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

Case opened on 11:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, or you are adding yourself as a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Link 1 [[1]] (couldn't find in archives)
• Link 2 [[2]]
• Link 3 [[3]]

There is a lot of dispute if WP:EVADE is covered under talkpage posting. It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted. If in an article and it's not vandalism another editor may take responsibility for that edit but posting on their behalf or attempting to repost their concern is not appropriate. Enter User:Tarc. Tarc has been blasting insults, incivility and outright trolling on Jimbos page. Edits such as [someone has a hissy fit again, I'll just post yoour comment as my own, with attribution. Let em stew on that.] or this edit summary [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]. Apparently the word cunt is not ok but telling a editor [you think you have the balls to remove something I post under my own name, then come at me bro] or telling me [can go the the first part of my username] or the attitude that this is a game [challenger appears]. There are many more edits stating that Smallbones and myself are whiteknighting, overzealous and etc. Jimbo has not replied and there is an impasse as Smallbones and I are within policy to revert on sight edits on or on behalf of a banned user without regard to 3rr. Why will we ban people then let them post if it's good contributions, there are plenty other editors with lots of great contributions banned and there is no question about it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Konveyor, if there was significant doubts you are correct but in this case all three accounts were spouting the same thing, terms of use nonsense, it was a very very clear duck case. It was clear enough theat a checkuser was done but I didn't have the correct beginning user which from the Block log the TheKohser isn't actually the master either but an older account User:MyWikiBiz, at least according to this block log. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarc that's why we are here you can't understand the difference of usage of the word as a word and an epithet. Please point out where I called someone a cunt? If you want people to be CIVIL you have to actually be civil yourself, not ask if they have the balls. I do that's why we are here, you are trolling and as User:KWW rightfully says trying to pick a fight. Arbcom has dealt with the last comment you can drop your WP:STICK now, your horse is dissecated now, now move on to your disruptive trolling, time for a new issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smallbones Arbcom has or the community has handed down blocks, if there is to be an interpatation that allows talkpage edits and the community can not come to a consensus as this can be a sitewide issue this can be a good way to stop disruptive edit wars. I will say that even being right about removing the comments it's still disruptive for us to revert war too. If talkpage are the exception and Arbcom agrees then problem solved but maybe we can address what it means to post on behalf of banned users, when it's ok to revert and where banned users may post and under what conditions. Multiple admin disagree and obviously the community does too, Tarc is only the face of a larger issue here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On another sidenote User:Tarc, asking someone if they have the balls is pretty sexist in and of it's self [[4]]. So there again if that's why you are having a problem then this can help you understand how a simple comment can be misconstrued as sexist nonsense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deltahedron, this edit summary shows the willingness to proxy [[5]] so do this one [[6]], Here Tarc is stating he doesn't care who they are [[7]] this was after checkuser said they had no sleeper socks and needed behavioral evidence so I corrected my info. The sock came back to Tarc's page and left this [[8]], now if User:Tarc was acting in good faith he would be able to see 3 editors, brand new accounts all of them going with terms of use questions. You'd have to be blind not to see the connections, that's why blocks were handed out to two of them already. If anyone has questions you can look at the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. The bad thing is that this apparently unconnected user knows a lot about SPI's and now look surprise surprise [[9]] it's a checkuser block too. Congrats Tarc take a bow for helping them troll Jimbo. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my intention to take a wikibreak, if my conduct needs to be reviewed please do so in spite of my absence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my absence is not related to this ARB Request case and I DO NOT withdraw the request (moot as case is accepted anyways). I'm quite prepared to accept the findings of the case, I would however highlight my agreement with User:Rich Farmbrough that the committee has indeed appeared to have formed their opinions already so I'm not sure what use my input will matter. Accordingly unless I feel a large need to chip in I will not be participating in the remainder of the case. I am quite aware that this assumes bad faith but comments such as "I'd be willing to accept a case with the strict scope of looking at the behaviour of a small number of people", "I think there are several people here whose behavior is due (or well overdue) for a review, and I don't think that is going to happen any other way at this point", "I think it's time to review the actions of some of the people named here", "I'm more than happy to take a case reviewing the behaviour of people not here to build an encyclopedia. Several names here qualify" That's a full third of the active arbs on this case but hey you know it happens that when you start something you aren't guaranteed results but I question their neutrality and judgement when they are making comments like this out the gate. If it doesn't need a case, issue blocks and move on, if on the other hand it's a valid issue great we get clarification to a messy situation that does effect the entire encyclopedia talkpage and banning guidelines. All of this being said I plan on reducing my editing on wikipedia to the point of nil editing or Ip editing due to personal concerns unrelated to this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket is mounting a rather superlative misdirection campaign by highlighting my use of silly internet memes ("a challenger appears", come at me bro", etc...) in edit summaries. For someone who casually throws around misogynist c-bombs into discussions in this project, and someone who acts as deplorably as he did at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Word usage in defending the c-word, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to call anyone out for incivility.

This whole mess is about a few different things, but one in particular; a fundamental difference in opinion regarding what it means to edit a page in this project, be it a user talk page or an article-space page. One side has a strict interpretation of "banned means banned", and that all edits by sock-puppets (whether proven or unproven) can and will be reverted on sight. This means that any possibly banned user who posts a question to Jimbo's talk page is automatically reverted, as well as a possibly banned user who adds a freely-licensed image to an article is automatically reverted. The other side wishes to evaluate the merits of the post or the article addition and believes that either should remain in place unless there is something egregiously wrong, e.g. WP:NPA or a topic ban violation. This is a collision of a draconian interpretation of the ban policy vs. how things usually flow in this project, and have flowed for years. Users have traditionally been granted a bit of latitude in allowing banned users to post to their talk pages; I do that myself with a few people on mine. Users have also been traditionally able to "take responsibility" for revert article content and have been able to re-add it as their own if deemed a "good edit". Both of these have been denied lately; here at Jimbo's page, and one here involving a suspected sock of Russavia. I asked Kww if he plans to call for a block of the user, as he threatened to do to me, who restored the image at Dassault Falcon 7X, but have yet to see a response.

Moot.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: despite Kww's as-yet-uncorrected false assertion here and here, I have not actually ever restored content added by a Russavia sock, though I believe his situation and the one we're going over here are two aspects of the same problem.

The other aspect of this is the situation of editors reverting suspected socks of banned/blocked users...and no, not that they are literally flagged as a suspected sock, but that the reverter him/herself is the one with the suspicion. That is how I got embroiled into this mess initially, when Hell and Smallbones were reverting an account with no block log and no SPI. The account is now blocked, but I and others are rather uncomfortable with regular users patrolling another user's talk page and removing content based on their own guesswork alone.

If this case is accepted, I would urge the committee to not focus on the who but more of the substance of what is at stake here. "Russavia" and "Mr. 2001" (alleged to be "thekohser") are being invoked here as boogeymen, people that quite frankly no one, even myself, particularly care for. We shouldn't craft policy or make decisions with the aim in mind of punishing specific editors.

So this is where we're at... "banned means banned" vs. "if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: If my at-times flippant edit summaries were misconstrued as incivility, then I apologize. After this, please stop pinging me here, as I'm really not going to engage in this now move on to your disruptive trolling rhetoric, esp on an Arbitration page. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the matter of whether or not the accounts actually were socks or not is largely academic. As I and others have noted, there has traditionally been a degree of latitude given to users over their own talk space; doubly so Jimbo's talk page which serves as a de facto secondary Village Pump. I believe Jimbo has also declared that bringing a matter to his talk page is not subject to WP:CANVASS'ing guidelines. At the time of the first brouhaha, the "SpottingTOU" account was neither blocked nor confirmed as a sock of anyone. The account was posting simple questions and comments within a discussion on Jimbo's page, and I found it rather offensive that the comments were being reverted on mere suspicion. The 2nd time, the user [[10]] at my talk page asking for assistance, which I granted. At first I made it abundantly clear that I was posting on the user's behalf by pretty much relaying their ToS question verbatim; this was reverted as "blatant proxying". I then rephrased the ToS question 100% in my own words, but that was reverted as "proxying" as well. I did not then and do not now see the ToS question as inherently trolling or disruptive. If Jimbo wanted to respond, he could, or other editors can (and did) too. Then the thread slips off to the archives in a few days. After I took on the question as my own, the drama should have ended then and there. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the continued recording of the...record, I do not feel that a decision by motion is feasible at this time, as the larger issues of a) latitude a user has over his/her own talk page, b) ability of a Wikipedia editor to restore material of a banned user as his/her own, i.e. "take ownership" of the material, and c) whether a user is immune to 3RR if they revert in opposition to a and b remain outstanding, despite Smallbones' assertion that there "no real question of fact involved" when in fact there are several. I claim no immunity or right to the ~25 (!) times I reverted Smallbones (himself in the 20's) & Hell in a Bucket (~6); it was wrong for all of us to engage in that. To be fair though, Jimbo's talk page is a watchlisted by hundreds if not thousands, probably dozens of them admins; that no one actually blocked us is a testament to either a "am I really seeing what I'm seeing" incredulity or "this is a unique situation and we don't know what to do" thing. For me, it was reminiscent of being out past one's assigned curfew; if you're already two hours late getting in, may as well go whole hog and party all night. So, it's up to you, mom & dad. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final(?) Addendum before Acceptance: I'd like to point out that the last thing we warred over (that was eventually restored by a completely uninvolved party) spawned Paid editing and the ToS. Apart from the rehashing of the events in the middle, several editors held a discussion regarding aspects of paid editing. This is exactly what I wanted to happen; for a non-controversial, non-argumentative, non-trolling post to simply remain on Jimbo's page. This is what should be allowed to happen in the future, to let posts sink or swim on their own merits rather than ad hominem removals based on who the user is suspected at the time to be. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too early for an ArbCom case. For one thing, Jimmy W. is said to be on vacation and may return and clear up the whole thing one way or another with just a few words. I've also offered a couple of compromises, including an offer of mediation, which Tarc has yet to answer. Finally, Tarc will essentially ask you to repeal WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned Mean Banned and this doesn't seem to be the proper place to do that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus Thank you for reminding me where I saw Jimbo's words on the matter of who is invited to edit Jimbo's talk page and how. From the 5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales (and it has been there forever):

"Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. This is a wiki, so (apart from bad faith alterations and vandalism) visitors are welcome to edit."

Bad faith, i.e.duplicitous, fraudulent, or deceptive, seems to perfectly describe the banned editor in question.

In any case, all those folks who have been harassing me and others in the last 2 weeks saying "Smallbones can't delete the banned editor, unless he has explicit permission from Jimbo" now have an explicit answer straight from Jimbo. I'll also say that I have always edited within the letter and spirit of WP:BANREVERT and WP:Banned means banned, and, with one possible small exception, only reverted the one banned editor.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has left a note User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 170#Away essentially saying he was on vacation and will start a discussion (AFAIK on this topic) in a few days (or more). I would guess that that discussion will take at least a few days, and then any questions at issue here will be moot. In line with that, I'll suggest that this case request be closed, and if anybody has anything leftover they want to pursue, they may open a new case request later.

I also want to remind folks that I did not propose this case. HIAB, the proposer has given himself a 2 week ban and essentially dropped out of the case. (what's that all about?) I would not have proposed the case, and I do not consider myself an ally of HIAB in any way. He did jump in and do a few things that I approved of, but he also confused the issues at times, and took the bait, at times, of folks who were clearly trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't think he has broken any Wikipedia rules however. I don't think he will want to reopen the case after the discussion at Jimbo's talk page, and doubt that there could be any sanctions against him if he did.

I'd also like to point out that nobody has made any credible accusation that I've broken any Wikipedia rules, so that if anybody decides to reopen this, I'll request that they specify exactly what rules they think I've broken.

Yes, there are some folks who say that I've edit warred, despite WP:NOT3RR and

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules - "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

Some have accused me of some vague violation of our user talk guideline, despite

Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages - "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space .... Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users."

Some seem to suggest that I have reverted Tarc for WP:PROXYING. Check the record - I have not.

Some have accused me of violating some special unstated rule of Jimbo's talk page, despite Jimbo clearly stating:

"Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. " (5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales

And everybody should reread WP:REVERTBAN

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"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."

So if you'd like to accuse me of anything on this page, I think you have a long row to hoe.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the arbcom can decide a case by motion if there is no real question of fact involved. Since nobody has made any credible accusation that I've broken any rules (e.g. beyond the random accusation that I've edit warred, despite WP:Edit warring saying that reverting banned editors is not edit warring), I request that arbcom consider a summary motion to end this case, one way or another, as far as I'm involved.

There should be no question on the facts of this case, I'll provide all the diffs of my supposed "edit warring" below. If this is not what is at issue, I'd like to be informed what the issue is, so that I can properly defend myself.

I'd like the arbcom also to consider a "constitutional" issue. By its charter, arbcom is prohibited from "creating policy by fiat." The policy at issue here says: ""Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." (my bolding). This says that I'm not required to give a reason for reverting a banned editor, apparently even to arbcom. If there is no arbcom statement on what I am expected to answer, I'll almost certainly answer arbcom questions, but I'd really like to know what areas I'm supposed to answer on and why, so if you do give me a response on this, I'll likely limit my answers to the areas indicated.

Finally, I request that you consider what would be the proper sanctions if I were indeed found guilty of breaking some rule (you don't have to tell me ahead of time). Anything that I can think of seems self-contradictory. For example, if you were to topic-ban me from Jimbo's talk page for reverting banned editors there, would that mean that I'm still allowed to edit there (as a topic-banned editor who can't be reverted).

Banning me site-wide would seem to be equally self-contradictory. It would then appear that you can get banned for reverting banned editors, but you can't get reverted if you are banned.

Rest assured that I won't violate any sanctions arbcom might impose - but that's the point: Do you really only want bans to apply only to those editors who voluntarily submit to them?

My edits related to this case:

[11] reverted new edit by Spotting ToU Aug 5

[12] reverted edit by Spotting ToU

[13] reverted new edit by Spotting ToU where he admitted to being a banned editor (He'd admitted this previously as well)

7 reverts on August 7 of new edit by Spotting ToU, word-for-word original signed by Spotting ToU reinserted by Tarc 6 times , once by Tutalary

10 reverts on August 8 of edit by Spotting ToU, word-for-word original signed by Spotting ToU reinserted by Tarc

[14] reverted edit by Spotting ToU, word-for-word original signed by Spotting ToU reinserted by Tarc. I suggested somebody just archive the section (as was done) Aug 8

[15] reverted Rewarder, who was obviously the same editor as Spotting ToU, and was later banned for trolling on this edit

[16] reverted Rewarder

[17] reverted Rewarder 8-14

Note that I never reverted Tarc re:Rewarder's edit.

That's it. I won't appeal a summary motion, but I'd rather not get dragged through a weeks-long (month's-long?) procedure which I feel is being pushed on me as a form of harassment by some of the same editors who were clearly at fault in the incident. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I've been away and somehow until I got an email today I had overlooked entirely that there was a potential for an ArbCom case. I would suggest here that all the editors who have been fighting about this please give each other a virtual hug and remember that we are all here to build an encyclopedia while the banned users who post to my talk page generally are not. There is fairly universal agreement and understanding that there is an important reason why my talk page has to be handled somewhat differently from others as a traditional space to have philosophical debates about the principles of the project, and for editors with grievances to have a chance to be heard. That openness to criticism and debate is part of what has made Wikipedia successful. At the same time, ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything is also part of what has made Wikipedia successful. The difference between the two will always be difficult to draw.

What I would suggest is that the ArbCom, if the case is accepted at this time (I'm a bit late to request that it not be) quickly move to simply suspend it for a cooling off period. I don't think the issue is unresolvable.

Separately if ArbCom thinks my policy of excessive openness and toleration of our banned users is unwise and should be changed, then a private word with me will suffice - there's no need for a formal case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding myself as a party in the event ArbCom decides to accept this case. I do not believe that this matter is ready to be heard by ArbCom at this time, since the community has not reached a stalemate. Perhaps there will be blocks and bitterness down the road which make a case necessary here. I don't think that policy on the matter at hand here is unclear — people need to simply stop selectively reading what they want it to say. A block or two might prove to be a boon to literacy... Carrite (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by new posts on Jimbotalk, it now seems that the main problematic editor remains entrenched in his position and that Jimmy Wales wants an external decision on the matter, so I recommend that ArbCom take the case. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprisingly, this "Greg Kohs Case" is moving forwards... Let's start with the solution and then work backwards through the discovery process. (1) Edit warring is disruptive, no matter where it is done. (2) Smallbones and Tarc and possibly others have edit warred over their interpretation of policy, which is just as disruptive as two people edit warring over their interpretation of article content. (3) Smallbones claims immunity from edit warring restrictions based upon an erroneous interpretation of policy. (4) Tarc has simply been POINTy in his edit warring, although his reading of the general policy in play is accurate. (5) There is no way to actually stop banned editors from returning if they set their minds to do so; however, even though we as individuals may think we know the origin of this specific comment or that created by a sock account, we are ultimately just guessing. (6) There is a right way to identify the masters of sock puppets — guessing is not one of them, even though we all do it from time to time. (7) There is no such thing as a 3RR exemption to edit war over a legitimate editor rephrasing a question or posting other content purportedly made by a banned editor. (8) With respect to the current affair, the solution is simple: Smallbones and Tarc are warned that further edit warring over posts possibly made by socks of banned editors anywhere on WP will result in escalating blocks. If a post is clearly trolling on Jimbotalk, it should be hatted, not removed; if a post raises a legitimate point, even in a POINTy way, it should be allowed to stand unmolested until a proper SPI can be run on the purported evading sock. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Carrite (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I'll allow some additional time for statements, but I'm leaning toward acceptance. I think there are several people here whose behavior is due (or well overdue) for a review, and I don't think that is going to happen any other way at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not going away and is the exact type of situation it's our responsibility to handle. Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, while Jimmy's statement is much appreciated in providing clarity to the situation, it does not change my view on the need for a case to be opened. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm more than happy to take a case reviewing the behaviour of people not here to build an encyclopedia. Several names here qualify. Accept. AGK [•] 07:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like Jimmy's open door policy specifically and the idea of an open wiki generally are rubbing up against the "banned means banned" ideal that some people want to subscribe to. That's always likely to happen and finding the balance is difficult. What's more important is that it's the same old names appearing again and again. I'd be willing to accept a case with the strict scope of looking at the behaviour of a small number of people. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not decided yet on whether a case is needed. It would help to hear from Jimmy on this. He has contributed recently, so if he is back and able to comment, a statement from him above would help. (Hopefully the ping will work!) Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, from a memory of seeing a screenshot of his talk page at Wikimania, with 58 pings for him to check, I suspect a talk page note may work better. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, though with some reservations. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's time to review the actions of some of the people named here. Accept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll wait for Jimbo until midway through next week, no need to rush into this. Still, leaning towards accepting. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline While the behavior here is problematic I'm rather reluctant to open a case that could have been dealt with via some 31 hour blocks. Sure, it can be made out to be a federal issue or as part of general conduct review, but I'm not sure what concrete actions I would take here that would not further aggravate the situation. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Pondering furiously; neutral for now. I realize this is useless as input, which is what happens after six and one-half years on the Committee. I'll vote tomorrow if the case hasn't already been opened by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a long essay coming on, but I'm not sure how many people would feel like reading it.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that it makes any change, but I think that this case is a massive overreaction to a problem that could have been solved by issuing a couple of 31h blocks. Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am inactive on new business and will not be available at all during most of September so I won't be casting a vote here, but since it seems clear the case has been accepted I would just like to mention that whether or not anyone, up to and including Jimbo, has the authority to exempt their personal talk page from site policies is a question that should probably be addressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. LFaraone 06:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 1 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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]

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2) The conduct and editing patterns of the accounts User:The Rewarder and User:Spotting ToU (e.g. [22][23]) made clear that these accounts were operated by banned editor User:Thekohser.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

3) The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales was the site of significant edit-warring over the removal or retention of edits made by a probable banned user who repeatedly added the same text.[24][25][26][27] Several users reverted and re-added this text.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

4) User:Smallbones and User:Hell in a Bucket reverted these edits on the basis of Wikipedia's policies regarding ban evasion.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Given that Tarc assumed responsibility for the content, reverting Tarc's edits constituted edit warring. Both parties used edit summaries rather than dispute resolution, resulting in a protracted dispute.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

5) By re-adding text of a banned user, Tarc assumed responsibility for the text. Tarc continually edit-warred to include the content,[35][36][37][38] to prove a point rather than on the merits of including the content itself.[39]

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 6 to 0, with 3 abstentions at 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention at 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention at 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.