Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49 - I am about to move it into project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. @Guerillero: (link), @Firefly: (link), and @Aoidh: (link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while @Primefac: (link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if a topic ban would not fly, could a "this-many-per-day" restriction be a possibility? BOZ (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never received a reply to my query about whether the redirects were causing further issues, which is why I made the statement you link to above. If you think that TPH should be restricted from BLAR, you should start a discussion in the usual places. Personally speaking, however, nothing in your statement indicated that the "disruptive" clauses of WP:ATD-R or WP:BLAR have been met, and in fact I find the response in the thread you referenced in your statement to be an indication that TPH isn't going to be disruptive if their redirects are reverted. You might not like that it is being done, but I am not seeing the same behavioural and conduct issues in their actions that led to the original topic bans. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing does not take place after the redirects are reverted. The disruptive editing takes place when TenPoundHammer continues to redirects articles on notable topics even after being asked to stop. This violates Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Does "you should start a discussion in the usual places" include Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Or did the Arbitration Committee already decide against imposing a BLAR topic ban request in the recently closed amendment request? Cunard (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for the Committee, but I personally do not see this as an issue requiring us to weigh in at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you do not view TenPoundHammer's BLARs as problematic, but I thank you for responding to my questions. I pinged several arbitrators who mentioned concerns about the BLARs when opposing the relaxing of the topic ban. I would like to hear their perspectives regarding whether filing a separate amendment request would be considered a duplicate of the recently declined amendment request. It would answer why arbitrators did not propose a BLAR topic ban there (were the BLARs not considered problematic enough, was a topic ban amendment request not the right venue for proposing expanding the sanctions, or were there other reasons). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]