Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy

Statement by Konveyor Belt
"It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted." This is not the central argument here. Tarc or anyone else does not deny this policy. Rather, the debate is whether uninvolved editors can revert suspected socks with no proof of socking, as this is what you and Smallbones have been doing.  Konveyor   Belt  18:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. Admins may decide what users are and aren't socks. Herein lies the problem. Neither Smallbones nor Hell in a Bucket are admins. They cannot make this decision themselves and carry out enforcement or revert it. Until an uninvolved admin decides based on CU or quack evidence that it is indeed a sock, they cannot do anything with the edits of merely what they "suspect" to be socks. Similarily, Tarc cannot revert reversions either until an admin judges that it is not a sock. The best thing to do is leave the edits alone. Focus on the edits, not the editor. If they are truly derogatory, revert like you would anyone else.  Konveyor   Belt  20:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not that he won't respond. Perhaps it's just because he doesn't care. The open door policy is his own and is laid out very clearly on his page. That should be response enough.  Konveyor   Belt  23:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Monty845
As I see it, there are three separate issues intersecting here. First is that User talk:Jimbo has historically been a kind of neutral zone where we would often over look an editors blocked status on the project when they wanted to talk to Jimbo. People from many projects come there to raise issues, and as such we should be a bit more reluctant to strictly enforce policy than on other pages. Second, this is the second major spat in a month that revolves around a WP:3RR exemption, where there is a lack of consensus on whether the reverts count. (The other hasn't made it here yet, but has a massive RFC ongoing) Some people think the exemption applies to the removals, others think it doesn't, as its now an edit war between editors otherwise in good standing. This is exacerbated by the language of WP:BANREVERT that doesn't require reversion if there isn't a problem with the edit, using a permissive may, and then allows editors in good standing to assume responsibility for the edit, but then says edits at the direction of a banned editor are prohibited, which is now being argued to apply to the talk page reverts. Editors on both sides have massively violated WP:3RR even though the restore side has no claim to an exemption. That no one was blocked speaks to just how much of a mess the conflicting policy interpretations have created, and the danger of 3rr exemptions. Monty 845  19:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Statement by Floquenbeam
in three easy steps: --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept case
 * 2) Figure out which users think this is a vital issue
 * 3) Siteban them

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

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

Follow-Up Comments

 * At least one editor, Count Iblis, has proposed that this case be dealt with by motion. I disagree, and think that is the wrong answer.  Either a full evidentiary hearing is needed to identify and sanction misconduct, or the issues do not rise to the level of requiring a full evidentiary hearing to identify and sanction misconduct.  My own thought is that there has been misconduct, and that a full case is in order, but dealing with this case by motion to make rules about a special page is silly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some editors have pointed out, correctly, that Jimbo's talk page has long had a special status, and that Jimbo has been willing, usually but not always, to accept and comment on posts by banned users. I agree.  They have thus implied that this should affect whether the ArbCom accepts this case.  I mostly disagree.  I ask that the ArbCom should accept this case, not because of the original matter of posting to that page by an editor who may have been a sock-puppet of a banned user, but because of apparent subsequent conduct.  In particular, there appears to have been edit-warring over the removal and re-insertion of posts, and edit-warring over X (fill in the blank) is still edit-warring.  Also, the removal of posts by the allegedly banned user was done without a sockpuppet investigation.  The issue that can be arbitrated is not only whether the original post should have been posted, but also whether there was subsequent misconduct in its removal, and possibly in questionable accusations of sock-puppetry.  The issue isn't the status of Jimbo's talk page with respect to banned users, but whether there were subsequent violations such as edit-warring.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I disagree with the Panda's reason why we don't need a case. A case would not be about the original posts by banned users editing logged out (ignoring rather than evading the ban).  It would be about edit-warring in the repeated removal of those posts (and edit-warring over the removal of posts by banned users is still edit-warring).  Also, the issue in point had to do with a registered user, who either was a sock-puppet of a banned user for deception and ban evasion, or who was not a sock-puppet.  In the first case, there was conduct that Jimbo has not tolerated (he has not so much followed the policy of the community on multiple accounts as the community has followed his policy on multiple accounts).  In the second case, the deletion of posts by registered users who were not known to be sock-puppets was both improper and a serious personal attack on the registered user.  (There is a proper means, WP:SPI, for claims of sock-puppetry.  Other means of making that claim are personal attacks.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the conduct issues do not rise to the standing of requiring ArbCom, ArbCom can decline this case. But the special status of Jimbo's talk page only applies to the original post, not to the unsubstantiated claims of sock-puppetry or the edit-warring.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * @Smallbones, right. Of course you were justified in reverting, or anyway arguably so, on grounds that the edit wasn't within reasonable bounds. And it wasn't, really -- in it, the person hinted very broadly that they were a banned user, described how (as a banned user using a different account) they had posted to the Reward Board and compromised it... it might be OK for a banned user to post to Jimbo's talk page within reason, such as to appeal their ban or for other reasonable purpose, but it's not OK for a banned user to post to the Reward Board especially when the effect of that post was to compromise and abuse the purpose of the Reward Board. I don't think that Jimbo opened his talk page to banned editors so that they could crow about destructive edits made elsewhere.


 * In addition to that, this was part of an attempt to demonstrate that commercial editors cannot be reverted provided they channel some of their earnings to the WMF -- that it would a civil tort to do so, if I'm reading "intentional interference with contractual relations" correctly. Which one doesn't want throw around the term "batshit insane" lightly, but if one ever did want to use it this might be a good time. And in fact the person accused you of committing a civil tort (I think... it's hard to read since it was (figuratively) written in crayon) which is pretty inflammatory.


 * That being said, it's complicated, and at some point the batshit insane part was removed (but not by Tarc, at least not immediately), and I myself wouldn't have advised reverting the material -- look what happened, sterile contention plus you yourself personally maybe being in trouble, which are desired outcomes for the original poster I assume -- whatever happens, he's already "won" this round and is doubtless chuckling from the sidelines. But it was reasonable to revert the material, yes. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , what do you mean? The original poster was Mr 2001 (unless it was someone pretending to be him), and I daresay everyone else here believes this and it's not at issue; he didn't just quack but climbed up on our laps and laid an egg, what more do you want? Unless your stance is "Yes, we all know he was a banned editor, but we always need to go through the kabuki of running a CU and so forth for procedural reasons" which I suppose is defensible but awfully bureaucratic, I don't see what you're getting at. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you're saying not that he wasn't pretty clearly a banned user, but rather that conferring the authority to revert banned users to editors without checkuser rights, in any circumstance, is power creep, so it's a bad thing to countenance generally. OK, reasonable, but checkusing is an art, even checkusers use behavioral clues and so forth, which normal people can also use. So for obvious cases I guess I don't agree. I don't know what the rule is or if there is one. Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Herostratus
OK, Jimmy Wales responded on his talk page, a little obscurely, but he did give sharp approval ("Nail on the head") to the following analysis (I added emphasis and formatting not in the original):
 * There is nothing helpful that Jimbo can say — this one is up to the community. 1) 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! 2) 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).

You all can parse a sentence as well as I or probably better (apologies for the unnecessary bolding) so you can see what two things are being compared here, as well as imagine why Jimbo wouldn't want to spell this out himself...

So based on that, and on whether "up to the community" means ArbCom in this case (my guess is yes), and based on my conviction that Jimbo should have a good amount of say in this particular case, allow me to change my advice to: take the case, and, you know, do the obvious thing here. Herostratus (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Deltahedron
I asked User:Tarc and User:Smallbones to stop edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales over edits by and on behalf of banned editors when they reached 19 reverts between them. Each of them took the view that it was the others fault. Not surprisingly the matter was referred (not by me) to WP:AN/I where I formulated a possible way forward :
 *  if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Wikipedia by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal

The discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive850 suggested that there was some support for that, if not universal consensus. It seems that Tarc has explicitly taken personal responsibility asking a question which may have been posed originally by a banned user (I cannot say whether that's correct). If so, then to claim the protection of WP:EVADE for unlimited reversion, User:Hell in a Bucket needs to establish (1) that Tarc is posting at the direction of a banned user: in other words, that the user actually is banned, and that Tarc is actively acting in bad faith by claiming to post independently but actually at the behest of another person. That's a very high bar to meet and in practice it seems insurmountable. Of ocurse, it might be that (2) the question is inherently disruptive. If so, the status of the posters, whoever they may be, is irrevelant, as is WP:EVADE: whoever posts an inherently disruptive question is behaving disruptively. Of course, establishing that a question is inherently disruptive is also a high bar to meet. I have yet to see evidence supporting either (1) or (2). However, it may help frame the discussion for participants to say whether they wish to assert propositions (1) or (2) or both. I would also suggest that the proposal I enunciated before might be the foundation of some behaviours which would allow those of us with topics to discuss with Jimbo Wales to do so in relative peace and quiet. Deltahedron (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Hell in a Bucket, perhaps I was unclear about (1). I meant that an editor such as Tarc should believe in good faith that the question is worth asking whether or not it comes from a banned user, not that he must believe in good faith that the editor is not banned.  Indeed, I would say that if an edit is known to come from a banned user, but another editor in good standing believes in good faith that the edit is worth making, that second editor is entitled to repeat the edit and make it their own, taking full responsibility for the consequences, and stating explicitly that this is what they are doing.  Under these circumstances, EVADE would only come into play if it could be established that the second editor is consciously and deliberately acting at the behest of a banned editor and that they have not in fact exercised their independent judgement about the value of the edit, even though they claim to have done so.  As I said, refuting that is a pretty high bar, and I see no evidence yet that Tarc is acting in that way (but it might be the case for all I know).  I see it as quite possible that an editor in good standing can quite legitimately agree with a banned editor's opinion and choose to repeat it, again adopting it as their own.   If an edit is disruptive for any reason, then a second editor, having taken full responsibility for repeating the edit, is thereby taking responsbility for acting disruptively and any sanctions that might arise.  But I think I'm repeating myself here.  Deltahedron (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I consciously headed this section as "marginally involved" because in view of the two comments of mine mentioned above I am not quite uninvolved, but on the other hand I don't see myself as being involved in any substantial sense, and certainly not in any way a principal in any case here. So I assess my involvement as "marginal", that is, precisely as standing on the margins of this case.  If "marginally involved" is not a recognised category, then no doubt someone whose job it is to change these things will change it.  Of course if someone disputes the accuracy of what I have said and challenges my self-description, they are free to make that case, in their own section, on the basis of evidence and reasoned argument.  Otherwise I would expect other editors to respect my considered choice of words.  Deltahedron (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * yes, it was short blocks that I first suggested in the ANI thread linked above. It seems that no-one was willing. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Statement by Spartaz
Sometimes a picture says 500 words thumb


 * AGKs comment people not here to build an encyclopaedia smacks of Jclemens' Not a Wikipedian gaff. For Shame. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny how my image was only censored by the committee after I criticised AGK's language in this request. Would any clark like to confirm which committee member requested the removal of my image?  I'm going offline for a couple of days but I'll check here for a reply when I get back.  Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * If somebody thinks a banned editor needs to be reverted, they can do so. A user, such as User:Jimbo can request an open door policy, and that should be given consideration as long as the comment is not seriously disruptive.  It takes clue to make that judgement.  If a comment removal gets reverted by a good faith editor, do not repeat the removal. Discuss the matter rather than edit warring. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What Jimmy has said should be interpreted to mean, "On my talk page, please don't revert banned editors merely because they are banned. If they want to post some civil, relevant content that could help resolve a problem, let them.  However, if a banned editor posts something disruptive, feel free to revert them."  It would be unreasonable to treat Jimmy's page as a free fire zone where any troll can post any attack and then say, "You can't revert me!"  Jehochman Talk 16:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimmy has said he's not going to comment further, so please don't wait. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Alanscottwalker
If you take this case, to consider "not here to build" you should add User:The Rewarder and User:The Receiver 0814 as parties, which appear to be, at the least SPA's, engaged in breaching experiments of different types across pages, and which were the proximate edits leading to this case. (The accounts are currently both blocked  but obviously their conduct will be part of any review, especially if a user in good standing is taking responsibility for some of it. See also,  and .) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert McClennon, it does not seem so in practice, considering WP:Duck is widely invoked on the Pedia, it is a mater of behavior not person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Musings on various comments: 1) a pointy post is disruptive, as that's the definition; 2) the idea that Jimbo's talk page should be moved to meta has merit, but whatever. 3) If it is the case that Jimbo's page is a 'special place', than take that to it's conclusion regarding reversion, let reversion continue until Jimbo steps in to that particular instance or the parties grow tired, it's not disrupting anything else, and the idea that it's always disruptive on a wiki is just a convention that can be easily ignored for that page, with special treatment of one somewhat different circumstance, if it's revertable and over-sight worthy.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jimbo has made some vague statements such as this, indicating that he isn't taking a position in this arbitration for reasons that are either valid or copout. In light of his declining to address this issue even though it directly addresses his user space, I think that it would be best practices in the future for editors to not revert suspected banned editors on Jimbo's talk page, period. He doesn't care, so why should the rest of us? It's like the old joke "Why did it take eight Boy Scouts to help the old lady across the street? Because she didn't want to go." This old lady (pardon the metaphor) doesn't want to go. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman re Mr. Wales, while perhaps a cult figure, is not the Dalai Lama or the Mishna. He is a flesh-and-blood human being, and blessed with the gift of speech. If he wants to say something, he has the means, opportunity and motive to be understandable. If he is going to be vague, Delphic or frustratingly ambiguous, we should simply ignore what he says and go about our business, which I think in this instance is not trying to act as moderators on his talk page except for explicit vandalism. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes
Why not wait to see what Jimbo has to say before deciding whether to open the case? It's his talk page, after all. If he says he has an open door policy and that banned editors are welcome to ask him questions on his talk page, then presumably other editors will have the good sense to leave such questions alone and let Jimbo decide whether or not to answer them.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Wnt
I can't believe people managed to make a "federal case" out of this. But I suppose it is useful to list out some fairly straightforward principles: Bottom line: the best practice for replacing content you think is important that has been removed as banned is to cite the diff adding or removing it and quote what you think needs to be heard. The best practice for removing content by a banned editor is to file the SPA first and redact material only after it is settled (or if it is a disruption that you should remove if a different editor had posted it in which case none of this need apply). When best practices are not followed the most important thing is to figure out whether the editor is clearly banned from the already-available information (without waiting for a checkuser or other investigation) and if he isn't then you should restore the content awaiting further administrative procedure against him to be carried out. People should not expect the exclusion of individuals from an anonymous encyclopedia to be particularly effective; the most we can do is to stop them from crowing about it. Wnt (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any editor has the right to view contributions of a banned editor in the page history, except in extraordinary, limited circumstances where they are suppressed.
 * Any editor has the right to make a statement, under his own name and responsibility, where he links to or quotes all or part of the statements by a banned editor made on or off Wikipedia, subject to the usual policies.
 * Any editor is given by policy the right to remove contributions of a known banned editor.
 * An editor who is accused of "sockpuppetry" or other misconduct has the right to have this accusation judged one way or the other before people treat him as banned.
 * If there's truly no doubt though, e.g. because the "sock" openly admits it, we shouldn't stand on bureaucracy to knock someone for doing what policy encourages.

Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
I think everyone agrees that the ban policy is clear: edits by a banned user can be removed by anyone. There's one exception, and that exception has been laid out by both by words and jurisprudence: Jimbo's talkpage. He has more than once allowed many banned editors to post a question and/or have a conversation with him there - I'll use ColtonCosmic as such an example. Jimbo's talkpage is somewhat of a "court of last appeal", after all. Now, at the same time, there are 2 exceptions to this exception: 1) if Jimbo himself has said "do not return to my talkpage" (which has happened more than once) then they can be reverted on-sight, and 2) if the post is abusive. the panda ₯’ 11:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add: I don't think a case is needed here. If the committee determines that the Founder, who seems to remain as final court of appeal, has the authority to allow ban-violators under strict conditions to post on his talkpage, the slap one person's wrist and be done with it.  If the committee determines that the Founder cannot violate the conditions of a ban by allowing this, then slap the other person's wrist (and Jimbo's while you're at it).  It is vital, however, to note that individual users cannot make similar rules on their own talkpages - this is solely due to Jimbo's de facto role as Supreme Commander of the Wikipedia Editor Forces (SuCWEF)  the panda ₯’  14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It is fairly trivial to see that Samllbones acted both in good faith and in the letter and spirit of policy.

Note that policy says edits by banned users may be reverted, and I suspect that had a non-trolling and useful post been made, it would have been allowed to sit there unmolested, as has indeed happened many times in the past.

While there is latitude for other editors to then replace the deleted material, if they believe it is for the good of the Encyclopaedia, there is no doubt that in this case it was another of a long series of trolling postings.

Moreover Tarc is reasonably intimately involved with the presumed troll, and is well aware of their habits and proclivities.

Given this it would have made sense to disengage, but if he could not do this, at least to AGF that Smallbones had removed for cause, and discuss the matter before reinstating the trolling material under his own name.

To reinstate the material with the edit summaries that have been cited above is a clear indication of battle-ground mentality, and not at all helpful.

Having said that, this does not really rise to the level of an Arbcom case. There is no reason that the dispute cannot be settled by one of the other lesser mechanisms.

The questions of policy that has been mooted are easy to answer by reference to the existing policy.

The request for Arbcom to write special policy for Jimbo's talk page, of course, must be refused.

There is little here for Arbcom.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC).


 * I believe I commented elsewhere about Arbitrators assuming the result of the case before it has even started. The sentence reviewing the behaviour of people not here to build an encyclopedia. Several names here qualify  would seem to match that description. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by TParis
This is simple Hell in Bucket should not have removed Tarc's edits - clear as day.--v/r - TP 17:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Banned editors may post on Jimbo's talk page under Jimbo's grace and only until they exhaust it - it is one of the only venues for banned editors to seek appeal
 * 2) Any editor may revert a banned editor's comments anywhere on Wikipedia including Jimbo's talk page but care should be taken on Jimbo's talk page.  Edits which seem to be framed as trying in good faith to resolve a dispute should be given space for Jimbo's viewing pleasure.  Trolling should be reverted on sight.
 * 3) Any other editor, in good faith, may restore any comment and take responsibility for it.  This is not a loop hole.
 * 4) Any editors persistently reverting editors under #3 are no longer 'reverting a banned editor' but are reverting editors in good standing and are susceptible to the edit warring policy.

Statement by Figureofnine
Editors should not be policing another editor's talk page except as specifically authorized or permitted by that editor. I agree that once an editor in good standing has republished a banned editor's comments and taken responsibility for them, the comments should be left alone. But I agree with Salvio that this case is a massive overreaction and can be dealt with through other processes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
I have not commented as I don't think this is a vital issue (per Flo) -- I generally don't have the Founder's talk page watchlisted because the shenanigans there make ANI look mature.And I am certainly not a stickler for bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but I think principle's are important, especially the transparency of arbcom proceedings.

As noted by The Signpost

Accordingly, I encourage the committee to follow its policy rather than engaging in opaque "private word" proceedings. NE Ent 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (November 2014)

 * 'Original discussion

Initiated by   Konveyor   Belt   at 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy
 * Link to relevant decision

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy

1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[40][41] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (29 days ago) (UTC−7)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Tarc notified:

Statement by Konveyor Belt
Tarc created a thread about Gamergate here:. Immediately others called for him to be blocked, based on the ruling above. So the request is thus: Does the "normal exceptions" in the remedy above include commenting and posting on subjects that Tarc is directly involved in?  Konveyor   Belt   19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note User:TParis has taken it upon himself to state Tarc will not edit admin noticeboards hereafter:.  Konveyor   Belt   19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If Tarc asks the guy to open an ANI or he tells him what to put, is that a PROXYING violation?  Konveyor   Belt   17:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
I was under the impression that "normal exceptions" covered situations such as being invoked by another party ANI, or if I was in need of admin assistance for a situation in which I was already involved. An example of the former would be this filing by a Gamergate SPA, in which I was obliged to defend myself. The latter is a case involving Gamergate controversy; I have been involved there for months, and we have an intractable situation where editors are blatantly abusing Template:POV, and we as regular editors cannot solve it by edit-warring, and discussion has gone on for over a month.

I'd find it hard to imaging that y'all sought to prohibit me from seeking redress for situations where I am extensively involved....my understanding was that you wanted me out of admin board-related discussions in which I had no prior hand in to avoid animosity and entanglement and such. Pursuant to that, I declined an invitation (User talk:Tarc) to participate in a Gamergate AN thread...even though I'm involved in the topic in general, that particular tangent did not involve me. I also decided to stay away from the Gender gap case, even though I had some early involvement in that. Hell, ANI is off the watchlist entirely.

If y'all want to prohibit even the filing of ANI reports when assistance is necessary, then that's your call I guess, but like I said, I honestly did not see that interpretation of the finding at the time. As far as the current ANI goes, obviously I disagree with TParis' restrictive interpretation of the Arbcom finding, but I will refrain from posting further there while this is being discussed here. The important thing is that the subject matter of the filing itself was allowed to continue. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

, it's a fine line, here; I don't agree with the finding that my initiating an ANI discussion violates the Arbcom ruling, but at the same time I do not fault you for hatting the Tutleary-fueled hysterics in the middle and allowing the topic itself to continue.

I do need a clarification here though, as it seems obvious that there are differing interpretations as to what Arbcom said. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, despite that Arbcom talk page thread that meandered nowhere, you never actually clarified anything...until now, apparently. Remember what we're talking about here; a ban from something that had NOTHING TO DO with the actual Arbcom case, so it kinda follows that when something follows from nothing, there will be a distinct lack of clarity on the parameters. If this is what you wish to declare going forward, whatever, but to suggest that your intent was clear beforehand is divorced from reality. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, being of the "pro-Gamergate" mindset, as evidenced by posts like this where he evokes the "social justice warrior" slur, is making a bad-faith attempt to remove an editor with an opposing point-of-view from the topic area. His opinion on this matter is thus not objective in the slightest, and should be ignored.

I do not "test boundaries"; I posited to ANI as I believed I was allowed to do, as explained above. The article is being held hostage by editors using a POV tag against its the express intent. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the piling-on by pro-Gamergaters, the same as they did in the ANI thread with the absurd calls for "block indef", the same drums they are beating at Arbcom right now trying to force a case upon you. The calls for a topic ban from Gamergate are beyond farcical; GG has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hayward, I hatted it because the suggestions of a GG topic ban by you and Tuletary are so far out of left-field as to be farcical and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here; it isn't even on the table. Arbcom wrote a very muddled ban from "admin noticeboards" except for "normal exceptions"; I sincerely felt that asking for help in a topic I was directly involved in was an exception. If it isn't, fine, we'll all know now going forward. But as evidenced from the ANI thread in question, there is quite a bit of agreement with my point-of-view; several editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate have tried to remove the abused POV tag and ran into the same edit-warring roadblock that I did. My participation in Gamergate has not been disruptive, and you have provided no proof to the contrary. But again, we're not even here to discuss GG itself. This is an absurd distraction, initiated by you. I have nothing else to say on this, if an Arb has a specific question for me, I ask to be pinged; otherwise, this is off my watchlist. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to retract that "no more to say" line; it seems that overnight I was vindicated, as far as the specific Gamergate matter goes, Not there was much merit to begin with, but Hayward & Tuletary's catcalls for a GG topic ban have now been rendered moot (this moot not that moot), as the matter I brought to ANI was seen as a problem to remedy and not something that "just creates drama", to quote DH.

Arbs, I apologize for the ANI filing misstep, as I thought that was permissible. I still think it SHOULD be permissible, but that's your call. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TParis
@Tarc: I consider it to be a reasonable compromise. You avoid a block and your thread gets discussed. Works in your favor.--v/r - TP 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
It strikes me as ridiculous that starting a dramatic new thread at AN/I and then commenting on it is a "normal exception" to a topic ban from posting to AN/I. A "normal exception" would be, logically, one having the ability to respond to a thread started about the topic-banned individual at the prohibited page. It is no surprise that the limits of ArbCom's lamentably fuzzy language are being probed after less than a month. Carrite (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Hell in a Bucket}
Unless an admin thinks Tarc was pushing or testing his ban's limits not in good faith I suggest no action. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
It's obvious Tarc sought to amp up the drama on a topic that already has plenty of drama. Any other editor could have raised this at ANI. This was not a productive or time-sensitive report. Indeed, if he had brought it to Jimbo's talk page, the block would have been immediate because it's clear there is no legitimate reason for Tarc to bring drama where drama is not necessary. The appropriate response is a topic ban for Tarc on Gamergate and related articles so that it is very clear he has no business bringing these content issues to a high level of drama. Gamergate is under general sanctions and violating ArbCom sanctions should meet the discretionary sanction threshold. A topic ban also frees up Tarc to continue with more productive areas outside the drama boards and avoids the stigma of punishment blocks. In short, a topic ban solves all the problems related to this. --DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc - I am not from a "pro-GamerGate mindset" or whatever that means. Misogyny and Social Justice are terms coined from the various viewpoints related to GamerGate. I advocated a neutral presentation of both as that is the reality. There is no doubt that threats against women in gaming have occurred. There is also doubt that the presentation of women in games has been challenged. Neither viewpoint should be excluded. Your attempts to present one side, and then use ANI to promote a one sided view in violation of your noticeboard ban and the discretionary sanctions for the article should lead to a topic ban. It appears that this topic brings out behavior from you that is unacceptable and the fairest punishment is a topic ban as opposed to a site ban or timed block. Topic ban Tarc and this problem with this editor goes away. --DHeyward (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc must have hatted after his comment about piling on. Note that I've never called for his banning and didn't participate in the arbcom request. I am not calling for a ban here. I don't believe I've edited the gamergate article but have sparingly commented on the talk page. Tarc is a disruptive force on that article and a simple topic ban (not a site ban or full arbcom case) will remove his disruptive influence. This isn't the first time Tarc has been disruptive in controversial areas and the expedient resolution is removing him from the discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc, to quote NYB in many discussions prior to this, "this is at least the third time now that your approach has been to visit the site of a fire in progress and throw gasoline on it." I can't think of a better description of bring the NPOV tag to ANI. It just creates drama. A topic ban for every topic where you do this should be automatic. That's a lot more tolerant than a site ban. I'm sorry you have history that makes your actions appear farcical and baiting but it also makes these remedies appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute @Gamaliel- I could be mistaken but ANI is not listed in the dispute resolution process. WP:DR lists the dispute resolution noticeboards and I'll quote section 4 "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).". The "Are you in the right place?" at ANI also provides other places. ANI is a high stakes/high drama arena needing immediate admin intervention and is often where WP:BOOMERANG is liberally applied to editors that have a history of using it inappropriately. Tarc brought a running 3 month dispute to ANI without any specific incident in direct conflict with his ArbCom sanction not to do that very same thing. The result was exactly what NYB was concerned about: he took the gamergate fire and threw ANI gasoline drama on it. The result of testing that boundary should be the minimum needed to stop it which is a topic ban as the article is under general sanctions as well as his particular arbcom sanction. He is not helping to resolve the dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, I assure you I have received no email nor do I read 8chan nor am I a gamer or anything else. Retract your false allegation uttered by a troll on a troll site. Otherwise, STFU with your personal attacks. I don't even edit the gamergate article. One chance to strike your lie. You're being trolled and you are reacting to it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, reposting is a BLP violation. The irony is that the source you use to falsely accuse me would not be acceptable for you in an article. It's defamatory and your continued flagrant disregard for BLP standards which includes editors is pathetic and transparent. You are the one who reads 8chan and apparently their newsletter. I do not. It's defamatory to attack me personally based one a troll post from a 3rd party site that I am completely unaware of. My name is what I protect and will do so from trolls and their proxies. I did not bring off-site campaigns here. I did not bring Tarc to ArbCom. His history speaks for itself. Your accusations, though are baseless and without merit and a gross BLP violation. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not alone in my thinking nor is unsubstantiated or baseless. Jimbo called for a Tarc topic ban if he can't stay away. That's the remedy I proposed. You can remove your accusation at any time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tutelary
It's pretty unambiguous. "Tarc is not allowed to edit administrator noticeboards." How he tried to get away with that explicit wording of ArbCom's restriction and I'll never know, but it's pretty obvious that he violated it--trying to get ArbCom to grant an exception for anything besides relating to the restriction itself is quite obvious of his conduct in the matter. His telling off of DHeyward is also pretty telling, labeling him as a 'Pro GG' and that his opinion should be 'ignored' when he's just another editor like any other. I suspect that even after I make this comment I'll be slurred as 'Pro GG' or some other term he's come up with. If this is how he acts with this topic, then yes, I do believe a topic ban would be necessary. But for the original complaint, it's obvious that he violated it willingly and fragrantly. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , read the next part of the line. You and Tarc deliberately took that line out of its context trying to construe it to mean something it doesn't. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. It's not an exception to that criteria. Tutelary (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute
WP:BANEX notes the following as a "normal exception" to a ban such as that which Tarc is involved: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". There is a legitimate dispute that Tarc is legitimately hoping to solve. Based on this, I would consider Tarc's invocation of normal exceptions to start that ANI thread to be good faith, and largely valid. As such, he should not be blocked, but if this is not what Arbcom had in mind when handing down the restriction, now would be the time to clarify it. Resolute 00:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tutelary, I inadvertently missed the next line, but it is interesting to know that you believe you have telepathic skills that allows you to know what others are thinking.  That being said, I do believe that if Tarc has the ability to respond to an AN/ANI about him/an issue he is deeply involved with, he should be able to start an AN/ANI for same.  Mostly, he needs to stay off Jimbo's talk page and stay out of ANIs that don't really involve him. Resolute 17:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Gamaliel
I'm not familiar enough with Tarc's restrictions to comment on whether or not he violated them in this case. But I think it is inappropriate for involved editors to attempt to use those restrictions to eliminate an editor they perceive as an adversary from an article unrelated to those restrictions. If Tarc's behavior on that article is problematic (and I believe that some of it may be problematic, just as I believe there may be problematic behavior there from the other editors), then the other editors should seek redress through the regular channels of ANI, RFC, etc. and not through an unrelated ArbCom sanction. Gamaliel ( talk ) 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge
This is a very clear and obvious violation. Tarc is not allowed to edit any administrative noticeboards aside from the normal exceptions. A normal exception would be if they were appealing the sanction or if someone else filed a complaint against Tarc. But this neither an appeal nor a response to a complaint against Tarc. In fact, Tarc initiated a complaint, something that they are not allowed to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by NorthBySouthBaranof
It appears to me that DHeyward doth protest too much. He is correct that the source wouldn't be acceptable in an article, but this isn't an article. The board is demonstrably organizing off-wiki campaigns to attack editors who disagree with their POV. DHeyward's POV on this issue is readily apparent, and there is, at the very least, the untoward appearance that by demanding Tarc be topic-banned, he is obliging a trolling campaign's efforts to silence their opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, I will redact my statements after you redact your wholly-unsupported and baseless statement that Tarc is a "disruptive force on the [Gamergate] article." The only thing Tarc has disrupted on that page is a concerted and months-long effort by fringe POV-pushers to insert BLP-violating false accusations and insinuations about a number of women in the video games industry, to downplay the clear consensus view of their movement as an anonymous band of misogynistic and nihilistic trolls, and to wrap themselves in a shield of disingenuous and nonsensical "but ethics" claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Banning Policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This was discussed during the case. The point of the remedy is to remove Tarc from areas where he is not a positive influence. The normal exceptions apply to the topic ban, i.e. appealing or clarifying the topic ban. Other usage of administrative noticeboards is not currently available to Tarc. Worm TT( talk ) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Worm; this was a rather clear-cut violation of the restriction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, for the love of everything that's good and holy, everyone *please* stop sniping at each other. It's most definitely not helping. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. If Tarc is the subject of an already-started thread or facing sanctions in one, he may defend himself, but opening a thread on an admin noticeboard is off limits. If it really is a serious incident, someone else will bring it up at one of the administrative noticeboards. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that opening a new ANI discussion is not within the scope of the exceptions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not in doubt: the normal exceptions do not provide an excuse here, so the remedy was breached. AGK  [•] 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Banning Policy (November 2015)
Original discussion

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Banned users
 * 2) Recidivism


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 
 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Banned users
 * I'd request verification that banned users mean site-banned users.


 * Recidivism
 * Enact a 1rr restriction on Smallbones for reverting or removing registered account comments not site-banned or Arb restricted.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
Smallbones is acting as judge jury and executioner on Jimbos page with editors in good standing. The rationale for edit warring to remove User:Sitush comments is and when further asked he used | Jimbos comment about TheKohser as a justification for his removal as well. The reverts are, , and a fourth I previously missed. Now after I left two nicely worded non templated warnings for refactoring or removing a non banned user's comment and on the 3rd revert a 3rr warning. His last response after the 3rr warning was | "Read the case again". Now I miss things quite often and because a central part of wikipedia is discussing and coming to a consensus I asked what part? His response was to disinvite me from his talk page with the bad faith accusation that I just wanted to argue. Everything, literally everything I have said in this discourse was amiable and very civil. I contested his removal, Sitush contested the removal but as you can see the only judge that Smallbones is willing to listen to is JImbo and that basically he can do what he pleases. I think a 1rr restriction on registered users unless a clear BLP issue or vandalism is warranted due to past history and doesn't effect his ability to revert actual ban evasion if needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As an addendum the recent comments really highlight why Smallbones should take the break.


 * "I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever." The pages on arbitration state very clearly that if a person is having difficulty maintaining composure they should take a leave. I did that, nowhere does it state an editor renounces any right to act on problems relating to that issue later. It also certainly does not crown him as the sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice either.
 * " I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues." Refer to sole wielder of the Jimbo talkpage sword of justice
 * "If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop." Refer to comment that Jimbo is the judge of his actions, not the community that was in place on that page

I certainly think that there are issues if Smallbones find these issues to be completely reasonable reactions when his opinion holds no more weight then mine or Sitush's but when multiple people disagree it is time to rely on the others around you in the community to help enforce those, especially in controversial actions such as this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User: Euryalus, I considered the 3rr board as a possibility but choose this venue as this apparently was the venue that User:Smallbones preferred. In last years case a warning was issued to both SB and myself. Read the [|warning here]. So needlessly [| inflammatory rhetoric] confirmed (also a BLP violation) and I've illustrated there are at least 4 occasions with just this one incident where there was the edit war. Smallbones stated that the banning case established he was well with his rights to revert established editors and when asked which part his response was [| "Read the case again"]. I followed his request to elevate it to the appropriate noticeboard and as he was claiming this was covered under this case the clarification became nec. and also combined with the rhetoric, intransigence and the edit warring behaviors, a sanction may be needed. I thought that maybe it might be time to restrict his actions to a 1rr for established editors that are not banned. No one is stating that he should lose his ability to revert banned users. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Hawkeye7, I have no disagreements with this statement you made "editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this". I asked quite clearly [|please take the issue to the appropriate noticeboard]. Smallbones is not an admin, hopefully he will never be, but until that time when multiple editors say the same thing maybe it's time to involve one. I attempted to do this without involving anyone but Smallbones as was right and proper. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jimbo Wales has stated outright he approves of User:Smallbones taking liberties on his talkpage. I'll leave my opinions on his integrity in this situation and many other situations to myself and ask that this be closed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Smallbones
I have to be quick here, and will put in diffs later if requested. User:Hell in a Bucket requested the case last year and then disappeared from it stating in essence "Give me any sanctions you want, I don't care."  I thought his bringing the case and his handling of it was frivolous, just like his current request is. If he wants to bow out of the case, he should do it forever.

The main item of contention last year IMHO was how Jimmy wanted to handle his talk page. My understanding of the final result was (in my words) "Everybody's talk pages are subject to Wikipedia rules, but editors are given wide latitude on their own talk pages. Jimbo should have especially wide latitude on his talk page and he leaves moderation of that page to others." This fits with what Jimmy said in his opening statement to the case, and it fits with what he said yesterday and today at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 197

The only mention of this in the final decision last year was

Findings of fact

Jimbo Wales' talk page

1) Jimbo Wales has stated that issues can be raised at his talk page without the user's being accused of forum-shopping[18]. Between July 2012[19] and August 2014[20], his talk page stated that he had an "Open door policy". He has also often left moderation of his user page to others.[21]

Today Jimmy stated (all this is on Jimmy's talk page, same section) "I generally support the idea that if people have a problem, they should be able to approach me here without getting into trouble for "canvassing" and the like. But there are limits, and we are not required to have unlimited patience for people who are not prepared to behave in an appropriate manner. I acknowledge the difficulty that GorillaWarfare identifies and the main thing about it is that no one is going to get into trouble for removing trolling from my user page. As another example, anything from "Mr. 2001" should be deleted immediately - he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to wage his nearly 10 year obsessive campaign against me."

That seems entirely clear to me.

Today Jimmy told Sitush "Please go away then" and last year Jimmy said I have asked Sitush to behave better or stay off my talk page.

It appears to be the case that Jimmy thinks that Sitush is trolling on his talk page. I think that as well.

Please note that I do not claim any special status on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I am not trying to protect Jimmy - he can do that himself. I remove comments by trolls and banned users because I believe they are trying to prevent myself and others from calmly discussing the issues.

If you have any questions on whether this is consistent with what Jimmy wants for his talk page, I'll suggest you contact Jimmy (probably email would be best), which is what he suggests on his talk page. 

"if anyone wants to remove them (the comments), I won't complain and will defend that action as being consistent with maintaining this page as a useful forum." - Jimbo

(I added (the comments)) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If Jimmy disagrees with my moderation of his talk page, I'll gladly stop.

HIAB's request is entirely frivolous. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to tell Jimmy what he must do, you can tell Jimmy himself on his talkpage. If you want to make a request you'll probably get a better reception. His talk page is also the place to do this, but you do understand, I hope, that if you make a request it implies that you will accept his decision.
 * Perhaps it would be better to try to convince arbcom what you think Jimmy must do; and have them impose that decision on him. But I think they will keep their current hands-off policy there.
 * So that pretty much leaves us to follow what Jimmy has actually said. I'm almost certain I'm correctly interpreting what he's written, but Jimmy can tell me himself if he thinks I'm misinterpreting it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Plausible deniability: Jimbo's specialism is evident in this confusion. Smallbones assumes a certain reading of his words that in fact are ambiguous. There is a significant conditional with the or in one statement and a peculiar contextual use of then in the other. In between times, he completely misread the events leading up to the first statement - my use of the word "hysteria" as a descriptor, which was blown by others into a ridiculous full-on misogyny claim - and he failed to respond to an email after some discussion on my talk page.

Smallbones, despite their assertion, is scarcely neutral when it comes to determining who is or is not "trolling". They're at the heart of the GGTF stuff and, well, they cannot parse the English language let alone spot the cultural differences. I've never trolled in my life and am not going to start doing so now. Back off Smallbones and let Jimbo do what he should be doing. If he hasn't got the time or inclination to do so (he often disappears due to other commitments at what might sometimes be considered convenient moments) then that is just more support for my opinion that his talk page here should be deactivated (full protected) and if necessary moved to Meta. Arbs have in recent cases expressed concern about how he uses that talk page - he needs to be told this explicitly because he is using people in a way that is detrimental to the project. They are just either (a) not seeing it or (b) in cahoots with the Master Plan that is "Friendly Space". This is an encyclopaedia project, not a social engineering project. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jimbo Wales
I strongly commend and warmly thank Smallbones for his excellent assistance in helping to keep my user talk page useful as a place where thoughtful and reasonable dialogue about the project can proceed productively.

Sitush has, in his own comments here, illustrated exactly why he's banned from posting to my talk page. First, he says "I've never trolled in my life and am not going to start doing so now." But then he continues with an absurd allegation and insult which is not in any way true: "(he often disappears due to other commitments at what might sometimes be considered convenient moments)" and continues with an outrageous and unsupportable proposal that my talk page "should be deactivated (full protected) and if necessary moved to Meta".

There is a much better solution. Sitush, go away. Stay away. Don't come and further bring down the tone of the discussion on my user talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
IMHO, only Jimbo Wales should decide as to who can/can't post on his talkpage. If he has authorized others to make that decision? then clarification is required on that authorization. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: Again, if Jimbo has authorized others to remove posts from his talkpage? Then clarification from him, would be helpful. BTW, it's GoodDay :) GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo what he wants done on his talkpage, concerning this issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

After having read Jimbo's statement, I recommend this amendment request be rejected. The talkpage deletions-in-question, have been approved by the talkpage's owner. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I think it is not unreasonable to have some indications on Jimbo's talk page regarding matters of conduct, including removal of posts, there. I know over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention after some recent matters a number of editors, myself included, were specifically told that we could act in a similar way regarding counterproductive posts there. I think it would be in everyone's interests if were to designate, in one way or another, editors who have his authorization to perform maintenance edits on his talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think that anything I said here or on Jimbo's talk page could be seen as indicating that I think he "must" do anything, and rather object to the implicit presumption in that statement. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7
Per WP:NOBAN: If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. Traditionally, we have permitted users to ban other users from their talk pages (WP:NOBAN), and to remove comments as they see fit. (WP:REMOVE) Editors have no right to comment on other users' talk pages, and editors have been blocked by admins for violations of this. This case is entirely without merit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (BP)
Jimbo Wales@undefined If User talk:Jimbo Wales is merely for discussing Jimbo Wales' edits to Wikipedia, then I have no objection to him "banning" people from his talk page, and very little to his talk-page stalkers implementing that ban.

If, on the other hand, it is to remain one of the central discussion pages, then to ban people from it is a bad idea. It is a worse idea when they are being discussed on the page - "Go away, we are talking about you, not with you." is a wholly unacceptable attitude.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Coretheapple
It's deeply disturbing to see an editor being forced into this kind of ridiculous and unnecessary proceeding. I don't endorse Smallbones's efforts to police Jimbo's talk page, not because he is wrong but because of precisely this kind of nonsense. What I would suggest is that Arbcom rule that Jimbo and only Jimbo can initiate proceedings like this involving his talk page, and that Arbcom take appropriate measures against the editor who brought this case to prevent a repetition. If that does not happen, then I would respectfully suggest to Smallbones that he desist from helping out Jimbo, however justified it may be. It just is not worth the trouble. Coretheapple (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Banning Policy: Clerk notes

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



Banning Policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * @Everyone: apologies, am not clear in what you're seeking here. If you would like Arbcom to set some rules for the use of Jimbo's talk page by blocked/banned editors, then i would argue to decline as the current circumstance seems clear enough - Jimbo is happy to allow some latitude for good-faith and uselful comments by blocked/banned users but not including obvious trolling or harassment, and not including any specific editor like Mr 2001 that Jimbo directly declares unwelcome. If you're seeking action over a specific instance of overly aggressive removal of comments, the stifling of discussion and/or an action against consensus, it's something that might more directly be addressed at ANI than here. This is not an opinion on the rights or wrongs of this incident, it's a comment on the request that Arbcom resolve it rather than any other forum. Overall, absent any further advice from Jimbo himself I'd say the retention or removal of comments on his talkpage depends on the discretion of individual editors, which cannot be satisfactorily codified in an Arbcom decision and breaches of which should be taken through the usual dispute resolution channels. But if I've missed some key point, please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline as Jimbo has clarified above who is permitted to contribute to his talk page, and specifically endorsed Smallbones' removal of comments. Seems nothing left to be discussed here as this seems a routine application of policy regarding user talk pages. However, this treats the page as a regular talkpage - it needs to be accompanied by a general acceptance that WP should not (or no longer) be using it as a general dispute resolution forum. - Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Jimbo's clarified his position. I don't see anything here that we could or should do. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing to be done here. Jimmy has the same right as any other editor to ban others from his talk page. That being said, it is in very poor taste to criticize someone in a venue where they may not respond. I would hope not to see that in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Jimmy has the same right to ban people from his talk page every other editor does. I too though take a dim view of criticising someone in a venue where you know they may not respond, and I would encourage the community to sanction those who repeatedly do so (for example by enacting topic or interaction bans). Jimmy's talk page exists in its current form only because Jimmy allows it to be used that way - it has no official standing; further, anyone may be banned (by arbcom or the community) from any discussion space where their presence is disruptive regardless of it's official status. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Jimbo can control his talk page. If he permits someone else to control it,that's his decision.  DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)