This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 24 August 2014 (→Statement by User:Stevietheman: opine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Amendment request: American Politics (Dinesh D'Souza films)

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• None are directly affected

-->

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

No users directly affected. Will leave a notice on the talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Discretionary_sanctions_.28general_directive.29

I request that all Dinesh D'Souza political documentaries come under Discretionary sanctions, as an amendment to the American Politics case. The article and talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her WP:Battleground behavior and a similar dynamic to other cases that deal with American politics.

Statement by your Casprings

I think this is the type of situration the decision was designed to deal with. I would also note that similar battleground behavior has been seen in noticeboards, such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her

@Collect: The request only asks for films from one director and one type (political documentary). That isn't particularly expansive.Casprings (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: While you may disagree with the original decision, the logic was clearly to be flexible and quickly handle areas under American Politics quickly. I think that this request is in line with that. However, if the question is about the original decision, that is another issue.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence (Might take a little while, as I am busy with work right now. However...) Edit Wars over content

1.,, , ,

2. ,,,,

I would note that 2. happened in the context of several heated exchanges on several different forms: For example,https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her and https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#The_Blaze

@Seraphimblade: I can and will add more. However, before I do, I wanted to ask: 1. Is this what you are looking for? 2. How much more do you want? Casprings (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by VictorD7

Frivolous since activity on the article has been winding down anyway, in accordance with a movie's normal box office cycle. I'm also not sure what the basis for expanding DS to all D'Souza films would be. Seems arbitrarily broad. VictorD7 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

statement by uninvolved Collect

OK -- if we add all films, books, people, events, magazine articles etc. which are remotely connected to "American Politics broadly construed" we likely would have over twenty thousand articles on the list in a flash. Possibly a lot more than that. Draw the line quickly lest this get really out of hand. Collect (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: Note the other request on this same page at this point wherein some estimate was implicitly asked for. "Broadly construed" is, in my opinion, intrinsically ill-advised as any sort of standard, and this request is sufficiently afield from the original ArbCom evidence and findings as to illustrate that problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: I demur. Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Wholly unnecessary bureaucratic filing. The original decision was clear and flexible. If these specific items need to be subjected to the original case, it can happen without such a request for amendment - otherwise, you're going to create bad jurisprudence that requires everything to be vetted in triplicate before it can be subject to sanctions. Bad and poorly-thought-out idea all around. the panda ₯’ 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Casprings, could you please add more details (specific diffs would be most helpful) as to why you believe these restrictions are needed? Seraphimblade 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Initiated by —Guanaco at 08:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Guanaco_desysopped arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Guanaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• MarkSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Posted to their talk pages. —Guanaco 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Guanaco

Eight years ago, it was decided that I would be ineligible to reapply for adminship. I was 16 years old at the time. I have no particular interest in reapplying in the near future - I haven't actively participated in the Misplaced Pages community in several years. But this black mark is something that has bothered me, and I hope to rejoin the community at some point with a clean slate. —Guanaco 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

People can change and mature significantly in 8 years, and processes like RFA are also more mature than they were back then so all the benefit from this restriction has been had already. The other two named uses have themselves not edited since 2008 and 2009, so there is little chance of negative interraction with them occurring. I therefore don't see any reason not to allow an application in the normal way if he wants to apply in the future - indeed there is I hope the potential that removing the restriction will spark a desire for this new, mature Guanaco to become an active contributor once more. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is a long time ago, and I think practice has since changed to generally leave whether to restore tools up to the normal community processes. I'd be inclined to remove the restriction and allow normal reapplication at RfA. Seraphimblade 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Seraphimblade. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that an arbitration sanction does not need to last more than eight years. If one checks the proposed decision page in the case, it is clear that the remedy is meant to mean that Guanaco may not submit another RfA without first getting ArbCom's permission. In light of the passage of time, I believe the consensus here will be that he has our permission, i.e. he may be a candidate at RfA like anyone else if he ever wants to, and the community will decide. If anyone thinks we need a formal motion to effectuate this outcome I will propose one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• I support removing this restriction as well. Salvio 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics (Kentucky Senate election)

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested # Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

• CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevietheman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tiller54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Champaign Supernova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

CFredkin https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACFredkin&diff=622128624&oldid=622125680

Stevietheman https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AStevietheman&diff=622128985&oldid=622004228

NorthBySouthBaranof https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=622129194&oldid=621857736

Tiller54 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATiller54&diff=622129504&oldid=622129021

Champaign Supernova https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AChampaign_Supernova&diff=622129934&oldid=621440660

Information about amendment request

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)

• Request that Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes be placed under discretionary sanctions until November 2014.

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

Edit-warring has been happening at Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes. (They are the incumbent, seeking re-election, and the opponent in the upcoming election for United States Senate from Kentucky.) The article for Grimes has been placed under full protection.

User:Champaign Supernova has had discretionary sanctions explained on his or her talk page, and that I notified all of the recent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I partly disagree with User:Collect that there is nothing unusual on the Mitch McConnell page. Earlier this month, there was, in addition to an insertion not only of a mention of a particular fund-raiser, an insertion of a wildly speculative theory about the reason for the fund-raiser, that involved gross BLP attacks on the industrialist who was supporting McConnell. While this sort of dirty political attack may not be "unusual", it was very inappropriate in Misplaced Pages. It wasn't just a BLP attack on McConnell, but also on the businessman who was supporting him. It was in my opinion the sort of case where the existing right-left polarization in American politics is likely to affect Misplaced Pages that the ArbCom had in mind with the general directive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As to "slippery slope" questions, the ArbCom does not have a crystal ball, but this seems to be precisely the sort of dispute area to which the general directive was oriented. I would hope that the imposition of discretionary sanctions in this case would send a signal to edit warriors in other sub-areas of American politics that they should edit in accordance with the usual rules, both before November 2014 and after November 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Details

History for Alison Lundergan Grimes https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alison_Lundergan_Grimes&action=history

History for Mitch McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&action=history

Reverting a fund-raiser https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621611111&oldid=621606775

Add endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621652104&oldid=621611111

Remove endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621675442&oldid=621652104

Add information https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621676327&oldid=621675442

Remove information https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621694341&oldid=621679946

Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes#Censored content – See repeated claims of censorship, a common indication that POV-pushers object to removal of undue POV

Statement by uninvolved Collect

The McConnell BLP shows no unusual activity for a political BLP, and certainly the editing there does not reach the definition of "edit war." The Grimes BLP has more problems, primarily due to one editor using it to simply add "campaign fluff" (that is, positive statements about a candidate's positions while removing negative opinions sourced as opinions.) That, again, is typical "silly season" editing behaviour which does not reach ArbCom enforcement levels, even though it is to be deprecated. No sign that this is an apt case for "clarification and amendment" at this point at all. If these articles are added, there is literally no end to the number potentially added, and I suggest the ArbCom draw a line here that the matter is insufficient at this point. Collect (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of articles: A bit over seven hundred candidates for House of Representatives (some races have three candidates with articles), about seventy or eighty for Senate, and about twelve thousand state legislature candidates. If we add notable local elections, add another thousand or so. Add about 250 "major issue articles" and we reach a rough estimate of perhaps fourteen thousand articles to be placed under this category. Not even counting articles about foundations, families, PACs etc. Collect (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@NYB - I perennially suggest such general restrictions on BLPs of political figures internationally for the respective "silly seasons" in various places -- not just the US. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and other English-speaking areas are the primary focus of politically-motivated editors during political campaigns. And I agree this would be a community decision. Collect (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

I'm not familiar with what a discretionary sanction is, and I don't understand what this proposal means or how it would affect me. I'm confused by my involvement here because none of the diffs listed above were edits made by me, or reverts of my edits. Is there anything I need to do right now? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:CFredkin

It seems inappropriate for User: Champaign Supernova to be included in the sanctions, if he/she hasn't been accused of objectionable behavior. Or would the sanctions apply to all future editors of the articles mentioned for the time period specified?CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Stevietheman

Despite the apparent declaration, I have not been involved in any edit warring. I protested this declaration here, which strangely came in the form of a welcome message for a 10-year wiki-veteran (me). I don't do edit wars and haven't been blocked for WP:3RR since 2005, and it was just one time. While there has been actual edit warring on the affected pages, there has also been what I think are seemingly biased accusations of "slow-motion edit warring" and "disruptive editing" which I have found to be overzealous. Here's the gist of the problem: People from both political camps are using these articles for electioneering purposes. That's bad, that's un-wiki. But I'd rather see admins use the regular tools at their exposure to settle things down, and especially deal with individuals causing the biggest problems. Stevie is the man! 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, the "Reverting a fund-raiser" item above was me going through the appropriate move of closing an RfC a week after asking if there were any objections to doing so, and removing content agreed to be removed by consensus (4 out of 4) on the talk page. It's pretty outrageous that doing something agreed to by consensus would be included here. I thought these requests were for dealing with egregious behavior. Stevie is the man! 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

Regarding DS more generally, I think it would be better to allow for DS to be placed on articles about specific political candidates in the n months before an election via a lightweight procedure (say 2 or 3 uninvolved admins at AN or ANI agreeing they would be beneficial) rather than automatically enable them for all political candidates. I do agree though this should be discussed at an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I certainly see the potential for problems to worsen here. I'm minded to grant this request. @Champaign Supernova: You can find the full details on what discretionary sanctions are here. In short, they're a way we can allow administrators to quickly address problems in areas where they're very likely to occur, and establish restrictions or remove editors from that topic area if the need arises. Establishing discretionary sanctions over the articles wouldn't change a thing for any editor who isn't engaged in misconduct, and can in any case only apply to misconduct that happens after the sanctions are imposed. It's not an action against any individual, and your inclusion on the request doesn't mean you're accused of any misconduct. The only reason you were probably included is because you edit in the area, so you should have the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to, or (as you did) ask us any questions you might have. Seraphimblade 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Like Seraphimblade, I am open in principle to agreeing to this, but is there a potential for a slippery slope here? How many other articles may also need to be placed under such discretionary sanctions if people point to this decision as a precedent? Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• I broadly agree with Seraphimblade. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps we could consider DS on articles relating to active candidates for office, in the X months leading up to the election. But I'd want to see this taken to an RfC for community input before taking it any further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Initiated by — Arthur Rubin (talk) at 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Case affected

Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 8.1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Information about amendment request

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Arthur Rubin topic-banned
• I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by your Arthur Rubin

It has been 7 months since my last reported violation of the topic ban, although this may be a technical violation, which is part of the reason for my request. Per a previous clarification, I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I was going to make an arguably gnomish edit on Citizen Koch (combining 3 references which all support the same statement into one), and, today, I discovered a MonkBot error on Tea Party movement which I technically cannot fix without violating the topic ban. I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion. If I'm the second and fourth in A → B → A'b → B → B'A', I have made 2 reverts, but I'm actively working on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion. I admit that I consider the IP's edit on Citizen Koch, restored by a real editor, absurd. But I wasn't planning to actually revert it. Consolidating 3 references (including the one added by the banned IP) into one isn't reverting the addition. And I was planning to revert a bot on Tea Party movement. My further discussion on a potential edit war was hypothetical, but in that particular configuration, I would be trying to improve the article, while the opponent would be attempting to revert to the present state. However, I would agree to a 1RR limitation if the committee feels it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean to imply that I would be edit warring; I would prefer to be able to try variations, which would technically be "reverts", as it would probably be changing the wording (which I don't like, or find objectionable, or in violation of Misplaced Pages policies (but not BLP)) to something more like what was there previously, but it would never be exactly a revert. I'm willing to abide by 1RR per section or 0*RR (never revert reversions of my edits; 0RR is problematic, because of the expansive definition of "revert") if you feel it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In regard possible changing the topic ban to 1RR; obviously I cannot dictate the form of the remedy, but I do think the 1RR/area/week allows more legitimate editing than 1RR/article/day. Even a restriction from article-space would allow me to suggest or discuss edits which have made some articles absurd, but not a policy violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Arthur was swept up in the prior case for fairly minor sins, and the "time served" argument which is rarely pertinent actually does apply here as he has "noted" - especially where a result occurs which makes no reasonable sense to any outside observer. Collect (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

The Committee based its findings of edit-warring on the following 4 diffs:

• 11:42, February 17, 2013

• 09:00, February 18, 2013

• 11:28, March 6, 2013

• 04:13, July 16, 2013

Yep, that's right. Four reverts over the course of 5 months. Had this occurred in a 24 hour period, then sure, yes, this would be edit-warring and would warrant a 24 hour block. But it didn't happen over 24 hours. This is 5 months of editing. We don't topic ban for 4 reverts over 24 hours nor should we topic ban for 4 reverts over 5 months. If we topic-banned every editor who was at 4RR over a 5 month period, there would be scant editors to edit.

Nevermind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.

Face it, the Committee f***ed up and f***ed up royally. Not only should this request be granted, the Committee should apologize for such a ridiculous, absurd ruling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Absolutely the Committee should grant this request. Arthur Rubin is a generally non-combative editor of long standing, and a good contributor. Even in this vexed area (TPM) his editing does not amount to anything sanctionable it would seem. I would urge the Committee to go further and remove the topic ban altogether. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• 1-week 1RR means one revert per week, correct? - Penwhale | 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Thinking about the request, but in the meantime I'll just say this is the first time I've seen an edit-war described in sonata form notation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Unless I'm missing something, this does not seem to be such a good idea. Just to clarify ... the request is about restoring access to someone who has been topic-banned for edit-editing so that they may return to edit-war. No?  Roger Davies 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin I was just taking at face value what you'd written: "I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion". Can you clarify what this means please?  Roger Davies 08:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• @Arthur Rubin Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Edit warring policy as from you've just said you probably won't be sticking to 1RR at all,  Roger Davies 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to downgrade Arthur's sanction to an indefinite 1-rr coupled with the standard one-year keep-your-nose-clean topic ban suspension. Salvio 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Although I sympathise with Arthur Rubin's frustration that the Tea Party movement articles require further work, I think an insufficient amount of time has passed since the original case for it to be in the interests of the project to reduce or remove the sanctions adopted a year ago. I would therefore decline this request, with absolutely no prejudice to considering it again in the future. AGK 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to consider 1RR, but it would be a standard 1RR, that is, one revert per article per (day|week). I would not be willing to consider a complex system depending on exactly where in the article a revert occurred. Seraphimblade 00:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As there seems to be a reasonable level of support for it, I'll put together a motion changing the topic ban to 1RR/week. Seraphimblade 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'd potentially support a 1 week duration 1RR, but I'd like to read over the past evidence a bit more. NativeForeigner 08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a 1-week 1RR or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Arthur Rubin topic ban suspension and 1RR

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Misplaced Pages's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.

The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.

Support

1. Seraphimblade 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Salvio 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
5. I'd prefer 0RR (or Arthur's 0*RR) and would recommend he at least attempts to hold himself to that. Worm(talk) 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
7. This seems a reasonable approach. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
8. Worth a try. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
9. LFaraone 04:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion passed. Clerk to close and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)