Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Proposed decision

It's Jimbo's mess
I guess I'll post here cause it's the only talk page without a scary red warning edit notice.

Everything relevant about this case is in Wales' statement Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy. He states "There is fairly universal agreement and understanding" which is concurrently very true and not true. There's understanding that it's somehow different, but know one actually knows how it's different. Vague and contradictory phrases like "openness to criticism and debate" and "ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything " and the fact that he's not onwiki everyday mean it's inevitable there are going to be chronic issues on the page -- conflict between the iar crowd and "banned is banned" crowd. I empathize and understand both positions, and can't fault anyone for either viewpoint. The committee can't fix that, only Wales can, assuming he prioritizes fixing the problem rather than maintaining his wiki-guru founder status. Concretely, he ought to simply find some admins he thinks have reasonable judgement to clerk the page. NE Ent 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Exceptionally well put. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've felt from the beginning that this was Jimbo's problem, and said so in emphatic terms in my statement when this was being considered. I've been especially annoyed by Jimbo's failure to state explicitly how he wants his page handled. However, since he has been absent, and since Arbcom (unwisely in my opinion) has chosen to accept this case, the committee has to act in loco Jimbo and try to read his mind as to what his wishes are, consistent with policy.


 * My feeling, and I'd have added this as a principle if the workshop was still open, is that efforts by some editors to replicate the posts of this particular banned editor were contrary to his wishes, and that editors were correct to remove that text even though it was posted by nonbanned editors. Yes we all know that BANREVERT allows it. But I would suggest that it's contrary to Jimbo's wishes. Would I engage in such text removals? No, absolutely not. That's because I feel it's Jimbo's problem. I think the editors who do this are fighting Jimbo's battles for him, and that he is making a fool of them by not speaking up for them now that this case is open at arbcom. But were they wrong? No. Was the editor or editors who posted that text wrong? Yes, but he or they acted in accordance with policy so it's hard for me to get worked up about it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'll suggest that it's too late now to come up with a new solution (as far as this arbcom case). I don't find "phrases like "openness to criticism and debate" and "ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything " " to be "vague and contradictory." I'm the only person who has presented evidence on JW's "personal talk page policy" and it makes sense to me - as much as possible, ignore the trolls; and when it gets intolerable, hope that other users take care of it.  In any case, while folks keep on talking about how JW has to do something, I'll suggest that we look at what he has actually done, and respect his choices.


 * Sorry if I'm starting to sound testy, but since early August people have been accusing me of dozens of things, based on dozens of different rules (as well as IAR). At this point, I think it is up to the arbs, if they think Tarc has presented sufficient evidence, and made a case - shown that I've broken some rule, and maybe even presented a reasonable remedy, then the arbs should decide what the remedy should be, to whatever they decide the problem was.  If not, they shouldn't.


 * Conversely, if the arbs decide that I've provided enough evidence and made the case that Tarc and Mr. 2001 have broken some rules, then the arbs should seriously consider the remedies I've suggested. I think that's all that can now be done.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, there's absolutely no question that the person behind the MyWikiBiz/The Kohser accounts is not welcome on Jimbo's talk page, period. You enforced Jimbo's wishes. All that I'm saying, and I think NE Ent is saying basically the same thing, is that Jimbo could be more straightforward on that point.


 * On another point that I wanted to comment on, but couldn't because it was raised in the Workshop after 9/23, is that it matters a great deal that the IPs and accounts you reverted were indeed the banned person. It is fallacious to say that editors have to run an SPI check after every such appearance, as that has not been the practice in dealing with obvious socks. In fact, my evidence deals with what happens when one initiates an SPI on one of those socks. It becomes an immense time-waster, which is precisely the aim of the banned editor. I was specifically advised not to bring such cases. It's all in the links contained in my evidence. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "There's absolutely no question that the person behind the MyWikiBiz/The Kohser accounts is not welcome on Jimbo's talk page, period" is a falsehood, as I have amply demonstrated with facts presented in Workshop & Evidence. You're making a statement that there is "Zero Tolerance", when in fact there is "Some Tolerance".  The two do not exist in a quantum state; if one is true, the other one is false.  As Jimbo and others have engaged with this user on that talk page, the latter is the true position.  Period.  Smallbones actions in this situation have shown a particular rigidity of thinking that is wholly unsuitable for dealing with the nuance and complexity of the problem at hand. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Case update
Just to note that the PD will probably be posted a day or so late, to allow a bit more scrutiny. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc Restricted
Propose adding a line "except on issues which he is directly involved in", as the current proposal is vague and misleading.  Konveyor   Belt   16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The remedy already explicitly notes that the normal exceptions to a topic ban apply. I think "directly involved in" is too fuzzy, while the current proposal is quite clear. What do you find misleading about it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BANEX only states: "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". Nothing about taking part in a legitimate discussion which he is a major party to, which could have nothing to do with the ban.  Konveyor   Belt   21:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the intention, to minimise Tarc's meta involvement, and leave him access to encyclopedia improvement. Worm TT( talk ) 07:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like a precise clarification on what "any administrative noticeboards" covers. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Category:Wikipedia noticeboards says nothing of "admin noticeboards". This sounds like AE fodder.  Konveyor   Belt   22:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrative noticeboards includes any page that is designed to bring a matter to the attention of administrators. In other words: AN, ANI, ANEW. The Arbitration Enforcement page is included in the package, unless the matter at hand involves this case/Tarc as a primary subject.  → Call me  Hahc 21 01:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, areas of the project that...literally...have nothing to do with the locus of this dispute? Can you cite a single instance where my actual participation in (not just that I was the subject of someone's ANI filing) an AN/ANI, etc...discussion has been red-flagged for a problem?  I've only ever posted at ANEW a handful of times, and AE maybe once or twice.  Y'all are straying into the bad side of "preventative not punitive" here. Tarc (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Preventative not punitive" is an oft used phrase, but not particularly relevant. This is the third Arbitration case where you've been a major party, you've admitted to experimenting to make a point in the past. The remedy is designed to remove you from areas where you are a negative influence and leave you in areas where you can be a positive influence. Worm TT( talk ) 07:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an oft-used phrase because it is a community norm, and you (the collective Arbcom "you") are not above the norms of the community. How this comes across is that you're grasping blindly for something to do for the sake of the proverbial "send a message".  I mean, seriously...for the Manning case, yes, I erred in going about that as I did, but...y'all topic-banned me from a topic I had not ever edited in before that case.


 * Meanwhile, we have editors who call others cunts, say "fuck off" or "don't be a shite" in edit summaries, serially disrupt a Wiki-Project with misogynist attacks because they disagree with its core aims, or threaten to be armed with guns if they ever happen to meet other editors in real life, all without sanction...or lasting sanction, as initial blocks are swiftly undone by other admins. I can't be the only one here laughing at the complete hypocrisy that offenses against other editors day in and day out are treated less seriously than offenses against the wiki-state bureaucracy, which is all this case really is. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should really have gone further on the statement that it's an oft-used phrase but not relevant. The phrase comes from the blocking policy, where it points out that deterrent and encouragement are a valid preventative usage - the remedy would fall into both those areas. Further, we're talking about bans, placed by the committee, not by blocks placed by an individual. As such, it's not a relevant argument in this context. As I mention elsewhere, I voted against that topic ban, I don't think it was the right outcome for that case, some more targeted restriction (such as the one we're discussing), or a site ban would have been more appropriate. As for your "meanwhile" comment, do note that the committee has currently accepted a case on that topic, which will hopefully be open soon. Worm TT( talk ) 12:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what; suspend the findings of this case til the outcome of that case. If you (again, collectively you) ban Corbett & Sitush for a duration of no less than 1 year, I'll take the 6 month time-out. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll probably suggest some tweaking of the language when I vote on the case (tomorrow or Saturday). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate that, thanks NYB. Worm TT( talk ) 07:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think a suspended ban would be better then a site ban, give User:Tarc] some rope and let them use it to either holg on to or hang themselves with. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, 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. What remedy do you think we could adopt that would prevent you from doing this again short of throwing you out on your ear? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When I restored the comments of "spottingtou", I did it simply because I was tired of the WP:DUCK bullshit; people here are so deathly afraid of "banned users" and any possible contribution they may make under disguise. I tried to make this clear in one of my principles; that banned users aren't lepers, and that you (as in the project) do more harm than good by ascting like the proverbial "if my only tool is a hammer, then I all I will see are nails. I gave evidence where this supposedly banned user was frequently allowed to post on Jimbo's page, and you apparently ignored it. Remember, boys; I used to share this mindset as well, an for a time regularly tossed Kumioko's posts from Jimbo's page.  However, I evolved.


 * I realize y'all think I had some deeper knowledge of or understanding the many intricacies of your favorite Wiki-boogeyman, Mr. Kohs, but he was the furthest thing from my mind at the time. I never even remotely envisioned a situation where the likes of Smallbones & HiaB would through the mother of all hissy fits and keep deleting the comments even after a real editor had restored them.  That not a single admin, on one of the most watched talk pages on the project, not even after a crystal-clear 3RR report and an ANI report, did a single admin block anyone involved here speaks volumes; your principle here does not enjoy community support.


 * NYB, other than Manning, I don't throw myself into hot-button areas for the sole purpose of stoking the fires. Unless I'm forgetting one, I have only been a primary party to 2 other cases in ~6 years; Obama in 2009 and Muhammad in 2011.  In the former, some very ugly politics were trying to worm their way into articles related to the president, and I worked to keep the articles fair and neutral, though sometimes a littler bitey.  The latter was IMO a critical test of the project's commitment to the openness of information and not surrendering to the demands of an outmoded religious dogma, though I let a particular participant's obtuseness get under my skin and reacted at times badly.  Those were large-scope issues involving actual encyclopedic content.  This here was not, it was a fundamental disagreement of the application of bureaucracy, of what is more important; the content that is contributed or the person who contributes it.  Y'all are chugging right along to a finding of the latter, that "banned means banned".  I'll say again, you may have some very big and vocal True Believers like Smallbones that will champion this cause for you, but by and large the community is not in step with this position.


 * As for remedies...if you want a pledge to not edit-war on Jimbo's page over banned users, sure, you have it. I think you run the risk of denying useful contributions to the community, but that's your loss.  I think the ban on posting to JImbo's talk at all is rather arcane, though...has anyone, ever, been barred from a user's talk page absent the request of the user him/herself?  Have you even asked Jimbo about this step?  Also, you're getting murkier now about what "any administrative noticeboards" covers.  Hahc21 clarified above that it meant "Administrative noticeboards includes any page that is designed to bring a matter to the attention of administrators", but on the main page NYB, you're talking about an exception for BLPN, when that doesn't fall under what Hahc21 said.  BLPN is a venue for soliciting community input on a matter, as are the various XfDs.  Are you including Arbitration itself?  I'd rather like to weigh in on the GGTF case. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

For my thoughts (just my own, and I'd like my colleagues to weigh in as well), I would see "administrative noticeboard" to mean just that: noticeboards primarily intended to bring matters to the attention of administrators or request administrative action, i.e., AN(I), ANEW, AE, etc. A board like BLPN is intended to bring matters to the attention of the community, not just administrators, so I would not see that being included under that restriction. AIV is intended to deal with blatant vandalism, and topic bans make an exception for dealing with obvious vandalism, so I would not see posting standard vandal reports there to violate the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This exactly matches my thoughts. Worm TT( talk ) 07:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed principle on reverting banned editors
The proposed principle says edits by banned editors should be restored "rarely and with extreme caution" but, while I agree that people should be cautious, I feel the first part is neither appropriate nor necessary. Each edit should be assessed on its own with no implicit limitation on how many edits or how often edits can be restored. If a banned editor makes numerous quality contributions that are reverted solely on the basis of the editor being banned, we should not suggest that only some of these edits can be restored. This does not really pertain to the case at hand, but ArbCom principles are regularly cited on policy pages and in discussions. Our only limitation should be on whether the contribution is constructive.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am far from sure that this proposal belongs on this page, and I will not quarrel if someone removes this section. However, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the matter.
 * This issue has been discussed time and time again over the years, and every time the same conclusion has been reached. Superficially, "Our only limitation should be on whether the contribution is constructive" seems like common sense, but it does not stand up to closer examination. An editor is only banned after being extremely disruptive, and extremely persistent: mere blocks are used for the usual run-of the mill disruptive editors. A ban means that the community has decided that the editor's contributions do so much harm that they really must be stopped. If an editor has been seriously disruptive so persistently that they get banned, and then evades the ban and edits, then they are clearly extremely determined. If such an extremely determined seriously disruptive editor discovers that they can get away with evading the ban, because every time they do so a significant proportion of their edits will remain, then they will continue to evade the ban. The one chance of stopping them is to make it clear to them that evading their ban is a waste of their time, because everything they do will simply be reverted. Of course, that means that sometimes we lose some good edits, but the fact that the editor is banned means that the community has decided that the editor is so disruptive that the loss of such good edits is outweighed by the benefit of deterring the disruption that the editor does. Keeping edits by such a banned editor purely on the basis of an opinion as to how constructive individual edits are, without regard to the whole context of the editor's history that led to the ban, is very likely to have a net negative effect on the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. That being the case, it's unfair to penalize Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket in any way whatsoever, because they were acting properly. I'd have just let it slide. They stuck their necks out and it doesn't seem fair to chastize them for doing what was basically the right thing. Sure they edit-warred, but that was because an editor was improperly restoring a banned editor's contributions. By acting as an extension of the banned editor, proxying for him, he was an extension of the banned editor. However, I think that the six-month ban is excessive as the fact is that the rules are just too hazy/contradictory and it doesn't seem fair to do that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sure they edit-warred"... I think we're striking the right balance with a warning. Worm TT( talk ) 12:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But my point is that in effect they were reverting the banned editor. However, putting all this aside, I think that this proposed decision does a good job of clarifying how to handle banned editors and provides further guidance for editors in the future. It might not be a bad idea to "codify" what you're saying here assuming it passes, as it will clear up haziness in the current "banrevert" policy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TDA, I do understand where you're coming from and generally agree with that point of view (eg for block evading editors). However, when looked at in a wider context - banning users is unusual, it shouldn't just be done at the whim of a user or two, it should require deliberation and evidence leading to the point of view that the user is not suitable to be on Wikipedia at all. That alone is rare, of all the hundreds of thousands of active editors there have been on Wikipedia, only a few hundred have ever been banned. Given that these banned editors have got to the point of "ban", they need additional disincentives to help them move on from the encyclopedia. One of the main ones we have is removal of their edits, even if constructive. It should be extremely rare to restore one of their edits, and the person who does so should be cautious about doing so as many banned users have ulterior motives. Personally, I'd rather we weren't looking at whether the contribution is constructive, but if its very absence is destructive. Worm TT([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk ]]) 12:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I have a problem with is that it has been the case that editors have reverted edits on the basis of banned editing even when the edit was something innocuous such as a copy-edit or a correction to some unsightly error on a page. Any editor restoring that change is clearly in the right, yet your wording suggests even that should be done rarely, despite there being really no way to address the issue independently without effectively restoring the banned editor's edit. We also have the obvious exemptions of reverting vandalism or BLP violations. You also have the reality that banned editors commenting on a user's talk page may lead to various editors going to that editor's user talk page to revert the edit, even against the will of that editor who by policy should be able to have the final say providing the comment itself is innocuous. The statement that restoring contributions from banned editors should be "rarely" done seems to only further various combative and hostile behaviors often exemplified by those whose dogmatic adherence to the policy on banned editors is just as disruptive as any banned editor. Essentially, you would be emboldening some of the very people whose behavior has been a problem in this case. In my opinion, the endorsement of such reverts is not based on the idea that any edit by a banned editor should be disallowed by default, but that it makes it easier to address problematic behavior by banned editors evading a ban. As such, their contributions should be reverted as little or as often as necessary to insure a constructive atmosphere suitable for improving content.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What should be kept in mind is that a banned editor is not, regardless of merit, allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. If we could implement some technical measure that would make it entirely impossible for them to edit at all, we would do so. Such a measure does not exist, so removal when detected is the next best solution. I would agree that in rare cases, such that reverting the banned editor would restore a copyvio or a BLP problem, it might be desirable to keep their edit, but in the majority of cases, edits made by a banned editor in defiance of the ban should not stand. Evaluation of one's edits on the merits of those edits happen when one is not subject to a ban; if the same happens when one is banned, there is no functional difference between being banned or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is you are burdening editors who simply see a good edit and think it should be kept. Only way they can get the effect of the edit without restoring it is to effectively reinvent the wheel and take a sufficiently different approach to the same material that it cannot be seen as simply restoring a banned editor's edit. In the case of a comment on a talk page that can be done rather simply, but that is not always the case with content. Should a banned editor make the absolute best crack at a completely valid addition, you are essentially saying an editor who supports that edit has to make an edit of lower quality to be right with the WikiGods. That is silly and detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia. Of course, in this case it seems even taking a different take is being treated the same way as restoring the comment. In that case, are we saying if a banned editor addresses a legitimate issue no one else can then address that issue because any improvement of content along those lines would give the banned editor a constructive say in the improvement of content on this site (apparently something we do not want)?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 07:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the point is all that hazy. If some obvious sock fixes a typo or something noncontroversial, it should be left alone. But in this case there were reversions that allowed a banned editor to participate in a discussion through an intermediary. I think that the whole "take responsibility" stuff applies mainly to situations in which a banned editor does stuff via sock and then is identified in an SPI and then the sock is blocked. So people look at the socks edits and in many instances just lets them stay as they were. This is a completely different kind of situation. This is a situation in which a person with an agenda is pushing his agenda through obvious socks in various venues. Whether the points he makes are "valid" or not, he is banned and should stay off Wikipedia, and his stuff should not be reinstated. I think that is the clear message of the proposed decision, and as such I think it has a great deal more value than I had expected going into this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This situation is different, but the term "rarely" is limiting without cause and would go beyond these types of incidents. Saying editors should exercise "extreme caution" is sufficient.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't share your concern about "rarely." By the way, I thought this comment by Carcharoth was particularly on point: "the elephant in the room here . . is the 'special' status Jimmy (Jimbo Wales) gives to his user talk page. It is that, and the failure by Jimmy to respond or implement measures (such as formal clerking) in response to incidents like this, that meant this ended up here. If Jimmy insists on his user talk page having a special status, he should be more active in maintaining it, or delegating that responsibility to others." Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Salvio's votes
Salvio has abstained in four votes, and most oddly, three of the four remedy votes. I don't see an obvious reason why (recusing?). It seems strange they would agree entirely with the facts, but be so out of step for the remedies. I ask that they elaborate on their position a little. Are you planning to put forth alternates? What would it take to move them to a definitive vote? Remember that arbcom made an informal pledge to avoid abstain votes if at all possible, so I'm assuming there is a compelling reason to vote in that manner. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First, could you please give me, if you have it handy, the link to our informal pledge to avoid abstensions? It's very possible I may have made such a promise and then forgotten all about it, but right now I can't think of anything... About your questions, I abstained on the "banned editors" principle because part of it is not entirely supported by the relevant policy, in my opinion I refer in particular to "such restoration should be undertaken rarely". Now, I understand where my colleagues are coming from and I partly agree with the underlying idea that once a user has been banned, that user should be discouraged from editing Wikipedia at all for his participation was deemed especially problematic and reverting all his edits regardless of their merit accomplishes that purpose. Then again, we are here to create an encyclopaedia and one of the pillars allows us to ignore a rule when doing so allows us to improve the project, so an overly mechanical approach to the issue could lead to us cutting off our collective nose to spite our face. But, anyway, as I said, in my opinion policy does not completely support this principle, merely requiring that editors restoring an edit by a banned user "are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", and since I don't believe it's our place to modify policy, I'm abstaining (although I've been wondering whether I should move to an outright oppose). I also abstained on three remedies, because, as I said before the case opened, I believe this proceeding to have been entirely superfluous, an exercise in overreaction. If an admin, any admin had imposed a couple of short blocks to stop the edit war, we would not be here and the disruption would have been solved very quickly. As it happens, no blocks were issued and here we are, but this doesn't change the fact that I still think neither formal remedies nor sanctions are required, although I have chosen to only oppose the ban proposal because I consider that to be particularly overkill.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio, the IP may be referring to Arbitration motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes (August 2011). Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carch. I had completely forgotten about that motion, although I was serving as an arbclerk at the time... However, according to it, it's the use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments which is discouraged. I don't believe that what I've done here fits that description, but I'm open to comments and criticism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a comment/question, not a criticism. All I wanted was a little more detail and you gave it.  Thank you. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"restate the views in his own voice"
, are you aware that I did do just that, albeit belatedly? After the 25-revert spat with Smallbones, I did a minor rewording, which was reverted by HiaB once, twice. A few hours later (after temp full protection was placed on Jimbo's page...again, no blocks were ever issued), I 100% re-wrote the supposed-banned editor's words into my own post, and was reverted by Johnuniq, and he was reverted by an uninvolved editor. After that point, discussion on my post proceeded normally and without rancor. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Actions discussed within this case"
Specifically I'm curious to know what actions is Carcharoth talking about? As far as being banned from Jimbo's page that's not a huge loss I'm just curious if this is because of my 4 or so reverts or because I used "inflammatory" language? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lest anyone get sad about the above " AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in" [] which was one point of my now infamous comment in the first place. That one line applies so thoroughly to the Gender Gap case, Civility request and now the proposed decision. I think it's sad it takes an Arb to state the obvious. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a question for the committee on the "stay off his lawn" remedies (all of which I happen to oppose). Given that this is Jimbo's user page, can he overrule the page bans, if they are enacted? After all, he didn't ask for anyone to be banned from his page. This may be the first time since Adam & Eve that anyone has ever been banned from a user talk page without the user in question asking for it. It seems to me that it should ultimately be up to the user, especially Jimbo, given the special status of his page.


 * Whatever the outcome, I hope that Smallbones and Hell and everyone else have learned a lesson from this, which is that if you get into jeopardy "defending Jimbo" from trolling et al on his talk page, don't expect him to lift a finger on your behalf. I think that his failure to speak out on behalf of these two users is reprehensible and that all lurkers on Jimbo's talk page should learn from it, and leave it to Jimbo to police his page in the future. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just was curious about the motivations behind the various times. I somewhat think it's being proposed to make it look like this case actually did something and possibly a response to off wiki or even on wiki criticisms. FWIW I certainly wouldn't have a problem adhering to a Jimbo talkpage ban it seems like the blanket nature of sanctioning everyone is just a poor attempt at being Solomon and finding solutions to something that is still fairly muddy as far as consensus. I'm not sure that these sanctions will be that effective at stopping actual disruption because there are massive holes in it but I've also never been through an Arb case. I'm curious though and I mean this only as a fascination not an intention to do this but if Jimbo's page is a final page of appeal and it's not forum shopping to post there if I have a good point to bring up are the banned users allowed to post there? Circular logic that it comes back to, does Jimbo's page may or may not have special status in which case it would render the ban and by extension this case as moot as well. Tricky tricky. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've avoided the question of the merits of a page ban. While I'm not familiar with Tarc, I think that a page ban is excessive considering the fluidity and contradictory nature of the rules. I think that everyone acted in good faith. But I think that banning you and Smallbones for acting in accordance with the wishes of the user, Jimbo, is simply insane. I think even a warning is too much. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "in accordance with Jimbo's wishes" is a debunked canard, as Jimbo and others have interacted with banned editors on his talk page on numerous occasions. I realize that this canard is central to both Smallbones' and HiaB's defense, but repetition doesn't make a disingenuous statement magically become true. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Admittedly we all are required to divine The JW's intent by analyzing his pronouncements, as he has not deigned to make a statement as of yet. The vagueness is why I oppose strong action against you as well as the others, though I am open to a convincing argument that I'm wrong. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the key here is the hovering hammer of escalating blocks. With banned user's they are powerless to stop it because in in most cases it's whack a mole but for the sanctioned it's short and curly time lol. Hiab @the airport 67.148.180.130 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Elephant in the room
While I applaud Carcharoth for at least mentioning this, it would be really helpful if ArbCom could clarify whether The former issue at least has been discussed for over two years with no clear resolution; had there been one this whole case could potentially have been avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Jimbo can or cannot declare that certain policies or guidelines don't apply to his talk page
 * 2) If the answer is that he can, how far this goes as I think it should be blatantly obvious that there are policies to which such a ruling should absolutely not apply
 * 3) Any user can or cannot declare that certain policies or guidelines don't apply to their own talk pages
 * The former wouldn't have been avoided, because as parties in this case pointed out, Jimbo has had conflicting reactions to banned users; sometimes ignoring them, sometimes engaging them, sometimes telling them to go away. Unless Jimbo puts a big sign on the top of the page that says "revert everyone who's a sock" I don't think everyone will be on the same page. As for the latter, there's no hard-and-fast rule. Generally user talk pages have always been given greater latitude for behavior and for editors to tend their own garden as they see fit. But if there are personal attacks or other offending material, the editors that post it aren't "immune" from sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially as above. While not unlimited, editors have generally been granted a pretty wide degree of discretion in management of their userspace. This case is more about the behavior that took place at that talk page than about whether one particular example of that discretion is an acceptable one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NYB comments
I'd love a discussion on exactly what NYB thinks needs cleaned up but he has ignored my other attempts of engagement for advice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page
Since you split out #1.2 to specifically call foe a vote on Jimbo's talk page, did you still mean to leave the "...nor User talk:Jimbo Wales..." clause in #1? It still seems a bit weird to bar someone from someone else's talk page absent that person's request. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * #1.1 is regarding Jimbo's talk page only, and has not passed. That doesn't mean that the "Jimbo talk" part of #1 has not passed - I don't expect it to be removed. Worm TT( talk ) 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact #5: Tarc's conduct
Seeing that a page-ban proposal for Tarc is currently passing, I'm looking at the diffs here for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Proposed decision, and I'm just not seeing they support the conclusion "Tarc continually edit-warred to include the content, to prove a point rather than on the merits of including the content itself."

Taking the diffs in order (bolding is mine):
 * Edit summary: We'll try ONE revert, and see if that's enough to get the serial harasser goes and finds another house to haunt. If not, either I or someone else can bring Smallbones to ANI again, then I'll just re-post this user's concerns to Jimbo's under my own name.
 * "...This is IMO an interesting question regarding paid editing, so I am asking on this person's behalf..."
 * Edit summary: "And now, cheerfully, you can piss off. This is MY question to Jimbo. No one owns the concept, and if a banned user happened to have a good idea, that doesn't poison the well for all-time making it so NO ONE can ever ask it again."
 * Instead of just reposting the OP's question, this time Tarc has completely rephrased the question in his own words, and made it more interesting and understandable.
 * "Quite all right. Consider this a trial balloon to see how far these little defenders of the crown will go." Implies opposition based on the content of the question.

Just to mention, yes, I saw his thing in the Manning case, which was supposed to be some sort of reductio ad absurdum but unfortunately it's very hard on the internet to tell the difference between someone espousing an extreme position to show how outrageous it is, and someone espousing an extreme position because they're extreme. There was also something about race a while back, and to this day I'm not sure whether or not Tarc is black. Both situations inexcusable, but this doesn't seem to me to be the same thing. In this situation, he seems genuinely interested in having the discussion play out, even as he seems aware that he's not taking the WMF party line in the issue. —Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am fully supportive (apart from cases like a recent one where such a person was proven to be a liar) of transgendered individuals being referred to whatever their preferred gender is. The Manning case was in effect an experiment, albeit a poorly thought-out one.  The "black" thing was something done to specifically troll Wikipedia Review/Wikipediocracy denizens...again, a decision that ultimately proved to be regrettable, but seeing how the Wikipediocracy trustees condone the likes of  attacking me in their discussion forums, a venue where he is safely out-of-reach of a rebuttal, I can't say I have much sympathy for them at the moment.  I tried various means of restoring an  alleged banned user's comments to Jimbo's page...straight revert, rephrasing slightly in my own voice, and rephrasing completely in my own voice.  The comments of mine cited above merely reflected the  frustration with the obtuse actions of Smallbones and HiaB; those comments were never the Smoking Gun of some sort of breaching experiment, as Arbcom asserts. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bad Faith assumption regarding WPO's trustees above is incorrect — I mention this for what it's worth... Please also note that I never called for Tarc's head in this proceeding, nor did I present his trolling of my User Talk in evidence. And, let me quote his own words for emphasis: "The "black" thing was something done to specifically troll Wikipedia Review/Wikipediocracy denizens..." (Emphasis added.) Carrite (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We know, Carrite, you just exacerbate the situation by taunting from afar. "Tarc's name starts with T for Troll.", "our bridge-dwelling friend", "He's a prick, I don't like him", "Fuck Tarc. He's a 90 proof troll with a 90 IQ.". These are words spoken out of cowardice; I cannot respond there, since my account is by mutual agreement with the trustees in a read-only/silenced mode, and I cannot respond directly here, as that would run afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I previously believed you could easily gain reinstatement at WPO. I was mistaken and told as much. At which point it becomes: "Tarc who?" Carrite (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet there's another thread created about me just today? :) Obsession apparently isn't apparently just for women anymore.  Carrite, do you have any self-awareness that you are rather unliked at Wikipediocracy? If you watch Survivor at all, you're like that person in a 6-person alliance who thinks he's at the top of the game, but will be the first once voted out once there's only 6 people left in the game. Lenin's useful idiot also springs to mind. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good lord, get a room you two.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd love nothing better than to debate this person. But, hey, he just admitted he "trolled" WPO on-wiki, and he simultaneously pursued the same precise stunt on WP during the Private Manning affair, so that pretty much insulates me from that dreadful, dreadful alternate use made of the letter T to which he alluded. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Obviously someone doesn't read the WP articles to which they link. From the lead of useful idiot: "Despite often being attributed to Vladimir Lenin, in 1987, Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, declared that 'We have not been able to identify this phrase among [Lenin's] published works.'" Of course, maybe I was just being trolled. It's hard to tell. I'm out. Carrite (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tarc restriction concern
It seems remedy 1.2 on Tarc is going to pass, I presume in conjunction with remedy 1. What I am curious about with remedy 1.2 is the statement "Tarc is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply." Such phrasing would seem to imply that if someone wrongly restores obvious BLP violations or vandalism that Tarc would not be allowed to revert the action. This should be clarified as to whether it applies to all edits made by banned editors or just those that do not fall into the typical exceptions to restrictions on editors. Also, how would this apply to a question or comment if Tarc simply asked the same question or made the same comment after the one by an allegedly banned editor was removed? That happened in this case as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Four net support votes over 24 hours ago. Close and implement?
Time to close, notify and implement. DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just guessing here, but there was a request on Jimbo's talk page to hold off on any Jimbo talk page ban for Tarc. As you can see, there are two separate proposals regarding Tarc that are now passing: Proposal 1, which would ban Tarc from Jimbo's page as well as all administrative noticeboards, including the BLP noticeboard where Tarc has been active, and Proposal 1.2, which would prohibit reinstating reverted comments. In addition there were two other proposals: a page ban from Jimbo's talk page and a site ban from en.wp, neither of which gained any traction.


 * The second proposal has passed, unquestionably, but there is some doubt about the first proposal. As there are nine arbitrators active for this case, five are needed for any one proposal to pass. Proposal 1 appears to be passing with 6 votes, however NativeForeigner clearly indicates this proposal is second choice to proposal 1.2, which has already passed, so NativeForeigner's vote should be removed from this proposal.


 * In addition, NYB proposed 1.2 in lieu of Proposal 1. The time stamp for this comment was 14:53, 6 October 2014, so it looks like of the arbs who supported the earlier proposal--WTT, Seraphimblade, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, and T. Canens--only WTT and Seraphimblade have reaffirmed their vote for #1 in addition to #1.2. Also, looking at David Fuchs' comment on #1.1 agreeing with NativeForeigner that Jimbo should decide who he does not want on his talk page, this would appear to be leave only 4 arbs supporting #1, which means the proposal has not passed. So they will probably want to reconfirm everyone's intentions before closing anything, and they will probably not want to make that happen on a weekend. —Neotarf (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be closing this case today, regardless of what has been said in the disucssion at Jimbo's talk page.  → Call me  Hahc 21 16:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And the tally? Is it not 4 instead of 6?  I'd like to think I have some skilz with ArbSpeak translation. —Neotarf (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They will all be updated and re-checked before the case is closed.  → Call me  Hahc 21 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A ban from Jimbo's talk page may be outside of Arbcom's remit
From Arbitration/Policy; "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff"

From WP:JIMBO; "Across the year, he maintains a very active talk page, more watched than the village pumps, which he uses as a noticeboard to publish his occasional "decrees" or announcements and where he facilitates discussion on all sorts of Wikimedia projects matters that he welcomes (from the broadest to the most specific; relating to Wikipedia in all languages, Wikimedia, Commons etc.); the latter often include appropriate notification of current or future discussions on the English Wikipedia or elsewhere to solicit more participation from the talk page's followers."

If the primary role of Jimbo's talk page is publishing decrees and facilitating discussion, those are roles that Mr. Wales is conducting in his official capacity as the nominal founder of the project, as well as in his role as WMF member. As such, attempting to ban people from there may be barred by the wording of part i of Arbcom's jurisdiction. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to give up and accept the ruling against you. Arguing ad naseum doesn't help, and after a certain point, I consider it to be a form of harassment. Since early August, you've given a couple of dozen arguments why you should be able to aid a banned editor in trolling JW's talk page. With one partial exception, nobody has upheld any of these arguments. If you didn't want to accept ArbCom's ruling you shouldn't have participated at all from the beginning.


 * I only see one possible further step that you might take:


 * "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions." Arbitration/Policy


 * While it might be considered a case involving JW's own actions (but really the only way he was involved was via inaction), I certainly would not object to you appealing once (and only once) on JW's talk page, as long as you agree to follow his ruling, or if he choses not to respond, take that as a rejection of your appeal. Anything beyond that, I would take as continued harassment and ask Arbcom to take further action against you. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When I decide to actually value your opinion, you'll be the first to know. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tarc: Jimbo Wales' talk page is part of en.wikipedia.org, and as such falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee. His staff roles have nothing to do with his talk page.  → Call me  Hahc <font color="#336699">21 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For someone that just evaded a ban by a narrow margin that doesn't make much sense to start the fight over again this quickly. I suggest to just let shit die, please. It's been two months and it's time, Arbcom think's it is within their purview, short of an overturn by Jimbo they have you by the short and curlies whether you like it or not..they can enforce "Injustice" by ban hammer. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like ArbCom has been ignoring some rules yet again, but then Tarc is allowed to do the same, provided doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tally?
Please note comment at clerks' notice board. As this was implemented with a margin of just one vote, would someone double check this? —Neotarf (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHahc21&diff=629353097&oldid=629330765 explanation by clerk] NE Ent 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I'll make the same comment here. The "caveats expressed acceptance at both remedies passing together" must have been done secretly since I don't see any diffs for it here. Is there some reason this wasn't done publicly? If it wasn't done publicly, how do we know it was done?  We have to take the clerks' word for it, to know how arbs voted? —Neotarf (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Proposed_decision each arbitrator indicates by the section they post in what their vote is. The commentary is to communicate what they're thinking to the rest of the committee and the community; it doesn't affect the tally. The remedies are not mutually exclusive so an arb can vote for more than one. NE Ent 23:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and two arbs have made it clear they support both at the same time:
 * "On re-reading, I'm happy for this to pass as well as 1) WormTT(talk) 07:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "As this can go concurrently with #1 and both are currently passing, I will support both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)"
 * However, NativeForeigner express misgivings about #1 and clearly prefers 1.2 as an *alternative*:
 * Second choice to 1.2. Something ought to be done, but I think this a little bit more than is necessary, and I'm still not a fan of the direct ban to the Wales talk page. NativeForeigner Talk 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the other three arbs--David Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, and T. Canens--do not specifically say they support both proposals, they have either voted or abstained on 1.2, so it would surprise me very much if any of them opposed #1.
 * What I have seen previously with these first choice/second choice votes in the past, is a remarks in the "notes" column of the "implementation notes" so the vote is not counted in both sections. This is how I am interpreting NativeForeigner's vote, based on the comments at #1.  In addition, some arbs do not like to see such a measure pass by only one vote; in the past, have changed their vote to avoid being that one swing vote in a measure with a highly divided opinion.  —Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File for a motion, it's the only way to change it now. Good luck on that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)