I'm getting some resonance from you and others) are included in CIVIL: they're right there, in the part that everyone, including Arbcom, traditionally totally ignores.
Yes, the community needs to get to grips with CIVIL, but that has been the case since I first starting editing 12 years ago and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I will happily start an RfC but we all know how easy it is to keep an RfC on long-established policy on-track, focussed and with a useful outcome.
If there's no Arbcomese that deals properly with the 'disruption' caused by TRM, don't legislate for it. Or take a closer look at it and find specific language. Or go for my suggestion. Don't leave it in a bad state... or make it worse.
Oh, and of course, I support the Motion, as it is precisely what I suggested at the start of this, in your insanely tricky template, above, if you remove the reference to incivility, with it's wikilink to the broad CIVIL policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • GorillaWarfare the answer to your question to The Wordsmith is in the whole of what I have written above these words. CIVIL is completely broken and has been through the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. I explain why above. I hope to do something about that, but a) it won't be fast and b) even I, the eternal optimistic, is pessimistic about the chances of success. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Opabinia regalis perhaps a good step then would be to just remove this remedy altogether. I think you're right, it doesn't lend itself to Arbcomese, it's not easy for good faith admins to interpret, it's easy for bad faith admins and editors to game, and perhaps, just perhaps, this small concession from ArbCom to TRM would see him respond in kind, as I think (my words not his, and apologies, TRM for putting words in your mouth) he feels thoroughly badly treated by ArbCom over a period of some years, which really hasn't helped things. TRM already knows, with or without this remedy, that significant 'bad behaviour' will lead to hefty further measures by ArbCom so perhaps you have little to lose and much to gain. Even TRM's greatest critic has to see what a tremendous asset he is to the community. In his early days, his perception by the community was such that he flew past RfA and RfB. That person isn't a changeling. What's changed is that bad blood in various areas has soured relationships. We're not so flush with editors that we can lose mediocre ones, let alone good ones. How about trying to turn this round? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In a case where the Arbs want to point someone to WP:CIVIL, arbitrator Opabinia regalis is flagrantly breaching WP:CIVIL. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about how useless and broken CIVIL is then nothing will. If you make this remedy point to CIVIL broadly, TRM could and would be blocked by an admin or hauled off to AE for making a comment like Opabinia's. Ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

Yes, what Dweller said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. I'm happy to always comply with WP:CIVIL (as all editors are bound to do so), I'm not sure why that needs explicit statement. When admins are immune to any kind of admonishment when telling me "fuck you" or calling me "asshole" or calling me a liar across multiple venues on Wikipedia, it leaves me completely impotent to do anything. Even when requesting Arbcom's input on a previous IBAN, I was simply blocked without any kind of communication whatsoever, despite the original email about the issue being instigated by me. That's not "arbitration", it's "punishment". I am out of faith with this committee, I do believe they are avoiding the issues I've raised (some of which are still outstanding, e.g. including abuse of oversight), but all I'm asking for is a level playing field when it comes to discussion. Find a diff where I told someone they were an "asshole" or told them "fuck you" or told them they were a detriment to Wikpiedia or told them they were an "outright liar". I can give you diffs, from admins, directed at me, that have been accepted (or are under scrutiny) by Arbcom and the rest of the community. I know I'm an outcast, but a right to reply should be something that Arbcom works hard to preserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I warned Dweller that this would probably be a fool's errand, especially given how precious his time on Wikipedia is right now. It appears that Arbcom are using this appeal to actually make matters worse. The very fact that two members of the current "active" Arbcom have admitted to the edits I have apparently made as being "annoying" (rather than blockable) sums it all up perfectly. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Dweller I suggest you withdraw this, as it's clear that Arbcom aren't interested in making actual progress here, it's just being used as another opportunity to berate me. Which is both harmful and a waste of everyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

This was something I had doubts about during the case. After all, we're all bound by WP:CIVIL, so what's the point of "TRM is prohibited from ___"? It's already implicit in WP:CIVIL. Why not tie the clause to WP:CIVIL directly -

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that WP:CIVIL applies to all editors, under all circumstances.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to violate WP:CIVIL, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does violate WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

Banedon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I have no comment on this request, just a question that I think the Committee must answer before proceeding. Public policy works well when it tries to achieve a clearly defined goal. The same applies to ArbCom remedies. What is the goal you're trying to achieve here? In particular, is it compliance with WP:CIVIL or something beyond that? I think you'll have a much easier time crafting an appropriate remedy once you answer that. ~ Rob13Talk 06:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on Opabinia regalis' comment, I have to add that the Committee should consider what remedies administrators can effectively enforce and whether an alternative venue is appropriate (such as ARCA) for enforcing a remedy that goes unenforced by the community. User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Your_ArbCom_restriction is relevant, especially the comment claiming the remedy wasn't intended to be enforced against anything other than "personal attacks" and "aggressive and harshly personal comments". Whether or not this was your intent, that's how admins are enforcing it. The few that are interpreting the remedy as OR intended it to be interpreted are severely pressured to change their thinking. ~ Rob13Talk 18:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I absolutely endorse this request. After the last incident for which TRM was blocked, people began to understand that the restriction itself was too vague and open to interpretation, both by TRM and by others. I advised TRM that he should consider it to mean that he shouldn't discuss "the suspected motives or competence of other editors", and he hasn't been blocked for it since then. However, the proposed wording here is also fine with me.

Vague notions such as insulting or belittling have been misinterpreted multiple times, both unintentionally and (I suspect) intentionally at times by some with longstanding grudges against TRM. Directly tying it to NPA and WP:HARASSMENT at least gives us solid definitions to work with that have lots of precedent. It also makes it clear that he is not being held to a higher standard than the people who interact with him, which would probably reduce the likelihood of another incident like previous occurrences of admins personally attacking him with impunity, then him being blocked when he responds in kind. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arbs: I believe the new motion is actually worse and would be more heavily abused. As it is, TRM can defend himself when making the occasional mildly snarky comment because it is not insulting or belittling to a specific editor. Including wholesale incivility would strip him of that defense, and would mean that his blunt and to-the-point comments that he doesn't dress up in flowery prose could (and will, by those with a grudge) be construed as mild incivility. This is an insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to. If we did then everybody in this thread, including the entire Arbitration Committee, would be indeffed by now. The WordsmithTalk to me 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: By linking it to WP:CIVIL, you're (intentionally or not) making a statement that the things in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL are sanctionable for TRM. This includes things like "rudeness (often mistaken for bluntness)" and judgmental edit summaries/talk page posts (which aren't necessarily directed at an identifiable editor). All established editors sometimes get mildly snarky, especially in edit summaries and talk pages. This is a standard that has not ever been enforced among the general population during my tenure on Wikipedia, so to attempt to broaden the sanction (again, knowingly or otherwise) to include these things, when it was asked that the sanction be narrowed, is unreasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I've disagreed with the wording for a very long time - As noted above it's way too vague so it essentially means he can be reported for absolutely anything even for comments that are in no way personal attacks or belittling, The current wording also gives those with a grudge against TRM an excuse to drag him at Arbcom and constantly block him for no reason at all so I fully agree with the proposed wording. –Davey2010Talk 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (Updated 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Statement by EdChem

I am grateful to Dweller for beginning this request. This remedy has been misapplied at times and been needs clarification. What it does not need is to be expanded by reference to WP:CIVIL so that TRM is at the mercy of the most trigger-happy ultra-uptight admin whose idea of incivility is way out of line with community values and common sense, all protected by the power of AE to prevent the timely reversal of an over-the-top decision.

TRM has a history of unhelpful and pointed posts, certainly at DYK. I believe these have markedly reduced since the decision, and keeping the limitation on the problematic behaviour, as the original form of the motion did, was appropriate. Turning it into a broader-than-present wording not only ignores what Dweller is requesting, it is difficult to see as anything but deliberately punishing TRM for the request having been made.

Oshwah made a mistake in the recent warning, and had the character to recognise when the views of others disagreed and offered an apology. Some admins, who decide to police TRM with all the subtlety and nuance of a certain recently-former White House Communications Director, are not helping TRM or WP, and ArbCom further empowering them would be to the manifest detriment of WP and TRM. TRM is like a work colleague many of us have encountered, who can be brusque, direct, and blunt, who many wish would curb his words, but who is also usually right. His behaviour has improved and that should be recognised and appreciated. He was previously pushing towards a ban, his problematic comments are much reduced, please, ArbCom, please don't take an action the rest of us will regret.

Inconsistent views and actions on civility are a major problem on WP, and we all know it. Coming up with a policy that make sense is beyond ArbCom's remit and beyond the community's ability, sadly. But, knowing it is dysfunctional and that the present restriction is not working, changing the restriction to point to that known dysfunction would be irresponsible. It makes further conflict inevitable, wastes everyone's time, and generates ill-will. EdChem (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Addressing a couple of specific comments...

@Doug Weller: of course TRM and every other editor is bound by the civility policy, and he is required to stay within the general bounds by which we are all constrained. However, naming WP:CIVIL in a modification would bind TRM (or any editor in a similar circumstance) to the standards of the most uptight and block-happy admin, backed by AE unquestionability. That is not asking that he comply with the civility policy, it's painting a target on him and making him wear a cap with a flashing sign that reads "shoot on the slightest deviation from hyper-civility, for protection from consequences ring 1-800-Arb-Com". If you believe you must remind TRM of WP:CIVIL, please please please restrict it to comments on the motion and not within the motion itself, because in the comments its a reminder and in the motion it goes from OR's stick to more like a semi-automatic machine gun.

@Opabinia regalis: I am one of the editors who has received snarky comments from TRM, and one who has commented critically to him at times. If approached as an intelligent colleague and taken seriously, a useful discussion can be had and civil disagreement is possible. Approaching him with snark is unwise, as it will likely be returned with interest. I have to agree that TRM can be, and has been, really goddamn annoying... but in this request, you have no one saying that has become worse, and me (at least) saying there has been substantial improvement. If you respond with a broadening of the restriction, how should that be interpreted?

Subsequent comments in reply to specific questions from Arbitrators Doug Weller and Opabinia regalis

Doug, I appreciate the follow-up question and have been wondering about how to reply, especially in light of further comments from OR. My reply here is meant for you both (and anyone else interested, obviously) as I have formed a hypothesis that I hope explains our divergent viewpoints. Feel free to correct me, obviously, if this does not resonate for either of you. Some comments, and particularly those from OR, appear to reflect the situation as it was at the end of the case. OR says that: TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. As someone who has criticised TRM at times, I can only agree that this has been a problem, but one that has decreased significantly. This request was started by Dweller addressing overly zealous / aggressive policing of TRM nearly two weeks ago, and yet no one has made a comment arguing about continued comments from TRM such as OR has described as being a problem.

The case was closed nearly 10 months ago and the Enforcement log shows a warning on December 1, 2016 which was struck as a misunderstanding, and a 3 day block on December 14, 2016, which was overturned as hasty and involved and a warning substituted. An AE block for a month was imposed on March 5, 2017, and reduced to a week on appeal as having a justified basis but as being overly harsh. The AE admin fully protected TRM's talk page, an action overturned within two hours and criticised as overzealous enforcement. Discussions occurred at AN, Bishonen's user talk page, and an extensive WP:A/R/CA discussion. Despite the activity, we are talking about a grand total of one justified sanction and a week's block. It's also worth noting AE requests closed as "No action required", "Complete waste of time", and as "Utter nonsense and a waste of time". TRM's block log shows a recent (unlogged) block for an iBAN violation, unrelated to the topic here. To me, all this shows, when coupled with warnings like the recent one from Oshwah, shows over-eager administrator actions and harassment of TRM by editors seeking to weaponise the ArbCom sanctions. My hypothesis, though, is that OR and some others are seeing the situation as it was at the end of the case, with suggestions from Dweller and others of problematic behaviour being predictions rather than observations, and comments from editors like me as to TRM's improved behaviour as being inconsistent with your existing perceptions. OR, TRM's self-regulation has improved, and your comment that I am behaving like a child is both unjustified and offensive.

More generally, we have an existing remedy which has had unintended effects, we have an editor whose actions have improved but is also clearly being monitored closely, we have one valid action under the remedy (the non-iBAN) part, we have an undisputed community request for the unintended effects to be addressed and advising the proposal will be gamed, and we have arbitrators concerned that the behaviour that was seen as problematic is unaddressed by either form. The obvious approach to me would be to draft an entirely new remedy with a focus on sequences of comments amounting to snark or whatever and not creating the opportunities for the most conservative view on civility / whatever to prevail. Perhaps something like:

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.
If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has, at times, made individual comments or series of comments which belittle or insult other editors, and such actions are inconsistent with collaboration and are prohibited. The Rambling Man is reminded that he is expected to conform to the same standards of behaviour as all other editors, and advised to disengage and either let a matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve, rather than to engage in prohibited behaviour. Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators can easily become insulting and are generally inadvisable; The Rambling Man is reminded that comments which focus on edits rather than editors are often a wiser choice.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in belittling or insulting editing, especially with comments that amount to personal attacks or harassment (in either single edits or across a series of edits), he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. As the first block under this provision occurred under the original form of this remedy, the next three blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. At the time of passing of this motion, the block counter relating to this remedy stands at 1.

Obviously, the views of Dweller and The Rambling Man are important on how this version might be seen as well as the views of Arbitrators. My idea was to add OR's concerns about series of edits, but also to codify that the standards applying to TRM are the same as for everyone else (to discourage action that would never be taken against another editor) and to offer some constructive advice. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: This post of yours begins by directing it to myself and The Wordsmith, it concludes that "everybody" (not TRM specifically, but everybody) should "act like grownups," and it has the edit summary "re edchem + wordsmith". I think interpreting your "everybody act like grownups" comment on childish behaviour as including (inter alia) The Wordsmith and myself is a reasonable reading, and whatever your intent, I don't think it reads as a comment only on TRM. In fact, if it was meant to imply childish behaviour from some of those who have made some of the spurious AE filings against him, then I would have to agree that TRM has been being treated poorly and provoked, which is another reason the gaming of this restriction requires action.

I'm glad to see that you liked part of my summary and agree that those sorts of comments from TRM or anyone else tend to be unhelpful. Part of my point, though, was that these types of comments have been much reduced at DYK and ERRORS and ITN/C. You reference the WT:ACN discussion from late May / early June, but that was hardly representative of his more general editing. Please bear in mind that ArbCom had just banned him from discussing Bishonen, who he sees as an exemplar of the abusive admin problem on WP. (For the record, I have considerable respect for Bishonen and though I agree with TRM that there are some abusive admins and getting things done about poor admins is exceptionally difficult, I don't agree with him that Bishonen is a major problem.) ArbCom's handling of the subsequent discussion was not good, in my view, and I was certainly not convinced by the arguments made. That TRM has a poor opinion of ArbCom and expressed it is not news, nor is it really surprising that he vented in that circumstance. I cannot say that everything he said was justified / appropriate, but equally I think it is unfair if ArbCom takes that discussion as typical of his recent posts in areas where his behaviour has previously been contentious. Surely if there was a pile of recent diffs fitting the pattern you describe, theywould have been posted at AE or here by someone. Instead, you have a request to address a problem with the remedy you crafted where no one has yet posted disagreement with the basic request Dweller has made. Despite this, and even following the recent comment from GorillaWarfare, I am concerned that either nothing will be done or that any change made will be equally vulnerable to being weaponised by those wanting to see TRM banned from Wikipedia. In my suggestion, I tried to provide framing to clarify what the remedy is meant to address. There are surely other options to craft something that is clear in intent, constrains the problematic comments (which I believe have been much reduced), and doesn't require more of TRM than is the common behavioural standards to which we all (hopefully) endeavour to abide. EdChem (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pending comments from TRM and other arbs, but I think this change is a good idea. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
As a follow up (so I remember as well) probably looking to change it to "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks or harassing other editors." Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dweller's points are well noted, and I cannot see anything that I disagree with in that regard. Indeed belittling and insulting should be covered under the standard NPA policy and I take no exception to rewording as per Callanecc's suggestion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm also happy with Callanecc's suggestion. As I understand it, this would mean that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dweller: I agree broadly with Opabinia regalis's comments and think that if we are going to remind TRM that incivility is prohibited that that still means that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. I can't see why we should water that down. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @EdChem: I take your point. But I can't support Callanecc's motion as it stands. Have you a suggestion that meets the concerns below? Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue of WP:CIVIL must be decided by the community should they desire changes or modifications to close any gap that may exist between the wording and community accepted norms and practices. In terms of the ArbCom remedy regarding TRM, I believe it exceeds the expectations of the policy and enforces a more strict code of conduct on TRM than intended. CIVIL has been brought up several times in the statements above. It may be worth including in any adjustment (since it already covers harassment and NPA), while ensuring the wording avoids any compounding restrictions. Mkdw talk 15:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Only inconsequential aspects of the situation were discussed at WT:ACN. I am not surprised that anyone's review of that discussion would be unsatisfying. A conclusion (albeit not resolution) occurred only thru the private dialogue between the parties involved, and not public disclosure or discussion.
The inequities some editors experience on Wikipedia are certainly apparent and can be unfair. The systems we have in place for handling disputes often fail with respect to consistency. The inherent problems of a policy or community to follow through on enforcement are not going to be resolved in a remedy against one editor. It only creates an argument for more rigidity rather than leniency. The "same standards of behaviour as all other editors" is an impossible qualitative requirement or criteria to assess. It will create the same problems with discretionary interpretation as occurred with the wording "belittle". I don't want ArbCom creating new codes of conduct on an editor-by-editor basis. Mkdw talk 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being so late to the party here, but Dweller's proposal (and thus Callanecc's motion) doesn't quite work for me. I understand the problem with the current wording; arbcom remedies aren't meant to be sticks to beat their subjects with (and the original source of the "insulting and/or belittling" wording didn't have great success either). It is true that warnings and blocks have a way of becoming self-reinforcing - "He's been blocked so often, he must be really awful!" - and that cycle is both unpleasant and difficult to break. But the specific proposed change doesn't quite cover the problem at hand IMO. For one thing, personal attacks and harassment are already prohibited, for everyone. Yes, people differ in what they think falls in those categories, and enforcement varies even for clear-cut cases, but it seems like that particular rewording would just be creating the same situation this is trying to avoid - singling TRM out for extra-special enforcement.
    More substantively, the specific problem with TRM's behavior hasn't really been about personal attacks or harassment, and thus making that change significantly affects the scope of the remedy. The problem is that TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. In short TRM violates FidoNet Rule 1, "Thou shalt not excessively annoy others", and the fact that others around him are violating Rule 2, "Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed", only partially mitigates the issue. Unfortunately I don't know how to write "be less annoying" in arbcomese. I believe the underlying problem is a bad case of Someone is wrong on the Internet! - but arbcom has not historically been very effective with that issue. "Every time you make a snarky comment, any editor may respond in full by posting beneath it one (1) image of a hissing cat"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • TRM, if you read my post and what you got out of it was "ha! she said I wasn't doing anything blockable!" then I do not know what to tell you. I normally try to avoid comparing editors' behavior to that of children, but I can't think of a better analogy - you are behaving like the stereotypical bratty little brother who plays the "I'm not touching yoooou!" game in the back seat of the family minivan, with his hand an inch from his sister's face, and when she finally loses it and smacks him, he moans and whines - "Help, help, she hit me! I think my finger's broken! Moooooom! She hit me! ...What do you mean, 'Don't bother her and you won't get hit'? Are you saying it's worse to bother someone than to hit them? She was violent! This is child abuse! Why aren't you punishing her??? Mooooooooooooooom!" (The copyright police will come after me if I link it, but Google the "I'm not touching you!" scene from Lilo and Stitch for a good example of this game.) The TRM case last year was filed in early September, so we're coming up on a full year of attempts to prompt some kind of effective introspection or self-regulation. I don't know what happened to the guy who did some honest self-reflection and posted this request two years ago, but more of that would go a long way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    • EdChem and Wordsmith, I'm not quite sure what you mean... in my view the defect in the motion, regardless of whether it mentions WP:CIVIL or not, is that it requires an admin to assert that individual examples of this annoying behavior are uncivil/a personal attack/harassment in order to implement a sanction, which is worse because it could appear to set a broader precedent when the problem is really quite specific.
      The best solution is for TRM to self-regulate his own behavior, or maybe commit to immediate withdrawal from any conversation when someone he trusts tells him to quit. What I think would work isn't actually something arbcom can do - that is, firm message discipline on the part of those who interact with him. When he says something snarky, just ignore him. Don't post "please remember to be WP:CIVIL!", don't put warnings on his talk page, don't take him to AE, don't even save the diff in your offline "Misbehavior by my wiki-enemies" folder. You thought you heard a funny noise in the distance, but it turned out it was nothing, so you just carried on your conversation with the other people in the discussion. And if he says something useful and reasonable, even if it's negative or critical, just respond as you would to anyone else making the same point. In other words, everybody act like grownups. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
      • GW, I don't know about that - I'd much rather just be ignored than get the escalating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK, talk page template, AE filing treatment.
      • EdChem, I don't really understand part of your post; I don't see how my previous two paragraphs could be interpreted as calling you childish. Maybe I'm missing something. The person acting like a child is TRM. Anyway, I don't think your hypothesis is correct; as you know, TRM's most recent interaction with arbcom was not the end of his case in October 2016, but was just a couple of months ago. That said, your suggested wording Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators is a pretty good summary of where the problem lies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I realize that it's difficult to get a full picture of this spring's incident involving TRM, because aspects of it were private, but it was certainly not merely for making allegations of admin abuse. To be frank, the behavior that prompted that decision burned up a significant amount of my personal stockpile of patience with TRM, and I think I'd been on the more sympathetic side beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for Dweller's position - I've certainly had the experience of enjoying the presence of "difficult" editors and wondering why so many other people seemed unable to leave them alone. I suggest a briefer variation on EdChem's wording - just replace the first paragraph of the remedy with "TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors and administrators or reflections on their general competence". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Opabinia regalis said it well above. The intention when drafting that remedy was not to repeat the civility policy, but rather to try to address a pattern of snide, unhelpful remarks that The Rambling Man had been making. These remarks generally fell short of what most admins would consider uncivil, but when repeatedly made against the same users were creating a very difficult environment to work in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @The Wordsmith: Could you explain more how the motion below would be "worse and would be more heavily abused," and is an "insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to"? "incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited" is a statement of fact—this is a reminder of what is already reflected in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @The Wordsmith: My interpretation of that kind of wording has always been that it's a reminder not to do something that everyone on Wikipedia is similarly prohibited from doing—hence why I'm often unwilling to support those kinds of restrictions, since we shouldn't have to repeat what's already in policy and what the sanctioned party almost certainly knows about by now if we find ourselves needing to remind them. I guess perhaps the motion could link to Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility, though per my previous comment I don't see the benefit in reminding/warning TRM of something he's already well aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Opabinia regalis: I disagree with you on your suggestion that the thing to do in situations like this is to just ignore TRM (or anyone who makes a habit of making remarks like the ones that ended in this sanction). That just creates a hostile environment where everyone "in the know" about the issue is bothered but tries to ignore the person who's making jabs, and people who aren't just wonder why the hell this kind of thing is accepted on Wikipedia. It's still an unpleasant environment for anyone to work in. "Just ignore him" is great advice when applied to a barking dog looking for attention, but I think that in this case it's a bit insulting both to TRM and to the folks he engages with to suggest applying that kind of psychology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
      • As a general remark, a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either)—we're not really looking at evidence that the restriction isn't working, rather that the restriction is not being applied or that it is being misunderstood. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Motion

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited.
Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the previous text shall remain in force. This motion does not reset the block counter imposed in the remedy.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive and 1 who has abstained or recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
Abstain/Recuse
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments
I'll leave this as written for a bit to garner some more comments, in particular from The Rambling Man and Dweller. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
For everyone, the bit about personal attacks and harassment could probably go but it might be worth having it there for clarity? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Are we considering downgrading the prohibition to a reminder? I'm not sure that's a good idea. I liked the wording of your second attempt much better. Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The rest of remedy is the authorisation for sanctions, this sentence just defines what "prohibited conduct" is in the context of the remedy. My reason for using "reminded" is that the purpose of this remedy is as an authorisation for admins to make AE actions (rather than normal admin actions) rather than as an extra prohibition on certain conduct. Every editor is prohibited from being incivil, making personal attacks and harassing others so saying that TRM is specific prohibited seems inaccurate. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, I see what you're getting at now. Alright. I'll await comments from TRM/Dweller before voting. Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump

Initiated by Emir of Wikipedia at 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Emir of Wikipedia

Regarding WP:ARBAPDS on Talk:Donald Trump it says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. At [Talk:Donald Trump#False and misleading statements]] someone has said to me It's about reinstating an edit, not reinstating content. An edit cen be addition of content, removal of content, or change to content. In this case the edit was removal of content. That was challenged via reversion and you reinstated the removal without talk page consensus to do so Were they correct in saying this or was I correct regarding my reversion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for my mistake. Could it be possible to change the wording to make sure that this confusion does not happen again in the future? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Awilley: If their is no better way to word it then we'll have keep to the current wording, but I think that some lenience should perhaps be given if someone else makes this honest mistake. I am grateful for your assistance and am happy for you to close this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kurtis: It was the title of the subsection at WP:ARBAPDS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

The other editor is correct. Removal of long-standing content is an edit, not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I'm not sure how it would be clarified without bogging it down in detail. Adding the terse clarification in my previous post would then spark arguments about what constitutes "long-standing". And in practice it is sometimes convenient for admins to treat removal of content as a revert, as when blocking clearly disruptive editors reported to WP:AN/EW for edit warring. I suspect that is part of why there is disagreement even among admins as to what constitutes a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: As the OP you're probably in a better position to close this yourself if you're satisfied with my rationale. I'm not an arb, and I have edited the Donald Trump article recently enough to be considered "involved" by some. I'm also not a "regular" at this noticeboard. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kurtis: The relevant arbitration case imposed discretionary sanctions for all articles "related to post-1932 politics of the United States" which includes the Donald Trump article :-) ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

A 1932 cut-off for Donald Trump? Are we talking about the man himself or the ancient prophecy surrounding his birth? Kurtis (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley and Emir of Wikipedia: Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. :) Kurtis (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Arbitrator views and discussion


Motions

Requests for enforcement


Wuerzele

Blocked for 1 week for TBAN violations. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Wuerzele

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Wuerzele_topic_banned :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Aug 3 Editing article within topic ban.
  2. Aug 3 Edit warring previous content back after seeing their content was removed (with the edit summary notice).
  3. Aug 11 Combative talk page comments after WP:GOODFAITH reminder of ban rather than coming straight here.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Sept 2015 Blocked by Bbb23 for edit warring in GMO topics
  2. Dec 2015 Topic-banned in GMO and pesticide topics by ArbCom
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is a bit of an odd case. Wuerzele was one of the more problematic editors in GMO and pesticide topics, and was topic-banned in the initial ArbCom case. They violated their topic ban awhile ago, but that AE was closed by EdJohnston because Wuerezele immediately stopped editing for a few days once the report was made and didn't respond to the AE. The close also included a note that the case could be reopened if Wuerzele returned and issues were still coming up.

The diffs above are another set of topic ban violations. They came to Fipronil, an insecticide page which unambiguously falls within the topic ban, and started making edits. I reverted reminding them that they are topic banned, only to have them edit war the content they inserted back in. I also left a reminder at their talk page about the topic ban and that I was assuming they had forgotten rather than me filing an AE case (probably should have come here instead due to the edit warring in retrospect instead of the good faith assumption).

At this point, they stop editing for a few days immediately after they were called out on their topic ban again, just like the previous AE, so no case was filed until this weekend when they responded to my talk page notice rather vehemently (rather than deleting it due to their ban as I pointed out). I originally was going to let this slide as I mentioned on their talk page, but Wuerzele was topic banned in large part due to battleground behavior focused towards myself and a few others in the topic that's rearing its head in their comments. We also have a trend of Wuerzele avoiding administrative action by not editing for a few days after a topic ban violation, so I figured even if an admin wants to call this stale, it's better to have a continued record for future reference with the last AE in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a note Drmies on the WP:NOBAN related comment, but that specifically excludes administrative notices due to noticeboards, etc. I made it clear to Wuerzele they would have been getting an AE notice instead if I hadn't initially gone the good-faith route and renotified them of their topic ban just in case. The complaint at the talk page is rather silly in that sense given the then other option, but that kind of battleground escalation is why the topic ban was put in place. Had I posted more than what I did, that definitely would have gone outside the spirit of WP:NOBAN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I didn't intend my reply above as interpreting you had a quarrel with my notification, so sorry if it came across that way. I was more so just clarifying the situation on that notification since you brought it up. Situations like that have history of being taken out of context by others in this topic if not clarified (thankfully things have settled for the most part though). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[37]

Discussion concerning Wuerzele

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

Statement by Wuerzele

Statement by Doc James

They have been an abrasive editor.[38] They have been involved with edit warring [39]. I feel this is a wider concern than just the breach of their restriction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Wuerzele

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • These look like pretty obvious tban violations to me. @Wuerzele: do you have any explanation for these edits? GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • How long do we leave this open for? According to X!, this user is usually very active on Sundays and weekdays ([40]) yet they've disappeared since Saturday, when all this blew up. It's looking increasingly like a duck-and-dive to avoid sanctions. @Wuerzele: If we don't hear back in 48 hours from now, at least with some idea when you'll be able to respond fully, I intend to take action on this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If anyone else wants to act, they're free to do so. For the minute, I don't see a problem letting this sit another day so long as they don't resume editing elsewhere. I agree that if there's no response then we're in for a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with GoldenRing. I might could let that talk page comment slide--perhaps they did ban Kingofaces from their talk page, and on one's own talk page one typically gets some leeway, but a topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Wuerzele, much will depend on your answer here. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it even needs a response. These are obvious TBAN violations, and Wuerzele's response was basically "if you don't like it, go to AE". I would be looking at quite a significant block here. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Since Wuerzele is banned from both GM organisms and agricultural chemicals generally, their edits of Fipronil violate the ban. There don't seem to be any extenuating circumstances, and Wuerzele's absence from this discussion doesn't count in their favor. So I would support a one-week block for violating the TBAN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Twitbookspacetube

Twitbookspacetube, a.k.a. Barts1a and PantherLeapord, is topic-banned from all American politics-related WP:BLP content for three months. This is without prejudice to any additional block another admin may want to apply.  Sandstein  21:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Twitbookspacetube

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Special:Diff/795468237 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing
  2. Special:Diff/795468959 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

No previous sanctions I can find.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • User has not been alerted to BLP DS as far as I can see, but has been alerted to AP2 DS - both are applicable here.
  • Update the user has now been alerted to BLP DS but has continued reinserting the violations/contested material. GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This article is about a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd. I removed the name of the driver from the article on WP:BLPCRIME grounds, as he is not well-known and (obviously, having been charged in the past couple of days) has not yet been convicted of a crime. Rather than start a discussion on re-inclusion, User:WWGB reverted the removal on the grounds that it is well-sourced. I removed the material again, again citing BLPCRIME, and started a discussion on the article talk page. Thirty-seven minutes later, Twitbookspacetube reverted the removal again, citing the talk page discussion as consensus (four editors had commented, admittedly all for inclusion). We've since had another revert-cycle. Twitbookspacetube saw fit to report me to ANEW (closed by User:El_C as no-violation) and has complained, among other things, that I pinged him when replying to him (a grave offence, apparently) and of bludgeoning the discussion (see edit summaries of the diffs above) when I have made two comments on the talk page, one of which opened the discussion.

I requested at his talk page that he self-revert to let the discussion run its course and was told that I was gaming the system.

I ummed-and-ahhed about just blocking on BLP-violation grounds, but considering the talk page discussion is ongoing and I could be argued to be involved, brought it here instead.

  • They are now at 5RR 9RR 10RR on this article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @MjolnirPants: fair point - [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. GoldenRing (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • As has been pointed out elsewhere, the majority of their reversions on that page today are probably exempt from 3RR as they are reverting vandalism - leaving three times they have re-inserted material challenged on BLP grounds, while discussion were ongoing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Good catch from Doug Weller. @Drmies:, @Sandstein: since this user is in fact subject to an unexpired 1RR restriction, does this not rather throw a different light on matters? According to WP:Editing restrictions#User:Barts1a, they have previously been banned from all noticeboards and "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages"; given the direct dive for ANEW and the very abrasive response to discussions at BLPN and here, is it time to re-impose that sanction? Any uninvolved administrator can do so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Special:Diff/795471557


Discussion concerning Twitbookspacetube

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

Statement by Twitbookspacetube

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:BLUDGEONING at it's finest - the content that the filer is removing was in the article unchallenged until they came along with a WP:BLUDGEON and tried to beat down people that disagree with their removal of sourced content using a blatant misinterpretation of the relevant policy.

TL:DR: Facepalm Twitbookspacetube 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Alright, after sleeping on it, I agree that the userbox was a bit too far in regards to BLP and would be willing to accept the 3 month topic ban proposed. However, I am still rather annoyed that an admin tried to WP:BLUDGEON their blatantly false misinterpretation of policy onto an article. But, said misinterpretation is certainly getting widespread opposition so I'm sure that it will eventually be completely shot down. I would, however, like to commend said admin for not also violating WP:INVOLVED with any administrative action against me, or anyone else in the content dispute. If such action had been taken, I would have a well justified second case to arbcom on the go about it by now for desysopping. Twitbookspacetube 02:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

I am uninvolved but this caught my attention [51] I am not sure that such WP:ASPERSIONS casting is suitable for Wikipedia collaborative envoirment--Shrike (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm in a similar situation to Shrike in that I happened to stumble across this issue. I don't see this particular issue of rising to the level of requiring AE, as there seems to be a strong consensus (so far) at the talk page not to remove the information GoldenRing removed. That being said, understand that I completely oppose this consenus, and find it to be a gross violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but I'm aware that consensus rules on WP. One thing I haven't seen is that Twitbookspacetube is at 9RR. @GoldenRing:, you claimed Twitbookspacetube to be at 9RR without posting evidence. I doubted you so I checked and you are off by 1: TBST has made 10 reverts to that page within a 24 hour period. They were to different edits, to be sure, but this looks like an WP:OWNership issue that might require a short page ban. I've left in but struck a point I initially typed above to help elucidate my line of thought as I wrote this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Correction accepted. Thank you for digging further into that. 4RR is still troubling, but not as troubling. I hesitated to mention the (now deleted) user box on TBST's user page, because I'm rather well known for essentially agreeing with the remaining anti-Trump userbox, and I'm not about to criticize an editor for broadcasting their own political views. (It's adds a lot of weight to their views when the editor !votes or opines against type.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment by involved A Quest for Knowledge

I just wanted to say that while I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpetation of WP:BLP in this particular instance, to the best of my knowledge, their objection is in good faith. Once an editor has raised a good-faith BLP objection, other editors should not be edit-warring contentious BLP material into an article without consensus. I'll also add that the diff that Shrike posted[52] is very troubling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Twitbookspacetube

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I just added a note to the ANEW report, where I found that the nine reverts mentioned actually boiled down to maybe four--three reverts of the BLP material, and one minor one where one can easily argue that Twitbook reverted the unexplained removal of sourced content (please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GoldenRing_reported_by_User:Twitbookspacetube_.28Result:_No_violation.29 for more detail)--it should be obvious that this and this should be reverted as pure vandalism. Their "you're a Republican" comment is very, very unwise, of course, but that is really the only thing (besides foolishly not explaining all those smaller edits) I can fault them for--it may be enough in itself, but here we look for patterns. And finally, can I just say that "a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd" is hardly a fair representation of what seems to have been happening? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The originally reported diffs look like mere content disputes to me, but the userboxes above ("So far, Donald Trump's racist rhetoric has caused 1 death") are clearly WP:BLP and WP:NOT violations. Add to this that this is a "clean start" account created in November, and we must assume that there were some substantial problems with the user's conduct previously. Unless given reasons not to, I suggest a three-month BLP topic ban.  Sandstein  20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The article edits are indeed a content dispute. I don't see any clear BLP issue there since the information does indeed look to be clearly supported by reputable references. Since the article isn't under 1RR or any similar arbitration remedy or discretionary sanction, any edit warring there would be handled through the standard process for that. I do, however, agree that the userboxes were clear BLP violations, and would agree to the suggestion of a three-month ban from BLP (perhaps just American politics-related BLPs, since that seems to be the source of the trouble). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Ponyo noted on the editor's talk page "Twitbookspacetube is subject to a community imposed 1RR restriction via their Barts1a account, which I reminded them of here recently."[53] There Ponyo told the editor "Twitbookspacetube, I'm concerned regarding your creation of this account. You claim that it is a clean start, but I don't believe you are eligible for one due to your extensive history of blocks (with PantherLeapord and Barts1a), edit warring, and the editing restrictions associated with your Barts1a account. Of pressing concern is your return to admin/dispute noticeboards (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, and Example 4), an area that was a particular concern with regard to your behaviour. As you essentially outed yourself here, it is clear that this is an alternative account and not a clean start. It would be prudent for you to link to your previous account on your user page if you are serious about being transparent about your previous accounts. I would also suggest you discuss your editing restrictions with your previous mentor as I see your continued activity at noticeboards as a concern." The editor then thanks Ponyo for raising this. User:Twitbookspacetube claims a clean start with no link. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you put all this together, and we have a serious problem here. Doug--I'm thinking that this account simply should be blocked until the editor offers a solution one way or another. Since the user returned to problematic areas, the clean start is out the door, and any previous topic ban should apply. Sandstein, do you have any thoughts on the clean start complication? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think that any disciplinary issues arising from the "clean start" are a matter for AE, and I don't have an opinion on whether a block (as a normal admin action) would be appropriate. Unless there are any objections, I'll shortly close this as a three-month American politics BLP topic ban, and any admin who thinks that a block is needed can impose it separately.  Sandstein  15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I somewhat do object. The editor has clearly violated their 1RR restriction from the previous account. I'm minded to proceed with either an indef or a quite lengthy block for evading scrutiny, as well as an indefinite BLP ban based on the number of editing restrictions they're already subject to (though they don't have the greatest history of abiding by them). But to be quite honest, I'm leaning toward a flat indef. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Oh geez, I remember Barts1a (I didn't know he'd moved to a new account though). For what it's worth, he seems to be an order of magnitude more productive an editor now than he was back then, when he came this close (makes gesture with thumb and forefinger indicating 1mm) to getting indef blocked, but has apparently slipped back towards edit warring, getting involved in drama that doesn't affect him, and contentious subjects. It's not really textbook "evading scrutiny" when he publicly links the two accounts here, although it kind of feels evading-ish in spirit for not mentioning the restrictions or linking to the old account prominently. I agree with Sandstein's proposed AE topic ban, although I'm a little unclear if the topic area is American Politics, or BLP's, or both. I'd suggest both topics. I won't quibble with the 3 month duration, although I'd have probably chosen longer. I also agree that sanctions for violating unrelated community-based restrictions are not what AE is for, and this seems a little complicated (for example. the restrictions listed here don't match those listed here, and it's unclear who changed them and when). Since I'm not convinced an indef block is called for (he really is doing better now than he was several years ago), I'd suggest ANI. Either that, or some admin unilaterally reinstates the restrictions that were lifted by... somebody, and either gives a warning or a relatively short block for the 1RR violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, unusual that Floq would be less harsh on it than I would. It still smells a lot like evading scrutiny, since it wasn't at all made obvious what the old accounts were, they were subject to restrictions, and the new account is flagrantly breaking them. All the same, if we want to try a 3 month post-1932 American politics ban (which seem to be where the BLP violations are a problem, so I'm not sure we need a blanket BLP ban as well), I'll go for that, with a short block for the blatant 1RR violation. But I'd strongly advise there be no more issues, and that the previous accounts be clearly linked, i.e., on the user page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
              • I'd agree with that as well (I was also unaware of the link to previous accounts). Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz

No action. User:The Diaz is reminded not to edit war, but of the diffs presented, those that are even broadly problematic are quite stale. GoldenRing (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning The Diaz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Diaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 and WP:NEWBLPBAN
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22:00, 14 August 2017 !vote at RfC on Jared Taylor about "white supremacist" description Unless you can find a source saying that he embraced the labels, labeling him as a white supremacist is obviously defamatory and could land Wikipedia in legal trouble. He has also been described as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist by different sources, and WP:YESPOV says "If different reliable sources make conflicting(which is defined as incompatible or at variance; contradictory) assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Calling him a white supremacist against his word would be a blatant violation of NPOV and WP:LIBEL.
  2. 5 August 2017 launched RfC at NPOV to prevent describing people as RS describe them, if this contradicts their self-description. It is about Spencer. This is not "dropping the stick" as they were advised at the ANI listed below.
  3. diff and diff 3 May 2017 started edit warring over nationality of Jose Antonio Vargas (brought here as boy by Filipino parents, has become journalist and outed himself as undocumented in the NYT and has become a lightning rod for discussions of immigration policy) was reverted by User:Bbb23 and others per BLP.
  4. diff and diff and diff 8 May continuation of above
  5. diff and diff both on 29 July 2017 continuation of above
  6. 10 August created template for people with Hispanic-American names.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 14 July 2017 ANI thread that boomeranged on The Diaz. The close reads The consensus here is that NeilN and DrFleischman did nothing wrong. The Diaz is advised to drop the stick on Richard Spencer and libel in general.
    • That ANI was prompted by reactions to this remark by The Diaz at the Spencer talk page: I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation.
    • 12 July 2017 reminded of ANI outcome and User:NeilN's warning about making further legal threats, response was to revert with edit note Oh go fuck with someone else
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Per their edit count this account made its first edit Jun 17, 2016 and has about 1000 edits. They concentrate overwhelmingly on matters of nationality, race, murders, etc. which fall at the intersection of the US politics and BLP discretionary sanctions. They appear to have difficulty understanding basic principles of editing in such loaded topics, and the persistent bringing up of legal threats is especially unhelpful and in general it is not clear to me if they are here to build an encyclopedia.

  • The August 14th diff (not stale) directly continues the behavior they were already warned about at the ANI - different white nationalist, same behavior.
Am giving you all the opportunity to stop ongoing disruption and prevent the more that is pretty clearly coming at the heavily loaded intersection of two sets of DS. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning The Diaz

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

Statement by The Diaz

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Diaz

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Unless there's more, I'm inclined to close this without action or with a warning. The diffs at 3, 4 and 5 are somewhat troubling, but are also well stale. Their views on labels are perhaps counter to policy and certainly not going to win over a majority - but if the extent of their expression of those views is starting and !voting in RfCs, I'm not sure I see the problem. As for creating the template - what exactly is wrong with this? They requested a change of {{Spanish name}} to use 'Hispanic naming customs' instead of Spanish; they were told there are differences so they created a new draft template (see Template talk:Spanish name#Template-protected edit request on May 29, 2017, and bear in mind that this is probably about Wikipedia's treatment of their own name, as according to their userpage they are of Venezuelan ancestry and we could take a broad guess that "Diaz" is their surname). I can't see sanctions coming out of this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd close as no action. Everything is stale except the 10 August creation of Draft:Template:Hispanic American name, and the request does not make clear how this violates any Wikipedia conduct policy.  Sandstein  15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)