Beyond My Ken has been blocked ten times for edit warring; this breaks down to six blocks for violating WP:3RR and four "Edit warring" blocks (I will be referring to both kinds of blocks as "edit warring blocks"). Starting from 2014, there has not been a calendar year without Beyond My Ken being blocked for edit warring. He has been blocked most recently on February 19, 2019.

On July 6, 2019, fifteen hours after his last revert, I reported Beyond My Ken at AN3 (link above) for making five reverts at the same article in 24 hours. The report was quickly closed as "Stale" with no action. I subsequently started an ANI discussion (link above), but it was also closed quickly with no action. I mentioned Beyond My Ken's history of edit warring in both reports.

I'd like a motion with a long-term solution since the community is not willing to come up with anything to fix the pattern of edit warring. This is a time sink: Beyond My Ken is reported for edit warring → he is either not blocked at all or is blocked for a duration not exceeding 72 hours → Beyond My Ken doesn't change his ways → Everything repeats. This cycle can only be broken by Beyond My Ken or sanctions. Since Beyond My Ken has not changed his approach and ANI + AN3 are unwilling to do anything, ArbCom is the only authority that might be willing to rectify this breach of Wikipedia policy and behavioral guidelines on disruptive editing. wumbolo ^^^ 12:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Beyond My Ken got blocked for edit warring on are in order (most recent first): Ben Shapiro, Holocaust denial, Times Square, Mark Benton, Anna Politkovskaya, High society (social class), Little Syria, Manhattan, No Other Woman (1933 film), The Limelight, Royal Commonwealth Pool. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: other than Ben Shapiro, I don't think any of the other articles listed above fall under WP:DSTOPICS. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Statement by Thomas.W

... and since Beyond My Ken's most recent block Wumbolo has been blocked three times for edit-warring, with the most recent block being on 11 May of this year, so talk about pot calling the kettle black. This is nothing but forum-shopping, it was first rejected at AN3, then rejected at ANI, and now it is being brought here. Sheeesh. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

@Thomas.W: Twice, for the record. ——SerialNumber54129 13:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, recommend declining as tendentious; even if it is not intended to be, it cannot escape having that appearance. ——SerialNumber54129 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

To be the most pointless piece of self-important posturing to come before Arbcom in this month of all months is an impressive achievement. The whole point of discretionary sanctions is so that this kind of squabble on areas prone to squabbling doesn't need a full case. Please just decline this. ‑ Iridescent 13:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

It would appear this is a bad-blood posting in response to [1] in which Wumbolo tried to divert attention away from themselves to BMK. This is not a bit of drama that arbitrators would be well advised to take on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I'm not seeing a live dispute here, or something so capable of repetition, yet evading review, that the Committee should take up this case. In other words, this request is either moot or not ripe. I would move to summarily reject this case request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective 3000

WP:PETARD as retributive. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GMG

BMK has multiple behavioral issues spanning multiple topics. In my own experience, there's this because I wanted to use an SVG instead of a JPG (in accordance with policy) and there's this when they decided to edit war over a few dozen articles to make historical images of Nazi soldiers just a tiny bit smaller because apparently that was important for some reason. There have been...I dunno...dozens of ANI threads about BMK? I can't be bothered to look them up because they're too active at ANI and our search feature is crap. Someone should though. From my experience, they approach nearly every dispute as being from "a side" and not from the perspective of what would make the best encyclopedia. They should stop that, whether this is accepted or not. GMG ^talk 23:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Banedon

My impressions are that this seems like a clear accept request:

There's a dispute.
It's not going to fix itself if Arbcom declines the case. We'll just have thread after thread on the Administrator's noticeboards that don't lead anywhere and the alleged problematic behavior continues.
Both editors in the dispute aren't newbies. They (hopefully) know what they're doing when they get into edit wars and file ARCAs.

I don't see good reasons to decline:

If wumbolo is just as much at fault (and it's hard to see if this is the case right now, since we're not at the evidence stage yet), then he/she can equally be sanctioned.
Arguing that this is forum shopping misses the fact that the two AN threads linked in the OP didn't address the question of whether BMK's behavior is sanctionable. The #2 link is particularly bad at resolving the dispute since it simply squelched the thread before anything came out of it. There's no strong consensus in the #1 link either.
If D/S were used in this dispute then I don't see how it actually resolved anything because neither wumbolo nor BMK are currently blocked. There's been no apparent decision on whether BMK's or wumbolo's behavior is sanctionable, and as long as that is the case the dispute won't be resolved, it'll just be kicked under the carpet.
I think it's hard to claim the dispute isn't "capable of repetition" given that both wumbolo and BMK have lots of blocks for edit warring. If that isn't repetition, what is it?
Finally I find the idea that the request should be declined because of procedural errors to be distasteful.

I think Arbcom should accept the case and decide that BMK's/wumbolo's behavior is either acceptable or not acceptable. As mentioned, without a decision on this the dispute won't be resolved, it'll just be kicked under the carpet.

PS: I'll say I find parallels to the Fram case here - when someone attempts to use Wikipedia's DR process to resolve disputes, they instead get "decisions" (if one can even use that word) that don't actually resolve the dispute. If this case is declined, it'll be just another example of this. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OR "Don't edit war, guys. Both of you." is not a decision - it doesn't say anything and it applies to everyone. One doesn't need to know anything about the details of the case and could still say that to literally anyone on Wikipedia, and it would be a true statement. I don't know about wumbolo, but if it were me trying to get this dispute resolved I would be pretty discouraged. If this kind of "decision" is going to be the result (it's likely to be the result at ANI too) what is the point of even attempting DR? Banedon (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I'm not seeing a case here; the only issue seems to be the length of the blocks BMK gets for edit-warring. Comparing Wumbolo's and BMK's block logs, BMK certainly gets much more lenient block lengths for edit-warring. I think the thing to do is therefore resolve by motion that BMK's blocks for edit-warring should follow the standard progression, and that he must not be unblocked prior to the end of the block (which has happened at least 4 times). I don't think there needs to be a full case on this.

In terms of the ANI report, that was closed by a non-admin and could have been re-opened by anybody per the non-admin closer's statement. In terms of the ANEW report, BMK was never usertalk warned about edit-warring, which is a requirement for ANEW reports. And the result of the ANEW report was never contested by the filer (e.g. the closing admin was never contacted on their talkpage, etc.).

So the only actionable item seems to be the length of the blocks BMK gets and the fact that he is frequently unblocked before the block expires. That sort of thing can be addressed by motion and does not need a full case. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it comes to it, I support all but the last part of SilkTork's proposal. I don't support "a valid community vote" because instances of 3RR are self-evident and do not require votes, which can be gamed. I also would add that BMK needs to have been usertalk warned about edit-warring prior to his last reported revert -- that is always a condition of ANEW, and was something that Wumbolo clearly omitted, which made his report invalid. The user always has to have an opportunity to desist before being reported. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

These premature non-admin closures at ANI are a big problem. Each time there is a thread about a "popular" editor, these instant closures happen, usually by non-admins. Atleast if an admin does the close, there is WP:ADMINACCT. Yes, someone can revert them, but that could be easily interpreted as disruptive. There has been some edit-warring over closuers recently, for instance in the ANI threads that led to the "fuck off" RfC.

Just FYI, BMK has further edit-warring blocks with another account Before My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which are old, but the full block log should be considered. --Pudeo (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

WP:RFAR is for when other dispute-resolution methods are clearly failing to handle something, not when you dislike the outcome; taking something that both WP:AN3 and WP:ANI have rejected and immediately bringing it here with no further attempt at discussion or resolution seems extremely premature. As I understand it, a non-admin closure (or even, if you're daring, an admin closure) on WP:ANI can just be re-opened if you really want to insist that it's worth discussing - you sort of double-down by doing so and run the risk of a WP:BOOMERANG if people think you're being tendentious, but, again, it seems odd to bring something here if you're unwilling to take that step to force an WP:ANI discussion. Finally, the fact that Wumbolo has been blocked more times than BMK for 3RR violations this year is relevant, since it undermines the argument that this is inherently such an unusual and pressing case that the WP:AN3 and WP:ANI outcomes are clear failures that WP:RFAR must address. If this is really a big deal, open another WP:ANI and insist keeping it open until there's proper discussion, taking the obvious (and, in my opinion, extremely high) risk of a boomerang to the teeth as appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

As the closer of the ANI thread I felt the report was FORUMSHOPPING - IMHO they didn't get what they wanted and thought they'd try elsewhere, and given the fact they've been blocked twice already for edit warring I felt it was a pot kettle situation and felt keeping it open wasn't helping anyone,

As for this case I feel it's another attempt at forumshopping- 3RRNO didn't work, ANI didn't work .. so lets try Arbcom, (although I guess you could say maybe the ANI thread wasn't given a chance to work),

Anyway imho it should be declined, Also any future AN/I threads opened by them shan't be closed by me. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

@SilkTork: With all due respect, what you propose the community do is crazy. You're seeking to remove all administrative discretion as to how to handle one specific user. If the community wants to ban BMK, that's their perogative, but to dictate what administrators do with respect to BMK and how they handle complaints at administrative noticeboards sets a dangerous precedent. The community has power, but there are limits to their power. If I were faced with such a restriction on my discretion, I wouldn't touch anything concerning BMK anywhere. What happens to an administrator who doesn't know about this complex limitation? Are we going to notify all admins? Are we going to block an admin who doesn't follow the prescribed table of escalating blocks?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

One can take the Climate Change ArbCom case as an example where the community was not able to deal with problems. If to maintain the integrity of certain articles a few editors have to revert very frequently and there is then an asymmetric way in which the community hands out restrictions based on 3RR violations, then one has to take closer look at the relevant articles and see if these articles should be put under general sanctions. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

I have no doubt that ArbCom will decline this case which doesn't involve abuse of admin tools or any singular topical issues of concern. But I wouldn't mind if the sudden closures of cases on ANI got some attention. I thought there was a 24 hour rule for keeping complaints open but that doesn't seem to be widespread knowledge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It's a 24 hour rule before archiving complaints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Beyond My Ken: Clerk notes

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

Beyond My Ken: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I have reservations about closing the WP:AN3 thread as stale. It is not clear to me why that closure was performed (can somebody speak with Bbb23 to figure that out?). That aside, asking for a committee decision about this matter is premature, bordering on hasty, as several commentators have noted. Decline. AGK ■ 21:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where all avenues have been sought out to warrant this becoming a case. Decline. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline We're not quite there yet, but we're close. ANI needs to take another crack at it first, without a NAC or a premature close. There are community remedies available that haven't been tried. If ANI really, really can't solve this, bring it back and I'll take another look. Katie^talk 00:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I see where Banedon is coming from - how do you make a case about a "pattern" if every individual incident is too premature, too minor, or too stale? But this is really, really premature and minor. Let's leave it at "Don't edit war, guys. Both of you." Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Banedon Eh, not really. Nobody is supposed to edit war, but if I showed up on J. Random Editor's talk page to say "Don't edit war", they'd rightly take it as implying that they were edit warring, not as a generic statement that applies to everybody. In this case we have one editor who reliably gets blocked once a year for edit warring, and one who's been blocked for edit warring twice in the last four months. The answer in both cases is "don't do that". Both editors are more than experienced enough to know that that means "don't do that", not "well, it doesn't really count because it wasn't in the summary box in one of those annoying purple templates at ANI". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant decline. I think this is something ArbCom could deal with in a motion, so I'm a reluctant decline because the solution is just a few minutes work for us. However, this is something that the community can and should be able to handle, and ArbCom should not be asked to do stuff that the community can do themselves. We've just had a blow up with the Foundation usurping ArbCom, so I am not in favour of ArbCom usurping the community. A community agreement can be drawn up and voted on such as when BMK is reported for 3RR, that there is a defined escalating series of blocks, none of which can be reversed without community consent, and no 3RR report on BMK can be closed until there has been a valid community vote lasting at least 3 days. SilkTork (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]