Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

User talk pages and a degree of latitude

1) Per WP:UP#OWN, users do not own their talk pages; such pages are subject to project policy just as any other. In reality, there has been a long-standing tradition of leeway, e.g. users can instruct other users to not post on their page, and are generally exempt from 3RR to remove unwanted messages and the like.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo Wales' user talk page

2) Jimbo Wales' talk page is unique; while technically he is a user and it is his user's talk page, Jimbo's role as nominal project leader, "benevolent dictator", or whatever makes his talk page a sort of catch-all communication portal from the outside world to him. Sometimes a possibly banned user will use this to communicate, and many times Jimbo himself is ok with this, e.g. here. This communication should be allowed, per discretion of a talk page owner, and the discretion of a project founder.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Banned is banned, respect to the project means you respect the rules handed down. Consensus is made that a person is banned, usually this is because of problems following policies, why would we want to continue and reward that behavior by allowing them to flaunt it further on these special pages. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

"Banned is banned" is simplistic, black/white, either/or thinking. We're neither machines nor a bureaucracy, we can decide if the greater good of project improvement would be served by giving some things like this a bit of leeway. A banned editor may take a beautiful photograph of a plant or animal and upload it; would you deny it form being considered at Wikipedia:Featured pictures? A banned editor may raise an interesting point about a contentious area of the project. Why silence that question just because of who the asker may be? Even worse in all this was when I took the question on as my own, you STILL objected. Worse still was Johnuniq removal of my completely original re-phrasing ofthe original question. Tarc ( talk) 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You made it very clear here [ [1]] that it was your intention to post it on their behalf and attribute that to the poster. That's a clear example of offering to proxy for a blocked user, you stated earlier you didn't know who they were nor did you particularly care, a reasonable person could infer that means you knew they were someone operating as a sock. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That diff in particular was a request for assistance from a user who was being harried by you and Smallbones, so yes, I re-phrased their question under my name. That was done per advice given at WP:ANI, where several editors suggested that to "take ownership" of banned content would make it my own, thus immune from yours crusade. That practice represents a long-standing community norm, where usable content can be salvaged from potentially disputed creators. If you have a problemw ith that, then I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump or a site-wide RfC. It is done all the time. Tarc ( talk) 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Two things, One there is no request for help there, however let's assume that there is one and you thought it was a request for help at that point by your own admission you were editing on their behalf in violation of WP:EVADE. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ahh, yes, in my mind I was mixing up that section with the other section. Either way, we're getting a bit afield from the point of this principle, which is Jimbo Wales' open door policy for his talk page. No person, on or off-wiki, has ever said "Tarc, will you edit this for me?". I cared not a whit for the suspected identity or identities of "SpottingTOU" or "The Rewarder"; all I saw at the time were editors with no block records, no sanction, no topic ban, being endlessly censored in contravention to Jimbo's wishes for how he, in my interpretation of his wishes, has expressed how he wishes his page to be open to all but the most plain trolling or harassment. Tarc ( talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This proposed principle is an odd mix of denying policy or trying to make new policy, asserting facts not in evidence, requiring Jimmy Wales to perform actions that he obviously doesn't want to do, and plain old wishful thinking. The only evidence we have is at There has never been a policy on JW's talk forbidding reverting banned editors. I've asked folks who assert that there is such a policy (perhaps a dozen times now) to link to it or provide some sort of evidence that such a policy exists. Nobody has. If you want to add that evidence, please do it here and now, or forever hold your peace.

The worst part of this proposed principle is that it would force JW himself to do all the policing on his talk page, when his user page plainly states, "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks." Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 20:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The comments by the user in question were neither errors nor attacks...you may think the were, but again, what you think isn't a concern of mine. This is kind of like WP:PROD; an editor may propose an article be deleted, and if no one objects within 7 days, an admin can delete the article without further discussion. As soon as one editor objects and removed the tag however, the article may never be prod-tagged again. You reverted, I objected...that alone, right there and automatically should have settled the matter. You had no right...NONE...to ever revert ME in this situation. Tarc ( talk) 23:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:DUCK is an essay, not policy

3) Too often (and I myself have been guilty of this) we enforce "the duck test" as if it were site policy, and it has led to the stifling of many conversations just because it "sounds like" something a known banned editor would say This essay should be deprecated, and users forbidden from acting upon it without evidence from a confirmed sock-puppet investigation, or a block of the suspected account. While an editor is unblocked and under no editing restriction, their edits are not to be subjected to blind reversion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The "duck test" and blocking on mere suspicion can be overdone, but by saying that dealing with an obvious sockpuppet is never appropriate without a full-fledged SSI (which can take days), this veers too far in the other direction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Tarc and I agree that WP:DUCK is not a policy. However, the following text is policy from WP:Banning policy in the section Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, in the subsection Proxying. It applies directly to banned editors and those who walk and quack, or otherwise behave like particular banned editors.

"New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating."

Notice that the entire section says absolutely nothing about requiring an SPI or checkuser or anything of the sort. This looks like more wishful thinking by Tarc. Such a requirement would hamstring any enforcement against banned users who use technical means to avoid detection. I submit that Wikipedia editors know about technical means to avoid enforcement and have intentionally left out such requirements. Rather we have a policy that says that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule," and that any new account that walks and quacks like a particular banned editor may be given the same treatment.

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 21:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree with Smallbones above. The socks that are the subject of this case were definitely socks of the banned user. As I indicated in my evidence, this banned editor makes use of IPs for the express purpose of evading his ban, an SPI directed at such IPs went nowhere because they were IPs, and editors were specifically cautioned not to bring SPIs against those IPs for that reason. We either use the duck test in such situations or we allow editors to evade their bans. As I said previously, I no longer believe that enforcing the banning policy on Jimbo's talk page is a good idea for the simple reason that he has not issued a clear, forthright statement defending those who have done so. However, editors who have done so, and have also acted against editors proxying for the banned editor, have acted in good faith. It's really up to Jimbo and I guess the arbitration committee to decide how much it wants this particular person to utilize Jimbo's talk page. There is no real question as to the identity of the person behind the socks that come around to Jimbo's page regularly. (Though not while this arbitration has been pending, unsurprisingly.) That seems to be the crux of the issue here. But the issue is really one of banning policy as it applies to this page, not user behavior. The only egregiously bad behavior was carried out by someone who has already been banned. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

People can be denied the right to edit, they cannot be denied common courtesy

4) Even banned editors are human beings, and apart from the truly sociopathic (e.g. banned pedophiles, stalkers, etc...), should not be treated like pond swill. At the end of the day, all they have done is broken the rules of a privately-operated website. They have not committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see any assertion or accusation or evidence having been presented on this on the evidence page. Since there is no accusation or evidence, you have denied me the opportunity to defend myself. In general, this is a good example of the very vague non-accusation accusations backed by non-evidence evidence that folks have harassed me with since early August.

In any case, since there been no evidence about this presented, this principle will be moot. Nothing can come of it. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I believe you have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of what a Proposed Principle is. You have ranted on page after page, even in the Evidence and Workshop pages here, about the evils of the nefarious and dastardly Greg Kohs, but the "banned means banned" meme does not grant anyone a James Bond, double-00-ish License to Be a Dick. I provides several links in Evidence to where "Mr. 2001"'s posts remained intact, where other editors interacted with and commented on his opinions...imagine that, sitting down and talking to a perceived opponent without drama. Pick up a Bible sometime, my brother; "They shall not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies in the gate" - Psalm 127:5. Tarc ( talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The phrasing is a little weird, but the principle here is sound. The key to ending conflict is to avoid perpetuating conflict through arrogance, dismissiveness, and the flaunting of power. Carrite ( talk) 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

What "here to build an encyclopedia" means

5) Specifically, AGK's unfortunate "not here to build an encyclopedia" acceptance comment, and to a lesser extent the comments of GorillaWarfare and Seraphimblade. After 10 years in existence, the project has shifted somewhat from content creation to content curation. There are many things that one can do for the project besides the actual writing of prose; first and foremost is the never-ending policing of content for the obvious vandalism and the sometimes-not-obvious WP:BLP problems. There are articles to delete and articles to keep. There are deletions/keeps to review. There is dispute resolution noble (MedCab) and foul (AN/I). There's the Reference Desk. The point is, the yardstick of "does editor X contribute enough article content?" as a measure of an editor's worth is about as obsolete as it'd be to ask Danica Patrick about her dexterity with a buggy whip.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Building the encyclopedia" should be interpreted broadly to include any good-faith participation intended to benefit the content or the community. Vandalism-patrolling, BLP-monitoring, XfD and DRV voting, dispute resolution help, administrating, (and yes, even arbitrating), all qualify. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I agree the comment made by 4 arb's is unfortunate as it appears their mind was made up before the actual case opened. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 12:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

(Per @ Odysseus1479:'s request.) Specifically, AGK's unfortunate "not here to build an encyclopedia" acceptance comment, and to a lesser extent the comments of GorillaWarfare and Seraphimblade. Tarc ( talk)

Comment by others:

I don‘t think the first sentence is at all appropriate, in its present form, for a proposed principle. @ Tarc: would you consider reframing it in general terms, without reference to anyone’s specific remarks—or move it to the top of the “Comment by parties“ section, as a sort of footnote providing background rather than a preamble?— Odysseus 147 9 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Smallbones and 3RR

1) Smallbones has frequently claimed a WP:3RR exemption for his 25+ reversions of a possibly banned editor, though in discussions on Jimbo's page, AN/I, and the 3RR noticeboard, this claim has not borne fruit. Per WP:UP#OWN, "..as may edits from banned users...'". May, not must.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follow-up; Smallbones vehemently asserts that his 25-ish reverts are protected by WP:NOT3RR, however this assertion has been challenged by myself and numerous others. On that page, note "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." I contend that "doubt" is introduced the moment another editor says "that ain't right", much the same as proposed deletion is voided the moment another editor objects. Again, I claim no right to 25-ish reverts either; I did it because I felt a user (banned or not banned is irrelevant) was being unfairly silenced. Smallbones does claim a right to his 25-ish reverts, and we're here to see that and these points adjudicated; whether a user can remove comments from either a suspected' or proven banned editor from another user's talk page, whether that user can continuously remove the comments when challenged by another editor. Tarc ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll ask that this proposed finding of fact be rewritten, as I can't make any sense out of it. The first part "Smallbones has frequently claimed a WP:3RR exemption for his 25+ reversions of a possibly banned editor, ..." only slightly mis-states the obvious. I have claimed several times that my several reverts of edits by several socks of Thekohser/Mr. 2001 are not edit warring by virtue of 3 separate policies. At WP:Edit warring it says "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring," and this is substantially repeated later on in the same policy in the section WP:NOT3RR. Similar statements are given in the policies WP:Banning policy and WP:Blocking policy. It is an undeniable fact that I have made these claims. But making these claims is not in any way against the rules.

The second part "... though in discussions on Jimbo's page, AN/I, and the 3RR noticeboard, this claim has not borne fruit. Per WP:UP#OWN, "..as may edits from banned users...'". May, not must". just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You claimed to be exempt from 3RR when reverting my restoration of another user's comments. You are, however, mistaken. This is a pretty simple A--> B statement. Tarc ( talk) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with Tarc's perspective above. This seems simple and Smallbones needs to be made aware that he was in the wrong in the final decision so that the nonsense is not repeated. Carrite ( talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Tarc and 3RR

2) I egregiously violated 3RR, and claim no exemption or right to the 25+ reverts on the days in question. It got to a "well we're way past 3 now, so..." point and the rest was history. I will note that the 3RR filing was declined, though.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hell in a Bucket and casting aspersions

3) Several times, Hell in a Bucket 1, 2 3 referred to another editor (i.e. me) as a troll for restoring the edits of a possibly banned user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You were both completely obnoxious and out of control. I'm not drafting this case, but I don't personally think it will be productive to dilate on who called whom what name on which date. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I don't know what else to call the countless insults and attacks you were making via edit summaries and edit contents a partial listing is found here [ [2]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 11:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You are being a bit untruthful at the moment. Your accusations of "trolling" had nothing to do with that, you were directing them at me for the sole reason that I restored the edits of an editor you suspected was a banned one. Read the 3 links I provided above; "your horse is dissecated[sic] now, now move on to your disruptive trolling", "Congrats Tarc take a bow for helping them troll Jimbo", and "Tarc is trolling on behalf of a banned editor". Tarc ( talk) 12:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I guess I'm not seeing what's untruthful in telling you to move on from a closed issue which was my comment saying cunt, queer, nigger, and moving on to what I classify as trolling behavior in this overall incident. I'll let others decide for themselves based on the evidence left on the table to see whether they care to agree but I'd seriously review what's in my evidence and maybe you can see how antagonistic you actually were, your own initial statements at the case request acknowledge your comments and summaries were "flippant." I am going to let others weigh in though because at this point anything further just clouds it for others. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:NOT3RR and banned users

4) Specifically #3 of WP:NOT3RR, which can provide WP:3RR immunity to an editor who removes content by a banned user; it can not provide immunity to an editor who reverts another editor in good standing, if if that other editor is restoring content of a banned user. From that point on, my actions should have been covered by WP:BANREVERT. Tarc ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Noted yesterday in a section below, but needs prominence of an FoF. Once Smallbones passed revert #4 of me, it became edit-warring and the 3RR exemption was lost. I am not a banned user, nor was I posting in a topic area that I am banned from.

Comment by others:

I think any reasonable editor would construe it as still being the reversion of content by a banned user. Your comments about "taking ownership" would appear only to be a fig leaf, an effort to provide legal cover for proxying a banned user's edits.— Kww( talk) 15:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy

1) We have rules to facilitate building the encyclopedia, therefore a rule may be ignored if sticking to that rule isn't going to help.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo's exceptional status on Wikipedia

2) Jimbo is the sole editor on Wikipedia who has the authority to intervene outside of the regular process in administrative processes, review ArbCom decisions and if needed, ask ArbCom to review decisions.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, anyone can ask us to review or reconsider a decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Restrictions do not apply to all pages

3) To allow restricted editors to communicate problems, certain pages are always exempt from the imposed restrictions, Jimbo's talk page is one such page.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is actually no clear statement that I can find anywhere indicating that Jimbo has exempted his page from WP:BANREVERT. Certainly nothing at the top of his talk page. I have reverted this banned user on a number of occasions, as have many other editors, and at no time has Jimbo said that we were wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the things that bothers me about this case is that there has been so little to precede it. I would have thought that more would have been done to clarify the issues beforehand, and above all more could have been done to get a clear statement from Jimbo as to his feelings in the matter. I focus a lot on that as I think it is dispositive. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Template

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Chelsea Manning ArbCom case

1) This posting by Sceptre on Jimbo's talk page was an important posting to get the wider community involved in the dispute. It however led to Sceptre being inappropriately blocked as posting on Jimbo's talk page should not have been considered to be a violation of her topic ban.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate behavior by Admins on the Amanda Knox and Murder of Meredith Kercher pages

2) On the basis of postings on his talk page by banned editors, Jimbo has intervened in a dispute on the Amanda Knox and Murder of Meredith Kercher pages. He has found that the editors were inappropriatly blocked and demanded that the blocks be reversed ( e.g. this editor).

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you provide diff's for that? Worm^TT( talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks Count Iblis, I'll do some reading. Worm^TT( talk) 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'll digg up the relevant diffs. The point of this entry is to serve as an example of an intervention by Jimbo that has helped Wikipedia. Here "helping" is understood in the WP:IAR sense (which is why I mention this principle above). Count Iblis ( talk) 17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC). I just found this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. From this link it's not difficult to digg up the other postings by Jimbo and the measures taken. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles Cogitations

These do not really rise to the level of "principles"

1) Clue

• Clue is needed to edit Wikipedia.
• More clue is needed to edit Jimbo's page.
• Even more clue is needed to curate Jimbo's page.
  • Most curators/page stalkers are admins, or at least used to be.
  • Should lurk for a while before doing anything.
  • Should understand how it works, how other people post, and how Jimbo usually responds or does not respond.
  • Should curate Jimbo's page to facilitate Jimbo's use, not advance their own POV, which should be done more overtly
  • Only obvious vandalism should be removed, also the people Jimmy has indicated he doesn't want there, which is about 3 people that I know of, who shall remain nameless here in service of WP:DENY.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Mr. 2001

• Mr. 2001 is known for paid editing.
• Paid editing is a controversial subject that has many policy facets that have still not been resolved.

*Some of Mr. 2001's edits to Jimbo's page introduce interesting facets of the paid editing issue. These should stand as written; they are useful for discussion and Jimmy usually responds to them, if not, they often inspire other people to insightful comments.

• Some of Mr. 2001's edits challenge Jimbo's official actions and personal life in ways that are personally embarrassing to him. Sometimes Jimmy responds, other times he hats. Jimbo is perfectly capable of handling these, and once discussion has been closed, Mr. 2001 does not pursue an issue. Even Jimbo does not always bat 1000.
• Some of Mr. 2001's comments are off-topic and only serve to derail a thread. These particularly annoy me when it is a thread I care about. Mr. 2001 should not disrupt these threads any more than someone else should disrupt Mr 2001's threads. But these comments should also be allowed to stand; Mr. 2001 does not always bat 1000 either.

Striking most of this in light of Carrite's comment.

Also I have just reread Jimbo's cryptic statement--probably the only one he will make about this--and have come to the conclusion that he might not consider responding to Mr. 2001 to be as routine or unannoying as I initially thought. So I would substitute the following ruminations:

• Mr. 2001 is a known individual, however some of the edits with the 2001 prefix may not actually belong to the same individual. However, without examining all the edits, and trying to determine who is who, it is hard to say whether Mr. 2001's comments fall into the "obvious trolling" category, or if some of the lower quality comments attributed to him might belong to someone else.
• Jimbo's page is unique. Unlike other users, because Jimbo is a public figure, he can not revert obvious trolling on his own talk page, but depends on other users to do it for him.
• Jimmy's talk page functions as a court of last resort, as well as focal point of community discussion. It has also served as a place to ask Jimmy uncomfortable questions that may or may not be in the public interest to ask, and to ask them anonymously, as they might be political hot potatoes. So, there is a gray area, between comfortable questions, uncomfortable but potentially productive questions, and outright trolling. Since I haven't followed the COI debate closely, I'll leave it at that. — Neotarf ( talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no such person as "Mr. 2001," nor is that a party in this case. If your complaint is about a specific IP address, name that IP address. If your complaint is about an individual, name that individual. Carrite ( talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite ( talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3) Junior patroller syndrome

• I first ran into the junior patroller syndrome over a year ago, in a thread that was already a year old when I saw it. A snarky junior patroller provoked an academic who was trying to write a new article, by templating him less than a minute after he started to compose the article, then provoked him into an insult that got the academic blocked. The academic left and never completed the article. The same snarky patroller tried to provoke me with the very same phrases and templates, and had many defenders. After that I met many, many more patrollers. The fate of the academics who have the misfortune to run into them is always a coin toss.
• The patrollers learn their life skills from video games where they get rewards for shooting things down. They then transfer these skills to Wikipedia. They are only supposed to shoot down the enemy, so much energy is expended in re-branding useful editors as enemy--"retarded" and "passive aggressive" are perennial favorites.
  • [Ah, right on schedule, the comment below proves my point.]
• Some characteristics of junior patrollers:
  • Do not believe they are worthy editors, or are good enough to become admins, so they revel in incivility and are oblivious to repeated blocks.
  • Confused about adulthood -- think swearing is a privilege of adults, without understanding appropriate syntax for various occasions
  • Sometimes look for male role models, and mimic them even with inappropriate behavior.
  • Do not understand "social contract", only punishments, so cannot function within IAR; this cognitive ability does not develop until age 17 or so.
  • Tend to issue "orders" to people in an authoritarian manner; they do not cite policy or seem to understand the underlying consensus basis for policies and guidelines.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:Carrite, this [ [3]], [ [4]] and [ [5]] should help explain why we have this manifesto. That covers quite a bit and sadly yes Neotarf you are still acting passive aggressive. I personally don't think that their drivel has anything to do with any proposed principles but is rather another cowardly attempt to push their agenda. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

User talk pages and banned users

The two criteria for determining removal of contents from a talk page are 1) whether it furthers the goals of the project and 2) the expectations of the user whose talk page it is.

1) Furthering the goals of the project

1a) According to wp:User pages, which is a guideline,

Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed, as may edits from banned users.

It says *may* be removed, this is not a requirement; also this is a guideline and not policy.

1b) The banning policy has similar criteria for posting posting material from a banned user:

that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

2) Expectations of the talk page user

2a) The guideline further states that in editing someone else's talk page,

In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask..

These policies and guidelines apply to all user talk pages, including Jimmy's page.

Banned users have posted material on my user talk page--or at least I believed them to be banned users--and I had no problem with it. The material furthered the goals of the project, and if someone had challenged it, and don't expect anyone to do so, I would have expected to provide a rationale for retaining it.

As a sidenote, the banned users as a rule were much more courteous than any number of unbanned users who have posted to my talk page. I sometimes wonder if we are banning the wrong people.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Provocative and offensive language

Contentious terms and inflammatory language should not be used outside of where they are justified for encyclopedic coverage, and editors should be cautious when using terms that would normally be offensive even when discussing encyclopedic content. When encountering grey areas, instead of trying to figure out where the actual line is, the best strategy would be to stay out of the grey area entirely. [6] Gender-specific profanity can create a hostile environment, even if the vulgar words aren’t directed at a specific person. [7] Vulgar gender-specific words include the words “bitch,” “whore” and “c—” to describe individuals, often embellished by the F-word. This also includes discussions of women’s anatomy and gratuitous links to images of naked women.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ah yes I was wondering when you would slip in a complete non sequitur to this case on banning, keep trying maybe you can push your agenda one day. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Inappropriate user names

According to policy, usernames that are considered inappropriate are not permitted when they are likely to offend, for example, if they contain profanities, seem intended to provoke emotional reaction, or show a clear intent to disrupt.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You mean like say Hell in a Bucket? Maybe you didn't understand [ [8]] the two administrators there with a link to the previous RFC found here which shows it is [[ resolved]]. The mere fact that you are either not WP:COMPETENT or you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a passive aggressive manner. I'm not sure what reality you live in but I'm quite sure it's not where mainstream society is, as you have been told previously and is even linked in the RFC, Hell in a bucket is a song, similar to Highway to Hell and these are or have been regularly played on the radio everyone listens to. This may be way your ideas aren't taken seriously because it makes absolutely zero sense, unless I'm mistaking the username concern in which case I will ask you to be specific, who's username is inappropriate, why it is or how it is disruptive or aimed to provoke an emotional response. Now if I used [ Fuck your face], or any number of other titles sure it's profane and inappropriate enough to change but this is just passive aggressive and petty if you are aiming it at a song that has received US airplay with the word hell in it. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

"Banned means banned" does not mean banned banned

If you look again at WP:BMB, the examples seem aimed at content and articles, not talk pages. For example: A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content.

In particular, this seems aimed at topic bans or site bans, not IP edits or talk page comments. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pejorative terms relating to physical or mental illness

It is offensive to use terms like "retarded" and "passive aggressive" as an ad hom to label editors you do not agree with. These types of words should not be used indiscriminately, and certainly not as a personal attack on another user. Certainly the death of Robin Williams should serve to remind us of the difficulties that people with such afflictions can face, not to mention what their families go through. This prinicple is also recognized in the editorial guidelines of the BBC. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Hell-in-a-Bucket and incendiary language

1) Hell-in-a-Bucket has a history of gratuitous and disruptive use of gender-specific offensive language, including a lengthy and contentious thread on Jimbo's talk page. See previous Civility case for diffs. In spite of this unfortunate history, Mr. Bucket managed to use the c-word twice just in his opening statement for this case. [9] [10] Mr. Bucket has dropped the c-bomb twice three times now on this page alone, [11] [12] (including the edit summary) [13]; also the f-bomb once [14] (including "ffs" in the edit summary), and the n-word once [15]. And as mentioned elsewhere, "passive-aggressive" five six times. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21].— Neotarf ( talk) 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@HIAB and arbs: The question of what is profanity, what is offensive speech, and what is hate speech has come up over and over lately. The n-word gets an automatic redelete on Wikipedia, but not the c-bomb. Why?

This court opinion was written about an employment case, not a volunteer organization, but some of the principles are the similar to the ones facing the English Wikipedia. It specifically addresses the argument Mr. Bucket raises below, that his speech was not addressed to a specific person. For anyone interested in the topic, I would highly recommend reading this article. The article is short and written in a conversational style. Here are some excerpts:

Ingrid Reeves worked as a sales representative from July 2001 to March 2004 in the Birmingham, Alabama branch of C.H. Robinson. She worked in a cubicle in an open area with six male co-workers.

During that time, she was subjected to an onslaught of foul and disgusting language at work on a daily basis. Women were repeatedly referred to [by gender-specific and genitalia-based insults].

Co-workers also listened to a crude radio show each morning, displayed pornography on a computer, and sang songs about gender-derogatory topics.

The Eleventh Circuit Finds For Reeves

The Court started the opinion with some "core principles of employment discrimination law" in hostile work environment cases:

•a plaintiff must show that 1) her employer discriminated because of her membership in a protected group (race, sex, etc.) and that 2) the offensive conduct was either severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of employment

•Title VII is not a civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute discrimination

•workplace conduct can not be viewed in isolation, but but must be viewed cumulatively and in its social context

•a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out

In the words of the Court:

Here, Reeves claims that her conditions of employment were humiliating and degrading in a way that the conditions of her male co-workers' employment were not.

It is no answer to say that the workplace may have been vulgar and sexually degrading before Reeve arrived.

Once Ingrid Reeves entered her workplace, the discriminatory conduct became actionable under the law. Congress has determined that Reeves had a right not to suffer conditions in the workplace that were disparately humiliating, abusive, or degrading.

Finally, the Court rejected C.H. Robinson's third contention -- that Reeve's co-workers used the terms "bitch" and "whore" to refer to both men and women and so those terms couldn't be gender specific. The Court noted:

It is undeniable that the terms "bitch" and "whore" have gender specific meanings. Calling a man a "bitch" belittles him precisely because it belittles women. It implies that the male object of ridicule is a lesser man and feminine, and may not belong in the workplace. Indeed, it insults the man by comparing him to a woman, and, thereby could be taken as humiliating to women as a group as well.

In sum:

If Reeve's account is to be believed, C.H. Robinson's workplace was more than a rough environment -- indiscriminately vulgar, profane, and sexual. Instead, a jury reasonably could find that it was a workplace that exposed Reeves to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex were not exposed.

@Mr. Bucket, your diffs are broken. [Now fixed.]— Neotarf ( talk) 03:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC) — Neotarf ( talk) 05:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Would you care to point out where I've used gender disparaging words at anyone? I do not recall having called anyone a cunt or any other gender disparaging term. I commend the fact that you are actually stepping out of the shadows and being direct and not passive aggressive in your principles despite the fact that they have nothing to do with banning. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Neotarf, don't you see the discrepancy in that you are saying that, I'm using gender edisparaging terms [ [22]] that can damage the editing atmosphere but here you tell someone who is transgender that they are only [ [23]] claiming to be a woman. How is the word cunt more harmful then comments like that? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Gratuitous and unhelpful. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hell-in-a-Bucket and provocative user name

2) Hell-in-a-Bucket has a provocative/profane user name. The word "hell" is profanity. It is listed so in the simple English Wikipedia. And it is certainly one of the words you cannot use at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Try murmuring "hell" under your breath. How do you feel? Like you're ready to go off on someone? Yup, this is not a word that belongs on the talk page. There is already enough drama. When asked about his user name, his reply was "search it on wikipedia and see where it is from". [24], and it was another user who provided the diff for the RFC. But does he even write the meaning on his user pages? No. It was another user who provided the diff for the RFC [25]

@Mr. Bucket: I have gone through the previous discussion of your user name and it seems the reason for the challenge was that it looked like a promotional name for a Grateful Dead album. There were only seven users who responded, and one editor did mention that it was profanity, but once it was established that the account was not making promotional edits for the album, the issue was dropped. — Neotarf ( talk) 02:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@Worm ^TT: A complicated subject to explain in a few sound bites, but I will attempt it.

• What happens when you hit your thumb with a hammer, and say a swear word? Is that voluntary or involuntary? I would say mostly involuntary. These words are stored in a more primitive part of the brain, and are called up by situations that are involved with "fight or flight". Now, when you are in "fight or flight" mode, are you going to be able to think rationally and engage in upper level reasoning? Probably not. The dinosaur part of the brain is too busy getting ready to deal with angry mastodons. Nothing is going to be accomplished until a different part of the brain can be engaged.
• Now, what is profanity? Obviously it is different things to different people, highly dependent on language, geography, and age group. In Norwegian, the devil occupies the place held by the f-word in English (see http://youtu (DOT)be/AkJf0md1kG8). [Drat, it's tripping some filter.] In French Canadian, the worst insult is the word for chalice, based on communion elements. Other places swear by diseases, "a pox on both your houses". But in every case it is used as an intensifier; it is not used to calm situations.
• I can tell you instinctively that the word "hell" is a swear word. But how am I so sure? Just to be on the safe side, I asked a linguist I know of on FB, and got back this answer:

You know, that's a very good question and not that easy to answer. Let's start with the obvious: there is no one who can give you a definitive and binding answer because a) there is no one who regulates English and b) even if there were, such institutions don't usually pay attention to this kind of thing. So who decides whether a word is a profanity? Simple: you and yours do. In other words, it's all about the community (however defined) standards. If you think it's a profanity, it is a profanity. I don't consider it a profanity, but I avoid using the word whenever I speak to Americans because they usually do.

He also pointed me to one of his blog posts, which is illuminating, as I usually enjoy his writing.

• Sorry, but I don't find "Worm" to be at all fearsome, quite the opposite. It's funny and whimsical and if I may be allowed a pun, "down to earth". In my neck of the woods, we are generous with plant divisions, but we are greedy with our worms, and always shake them out of the soil before giving the plant, in order to keep them on our own land, as worms improve the tilth of the soil. I appreciate finding out the background to the name though; we have heard of the Two Ronnies on our side of the pond, even if British humor is often opaque to us.
• So, continuing with Mr. Bucket, I deeply resent him making me swear every time I type his name, I resent him pushing peoples' buttons in that way, as I understand he is also American, and I am deliberately referring to him as "Mr. Bucket", in order not to allow him to manipulate me in that way. If he was just editing Pokemon articles that would be one thing, but if he is reverting Jimbo's page a bazillion times, there is no way you can convince me that his user name does not play some role in that. — Neotarf ( talk) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are a few words in the English language that could be considered a profanity depending on context, but in most situations are not. For example, there's "bitch", which is almost always problematic when referring to a human, but not when referring to a dog. There is a world of difference between "Hell, no" and "I'm going through hell". I don't see any issue with the username. What's more, targetting people's usernames in this matter is not helpful - look at mine for example. "Worm" can be used as an insult, quite easily. The Worm That Turned is a Two Ronnies sketch where gender roles are reversed - seen by some as sexist. Would you attribute either of those meanings to me? Worm^TT( talk) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

User:Worm That Turned and other arbs please see [ [26]] and [ [27]] which is what happened last time Neotarf decided my soul needed saving. Also I'd like to note the completely voluntary nature of conversation and the "blow up" that exists apparently only in Neotarfs imagination. Let me clarify a little further and show the attack [ [28]] . Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Neotarf did you even read that RFC? The reasons were that it wasn't a disruptive username and also not attempting to promote the band grateful dead. Every person on that said it was not offensive, the one lone person that said it could be was Deb who stated it could be if used as a curse and it wasn't..once again I'm going to ask you to provide a diff for another unfounded assertation. let me help you connect the dots because you obviously are either not reading it or lying, let's assume you just didn't read it, which is still disturbing because you are saying I somehow misconstrued things. This will actually directly refute other false accusation made.

• • • The only other editor who has ever made an issue with my user name is here,

[ [29]]

• • • My quite reasonable explanation

[ [30]]

• • • I transplant the concerns of the blocked user and offer in the course of the rfc to change it if that was consensus

[ [31]] If you notice this is how I deal with reasonable individuals, when you demand things, try and manipulate the picture and act in a passive aggressive fashion I'm understandably less cordial. If you look I even made the one change that most people were advocating and reduced the name. If you think that my username is inappropriate isn't that the place to return and try and get a consensus or it is somehow related to a case about the banning policy? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Eh, I'm sorry, but I can't get behind this one either. Tarc ( talk) 18:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Totally irrelevant. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hell-in-a-Bucket and other people's talk pages

3) Hell-in-a-Bucket should not be refactoring talk pages for Jimmy Wales or the arbitrators until he has some experience observing standard talk page practices. He has recently been involved in some unconventional talk page activities that have not been a good antecedent for looking after high profile pages.

For instance, when I posed a question to User:John at John's talk page, Mr. bucket answered [32], even though I had previously asked him to stay off my talk page. [33] John then blanked the thread [34] and pasted it on my talk page [35], complete with sigs and time stamps, as if it had been originally posted there. A request for the OP to remove it went nowhere [36]; and Mr. Bucket repeatedly reverted my strikethrough [37] [38] [39]

In a similar occurrence on NYB's talk page, Mr. Bucket reverted my routine insertion of a page break into a long thread prior to attempting to post a comment [40] [41], this one with an edit summary "No were are not adding your pov on now ended discussion", and kept me from posting any comment with about 40 minutes worth of edit conflicts. He convinced another user to revert it as well [42].

In particular, the more high profile talk pages require some level of judgment, to balance the various portions of policy that may seem to be in conflict, as often happens with policy, in a way that facilitates communication and problem-solving.

@HIAB and John: It's a bit ironic, don't you think, to allege that I am "alleging misbehavior without providing diffs", without saying exactly what policy I am accusing anyone of violating and without providing some actual diffs. It is not particularly helpful to get defensive and accuse me of "dragging someone's name in the mud", implying that I am making "unfounded accusations" that someone has done something "wrong or unseemly", and demanding that I be immediately removed or blocked. Maybe it would be more helpful to describe whatever understandings there are between the two about Mr. Bucket's role in acting on admin John's behalf.

My understanding of the workshop phase is that it does not rely on diffs as does the evidence phase, but is more about understanding the situation and organizing ideas. I can provide diffs of course, but it will take time to go through all of Mr. Bucket's edits, and the result may not exactly show Mr. Bucket (or John) in a favorable light. — Neotarf ( talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't believe I've refactored anyone's comments, would you please show me where I refactored a comment that was already made or responded to? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

And actually since you are accusing another non party to this case I"m pinging User:John as well so he can defend himself against such an offbase and passive aggressive response. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

On another sidenote User:Hahc21 and User:Callanec would you review the postings by neotarf and take the appropriate actions as no evidence is provided for about half of the ramblings Neotarf has left here. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Neotarf yet again there is like a quarter of the page that you just choose to completely ignore, "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). The emphasis is mine so yes Neotarf I'd like to see this evidence and below so would John, if not I think the clerks should block you or ban your participation. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I certainly don't recall giving User:Hell in a Bucket or anyone else permission to "refactor, archive, and respond to comments that are addressed to [me]"; some diffs would be helpful in figuring out what this complaint means. In the absence of that I would appreciate it if User:Neotarf would withdraw these allegations. -- John ( talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hell-in-a-Bucket and pejorative terms relating to mental illness

4) Mr. Bucket uses the term "passive aggressive" five six times on this page alone. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have not now nor have I ever said you have passive aggressive disorder, I'm not qualified to make those diagnosis. I can however tell you your behavior is passive aggressive, specific examples is vague ramblings of innapropriate usernames without calling out a target, not notifying user's when you are accusing them of misbehavior...Those are just here on this one page, I am happy to continue listing the passive aggressive behaviour you are exhibiting and have in the past is you'd like. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 02:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Banned editors and 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—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of old feuds—is prohibited. Editors are sometimes site-banned to prevent long-term or on-going disruption and to protect the community. These editors are prohibited from making any edits on Wikipedia and may regain their editing privileges only by a) petitioning the Arbitration Committee, b) requesting a review from the community at WP:AN for a community ban, or c) filing an appeal to Jimmy Wales within two week of the ban being imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems legit. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Just a long-winded rehash of the "banned means banned" meme. No state, no society, no organization runs itself in strict, literal adherence to the letter of the law. Rules are bent, backs get turned, eyes are cast in the other direction all the time. It's how the universe works, on a wink and a nod. Smallbones, you're like a walking, talking Captain Renault; shocked, shocked! to find out that banned people are allowed to post at Jimbo's page. Tarc ( talk) 01:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You're getting very close to saying that there are no rules that need to be respected on Wikipedia, that it is an anarchy. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTANARCHY. BTW Banned means banned is a policy,not just a meme. If your point is that we can ignore all rules when it will improve the encyclopedia, then I agree, but first you should describe how your action will improve the encyclopedia. How is putting back in trolling by a banned editor who tries to intimidate editors improving the encyclopedia?

As far as Captain Renault - what makes that scene funny is that Renault is on the take. I am not on the take, and I'm not intimidated by banned editors - so maybe you can find a better movie role for me. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

He wasn't trolling, he was asking questions and making observations. Tarc ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Enforcing bans

2) Anybody may revert any edit made by a banned editor without fear of violating the edit warring policy and without being required to answer questions about the reversion. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be similarly reverted. No checkuser or administrator approval is required. Other editors may not undermine or sabotage the reversion and may not serve as a proxy for the banned editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is untrue in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia. A banned editor could make en excellent point on Jimbo's talk page, or a banned editor could add a high-quality Commons image to an article. By the decree of Captain Smallbones, such edits would be discarded, thus leaving the project in a worse state than it was when the edits were intact. It is the very spirit of WP:IAR that another editor in good standing be allowed to "take ownership" of such edits and re-add them to the project. Tarc ( talk) 01:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is just a paraphrase of the relevant parts of WP:BANREVERT and it's subsection WP:PROXYING. I don't think this policy can be repealed in this forum. If you want to repeal it, there are other ways to do that, but you'd also have to repeal similar statements in other parts of WP:Banning policy and in WP:Edit warring, WP:Blocking policy. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 23:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I do not wish to repeal anything; I am simply informing you of how things already work in this project. Tarc ( talk) 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales

3) User pages are subject to the same policies as other pages on Wikipedia and do not belong to the user. Other users may remove edits from banned users. By longstanding tradition and practice, however, users are given wide latitude to manage their talk pages as they see fit. By virtue of his continuing special role on Wikipedia, User:Jimbo Wales is given especially wide latitude to manage his talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All users are equal, but some are more equal than others. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser harasses many Wikipedians

1) User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser, aka "Mr. 2001", User:Spotting ToU, User:The Rewarder, User:The Receiver, etc.is a longtime banned user who has grossly abused the community's trust from 2006 through to the present day. He attacks Wikipedians on-wiki and off. He admits to using technical measures to avoid detection of his sockpuppeting. He spends much of his time on Wikipedia harassing and trolling User:Jimbo Wales, who states that Mr. 2001's "primary goal here … has been his primary hobby for several years now - cyberstalking and attacking me in every possible venue." Wales has also asked that Mr. 2001's edits be removed from his talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The parties may take it that the arbitrators are familiar with this individual. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

So what? Can you explain why Jimbo does not revert this person himself, and instead at times carries on conversations with this person? Tarc ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It's relevant that all these socks are banned, that "they" harass JW and many other Wikipedians. You have demanded about a dozen times that JW respond to you in a specific way and he has ignored you. That suggests to me that he is very politely telling you to take a hike, that he doesn't have to respond to you in any way at all.

This is how it has been explained on his talk page [49]:

"There is nothing helpful that Jimbo can say—this one is up to the community. If Jimmy announces that the banned editor's comments can be removed, media outlets will get a space-filler to the effect that Jimmy Wales refuses to consider reasonable and good-faith comments from new users who are only trying to understand how great wrongs can be tolerated! If Jimmy says he does not want it removed, the troll can post forever while expanding threads based on hot air, trying to make muck stick. No media outlet is going to take the time to understand that the comments are extremely lame, and are part of a long-term campaign to attack the no paid advocacy ("brightline") position promoted by Jimmy Wales (and to settle old scores). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)"

"Nail on the head.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)"

Forgot to sign this comment earlier. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. One could as easily argue that he provides provocative commentary about important issues in a manner than might cause distress to those who need to feel a bit of distress under the principle of "It's Only The Truth That Hurts." The issue is whether you, or anyone, has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the comment of any IP based on their hunch about "duck" sockpuppets rather than following correct procedures for identification of such suspect accounts through SPI. Carrite ( talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:Harassment says "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I hope you're not trying to repeal this policy. We do have many reasonable observers here. User:Coretheapple presented evidence that Mr 2001 is harassing JW, I've presented evidence, JW said it is harassment. Ultimately the arbs will decide. Which of the 3 parts of the definition don't you think applies? "pattern"? "repeated offensive behavior"? "intentionally target(ing) a specific person"?

The issue of "following correct procedures for identification of such suspect accounts through SPI" has repeatedly been brought up on this page by Mr 2001's supporters. You want to require an SPI or checkuser investigation. That of course would neuter any effort to combat banned editors who use technical means to avoid detection. Sorry, but SPI and oversight just aren't required by WP:BANREVERT, in fact behavioral evidence is specifically allowed.

You approvingly posted a message from a banned editor saying much the same thing [50]. Getting technical confirmation just isn't possible, according to you and the banned editor, so we just have to live with the consequences - there will be no effective banning. That's just wishful thinking by the 2 of you as far as I can tell.

BTW, I noticed you also posted information on the evidence page from a banned editor.It was approx. "Mr. 2001 doesn't wish to add any evidence to this page." I'll suggest that Mr. 2001 contact the arbcom directly if he wishes to have any info posted here, otherwise you'd be proxying for him. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 02:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I wish he did have a statement for me to pass along, I'd adore the spectacle of you reverting ArbCom evidence in the midst of a proceeding about your objectionable behavior. Carrite ( talk) 23:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

With all due respect to Smallbones, I think that this misses the point. This banned user's agenda is not to harass Wikipedians, though I agree that he does so. His agenda clearly is to embarrass Jimbo Wales and discredit Wikipedia's credibility, with the ultimate objective of permitting paid editing, in furtherance of his business objectives. To do that he occasionally uses Jimbo's talk page to commence dramas. If you look at the posting by this banned editor that led to the current confrontation [51], the purpose was to start a "drama" with that objective in mind. He pinged me and Smallbones, as we both object to paid editing. Yes, he does harass people, but that's secondary to his primary technique which is to utilize Jimbo's talk page as a high-visibility forum for his commercial objective. The question here is to what extent Jimbo and the arbitration committee want to allow him to do that. Jimbo is ambiguous on the subject, so my feeling is: let him use Jimbo's talk page to his heart's content. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you miss the mark badly when you make this part of some master plot to advance paid editing and achieve personal gain. Mr. Kohs is a very minor player in the paid editing world these days and the debate continues independent of his own opinions and activity. The actual history of English Wikipedia's conflict with Mr. Kohs (the understanding of which is necessary to fully comprehend his actions) is interesting but ultimately tangential to this case, which is about edit warring over content ostensibly written by banned editors (in general). Carrite ( talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Tarc edit wars to sabotage the enforcement of Mr. 2001's site-ban

2) Despite knowing on August 6 that TheKohser/Mr. 2001/Spotting ToU was a banned editor, on August 7 - 8 Tarc edit wars to keep Spotting ToU's signed comment on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Tarc later brags to Spotting ToU that he "pull(ed) off ... 25 reverts in 24 hours on one of the most-watched talkpages of the project. :)"

The following week, at the direction of another Mr. 2001 sock, User:The Rewarder, TARC edit wars again to keep in "The Rewarder's" trolling comment, reverting 3 different editors who removed the comment. Thus Tarc not only sabotaged ban enforcement, but edit warred, and violated WP:PROXYING

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It takes a bit of chutzpah to lie in a section purporting to be a "finding of fact", but much of Smallbones' Evidence & Workshop seems to come from Bizarro World, so... I learned that "SpottingTOU" was a banned user at 17:58, 14 August 2014, the same date and time that you did. We had our big edit war the week before "The Rewarder" was blocked on 16:38, 14 August 2014, though as a disruptive troll account, not as a sock of any other editor. To make claims that I "sabotaged" anything is just flat-out bogus; I reversed, repeatedly, the attempts to re move this user's posts, as it was my belief that that was not the right thing for Smallbones to do. I at no time violated proxying rules; I took advice given to me after the first revert spat that if one restores the content of a banned user, then one "takes ownership" of said content. Since I am neither banned from this project or banned from Jimbo's talk page, those 3 editors Smallbones mentions had no standing to revert content that was now "mine".

Again I point out though that Smallbones went wrong on two fronts in all of this; #1 was removing the comments of an editor he only suspected was a banned user, and #2 that even if it was a banned editor, others are given latitude to govern their talk pages as they see fit...Jimbo's doubly so, given his status.

My reverting 25+ times was wrong, I can admit that. When will Smallbones own up to his wrongdoing? Tarc ( talk) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no such person as "Mr. 2001." Nor is that a party in this case. Who the hell are you talking about? Carrite ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Tarc you only learned that because you refused to see the evidence that was screaming sock and you had literally no other option but to concede it at that point because blocks were being handed out. If you had used even a modicum of thought when they first starting taunting people about how SPI's were set up should have been a fire on a hill for you. Mr 2001 is one of the various socks Greg Koh's has made over the years. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Mr. Bucket, you and Mr. Smallbones seem to hold the letter of the wiki-law in high regard, so why no thought given to WP:AGF? But again, as I have always said, you two have lost this debate on two fronts; 1, it was never your place to revert the comments of an unblocked, un-sanctioned account based on your suspicion alone, and 2, that being a "banned user" is largely academic; Jimbo himself has interacted with this person in the past and it was never yours' or Bones' place to intervene in the latitude that one is given to govern their talk page as they see fit. Tarc ( talk) 01:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I've waited two days for Tarc to remove the following personal attack:

"It takes a bit of chutzpah to lie in a section purporting to be a "finding of fact", but much of Smallbones' Evidence & Workshop seems to come from Bizarro World, so... I learned that "SpottingTOU" was a banned user at 17:58, 14 August 2014, the same date and time that you did."

It's taken me a couple of days to present the step-by-step break down of the evidence that Tarc knew that Spotting ToU was the banned editor on August 5. Note that I am not asking that Tarc be banned now for this personal attack. Rather, I'd prefer that he be able to present his case that he did not know that Spotting ToU was a banned editor until August 14.

1) Jan. 2 2014 - JW states that [52] "Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor" (back ground material)

2) July 31 -JW identified User:Spotting ToU as "Mr. 2001", Spotting ToU essentially agreed, admitted to being a paid editor and using technical means to avoid detection [53]

3) August 5 - I revert SpottingToU, identifying him as a banned editor. [54]

4) August 5 - Tarc starts a new section [55] on JW's talk, naming it "Mr. 2001" asking JW if he'd like to have Mr. 2001 reverted every time he edits, or whether Mr. 2001 should not be reverted. Tarc links to the above 2 discussions (2) as an example where JW and Mr. 2001 have had a constructive (!) discussion, and (3) as an example of how Mr. 2001 is reverted on sight.

5) 21:55, 5 August - Tarc continues in the "Mr. 2001" section [56] "The point, to reiterate, is that an editor has leeway on this matter as to allow a banned editor's comments to remain on his/her own talk page. I was asking the person, i.e. Mr. Wales, behind this talk page what he would prefer in regards to this particular banned editor." (bolding mine)

There's more, but since Tarc refuses to discuss the evidence, calling it "minutiae" below, there's not much point. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 16:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• You can present all the minutiae you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was not confirmed until the date I posted; suspicion != confirmation. This is also a bit of a strawman argument, as it ignores the PRIMARY way that you erred in all of this; Jimbo generally allows banned editors to post on his page. You consistently avoid addressing that aspect of this, methinks because it makes your entire case crumble. After all, if Jimbo talks to the alleged "Mr. 2001", and other editors talk to "Mr. 2001" (as noted in my Evidence section), it makes your "banned means banned" mantra ring a bit hollow if you'rethe only one enforcing it. Tarc ( talk) 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Just to clarify one point: Jimbo has been laissez-faire in the matter of banned editors posting on his page and editors enforcing WP:BANREVERT. Not one single time has he ever indicated to editors such as myself who have enforced BANREVERT that he did not want it enforced on his page. The fact that he sometimes responded to posts by this person does not mean that he has opened the floodgates to postings by banned editors on his page. I used to engage in dialogue with this banned editor myself. But then I grew weary of his trolling and misconduct and started to revert him on sight. Both actions, dialogue and reverting, were permitted by Jimbo. He similarly would occasionally engage in dialogue with this person, while most of the time ignoring this person and allowing him to be reverted per BANREVERT.

All this being said, I do feel that the ambiguity of his stance, and his failure to clearly enunciate his position (especially on the one that is the focus of this case - editors reverting nonbanned editors who replicate what the banned editor posts) has been excessive. He needs to explicitly state rules concerned posts by banned editors. Editors should not let him off easy on this. If he doesn't set forth clear and unambiguous guidelines, editors should stop reverting any banned editor on that page except for outright blanking and vandalism, in my opinion. If that mucks up his page, so what? That's his problem, no one else's. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

JW's management of his talk page

3) User:Jimbo Wales does not actively manage his talk page. Rather, he says "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks." He has traditionally been very open to anybody who is editing in good faith to post a message on the talk page, but does not welcome those who are not editing in good faith. He does not wish to "invite banned users to post here in general!" He does not prohibit anybody from reverting banned editors on the page. In particular, he has himself reverted a sockpuppet of the banned user Thekohser, aka Mr. 2001, and encouraged other editors to revert this banned user's edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Several folks have made some very strong claims about how JW manages the page. I believe that this question was very important in arbs deciding to take this case. Nevertheless, nobody has ever linked to any policy or statement by JW to support their strong claims. The only evidence on JW's management of the page has been presented by me on the evidence page. Another editor presented evidence on this page [57], but was reverted by User:Konveyor Belt and then reverted again by User:Tarc. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Jimbo has encouraged others to revert vandalism and personal attacks on his talk page; he has not issued a carte blanche request to everyone that any particular suspected banned individual is to be reverted on sight regardless of content. To claim otherwise is a claim unsupported by fact. Tarc ( talk) 01:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• You have presented no evidence on this at all, despite my repeated requests.
• Mr. 2001's postings on JW talkpage are almost all personal attacks and trolling, including the ones you reverted back in.
• JW has never forbidden editors to revert banned users.
• JW doesn't need to specifically state that banned users may be reverted, it's policy that they can

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 02:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't provide evidence to prove a negative, brah. The fact that Jimbo engages in dialog at times with "Mr. 2001", and the fact that several threads initiated by or participated in by "Mr. 2001" carry on without major incidence is prima facie evidence that whether "Mr. 2001" is allowed a presence on Jimbo's page depends not on who he is but rather on how he comports himself at the time. Reasoned, if pointy, comments are allowed to stand; disruptive comments generally are not. You're like a Wiki- Judge Dredd (the Stallone version), unable to deviate from a strict black & white interpretation of the letter of the law. Others, including Jimbo himself, have a capacity for nuance. We would all be better off if you and your sledgehammer took Talk:Jimbo Wales off watchlist, and let us who wield precision scalpels manage things. Tarc ( talk) 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I think that this principle fairly describes Jimbo's management of his talk page. Yes he is permissive. But no, he has not given banned editors a "laissez-passer" to utilize his page. Yes he has engaged in dialogue with this banned editor. So have I. But all banned editors can and will be reverted at will, and Jimbo has not once asked editors to stop applying "banrevert" on his page. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

User:Jimbo Wales

1) User:Jimbo Wales is allowed to manage his talk page according to his wishes, as long as his management doesn't violate policy. He is not required to answer every question posed on the page. He is not required to personally approve every reversion of a banned editor on the page. We wish to thank him for maintaining a very open talkpage which is very useful to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps this is not necessary as there is no penalty imposed here, but I think it answers a very important question that led to this case. I've obviously overstepped by writing "We wish to thank ..." here, as "We" will be interpreted as "arbcom members", but I strongly recommend that it be included, and I personally want to thank him for making his talkpage available to all who wish to discuss issues in good faith. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

User:Tarc

2) User Tarc is banned for one year for sabotaging the legitimate reversion of a banned editor, for proxying for a banned editor, and for making personal attacks on this page.

Separately, he is banned from editing User talk:Jimbo Wales indefinitely for egregious edit warring on that page. This ban may be appealed 6 months after the removal or expiration of the first ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Grade-A comedy gold right there. When I restored the editor in question's comments, those comments became my own. Smallbones lost any moral high ground the moment he reverted my restoration. We both erred in edit-warring, an error that Smallbones..as of by my clock 9:23 EST 9/21/2014...has refused to own up to. Apart from that, my block log has a single 24h 3RR block shortened to (off the to of my head) ~10 hours. That's quite an escalation. Tarc ( talk) 01:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• This is a strange place to bring up for the first time the "take ownership" defense for edit warring (if there is any such thing). Tarc has not presented any evidence that he took "complete responsibility" for the edits (the wording used in WP:BANREVERT, thus again denying me a full chance to respond with evidence.
• All the edits that I reverted were 100% written by the banned editor, with nothing added or removed, and signed by the banned editor. If Tarc is saying that these edits are "his own", he is essentially saying that he has exactly the same opinion (and signature!) as the banned editor. He did not say this - rather he said that he was stopping the mistreatment of a suspected banned editor, that it was a "good edit" that can't be reversed, and several other reasons just as nonsensical.
• His "take ownership" defense does not apply to his first reversion of the removal of the banned editors comments, for each of two series of his edit warring. He couldn't have taken ownership for these 2 "first reversions" as the removed comments were placed there by the banned editor himself. So even if we accept Tarc's strange theory, he still sabotaged the removal of a banned user's edits.
• Tarc should be very, very careful about claiming full responsibility for the edits. Both edits were trolling. User:The Rewarder was permanently blocked for trolling on this edit. Tarc was warned by supporter that the edit was trolling. If Tarc wants to now claim "complete responsibility" for the edits, then he should also be permanently blocked for trolling. So a direct question for Tarc - Are you now stating that you are willing to take complete responsibility for the edits of the banned user? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 03:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

My goodness, this is like arguing with a rock; I "take ownership" of material BY RESTORING IT. That's all there is to it. No, it has nothing to do with necessarily having the same opinion (or sig? WTF?); it has to do with vouching that "this is not in itself trolling or otherwise bad edit". Facepalm I have an extremely low tolerance for obtuse arguments, so will be retiring for the evening. Tarc ( talk) 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I am opposed to a ban in this case, a token block to say he acted unseemly maybe but a ban is excessive unless there is a history I am unaware of. I am going to assume that Tarc is just misguided and isn't trolling on purpose the reason for this case is to clarify the banning policy, the policy is the question once that is ironed out the rest will take care of itself and if not that's when the joy of bans and blocs come from.. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 11:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• I don't think any party involved in this case has done anything meriting more than an admonishment. In my opinion Tarc and Smallbones should have gotten 24 hour blocks for edit warring back when this rather pointless affair was actually happening; that's ancient history. A one year ban for this incident for either one of those two edit warriors would be grossly excessive. Carrite ( talk) 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Meh, I'm reluctant to chop anyone's head for edit warring over something like this. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Mr. 2001

3) The site-wide ban of User:MyWikiBiz/ User:Thekohser, aka Mr. 2001, remains in effect, meaning that he may not edit any page, even his own talk page.

Separately, he is topic banned from editing User talk:Jimbo Wales or any other page related to Jimmy Wales, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed 6 months after his site ban is removed.

Enforcement of these bans may include the following

• Anybody may revert any edits made by Mr. 2001 without fear of violating any rule on edit warring.
• Any administrator may block the account used by Mr. 2001 or the IP used in evading his ban, even if this involves blocking multiple IP addresses for a few days.
• Other than reverting his edits, all editors should then ignore Mr. 2001's edits to deny him the attention he craves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, this proposed remedy may not be strictly necessary, as it only adds a very small penalty to Mr. 2001's existing site ban. Nevertheless this answers the question behind this whole affair: "May Mr. 2001 force his edits onto JW's talk page?" Admins will likely pay attention to this remedy, and the entire problem of Mr. 2001 trolling JW will be solved. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not focusing on one set of IP addresses, just calling Mr. 2001 what JW calls him. If the arbs think including the name Mr. 2001 would cause any confusion then they should just use User:MyWikiBiz/ User:Thekohser.

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 19:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

You understand that "2001" only identifies the ISP, right? KonveyorBelt 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't believe that this remedy is necessary, and I'd respectfully suggest that my friend Smallbones withdraw it. All ban-evading socks of any banned editor are subject to a site-wide ban. Also, MyWikiBiz/TheKohser uses other IPs in addition to 2001-series IPs. There is no need to single out this particular set of IPs. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Talk page ownership

1) Wikipedia talk page guidelines and established practice give wide latitude to what a user may permit or remove from their talkpage, including reverting repeated attempts by others to re-add the same material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Requesting others not to post

2) Established practice, supported by talk page guidelines, also permits editors to indicate they do not wish someone to post on their talk page, and to ask others to make sure this is respected. This often works well in defusing, or at least minimising, disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Request for reverts on his own talk page from Jimbo Wales

1) Jimbo Wales expressly requested other editors to revert edits made on his talkpage by the editor in question, giving emphatic reasons as to why. ( diff (as already provided in evidence by Smallbones)).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That was 2.5 years ago, and since then Jimbo himself has directly engaged with this user, e.g. this archives discussion. You may also consult my Evidence filing that shows several threads on Jimbo's page where this person's edits were allowed to remain. That 2012 edit message is being incorrectly interpreted as a blank check to revert anywhere at anytime with no exceptions, but the evidence provided by me just now shows that this is moot. Tarc ( talk) 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is unconvincing. Neither "directly engaging" nor "allowing edits to remain" can be seen as a reversal of the earlier opinion.

To take a slightly dissimilar real life example; if I have a restraining order against someone with whom I've had political disagreements from approaching my property, and they approach my property anyway, attempting to engage me in political debate, then the restraining order is not invalidated if I should happen to feel goaded into replying to some of their debating points or accusations before the police get round to hauling them away.

"Allowing edits to remain" proves nothing when the page owner is frequently busy with other things, not to mention under external pressure whenever he removes anything.

If the two had a rapprochement, you've failed to demonstrate it. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't need to demonstrate a rapprochement; just inconsistency. Tarc ( talk) 18:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It's his talk page, he can be consistent or inconsistent as he chooses, without detriment to the request he has made of others. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Also it's simply false to contend that just because he's occasionally jousted with this banned editor on his talk page that the person is now welcome there. Not too long ago Jimbo reiterated his disdain for that person, who responded in a forceful manner off-wiki. It was something to the effect that he'd call the police if he saw him. While it might have been hyperbole, it demonstrated that the two have hardly kissed and made up. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Here's the "call the police" diff, from November 2013 [58]. I hope this puts to rest the nonsense that he welcomes this person on his talk page. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't necessarily disagree, but the point is, evidence shows that this editor is not 100% persona non grata, as there are times when he is engaged. Just at there are times when mbz1 is engaged, or times when Kumioko is engaged. People patrol Jimbo's page, that's fine, I do it too. But if an editor wishes to restore a comment that they feel isn't that bad, they should be able to do so per WP:BANREVERT. Remember we have 2 different issues here; Smallbones/HiaB reverting a suspected banned user, and Smallbones/HiaB reverting me. Tarc ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I would imagine it quite possible for Jimbo to reply to Mbz1 or Kumioko in good faith without realising who they were (and I don't precisely recall whether he's asked either or both of them not to post on his page), whereas it's very plain that happens rarely or never with the Mr 2001 trolling. The cases are not comparable. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

So, what does that mean exactly? If Jimbo has said it is ok for those two to post, are they now allowed to even though they're banned? You're getting a bit tripped up trying to support Smallbones' simplistic "banned means banned" mantra...which is understandable of course, given its absurdity. Tarc ( talk) 21:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

As for the diff: commentary about a "dangerous stalker" and "gun battle fantasies" in the edit note is either intentional hyperbole or an expression of misplaced paranoid fear. If the latter, it doesn't follow that this has not abated over time as the more or less good natured verbal jousting between the two on that page in the interval indicates. Mr. Kohs actually raises valid points pointedly sometimes — to which JW sometimes responds. He also intentionally trolls at other times — to which he does not respond. The solution to this entire issue is very simple, rather than worrying oh so much about purported sockpuppets of "banned editors" being able to speak and erasing their words, simply hat the trolling comments (as JW does for trolls) and let the non-trolling comments stand until a proper SPI can be run. If these comments are found to be the product of a banned editor, their removal is justified — but if a non-banned editor repeats the comment or question, they do it on their own authority and absolutely should not be either reverted or (worse yet) reverted and edit warred over. This seems simple. Carrite ( talk) 17:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Just to comment on WP:BANREVERT, and I'll add this as a principle if the clerk allows: I think that Tarc et al are mistaken to rely on the language saying that editors "take responsibility" for reverting banned editors. That principle really applies mainly to content pages, not user pages. Jimbo doesn't want this banned editor on his page, period. He doesn't want to see him in the flesh either [59]. People who come on the page to reinstate comments from him may "take responsibility" for them but, I would argue, are equally unwelcome. While I don't happen to agree with Smallbones' reverting non-banned editors, I feel that he was doing so in good faith and in accordance with Jimbo's wishes concerning his talk page. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Smallbones' good faith belief

2) Smallbones had a good faith belief that the text he was reverting was written by the editor whose additions Jimbo Wales had asked to be reverted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My comment in section #1 above addresses this as well. A single edit summary from March 2012 is not written in stone, esp when Jimbo himself has (somewhat) relaxed his stance towards this person. Tarc ( talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Smallbones' actions

3a) Smallbones' actions in reverting the added text beyond 3RR were therefore reasonable, and not outside policy.

alternative

3b) Smallbones' actions in reverting the added text beyond 3RR were therefore not technically outside policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Smallbones reverting an IP's posts based on his hunch who that was was indeed outside of policy. Carrite ( talk) 00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You'd think Carrite would give me credit when my "hunches" were correct. Nobody now denies that the "two" reverted editors were socks of the banned editor. I'll ask which policy Carrite thinks I was breaking since it always seems that folks never get around to stating this clearly. I've already answered this assertion at Tarc's Duck section. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 02:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Again, it doesn't matter if the editor in question was eventually blocked, as banned editors are occasionally given leeway as long as they ar enot outright trolling or disrupting. Tarc ( talk) 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This is incorrect and an oversimplification of the situation. Smallbones edit-warred ~25 times in that time period, as linked in my Evidence section; almost all of those reverts were of me, not of an allegedly (at the time) banned user. A 3RR exemption may come into play when the reverts are of an actual banned user, yes, but it does not apply to my edits in any way, shape or form. This is IMO a crucial point here... A) Smallbones reverts a supposed banned user's comments and claims 3RR exemption, B) Smallbones reverts Tarc's (yes, 3rd-person self-ref) restoration of a supposed banned user's comment and claims 3RR exemption.

Folks, A is not equal to B. Not at all. Tarc ( talk) 19:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Very good point, Tarc, I have replaced "the edits" with "the added text", which is still consistent with the previous finding. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, you're still kinda...wrong. Note #3 of WP:NOT3RR; "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." Read that there..."actions performed BY banned users'". "Smallbones may be able to make hay with a 3RR exception if he reverts the actual banned user, but that protection ends when another editor in good standing (i.e. not banned, not topic-banned, etc...) vouches for the text in the edit and restores it him/herself. At that point, it becomes sanction-able edit-warring. Tarc ( talk) 21:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

3a is correct. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Excessive and irrational edit-warring

4) However, Smallbones continuing to edit war up to more than a dozen reverts in one day, was clearly excessive. He should have sought wider consensus and community opinion on how to deal with the situation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's no question that Smallbones became personally invested in the situation, which I think is largely a product of the sustained campaign of harassment that he has had to endure from this banned editor, both on and off wiki. I don't agree with his actions, as I think that at a certain point editors have to realize that this banned editor is Jimbo's problem, not anyone else's, when he invades Jimbo's talk page. But I do believe that he acted in good faith and that he was not in violation of policy by making these reverts. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.

Smallbones

1a) Smallbones is reminded that edit warring is to be avoided where possible, and that seeking community feedback and dispute resolution is required when situations have escalated out of hand, even in cases where policy and established practice might technically justify further edit-warring.

alternative

1b) Smallbones is admonished for continuing a protracted edit war when it should have been obvious that seeking community feedback and dispute resolution would have been the wiser course; and is reminded that technical justifications for continued edit-warring cannot justify actions obviously disruptive to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't want to quibble with Demiurge, and I think that "requiring" seeking help from the community might be part of a solution, but i think a real solution is more complicated than that, and must also include the near-opposite of seeking help, ignoring the trolls.

First some relevant facts, that haven't previously been asked for:

• During Tarc's first round of edit warring, both myself and HIAB told Tarc that his reverting was unacceptable. It seems obvious that Tarc was just edit warring for effect at this point. How did he expect to "win an edit war" when the rules were obviously against him *and* two editors were against him?
• HIAB asked for help at both SPI and the 3RR noticeboard. Very little help was forthcoming, basically the admins just passed on the question, with the 3RR folks sending it on to ANI
• In Tarc's 2nd round of edit warring 3 editors stood up on JW's talk page and told Tarc that they would revert him if he just inserted the troll's comment again. Another editor, a former supporter, told him that the edit was an obvious troll.
• Tarc went ahead anyway to edit war
• I asked for help from an admin who had just reverted another banned editor on JW's talkpage and eventually got some.
• When Tarc changed his tactics, and actually paraphrased the trolling, 2 of us backed off but HIAB continued reverting. At that point, at least Tarc had some chance (though not a good one) of being able to make an argument that he was within the rules.

I believe there are 2 reasons folks don't help. 1st they just don't know the rules, 2nd they know that Mr. 2001 tries to intimidate people who stand up to him. In any case it looks like if Tarc wants to cause a disturbance by ignoring the rules and ignoring warnings he can always find a way.

There's a balance that's needed here, and I don't know exactly where it lies. Perhaps the arbs can give some guidance. Publicly asking for help simply gives the trolls another forum where they can continue trolling and harassing the people who revert them. I believe this is recognized in the WP:BANREVERT policy:

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

So actually, I think it would be against policy to require an editor to ask for help, if it would inevitably lead to being required to explaining the reason for the revert. And it would give the troll a new forum to troll in. The bolded phrase, IMHO opinion, says "don't explain, don't argue with the troll," and I'm very hesitant to give up the "right of silence" here.

Ultimately, striking this balance will be up to the arbs - and I wish them luck doing it. Perhaps they might say something like. "Anyone who reverts an edit from a banned editor, and is in turn reverted 3 times, must report the reversions to the 3RR noticeboard, but is not required to explain why he originally reverted the banned editor." Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Finally, please don't refer to my reverts of Mr. 2001's edits as "edit warring". WP:Edit warring specifically states

• "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

Arbs might have gotten a chuckle out of me writing "I'm very hesitant to give up the "right of silence" here." I'm sorry I went on for so long here, but please do remember that I was dragged here, and I believe the purpose of some of those who started this case was to put me on trial. I'll recommend that you not take any more cases where the only accusation is that somebody reverted a banned editor. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 23:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban..." Again, your argument hits a snag on the fact that I was not violating a ban. Tarc ( talk) 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

User talk page ownership

1) While Jimbo's talk page, like all user talk pages, are subject to Wikipedia rules and practices, the wishes of the editor are paramount when it comes to removal of comments from other persons, especially personal antagonists and banned editors. It is commonplace for "talk page stalkers" to remove vandalism and trolling from user talk pages, including new users. Customarily established users have many "friendly stalkers" willing to do that.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo's talk page

2) As founder, Jimbo's talk page is granted special attention beyond that given to other editors. Editors are far more protective of his talk page than they are in other Wikipedia spaces.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Jimbo has sanctioned reverting of the banned editor

1) In addition to explicitly asking editors to revert MyWikiBiz/TheKohser, given their well-known personal animosity, Jimbo has never asked editors, including the parties to this case, to desist from removing that person's talk page comments. Like all editors, he can and has made exceptions, but that hasn't constituted a reversal of his position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actions speak louder than words. If Jimbo at times chooses to engage with the user in question on his talk page, then there can by definition be no blanket "revert him on sight" edict in effect. This is very elementary logic here. "Jimbo once said X. Over time, Jimbo did !X. Therefore, X has been superseded by !X. You can't run a flippy-floppy system where some days you shoot the bunny as soon has he peeps up out of the rabbit hole, and other times feed the bunny carrots when he looks hungry, and expect people to vary their enforcements day by day. At present, the de facto situation regarding Jimbo's talk page and "Mr. 2001" has lately been "if he's not being a jerk, allow his posts to stand." All I would like here is to see that carried out; determine disruptiveness on the words, not the speaker. Tarc ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually Jimbo can run whatever type of system he likes on his own talk page, as he clearly has been. Until Jimbo says that he would prefer people not to revert text from "Mr. 2001", people are entitled to do so, based on Jimbo's stated preference. And Jimbo himself is entitled to either reply or delete or ignore-the-troll on a case-by-case basis however he prefers. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

That's not the point. If someone can waltz along and say "hey, this person is Mr. X, Imma revert him now!", then I or anyone else has just as much right to waltz in after and say "hmm, that edit didn't look so bad after all, it made a good point and I'm going to restore it. At that moment, Editor A loses the revert-with-immunity right. this is no different from a banned editor adding, say, a Commons image to an en.wiki article. Someone comes along and reverts because of who the banned user is, whole someone comes next and goes "that's a good image and improves the article", and restores it. Those actions are covered under WP:BANREVERT. Tarc ( talk) 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editors not asked to desist

2) In addition to explicitly asking editors to revert MyWikiBiz/TheKohser socks when they appear, Jimbo has never asked editors, including the parties to this case, to desist from removing that person's talk page comments. Like all editors, he can and has made exceptions, but has not reversed his position, which he clearly expressed by allowing the reverts to occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo doesn't ask people to desist because he doesn't care. Aside from one diff 2 and a half years ago, he has not expressed a clear opinion. KonveyorBelt 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Konveyor Belt's first assertion here is not supported by the evidence provided, which clearly shows that Jimbo has stated opinions on this more than once, some of them in very strong terms. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The reverted edits

3) All of the edits reverted by the parties to this case were clearly by socks of the person behind TheKohser/MyWikiBiz, in that they had the same agenda, writing style and subject matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is irrelevant. The next account could be a Joe Job or an innocent party like me who was reverted as a "banned editor" in a hasty rampage (see evidence page). It is the principle that is important: there is a right way and a wrong way to identify sock puppet accounts which Smallbones did not follow. And edit-warring is inherently disruptive, in which Smallbones and Tarc were both flagrantly engaged. Carrite ( talk) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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.

Smallbones

1) Smallbones acted in good faith and in accordance with Jimbo's wishes concerning this banned editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Jimbo's wishes" is not a blank check singed to Smallbones to revert whenever he, or someone suspected to be him, pops up, as Jimbo himself has performed actions contrary to his own wishes. Tarc ( talk) 17:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Smallbones acted in good faith, albeit wrongly. — That would be my phrasing. Carrite ( talk) 18:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Banned means banned

1) Banned means banned. This extends throughout Wikipedia, and is by no means limited to article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Putting aside the question of timing, both of you are making arguments that the arbitrators are well aware of, so you can stop. Stopping now will not prejudice any side. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Expressly contradicted by WP:BANREVERT, which is policy. Tarc ( talk) 18:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm afraid that you are reading a different version of WP:BANREVERT than anyone else, Tarc. The one in the real world doesn't provide any exclusion for talk pages.— Kww( talk) 18:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that I am reading it quite correctly. Any editor is allowed to restore an edit of a banned editor anywhere in the project, the caveat being that he takes ownership as if he has made it in the first place. Over a month ago, I asked you about the edit war at Dassault Falcon 7X, which you declined you respond to. Binksternet continuously reverted Russavia (as the IP) over the insertion of a Commons image into that article; eventually Nick decided that the edit had merit, and restored the image. Kww, what's the breakdown of that incident?

1. Was Russavia right or wrong in adding an image that improved an article?
2. Was Binksternet right or wrong to remove an image just because of who it was that added it?
3. Was Nick right or wrong to restore the image because he felt it improved the article?

Tarc ( talk) 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

1. Russavia is not permitted to touch any section of Wikipedia for any reason at any time.
2. Right.
3. Dubious. If Nick was an editor that regularly edited in the topic area, he would clearly be in the right for claiming the edit. Since he isn't, his claim to having an "independent reason for making the edit" is a little shaky, but not so shaky as to be clearly wrong.

The real problem here is that you are comparing an addition to content by a constructive editor to your own choice to campaign on Kohser's behalf. They aren't comparable situations. You are proxying. Nick doesn't appear to be.— Kww( talk) 19:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Would you care to offer proof to support the claim that I am proxying for a banned editor? Other than the posts on my talk page by "spottingtou" and "the rewarder" (who at the time were just regular users being endlessly reverted by smallbones), I have had no direct contact with anyone of the nature that you're suggesting...I'm no longer even an active member at the Wikipediocracy. Tarc ( talk) 19:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Restoring talk page comments is an explicit WP:PROXY violation

2) Intentionally restoring comments by banned users is an explicit violation of WP:PROXY, as comments can never meet the criteria of "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Raising (again) a question about a fundamental Wikipedia policy or the editing pattern behind a problematic article or asking for opinion about the behavior of WMF employees or procedures at WMF events, etc. are indeed "obviously helpful changes" and are not violations of WP:PROXY. Carrite ( talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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 prohibited from restoring comments

1) Tarc is prohibited from restoring any material by any editor on any talk page when that material has been removed by another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tarc is reminded that edit-warring is inherently disruptive and is admonished for having engaged in it. — Or words to that effect. This prohibition is extremely open-ended and represents a "trap" for Arbitration Enforcement. He should have the same right as anyone to restore what he feels has been wrongfully removed under B-R-D. Carrite ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This proposal is just plain daft, as it is in effect a 0RR for all talk pages; article, project, and user. Draconian and ambiguous. Tarc ( talk) 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) Should Tarc violate his prohibition, he will be desysopped, blocked indefinitely, and banned for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tarc is not an administrator. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

There's no reason to provide an opportunity for further drama. Let's make sure the penalties are sufficient to deter any tendencies towards idle mischief.— Kww( talk) 15:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You know, if one — just one — administrator had dished out matching 24 hour blocks for edit warring when the days-long battle was going, we wouldn't be here now. Tarc is not an administrator, so desysopping isn't applicable. A one year ban for a second offense is ridiculous, he hasn't even had his hand slapped yet. Again: this is a "trap" for Tarc to be meted out in the unsupervised cul-de-sac known as Arbitration Enforcement. A really bad proposal, no matter what one thinks of Tarc's behavior. Carrite ( talk) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Corrected my input ... don't know where I got the misapprehension that Tarc was an admin.— Kww( talk) 18:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Ice cream

1) The members of the Arbitration Committee are hereby rewarded with free ice cream.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd say "thank you" and chow down, but then in 15 minutes someone will open a thread somewhere about whether giving out ice cream constitutes paid editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because you guys deserve it for putting up with this stupid case.-- The Frozen Dairy Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.}01:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hear, hear! Kurtis ^(talk) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: