Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to most of the parties to this case, regardless of what 'side' they were on. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Banned editors

2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored.

Support:

Banning should be undertaken as a very last resort, but the community does need some sort of system whereby users who cannot participate within community norms are removed. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; however, in fairness, how to deal with banned users who sneak back in and make valuable contributions is a more complex issue than some editors seem to assume. For those interested, please see my essay here for some thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The important point here, arguably not emphasised enough here but correctly emphasised in the actual policy, is that reverting edits made by a banned user should never be done on autopilot, and the responsibility cuts both ways. It may actually be harmful to revert some of the edits (this is not as rare as some arbitrators seem to think). See further comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I agree with Newyorkbrad that good-faith contributions by banned editors is a complex and somewhat hazily-defined area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one thing SPI has taught me, it is that the ambiguity in the banning policy and the inequity in such cases is pervasive. Nonetheless we must act within some form of system, and hence this finding is substantively correct. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly troubled by the suggestion of pervasive inequity, and am flagging the point for discussion, albeit not here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable, I'm primarily referring to the dynamics sock hunting can have. (certain users being more or less stalked for their return, others being largely ignored upon their return. This isn't always based upon the level of disruptiveness, either. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

With explanation on the talk page. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

A critical part of the policy, not quoted here, is : "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The other key point is that both those reverting the edits of a banned user and those re-instating the edits ('taking ownership') are responsible for ensuring that their actions don't make things worse. Reverting the edits of a banned user so that articles end up in a vandalised state or restoring typos that the banned editor corrected, are both examples of what can happen if reversion is done on autopilot. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, even banned users, there is no alternative but to examine each edit on its own merits, and to take responsibility for your own edits, even if you are reverting a banned editor. And if someone disagrees with you, stop and discuss things (should be obvious, but clearly it wasn't). Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying banned users

3) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or otherwise evading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user. Depending on the behaviours demonstrated, a sockpuppet investigation may not be required to identify the banned user.

Support:

The time taken for a sockpuppet investigation is often not required. Care should be taken but if it's clear who the user is, that's sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an account is clearly operated by a blocked or banned user (or has admitted to the same), a formal SPI is not required to treat them as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is obvious that a "new" user or IP is a returned banned user (and sometimes is not even making an effort to conceal the fact), a formal SPI request with the ensuing days of delay is not necessary before reaching the obvious conclusion. (Caveat: sometimes an SPI is still needed to avoid being fooled by a "joe job," but that doesn't apply in this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In obvious cases, yes. In less obvious cases, no. There is a spectrum of socking from the obvious to the undetectable. Where that line is drawn has always been a bone of contention. That's not going to get solved at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Formal sockpuppet investigations are not required when the editor in question is clearly the same user; less clear cases may be better handled with a SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, although I am sometimes bothered by how quickly users are identified as clear socks per WP:DUCK, when in fact there is no such connection. Although sometimes I feel inadequate care is taken in such cases, it is undoubtedly true that SPI is not always necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Newyorkbrad mentions 'joe jobs'. That doesn't strictly apply here, as someone deliberately imitating a banned user to stir up trouble should themselves be banned, and the reputation of the banned user is unlikely to be much affected. Joe jobs are more a concern at the actual stage a ban is proposed (i.e. before someone is banned), as imitating someone to get them banned in the first place is more likely and in such cases SPI may be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point in referring to "joe jobs" may not have been clear. It's that sometimes an imitator is trying to get the banned or blocked user in further trouble (e.g. to create a perceived record of socking that would weigh against an unblock request). When this is suspected, investigation may be required even though the edits are independently unacceptable and would be reverted no matter who made them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

4) Considerable leeway is given to users on what they allow in their own user space, including their personal talk page.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Longstanding practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the userspace content is not inherently disruptive. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but avoids the elephant in the room here which is the 'special' status Jimmy (Jimbo Wales) gives to his user talk page. It is that, and the failure by Jimmy to respond or implement measures (such as formal clerking) in response to incidents like this, that meant this ended up here. If Jimmy insists on his user talk page having a special status, he should be more active in maintaining it, or delegating that responsibility to others. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. In this case I find this explanation satisfactory but to some degree the unspoken truth is that Jimmy's talk page has more leeway than Joe Bob's talk page would be permitted to have. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus building

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary, and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content was originally added by a banned user if an editor in good standing has assumed ownership of the material. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground conduct

6) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't care for the "battleground" terminology, but it seems entrenched. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree broadly. 'Battleground' is strange terminology. From experience, it's hardly something that can be explained to a non wikipedian without some brow raises, and it seems a bit out of place. Nonetheless I'm curious where it originated. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recidivism

7) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Jimbo Wales' talk page

1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping[1]. Between July 2012[2] and August 2014[3], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others.[4]

Support:

It'd be easier if we had one rule for all, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Or rather it does (the one rule being IAR). Jimmy could have tightened restrictions on his page if he wished, but chose not to - which in part lead to this. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of these practices, just laying out the situation as it stands. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With particular emphasis on Seraphimblade's clarification. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(minor copyedits). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is factual, but I'm not sure why we are being reticent or reluctant in opining on these practices. The community-at-large, at the very least, should be able to say to Jimmy, politely but firmly, that his user talk page should be just like any other and should not have a special status. My personal view is that his talk page often creates more heat than light, and distracts from other venues where discussion should be taking place. It acts as a pseudo-village pump, attracting a certain type of editor, when people should instead be discussing things in the locations where it truly matters. At the very least, Jimmy needs to keep things under control there more than he has recently. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Rewarder and Spotting ToU accounts

2) The conduct and editing patterns of the accounts User:The Rewarder and User:Spotting ToU (e.g. [5][6]) made clear that these accounts were operated by banned editor User:Thekohser.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These accounts and a host of IPs. For what it's worth, some of the banned user's edits in 2014 have raised legitimate points (such as regarding COI issues and the nuances of the paid editing policy—I believe I responded to a couple of those threads myself at one point, without thinking much about the implications of doing so). But many other contributions from these accounts and IPs have been overtly trollish and independently disruptive. This is consistent with the style of this individual, who is a knowledgeable Wikipedia critic but whose participation in Wikipedia, both before and after his ban, has included seriously improper conduct (example; example). Meanwhile, this individual boasted on another website yesterday that "I also note that there is no 'Remedy' for me [in this arbitration decision], because they can't stop me from doing what I've chosen to do over the past 7 years." There in fact are remedies that may be pursued against a banned user who overtly refuses to respect the ban and has threatened at times to damage the site, but they are outside the purview of this Committee, and the misconduct has not yet risen to the level at which I would recommend pursuing them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Newyorkbrad that this user is a knowledgeable Wikipedia critic and that he has raised legitimate points on COI editing and the paid editing policy. It is regrettable that some people focus on the improper conduct rather than responding to the valid criticism. There is plenty of valid criticism on Wikipediocracy that is not being discussed on Wikipedia, and that needs to change. Wikipedia needs to respond to its critics, regardless of whether they are banned or not. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brad. I'll agree with Carcharoth to some degree but interspersing valid criticms with self-acknowledged disruption is hardly a good way to give weight to ones arguments. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring by parties

3) The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales was the site of significant edit-warring over the removal or retention of edits made by a probable banned user who repeatedly added the same text.[7][8][9][10] Several users reverted and re-added this text.

Support:

Edit warring is never the solution. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By all sides involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be 'retention' instead of 'retainer'? I thought a retainer was what you paid someone to do edits to Wikipedia? (Sorry, bad joke!) Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typo has been fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket

4) User:Smallbones and User:Hell in a Bucket reverted these edits on the basis of Wikipedia's policies regarding ban evasion.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Given that Tarc assumed responsibility for the content, reverting Tarc's edits constituted edit warring. Both parties used edit summaries rather than dispute resolution, resulting in a protracted dispute.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once Tarc assumed responsibility for the text, all parties should have moved to the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD. Repeating boilerplate edit summaries does not help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether one can "assume responsibility" for a talkpage comment written in another person's voice. And because there may have been a reasonable doubt about that, I don't know if it was "edit-warring" in its classic sense. But the bottom line is that the approach taken wasn't helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More or less per Newyorkbrad. I'm not sure I would agree that that particular part of the banning policy intended to condone re-adding banned users' talk page comments by taking ownership for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Tarc should have done, if he agreed with the views and wanted to take ownership of the edits, was to restate the views in his own voice. I've done this plenty of times when agreeing with others, and it works. There is no need to revert back in the exact same text. A limited amount of quoting can work as well. A diff pointing to the text reverted works as well. Just edit warring over the text itself doesn't help. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was, it was a mess. This is a reasonable explanation. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc's conduct

5) By re-adding text of a banned user, Tarc assumed responsibility for the text. Tarc continually edit-warred to include the content,[18][19][20][21] to prove a point rather than on the merits of including the content itself.[22]

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the relevant point-making point in the discussion on Tarc's user talk page was this: "Quite all right. Consider this a trial balloon to see how far these little defenders of the crown will go." On that basis, I can support this finding. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tarc restricted

1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[23][24] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Support:

I'm hoping this will be sufficient, though I'm still considering 2). Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth has pointed out the discrepency between this remedy and the enforcement section - I've removed the "starting with 24 hours", because I don't particularly like micromanagement and I'd rather enforcing admins used their best judgement. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this restriction regardless of the outcome of Remedy 2. Still considering that one. I'd like to hope this will be sufficient, but there's a history of stirring the pot and aggressive conduct here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 1.2. Something ought to be done, but I think this a little bit more than is necessary, and I'm still not a fan of the direct ban to the Wales talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think this should be set to expire in six months to be consistent with the ban proposal below, or the ban proposal should be set to indefinite with an appeal after a set period. Opposing for now, mainly on the basis that this could be too complicated to enforce cleanly. I will propose an alternative to simply ban Tarc indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales, something Jimmy could simply have done himself. Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered Tarc's response to my question on the talkpage, proposing 1.2 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I think it would help to make it more express that the ban doesn't apply to a dispute that Tarc is directly a party to (although I hope there won't be many more such disputes). We should also consider a carve-out for the BLP noticeboard as Tarc has done some useful work in that area. (See also Tarc's comments on the talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly agree on the BLPN issue, he's done useful work there. My concern with allowing Tarc to act in disputes he's a party to is that he would make himself a party so that he could join in. Would be interested in hearing an alternative though, perhaps one which relies on admin judgement to remove Tarc from pages he's not helping at for a limited time period? Worm^TT(talk) 06:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales

1.1) For actions discussed within this case, Tarc is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.

Support:

Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Removed redundant enforcement section. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Let Jimbo ban Tarc and the others from his talk page, if he wants. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I would strongly encourage Tarc to take a step back from Jimbo's talk page, ultimately I think no matter the user the 'owner' of the talk page should be responsible for such matters. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc restricted and warned

1.2) Tarc is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.

Support:

I think this is the best result here, per my discussion on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice, prefer 1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)~~ As this can go concurrently with #1 and both are currently passing, I will support both. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a warning to Tarc is needed along with the restrictions. The restrictions may seem to imply a warning, but they should go together. This may become more apparent when reading through the final decision. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is sufficient either, but will support ~~as a second preference to 1)~~. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading, I'm happy for this to pass as well as 1) Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tarc banned

2) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[25][26] Tarc is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Support:

I've spent the morning re-reading the Manning naming dispute and the fallout there. I opposed the topic ban at the time, but came close to proposing a site ban - which I think would have been more appropriate. Having re-familiarised myself with that area, I believe a six month ban is appropriate. Worm^TT(talk) 07:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I didn't vote for this... The problems with Tarc's conduct are broad-ranging and I don't think are cleanly dealt with via restrictions. Continual WP:POINTy actions only serve to corrode the editing environment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why this is being proposed: Tarc's conduct in this matter was poor and represented another instance of point-making and testing the boundaries—following his intentionally posting inappropriate comments at the height of the Manning dispute to test everyone's reactions, which was beyond the pale. Nonetheless, I'm not ready to go as far as a site-ban at this time. I hope that this Committee will not have occasion to evaluate Tarc's behavior again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect any more breaching experiments or disruption in general will have this result, and probably not with a time limit. I hope that will never be necessary and that #1 is sufficient to curb those incidents. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing for now as the remedy is deficient. It should come with a set of restrictions, rather than just expiring, unless we have reason to believe that a 6-month break would see Tarc change his behaviour? I could support an alternative that came with a set of restrictions after the ban expires, or was set to indefinite requiring an appeal after a set period of time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying here that I'm not going to switch to support a ban, as even if the changes were made that I suggested, I no longer think a ban is appropriate here. Let's see if the other remedies are sufficient here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very pointy user, but I don't think we're here yet. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

~~I think 1) is sufficient, but haven't made up my mind as yet. Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Still considering here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Smallbones warned

3) Smallbones is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this (and a similar remedy should really be proposed for Tarc as well). I also believe that this does not go far enough, and on the basis of the edit-warring Smallbones should also be banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly as I might have worded it, but reasonable and proportionate. In general, Smallbones should moderate the tone he uses in on-wiki disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Smallbones banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales

3.1) For actions discussed within this case, Smallbones is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.

Support:

Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Removed redundant enforcement section. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be moot now, but both Smallbones' and Hell in a Bucket's actions were over the top. If they can't be responsible on Jimmy's talk page, perhaps they shouldn't be there. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll oppose this, but it's a close call. See my comment on 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we're yet to the point of sanctions, though another instance of similar behavior would change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For same reasons as given for similar remedy above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Hell in a Bucket warned

4) Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Support:

Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment to remedy 3. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly as I might have phrased it, but reasonable and proportionate. We declined a case earlier this year involving prior obnoxious comments by Hell in a Bucket, and on rereading that case request now see here, perhaps we should not have, at least as to his behavior. Clean up your act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Hell in a Bucket banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales

4.1) For actions discussed within this case, Hell in a Bucket is banned indefinitely from User talk:Jimbo Wales. This restriction may be appealed after one year.

Support:

Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In view also of his prior behavior on that page, referenced in the prior request for arbitration (see my comment on 4). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be moot now, but both Smallbones' and Hell in a Bucket's actions were over the top. If they can't be responsible on Jimmy's talk page, perhaps they shouldn't be there. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per prior comments. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As my prior comment on Smallbones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For same reasons as given for similar remedy above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by → Call me Hahc21 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC) by User:SilverLocust.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	9	0	0		-4
2	Banned editors	8	1	0		-3
3	Identifying banned users	9	0	0		-4
4	User talk pages	9	0	0		-4
5	Consensus building	9	0	0		-4
6	Battleground conduct	9	0	0		-4
7	Recidivism	9	0	0		-4
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Jimbo Wales' talk page	9	0	0		-4
2	The Rewarder and Spotting ToU accounts	9	0	0		-4
3	Edit warring by parties	9	0	0		-4
4	Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket	9	0	0		-4
5	Tarc's conduct	9	0	0		-4
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Tarc restricted	6	2	1		-1
1.1	Tarc banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales	2	7	0		Cannot pass
1.2	Tarc restricted and warned	6	0	3		-2
2	Tarc banned	4	5	0		Cannot pass
3	Smallbones warned	8	0	1		-3
3.1	Smallbones banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales	2	7	0		Cannot pass
4	Hell in a Bucket warned	8	0	1		-3
4.1	Hell in a Bucket banned from User talk:Jimbo Wales	3	5	1		Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

I believe we're done here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's passing is all that's likely to pass. I think we're ready to close Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the outcome is decided now, and no one is planning to propose anything else, so we're finished. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments