Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Preliminary statement by Lingzhi
I've never done the arb page thing before and don't know if this is the correct place to make a small comment, but the diff above to Ankylosing spondylitis calling it "Bechterew's disease" seems to refer to a genuine alternative (former) name. I am not sure how this shows antagonism. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by AlexTiefling
I have a comparatively low tolerance for timewasting bullshit in WP discussions. I find myself contributing less and less as time passes. Brushes with extreme incivility in the past - including someone impersonating and someone (possibly another person) doxxing me - have left me extremely weary of interactions here. I came to terms with medeis and Baseball Bugs because while I may dislike their styles of interaction, I can't pretend that they're not putting more in than me.

Why do I say this? Because TRM is an admin. An admin is supposed to be above all this. An admin is supposed to be an exemplar of how to contribute to WP. But here we see him actively advocating dumbing-down a fairly routine bit of copy because he thinks our readers are intellectually 'limited'. And the numerous examples cited above and in the many other complaints brought against TRM show that he is perpetually spoiling for a fight, and holds both readers and editors in contempt. I have largely withdrawn from RD editing because between the peanut gallery and the trolls, it's hard to find any useful content or purpose there. TRM almost single-handedly brings that same atmosphere - and its consequences - to ITN/C and other places where he engages in discussion.

I believe TRM is unfit to be an admin, and should also be topic-banned from the whole of RD and ITN; this should enable him to focus on aspects of WP that he's better at, and let the rest of us who can still stand to stay get on with salvaging the parts of the site which are currently smothered by unsupported opinions and vitriol. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Softlavender
I have no particular viewpoint here, but when the best a canvassed editor (AlexTiefling, above) can come up with is an extremely civil, extremely polite and reasonable comment (not even a !vote) in a survey, we are in time-wasting territory. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

New Comment: I've been reading through the statements here, and I found 's suggestion to be useful, since some Arbs have requested scope: "A starting point for appropriate sanctioning is probably to ban TRM from making any comments (including edit summaries!) about other editors and, to prevent circumvention of that, judgmental remarks about content added by other editors. A possible ban from ITN & DYK (other than making a nomination) should also be considered." If this case is accepted, that might be something to bear in mind. I think the last sentence would be a last resort, and hopefully only be temporary if actually resorted to. However the first sentence sounds as though it would satisfy the needs of many people who have expressed concerns and upset (both here and on various other places on the project). And I don't believe the case would need more parties -- there have been quite a number of ArbCom cases without more than one party, and if it is confined to the specific parameters of ADMINCOND and ADMINACCT that specified, I don't think it would be a witchhunt if civility among commenters is enforced. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New new comment: I have a few observations I'd like to just put out there. I don't think I'll be posting actual evidence since I haven't had all that much interaction with TRM, especially not lately, and I have no incentive or reason to dig up any. (1) I don't think TRM's mop is in danger nor should it be, as there has been no abuse of tools. (2) The main-page areas that TRM monitors are often frustrating in the amount of mistakes, ill-considered proposals, and bad writing that have to be dealt with rapidly. (3) Those main-page areas are apparently also often full of editors who just don't have enough experience, clue, or competence to deal with the level of rigor and accuracy required. They get rebuffed because the place is busy, and go off with their feelings hurt. Frankly a lot of them shouldn't be there in the first place, and therefore I can't fault TRM for those actions. (4) What I can fault TRM for is (A) endless non-substantive insult-fest exchanges like the one with Gatoclass someone has already mentioned, (B) insults and PAs directed at competent very experienced and accurate editors he merely happens to disagree with, (C) what is reported to be an ongoing anti-American bias in his main-page activities. A and B can be dealt with, after evidence is presented, by warnings or stronger sanctions, as ArbCom chooses. C should probably be dealt with via some sort of topic-ban (not from the main-page sections, but from commenting on or vetoing any American items) until the issue subsides. Softlavender (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by KevinMcE
I spend very little time here now, partly because I noticed that I could become more angry than I needed to be about stuff that really didn't matter, and partly because I grew increasingly fed up of people telling me how I should spend the voluntary effort that I contributed here. TRM seems to have been long susceptible to the former, and long guilty of the latter. When editors are thus treated by those raised to admin status, they (I at least, but I cannot imagine that my response is unusual) lose confidence in the project. TRM obviously has made very valuable contributions, but really needs to recognise when his own disposition is such that he needs to step away from the keyboard for a while, for the sake of both his own reputation and regard here and the sense of respectful co-operation that the project depends on. Kevin McE (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by JzG
I scanned the diffs provided and see some evidence (e.g. ) of a long-term grudge against TRM by the filing party. I defy you to find any active admin who has not been dragged to the drama boards, so the mere existence of ANI threads is not evidence of anything, and threads linked in the diffs closed with the equivalent of a mild WP:TROUT at most.

A lot of the drama seems to centre on ITN/RD, where there is a community of people who tend to feel rather proprietorial and become emotionally invested in getting certain things on the front page. Given the length of time the OP has been on TRM's case, and the underwhelming nature of the diffs provided (really? is that the best you have?), I don't see there's anything actionable here. At worst it's a job for AN. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * NB: DYK hyas precisely the same problems as ITN/RD. In fact anywhere people start collecting badges, you get this issue. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Andrew Davidson
I was surprised that Arbcom accepted the case against Michael Hardy but The Rambling Man (TRM) is routinely worse and, for a fresh example, see DYK where TRM has a slanging match with admin Gatoclass who opines that there's a "temperamental unfitness for the extra bit". That incident reminds me of the previous arbcom case of Kww vs TRM. If this case is accepted, I will be able to provide more evidence of numerous other incidents including violations of WP:EDITWAR, WP:HOUND, WP:INVOLVED and WP:WHEEL. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (TRM) has misused admin powers
TRM has repeatedly edited through full protection without consensus and while involved. An example:

Elena Allen
Diff. This is supposedly an WP:ENGVAR issue but it's disputed. Here, the change was made earlier then reverted by another admin. Repeating the change after the reversion was wheel warring. In the subsequent discussion, TRM indicated that he had a personal view about the issue and so was involved. His language "I won't be letting it happen on my watch" seems to be a breach of WP:OWN.

The next example shows abuse of deletion powers:

There is no such thing as bad publicity
Deletion log entries. A redirect was speedily deleted as R3 – implausible or a typo. I had created this redirect in a discussion where I used the phrase. TRM was a party to this discussion and so was involved. The redirect did not seem controversial but TRM said in his edit summary for the deletion that "it's pure self adoration". I queried the deletion on TRM's talk page where he further indicated that there was something personal about this by saying "It's ... something you vanity-created ... start being productive for a moment." These were personal attacks – accusing me of being vain and unproductive. I took it to DRV where four uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that this deletion should be overturned. TRM then reverted the deletion with ill grace, indicating that he would "create a few dozen other redirects" as a point.

The Rambling Man has engaged in hounding
Many times this year, it has seemed that TRM has followed me to a discussion or to a topic. The context and variety of topics indicate that this has been done for personal reasons – trying to bait or discomfit me. Examples are limited by space.

Guy ropes
I declined a DYK and sent it to AFD as medical misinformation. This was being tough on the topic, as The Rambling Man is constantly exhorting, but he turned up to disagree within 30 minutes. TRM didn't attend any other AFD in the previous or succeeding week, nor did he have an interest in the topic. Even the person who had created the article realised that he was mistaken.

Butt and Oyster
I created a stub about a place that had appeared in an old movie. TRM showed up about an hour later to make some footling edits.

After submitting this evidence, I edited the articles to deal with issues like a cn. Within two minutes, TRM made minor edits to the articles, following mine. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5. This demonstrates that he is continuing to pay close attention to my edits and then hounding as petty one-upmanship or intimidation. This seems a remarkable act of defiance, indicating that the misbehaviour is ongoing and that he does not intend to change it.

Preliminary statement by Allen3
This is not a problem that is confined to ITN and RD. At DYK, The Rambling Man's antagonistic style has been called out on multiple occasions. To date he has been either unwilling or unable to modify his approach to dealing with those with whom he disagrres. This is sad because while there is usually a core of truth in The Rambling Man's position, his inability to deal with others in a civil manner usually creates opposition to his position that would have been unlikely to exist if he could just behave appropriately. --Allen3 talk 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Sca
TRM has a rather long history of unpleasant, contentious encounters with me. Rather than attempt to cite chapter & verse, I would like to re-post (most of) a comment I made last Jan. 24 in response to another arbcom complaint against him:


 * Since I've had a number of less than congenial encounters with TRM over that last couple years, a few observations:
 * TRM at times seemingly couldn't resist the urge to employ vituperative, spiteful, belittling language. While such repartee may pass as humor among old friends – and some of us are tempted to indulge in it – among others it inevitably engenders resentment, personal animosity and angry responses in kind.
 * TRM sometimes has employed POV language that strikes some U.S. users as gratuitously anti-American.
 * On the other hand, TRM often has shown solid judgment in managing ITN matters, particularly by putting passing issues in perspective. In my view, if TRM could acquire genuine respect for the opinions of others, and eschew vitriolic language, his renewed presence could be an asset.

Those observations remain relevant. However, coincidentally or not, in the last week or so TRM has seemed surprisingly civil, even polite. On Aug. 15 he even thanked me for hiding a spiteful exchange he had with another editor at MP/E. Sca (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Upon reflection, I withdraw the bit about anti-American comments as outdated. I don't recall such in recent months.
 * But I do wish TRM was more receptive to suggested refinements in blurbs at MP/E. Sca (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Baseball Bugs
TRM and I were once under a mutual interaction ban, which was ended at his initiative. I am unaware of him abusing admin tools. And regarding incivility, I've seen a lot worse. I would oppose any action against TRM. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Others here have talked about ITN. I left ITN, not particularly because of TRM, nor necessarily because of the significant anti-American bias there - but rather because of the slipshod standards other editors began using to determine "Recent Deaths" inclusions. When they collectively decided that a charlatan "psychic" was worth posting, while voting down more worthy candidates, it was clear ITN had become worthless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt that general Ref Desk issues should be a separate arbcom request. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Followup
It is unfortunate that TRM compares his complainants to "worms" and implies that being a great contributor exempts him from civility rules. He also continues to claim (without evidence) that if he goes down, his complainants will go down with him. The most unfortunate thing overall is that the supposed rules of collegiality go out the window when an editor is deemed to be superior. I can think of established editors with far worse attitudes. The best solution seems to be not to punish them, but to avoid them. So I still don't think a de-sysop and/or banishment of TRM is called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The "look what he has to put up with" argument is not valid. No one is required to work here and there is no compensation. Incivility instead of blocking is the wrong answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the argument that incivility is justified on grounds of being "provoked" is called the "look what you made me do" argument. It's a game children play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have often said that getting it right is more important than most anything else. But being a jerk about it, as some users do, is a choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Ceoil left out the second part of the above. He also claims I baited him somewhere along the way. I don't recall it. But I say this: no adult can be baited unless they choose to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk troll
The troll has again posted his junk... again trying to get TRM into trouble by pretending to be TRM logged out. Don't fall for it. The admin Favonian and others have worked tirelessly to revert his junk whenever it shows up. It's the garbage spewed by a banned user called "Vote(X) for change". He uses open proxies, so wherever he geolocates to is unreliable. He's also a frequent denizen of WP:ANI, using various outrageously false accusations to try to cause trouble for other editors... typically just after another of his IP's has been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

is one of countless socks of the ref desk troll, who has been blocked hundreds of times under different guises. His sole purpose here is neither to support nor to oppose TRM, but rather to cause trouble for anyone that he can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Hammersoft
--Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC) My header here was forcibly changed by clerk Amortias, supposedly to conform to some sort of formatting requirement that is "agreed". This isn't true. There is no requirement to format headers in this way, and in fact adding a statement from a non-party includes in the template "non-party", which is equivalent to "uninvolved", yet this was removed. I note that the four most recent requests all had "uninvolved" in various sections, and that this practice has been going on for years (5 years)(7 years, which is as early as this page goes). There's a reason "uninvolved" is included, in part to avoid mistakes like this clerk did. I invite Amortias to undo his actions and recognize the long accepted standard that has existed here.

I note that you changed the procedures in April of this year. Was there related discussion on this? The practice of using "uninvolved" has been, as I noted, going on for years, ever since the inception of this page. To change it now? What possible purpose does this serve? Where was the discussion about making this change? I see now that it was at clerks-l. Why? This isn't a huge deal, but it's a pain in the tookus because it causes confusion, errors, and has been common practice all along to do the headers this way if you're not involved. I say again; why? Change it back, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish to state, for the record, I am not involved in this current dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a case that without scope restrictions would be a lynching. As has been repeated many times by ArbCom, and continues to this day with but one exception that I know of, ArbCom does not layout the scope of a case. The scope of this case is critically important. If the scope is not defined, then it's a free for all against TRM. The scope must be defined, if the case is accepted.

In regards to accepting the case, I would like to highlight the following, to layout a pattern of sorts, in regards to TRM: There is likely more evidence, but I think these serve to highlight that while TRM is aware of his civility/NPA issues, and he claims to intend to improve, he doesn't improve. The cycle keeps repeating.
 * Twice claimed he would try to do better . To the latter claim, just two months later he was violating his own assertions of trying to improve and avoid noting pro-American bias.
 * January 2014, three way interaction ban placed between TRM, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis (AN/I thread). This was removed in July of 2015 by consensus (AN/I thread), with TRM saying "I can only offer a guarantee that from my perspective things will never get as heated or as counter-productive as they did prior to the restriction." Yet, all of the incivility diffs provided by Banedon postdate this 'guarantee'. Further, in July of 2016 TRM accuses Baseball Bugs of not understanding how Wikipedia works.
 * January 2016, TRM is called out by ArbCom in a motion for incivility and personal attacks and warned "future similar conduct may result in sanctions". Several of the diffs provided postdate this motion. Further, we have things like
 * "have you considered being less obnoxious and time-wasting?" Granted, this was done in response to someone, but WP:CIVIL doesn't have a clause that allows you to be uncivil because someone else is. In fact, it states the opposite (2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence).
 * "Stop acting like you own the place", edit summary
 * "jolly old Brad acting like the schoolmaster (a position he feels determined to occupy despite having no such credentials)"

I recommend ArbCom accept this case as the various WP:AN/I threads have failed to resolve the issue, and the prior motion by ArbCom regarding his behavior failed to achieve any change. However, that recommendation comes with an extremely strong warning to strictly identify the scope of this case. I would recommend limiting civility/NPA evidence to only actions taken by TRM since the motion, which would serve to show contempt for the motion/warning, supporting further sanctions. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with ‎Carcharoth's point (2); accepting an omnibus case is not warranted. The community has not asked for and does not appear to need the assistance (asked for or not) of ArbCom in cleaning DYK/ITN/Recent deaths up. IF a case is to be accepted, it should be strictly limited in scope to actions towards and from TRM since January, and for deity's sake do NOT name the case "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man", per Anchoring. Come up with a different naming schema, perhaps "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/August 2016 2" (Michael Hardy should be, in that schema, "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/August 2016 1"). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is why limiting the scope of the case is critically important. The thread you are noting comes from 2013, a little over three years ago. It was dealt with via an interaction ban that was placed about 7 months later, and vacated a year and a half later after that. The matter there is closed. There are plenty of matters like this over the years in regards to TRM, and yes this case could easily become a witch hunt if we do not limit the scope of the case. That is why I proposed limiting the scope to actions by TRM since the January 2016 motion against his incivility and NPA violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And again you've shown, if unintentionally, why limiting the scope of the case is critically important. You ask if I'm really uninvolved, and as basis you reference a thread from more than FOUR years ago. To my knowledge, I've not interacted with TRM in more than a year. So, yeah, I'm uninvolved with this current dispute. If we don't limit the scope to only what TRM has done since the motion, this case will be a farce. Thanks to severely broken structural issues with ArbCom and its methods, TRM will never be able to defend himself against 11 years worth of time and >150k edits investigation by the tons of people already commenting on this case. TRM is right; this is a lynch mob. I do feel ArbCom needs to take this case to resolve this long standing issue, but doing so via dragging up threads from four years ago is hardly helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want this case to proceed, I strongly suggest you take the advice offered by sitting ArbCom member Opabinia regalis here. If you want to discuss my thoughts further, you're welcome to my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM has been insulting and uncivil
All diffs post January, 2016.

Attacks:
 * 1) Abductive with " And no, you cost me zero credits emotionally, I'm more of a man than you. "
 * 2) AlexTiefling with " I don't know, have you considered being less obnoxious and time-wasting? "
 * 3) Andrew Davidson as " wasting time "
 * 4) * ... who had made a query about a deletion . In the deletion itself, he attacks the person creating it . He was snarky later in the discussion as well . In the deletion review, TRM relented but was snarky about it, even threatening a WP:POINT violation.
 * 5) BabbaQ with " operating in the incompetence area of Wikipedia ", with edit summary " you are being universally ridiculed, that must hurt "
 * 6) Baseball Bugs (BB) with
 * 7) * ... with " You are probably the least competent long-term editor on Wikipedia I have ever had the misfortune to bump into. ".
 * 8) * ... with " Certainly don't drag your ignorance to it, we've had enough of that at RD. Now go away and find something else to do, like polish your carbine or salute pictures of G Dub Ya. ".
 * 9) * ... with " you clearly have reading difficulties ".
 * 10) * ... (Complete discussion)
 * 11) * ... TRM removes a comment from BB with edit summary " leave this discussion to the grown ups please "
 * 12) BB and Ad Orientem, after being referred by WaltCip to a discussion, TRM referred to them as " these goons ".
 * 13) BDD referring to him with " twattery ", and to him being a dick.
 * 14) Harfarhs of lying, and then ironically warns them not to use personal attacks again.
 * 15) * ... as an " ignormamus " (edit summary)
 * 16) * TRM considers accusing someone of lying as a personal attack
 * 17) Calidum with " learn to read " edit summary yet counsels others not to use insults in edit summaries.
 * 18) George Ho as part of the " dick brigade "
 * 19) Hzh, an editor of 50,000 edits/7 years with " I would recommend that you actually do something positive here for a change ".
 * 20) Kicking222 with " Who are you and what do you do here? Not much it appears. "
 * 21) Newyorkbrad as " acting like you own the place " edit summary.
 * 22) * ... with " jolly old Brad acting like the schoolmaster (a position he feels determined to occupy despite having no such credentials) "
 * 23) * ... " dictatorial "
 * 24) Sca with " What an unrelentingly unpleasant bad faith individual you are. "
 * 25) * ... " start acting like a grown-up " and edit summary
 * 26) * ... " time to learn to be a grown up "
 * 27) The ed17 as a " just a moderately clueless admin "
 * 28) * ... with " You really are pathetic "
 * 29) * ... " you are just an embarrassment waiting to be finally caught " and " You're a running joke "
 * 30) * ... " leave the maintenance of Wikipedia to the grown-ups "

TRM has edit warred
June 2009, ArbCom found TRM had "edit-warred extensively" and was admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution. Since January of 2016 TRM has engaged in edit warring at least twice:
 * 1) 11 June 2016: Incident  reported to AN/I. Four hours, five reverts  and then modified the header a sixth time with "very well, have it your way"
 * 2) 23 June 2016: One hour, three reverts . Notified with personally written message and uw-3rr template, TRM accuses person of "trolling" edit summary.

TRM has engaged in hounding George Ho

 * 1) GH posts to David Levy's talk page . 23 minutes later, TRM confronts GH with . TRM had not edited David Levy's talk page in nearly seven months (last edit).
 * 2) Four days after an initial post, and nine minutes after a third post in a thread on Magog the Ogre's talk page, TRM shows up to comment. . TRM was mentioned in the initial post.  TRM had not touched Magog's talk page in four months, in a case where he showed up for the first time ever on Magog's talk page 21 minutes after GH had posted there
 * 3) TRM Claims to be a User talk:Softlavender stalker. This is false; TRM had never edited their before or since. He followed an edit by GH to this talk page, and interjected himself in the conversation, even though GH took pains not to mention TRM by name. George's words aren't complimentary, but TRM's interjection served only to add fuel to the fire of the dispute between them.
 * 4) ~Hour after GH had shown up at DuncanHill's talk page, TRM shows up telling George to "drop the stick". TRM had edited DH's talk page only once before, two months earlier.
 * 5) Two hours after George had made a comment on Magog the Ogre's talk page, TRM reverts it  apparently inadvertently since he undid his removal . TRM was not mentioned by name in the post. TRM had not touched Magog's talk page since the 27 April 2016 incident.

Preliminary statement by WaltCip

 * This is a witch hunt.--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps I should follow up on my above statement to provide further explanation. In the filing of this case, the primary complainants engaged in blatant canvassing attempts to locate lists of users who have had prior negative experiences with The Rambling Man, either recently or from years past, so right off the bat, a good number of the incoming statements are thoroughly skewed. WP:ITN and WP:DYK are thankless administrative jobs, the main responsibility of which is to feature content on the main page either from timely stories or from recently created articles. Managing these aspects of the Wikipedia front page carries the burden of filtering out malformed, irrelevant, or otherwise poorly updated content. TRM has spearheaded efforts to optimize and improve ITN processes. The way he goes about it can be blunt and abrasive, but apart from that, carries a net benefit for the project.
 * The vast expanse of complaints are regarding his civility or his manner of communication. Civility, however sternly enforced of a policy it may be on Wikipedia, is a policy that is highly subjective and hotly contested. The de facto precedence surrounding the policy is that civility is countermanded by the weight and value of an editor's or admin's contributions. We have seen this time and time again on Wikipedia. If ArbCom is to take this case and make a ruling with regards to that, it would by extension need to exercise this same standard everywhere on Wikipedia - not just on the mainspace but also in the backchannels such as ITN, DYK, etc..
 * In any case, I do not feel that ArbCom should hear this case, not when other processes of mediation have yet to be fully exhausted before employing a broad, sweeping and - frankly at this time - excessive sanction.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - You accuse me of using the Malleus defense. Eric Corbett has gone to extraordinary lengths to boost a significant number of articles to featured and good status on Wikipedia, has created dozens of other articles of which some are also featured and/or good, and has been a highly active mainspace editor since the project's creation. And this is bad how, exactly?--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Winkelvi
Agree with WaltCip and Softlavender. As such, is it possible to initiate a boomerang for the filer of an inappropriate and frivolous ArbCom case? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Purplebackpack89
There's no doubt about it; there's a problem here. There's an ANI about TRM's incivility seemingly every few weeks, and it's usually with a different editor every time. I also believe the Rambling Man has abused the power granted to him in reviewing good and featured article candidates. On GA and FA reviews, he has a habit of acting like he's the only person who knows anything or does any work. This is not only inaccurate, it's very offputting to people who have literally slaved to get articles to approach GA or FA stats. TRM makes his support for FA and GA contigent on often very pedantic points (one time he told me I should format a basketball FAC like a favorite boating FA of his; even though there were other existing basketball GAs that I had borrowed the format from). Also, there are times a GA/FA where he does very dickish things, such as demanding that GA/FA nominators make minor edits that would take him only a few seconds to do himself. GA and FA has increasingly "jump through unnecessary hoops set up by TRM"; TRM often uses his GA and FA comments to "teach lessons" and/or tailor FAs/GAs to his own personal whims rather than actually improve articles. It sounds like similar things are going on at ITN. People have tried to talk him down from his frequent incivility, his response is one or more of a) ignoring the comments (such as here and here), b) blaming the people who criticize him, and/or c) engaging in more incivility (such as here). I encourage ArbCom to investigate TRM with a scope of his interactions with other editors in the past 12-18 months, especially on User talk pages, ANI, ITN, FA and GA.  I urge them to consider sanctions against this clearly disruptive editor.  In general, I agree with the actions proposed by User:AlexTiefling above: removal of admin rights, and pulling him from ITN, GA and FA. p b  p  17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Responses to other statements
 * One important thing to remember is that TRM has near-veto power at ITN, FA and GA, and that editors are almost forced to interact with him (like it or not) if they want to be participants in those projects. This is one thing I'd like addressed by ArbCom or somebody: how one editor can have so much sway over ITN, FA and GA, with very little checks and balances from anybody else?  Also, I agree with User:Mandruss.  TRM has had so many bad interactions with so many different editors that you can't pawn it off on the other editors anymore.  It's clear at this point that he's a major part of the problem and should face its consequences.  p  b  p  02:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I to gather that you're OK with admins grossly violating civility or other pillars, so long as they don't misuse the tools? Because the basis I (and others here) have for removal of his admin tools is that gross incivility is conduct unbecoming an admin, even if isn't misuse of tools per se  p  b  p  03:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To say that TRM only chews out ITN/FA/GA trolls is a bit much. You also seem to suggest at least a little that TRM is entitled to use profanity and low-level personal attacks against said editors, which I think I would also dispute.  p  b  p  20:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Masem
I will note that, in so far as my primarily interaction being at WP:ITN and its work pages, TRM has a "holier-than-thou" elitist attitude that is infectiously bad that others pick on (mostly in to counter TRM's behavior) and that has made it at times difficult to hold reasonable discussions but not to the point of disruption. But importantly, TRM has not shown any abuse of the admin bit or anything in terms of edit warring or the like. This is 100% an issue related to civility. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a case that ArbCom should take unless it can be shown that we've exhausted all possible attempts to help quell this attitude. Yes, TRM is frequently brought to ANI, but ANI itself is also the wrong place to address this (I lament the loss of RFC/U which would have been the best point for this type of discussion). --MASEM (t) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Small note: though I was notified of this, I had seen this case get posted well before the notification and had planned to comment anyway. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to looking at the other areas that TRM is involved with in case there are other related issues, I can speak that for ITN, I don't think there's any severe process issues at play. Whereas I can see others discuss long-standing problems of DYK that would appear to contribute to TRM's behavvior (which partially arise from single-reviewer aspects), the consensus-based nature of ITN prevents severe process issues from developing. Arguments will break out on specific news items between TRM and some regulars there, but that's part of a general behavioral pattern I've mentioned above, and not indicative of any poor ITN process. --MASEM  (t) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Davey2010
You can understand why TRM tends to be uncivil when those working at ITN/DYK etc try & push their stuff to the front page especially when it's utter crap, Admittingly I think TRM does need to tone it down a notch but other than that I don't see any problematic behaviour and as noted above this isn't ANI 2.0 - All of this could've been resolved at ANI, No admin tools have been used nor abused so this shouldn't be accepted, At most perhaps a reminder to TRM to tone it down abit. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Hzh
I had just one argument with TRM (that I know of), that is when he decided to deflect a discussion by turning the discussion onto me instead using something completely unrelated to the discussion. I thought it unwarranted that he should present himself as more qualified than me to edit when he is flouting the guidelines. However, it was something quickly forgotten (I had to go back and check what the argument was about), just the usual uncivil behaviour that I see quite often on WP, not serious enough to raise a stink about. But I am surprised to find out that he is an admin, and therefore should know better than to act in such a manner. Hzh (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by sunshineisles2
I've had more than a few encounters with TRM, mainly on the ITN page. Initially, I thought he was just a regular editor who tended to be more assertive than the rest. Later, upon reading more of his contributions, I discovered he was not only an admin, but regularly found it appropriate to insult and belittle users he disagreed with, often questioning their general intelligence while placing himself forward as infallible, unless proven wrong by someone he liked. Eventually, I found his comments so disheartening and unprofessional that I decided to leave ITN before ever really getting involved with any discussions. He is a prolific editor, to be sure, but he should know better. His default mindset seems to be defensiveness, which is hardly how you approach an editorial discussion. A close look at his behavior proves that he demonstrates limited respect for a cordial process, especially for someone who wields both administrative power and the responsibilities that come with it. Look at his response to this on his talk page -- he outright dismisses the case as a "lynch mob" run by "social media rejects and admin wannabes". --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Floquenbeam
I can't really defend TRM's übersnarkiness, and would have been tempted to take a pass on commenting on this case, except I can't help but note that editors with a reputation for rudeness/brusqueness (I can think of at least a half dozen, I'm sure you can too) sure do seem to attract more than their share of people who can't help seem to enjoy throwing small pebbles at them all the time to see if they can provoke another outburst. It's not 100% applicable, but I am reminded of User:Geogre/Comic. Not all of the people complaining above are such people - Kevin McE, in particular, always struck me as someone getting snarked at for no real reason - but several of them are. I don't think ArbCom is set up well to efficiently remove timesinks from the project - I certainly have no idea how to - but if any Arbs figure out how to do that, that would be helpful.

And geez, TRM, just learn to let shit go sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See, here's a good example. Ed is being unethical by taking one phrase of my statement out of context. It makes me very angry. But if I were to say something rude in response, I'd be the "uncivil" one. And no one is going to tell him to stop being unethical.  But people seem to think that's not the problem, the problem is being snarky. It is not against policy to be unethical, it is against policy to be rude? It is not against policy to be a gigantic timesink at ITN, but it is against policy to point it out? Weird. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, is anyone going to point out the 500 word limit to George Ho? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by AHeneen
I haven't participated in arbitration discussions before, but will give this a shot. First and foremost, Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Administrators are not above civility policies! See WP:ADMINCOND: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. ... [s]ustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. And from the following section (WP:ADMINACCT): Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

My experience with TRM was about 2 years ago, after which I stopped participating in ITN and haven't really interacted with TRM since. The opening statement by Banedon provides substantial evidence of TRM's continued, habitual uncivil behavior. The by others above and a quick browse through TRM's recent contributions) show that: 1) TRM's uncivil behavior is current and persistent & 2) very disruptive. Several editors support TRM for his many contributions, but that doesn't excuse persistent incivility that violates a core policy and creates a hostile editing environment! During my interaction, I noticed that TRM frequently made snarky comments (taunting/baiting fellow editors), belittled other editors, and made frequent, unreasonable use of profanity. For examples, see the post I made on TRM's talk page (second to last discussion). Compare that with the uncivil behaviors. I started a discussion at ANI (first ANI link at top of this thread), but it didn't go anywhere. Several users remarked that without abuse of admin tools, there's nothing to be done at ANI. TRM is brash, perpetually flings insults at others and then when confronted, uses belittling remarks towards the other editor(s) and refuses to let grudges go.

A starting point for appropriate sanctioning is probably to ban TRM from making any comments (including edit summaries!) about other editors and, to prevent circumvention of that, judgmental remarks about content added by other editors. [Post edit: "judgmental" would need to be defined in a way that allows discussion of content without circumventing the ban on uncivil comments towards other users.] A possible ban from ITN & DYK (other than making a nomination) should may also be considered.

Nearly all of my interactions with TRM were before January 2016. Others have posted copious diffs to illustrate TRM's uncivil behaviors, such as Banedon, Hammersoft, George Ho, The ed17, Gatoclass, Mike V, Andrew Davidson, & Baseball Bugs.

I don't really have anything to add beyond my preliminary statement and emphasize, again, that WP:CIVIL is a POLICY not merely a guideline. It's one thing to make occasional bad choices with words or actions, but a long history of such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about collaboration and welcoming new users and those who are interested in greater participation in the community. To be certain, policies and guidelines as well as a desire for quality have a place, but prolific incivility deters both less-experienced users who are interested in greater participation the community and users that want to focus on articles—rather than policies, ITN, DYK, and the like—from participating in ITN (especially) and policy discussions. It is important to maintain civility in discussions by explaining oneself rather than making acerbic jabs at those who do not share your viewpoint. It's not just the target of the remark that is affected, but other users who may be deterred from entering a discussion because they want to focus on improving articles, rather than waste excessive time debating in a hostile atmosphere.

As I mentioned in my preliminary statement, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT are the relevant policies. It is poor logic to say that just because someone makes productive edits, they should be excused from one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. AHeneen (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Mandruss
We all lie somewhere on a spectrum of competence. It's a mathematical requirement that 1% of us are in the top 1% of competence, and they are in fact superior to 99% of the community. I submit that a very significant part of that competence is the ability to work cooperatively with other editors, this being fundamentally a collaborative project, and that that is something the community generally fails to recognize. Over all, then, TRM and some others are not nearly as high on the spectrum as they believe, nor nearly as valuable to the project as they believe.

If admins should exemplify Wikipedia principles, and I believe they should, TRM has demonstrated his lack of qualification for that role. Of course there are other admins who shouldn't be admins for the same reason, but to use that as an excuse is a recipe for failure. This has to be addressed one case at a time, and Other Stuff Exists.

This case is anything but "frivolous", and hyperbole like "witch hunt" and "lynching" is never helpful in these matters. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

said: If people don't like their interactions with him, then they shouldn't interact with him. No one forces them to respond to his comments (and on some occasions that I see, people give as good as they get) - So if TRM is abusive, he can and should be ignored. If others are abusive to him, his abusive response is justified and well-deserved. The double standard could NOT be more clear, and yet it seems invisible to many. It forms the basis for much (most?) of his defense. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

said: That isn't what I was suggesting at all- only that one can't fight fire with fire and then complain when they get burned. - The burned are not the only ones "complaining"" here. TRM's abuse has been directed at me only once in my memory, long ago, and it was because he didn't like my argument, not because I was remotely abusive to him. The rest of my experience in this matter consists of my observation of him directing his abuse at others who did not "deserve" it. Let's not make the serious mistake of dismissing the whole issue because some of it stems from grudges in editors who are as culpable as TRM. Anyway, I believe that true civility means treating others with common human respect even if they don't deserve it—no, especially when they don't deserve it. Things get very tangled and confused when we tolerate and excuse "deserved" abuse, since it opens the door to abuse by anyone who feels that their opponent "deserves" it. Lo and behold, Wikipedia is very tangled and confused on the issue of civility, and ANI is a continuous stream of disputes between editors who both feel the other "deserved" their abuse. From where I sit, it's systemic insanity. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Try to imagine a mainstream (consensus) psychologist saying that the "deserved abuse" concept is in any way conducive to productive collaboration. I can't imagine that, can you? And yet, productive collaboration is what we're here for. Simple logic dictates that (1) you recognize that the "deserved abuse" approach is directly counter to Wikipedia's mission goals, and you change your position accordingly, or (2) you completely dismiss and reject mainstream psychology. Full stop. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

But let's confine this to policy for the moment. My position is fully and unambiguously supported by WP:BATTLEGROUND, part of a Wikipedia policy. What policy fully and unambiguously supports the opposing position? As a group, do we support policy here, or don't we? What is the point of policy that is routinely and systematically ignored? This is not rhetorical, it's at the crux of the matter, and I would be genuinely interested in serious and considered responses. Absence of same will be telling. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To expand the scope of this particular case into investigations of DYK/ITN/RD, etc., is to endorse and reinforce the "deserved abuse" doctrine. I feel that it's essential to handle the issues separately, without linkage. 's statement, People repeatedly bringing wrong information to the Main Page are in my view a much worse problem than the possible incivility of those dealing with it. typifies many of the statements here. It presents a false dichotomy, pretending that we must choose between civility and quality. That the best way to deal with disrupters is with a harsh verbal response, increasing in harshness until the desired result is achieved, that result being humiliation and intimidation severe enough to cause the target to back down. All for the good of Wikipedia, supposedly, but not materially different from resolving disagreements by violence. This is not what ArbCom should be supporting. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Montanabw
This is a case that ArbCom should snow decline. The reality is simple: "TRM is a longtime editor with a productive track record, and he has not abused his admin tools." Full stop. End of story. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this editor over the years, even when we have disagreed. Be civil to him and he's civil to you. Be a snotrag toward him and, well, you're on your own. Yes, TRM has been a little more snarky than usual lately, but I think that it's just a bit of wiki-burnout and it will pass (except perhaps for those who insist on lobbing pebbles).

Further ArbCom isn't, as another editor stated, ANI2. People need to focus on content, and, to be frank, listen to experienced editors. Montanabw (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Brusqueness is not the same as incivility
One of the things that strikes me in review of this case is that I have found TRM to be thorough, professional and where we have had disagreement he has been civil and — most of the time — correct. It becomes increasingly aggravating to see experienced, longterm editors who are mature adults being attacked for stating uncomfortable truths and attacked for incivility in response to baiting and tendentious behavior. I concur, This is a witch hunt. "Incivility" accusations are an iron fist inside a velvet glove. Pointing out legitimate problems is not incivil. Bluntness, even brusqueness is not incivil. Stating the truth even though someone’s feelings are hurt is not incivil. I do note that 's comment that TRM recently has been guilty of "übersnarkiness" is probably true and gave me a small smile. But to be honest, any of us who have been here a long time do get rather fatigued at dealing with the same behavior over and over again. To be told to "walk away from the keyboard" or to "take a wikibreak" is quite disrespectful to those who have experience and wisdom to contribute. The reality is that TRM and others are pointing out legitimate problems and problems that have, in come cases, gone unaddressed for a decade (or more). It is past time that people who try to game the system by use of ArbCom and other drama boards have their narcissistic supply cut off from these time sinks. TRM does not need to be sanctioned. Hell, he deserves a medal for putting up with this much crap for this long. Montanabw (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Only in death
I look forward to the opening of this case so I can present evidence of continuous, lengthy ongoing errors, mistakes and other assorted misdeeds by a selection of regulars at ITN/DYK that require continuous policing by vigilant watchers like TRM. I am not sure some of the DYK people really want that however.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by The ed17
Hi arbs. The statements above say all you need to know to accept the case. Even The Rambling Man's supporters admit that there is a problem, even after this very body admonished him in January of this year, just seven months ago:


 * "" (This is the Malleus defense. I hope the arbs will reject it.)
 * "" (No. There is no excuse for being uncivil to editors. We are supposed to have collegial editing environment.)
 * "" (Seven months after being admonished for incivility, he's "more snarky than usual.")

That said, I'll keep going.

I and many others have been at the stinging end of The Rambling Man's barbs recently, barbs that tear down the "collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia," and I believe it's time for Arbcom to step in again and enforce its admonishment. Otherwise, what's the point of passing it? As says, "If the Committee has repeatedly admonished and sanctioned those who act poorly when confronted with provocation and coordinated harassment, including TRM, then it surely must respond to a pattern of the same behavior in the face of repeated attempts by numerous long-standing editors to work with him in a productive and civil manner." (italics mine)

You can see examples in Banedon's list of diffs. Just last month, for example, when felt compelled to say "TRM, really, do you always have to get in a dig or insult every time you communicate with me? I didn't start this exchange that way – I sought to be conciliatory." Or four days before, although not made in response to incivility in this case: "Have you considered being less patronising and condescending?" Or from January's arbitration case: "I speak only as someone who has suffered for years from incivility and bullying from this admin at WP:ITN." Such behavior has only continued.

Taken as a whole, there's a clear pattern of an utter disregard for WP:ADMINCOND by The Rambling Man. I implore Arbcom to take this case. No one should get a free license to be openly uncivil to other contributors, no matter what area they're working in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * +100000 to ' statements above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: the argument that TRM did not misuse his administrator tools, appearing both above and below, is a misnomer. The Rambling Man has been admonished was cited by several members of this committee in January for "incivility and using inflammatory language" and was "advised that instances of incivility or inflammatory language may result in sanctions." He has continued to use inflammatory language, and that's why we're here today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Underlined text added for accuracy, see below. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you, I've been linking to the wrong section. I suppose this comes down to how you read the "integrated" motion, which says "The Committee notes that The Rambling Man ... has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this dispute ([39], [40], [41]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions. Noting that The Rambling Man has retired during the course of this request, his return to his usual productive content work would be welcomed." It doesn't specifically "admonish" him, but to me it reads very close to the intended admonishment. YMMV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * no ping? You've literally stated that you can't defend TRM's problematic comments, so I fail to see where I'm being unethical. In any case, taken to a logical extreme, you believe that TRM should be able to get away with any invective language as long as he can claim that he was provoked? Right. I assume that's not your intended meaning. I do wonder what happened to this Floq, who spoke out against TRM's unnecessarily inflammatory language. Nothing against you personally, Floq, but I can't disagree more with your comments here.
 * There's a way to say "you're a gigantic timesink," and it's not this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @arbs, I would argue against limiting the time range for the case. ou need to determine whether the incivility has continued past January 2016, but that should be examined in the case in the larger context of a sustained pattern of incivility. If it hasn't continued, this is moot; he's already been warned/admonished/whatever term you want to use. But if the incivility has continued, editors deserve the chance to give diffs and anecdotes in the evidence stage—something they did not have in January when this was dealt with via motion rather than a case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with the parties; brought a pretty clearly defined case. Other people have been thread hijacking this into a larger case about ITN, DYK, and the reference desk. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Schrocat's statement
Although this is getting off topic, it's worth noting that 's statement contains several inaccuracies. I've tried to raise my concerns with him on his talk page, but I was reverted without comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by 331dot
Like others above I urge that this be declined. The bringer of this case concedes that TRM does not abuse his admin tools and is a productive contributor in general. I think that's all that matters. If people don't like their interactions with him, then they shouldn't interact with him. No one forces them to respond to his comments(and on some occasions that I see, people give as good as they get) Isn't their something better we could all be doing?

That isn't what I was suggesting at all- only that one can't fight fire with fire and then complain when they get burned. There's enough bad behavior to go around and it isn't justified when it happens, but I am unconvinced that this is the forum to deal with it. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM does not solely control what is on ITN(I can't speak to the other projects as I don't participate there) so I find "near-veto power" to be a grave exaggeration. If you want to check or balance him, I invite you to participate in ITN. Unless you are accusing him of misusing his admin powers removing them should be a nonstarter. Even the bringer of this case does not see that as an issue. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there are other ways to address the issue and that we all have better things to do. 331dot (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Medeis
While I respect user Baseball Bugs benevolence above, I have to say that after thinking about this for 24 hours, I agree in full with User:AlexTiefling's recommendation. TRM should be stripped of his adminship (something he himself has "dared" the community to do in the past) and be banned from ITN and the Ref Desks for a certain period but without prejudice. In other words, after a certain period of good behavior, he should be able to re-apply as a newbie for adminship and request that the topic bans be removed.

My opinion is based on the uncontested claim that TRM is regularly and continues to be uncivil at ITN, and his anti-American bias is intolerably unbecoming of an admin, and frequently affects his actions regarding whether an issue is ready to post or worthy of posting. This has been one reason that rather than continue to improve ITN noms so that they are postworthy, I have simply stayed away, and only made minor comments.

Having had to spend much of 2014 dealing with a request that TRM be IBANned from dealing with me, I am sick of the issue. Even then the exact same attacks continued from IP addresses after the ban. At some point TRM seems to have become bored due to my lack of responses. But he simply continued the same behavior with other users. I have saved scores of edits and diffs from that period, and would be glad to retrieve them and make them available as a subpage on my userpage if this arbcom request is accepted.

μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Comment removed, with permission from Medeis. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)]

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Rhoark
The only thing I'm gathering from all these statements is that a number of people are upset with this editor, but that's equally likely to be a symptom of doing something very right as it is of doing something very wrong. A few comments have indicated there's maybe a problem with respect to American politics, in which case discretionary sanctions are available. Mostly though it seems to be about feelings. Arbitration is not therapy. Rhoark (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Yellow Dingo
I urge the arbs to decline this case. Although TRM has had some civility issues in the past he has not abused the tools. I don't see what the eventual findings of this could be. He hasn't done wrong enough to be-dysopped or blocked. I'm also not seeing enough evidence that points towards a legitimate need for an arbcom case. I don't wish to be listed as a party if this case is accepted. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 05:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ITN and RD are both discussed at the same forum and basically have the exact same editors commenting on them. Really RD is part of ITN, so I think RD should be accepted in a broader case. - Yellow Dingo&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 09:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Begoon
This case should be declined. We have a complaint from a filer with an obvious grudge, who, on filing, canvassed over a dozen users they thought would support them. One of the users thus canvassed proceeded to do their own, selective canvassing, of similar magnitude. This, in itself, skews participation horribly.

To the specifics, TRM monitors items destined for the main page. The projects feeding the main page tend to have more than their fair share of participants more concerned about a shiny bauble for their user page or "points" in some "cup" or other than in the quality of main page content overall. This by no means applies to all, but it's a genuine concern. In the process of checking main page content, TRM sometimes needs to be firm about quality, and sometimes needs to point out that particular users are not exercising due care, or are becoming timesinks. I have personal experience of the latter, and it can be very hard to do that without a grumpy word or two.

I can't help but predict a veritable glut of pile-on cases like this, should "everyone with any grudge", non tool-abuse cases, canvassed willy-nilly, become the accepted norm here, and the damage to the editing atmosphere in general would be immense, in my opinion. Pitchforks already seem to be the tool of choice at ANI - I hope those above who say that this is not ANI2 are not mistaken.

Preliminary statement by Unscintillating
This diff, , is consistent with the above "Statement by Banedon". In this diff, I advise the bureaucrats that a bureaucrat (TRM) has called the discussion at an RfA talk page play and entertainment. TRM, at 17:50 on 6 June 2013 states, "we should all pick and choose our language more clearly and unambiguously, particularly in inflammatory situations"; while in the same sentence using the word "appalling" and other charged language. Unscintillating (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Ritchie333
To save time, I'll run the case for you all. The result is : A finger-wag and "tut tut" is issued to The Rambling Man for excessive snark when WP:ERRORS gets too big, and he is advised to chill out and do some more work on Alf Ramsey instead. That's about the extent of it - anything else is a massive time-wasting dramah fest that is best avoided. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, I agree with Fram on content about 99% of the time and they have the project's best interests at heart, but their inability to appreciate other points of view and bludgeon a conversation to death leads to drama (example) or accusations of wheel warring. (example 2). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Cas Liber
Accepting this case would be unfair if the committee did not in turn examine what TRM has complained about. I believe TRM could improve his interpersonal comment but his complaints generally have substance. Given the primary task is building an encyclopedia, that would mean that to do this justice, at the very least the issues that have cropped up need to be looked at. We do have processes for these and they are proceeding. Hence I think that accepting a broad case would be unnecessary doubling up and a narrow one unfair to TRM as it ignores problems elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * what I meant was that several times that TRM has complained about an issue with an editor or process (such as DYK or whatever), there has been some discussion at AN/I, the DYK talk page or somewhere, Initially I thought that these having been discussed that examining them would be repetitious. However, many debates that do not have a clear consensus result in a stalemate at these venues. So maybe arbcom looking at them is a good thing. From what I have seen, all incidents relate to TRM's frustration with some aspect of encyclopedia-building and related problem. All his complaints are about editing of others. These need to be examined, and it may be that sanctions are required. It is unfair to not look at these, at least the most serious of these, has it right about TRM's attitude to mainpage material and this is a view shared by others. However, some problems TRM has highlighted are worse than others and may need investigation and sanction themselves. I can only speak of my experience of DYK - I have had positive experiences with many editors there and am happy to accept some errors in food faith. However some material that TRM and  have highlighted has left me feeling sheepish at times and definitely uneasy. I feel very strongly on this that arbcom needs to look at the worst of these, and recommend that TRM and Fram point these out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Cassianto
This case should be refused. TRM does a tough job at ITN. He is a great editor and an asset to the encyclopedia. Add that to his ability to conduct his administrative responsibilities in a fair and honest way, and we have the makings of one of the encyclopedias most valued people. His work at ITN is something to be admired; it's a tough job and it comes with its challenges. Incivility is purely subjective and is often cried out by those who dont like to be told otherwise. He is honest and frank and sometimes people don't like to hear the truth.  <font face="Papyrus">Cassianto <font face="Papyrus">Talk  23:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Miniapolis
I wanted to stay out of this since I'm a clerk, but since George is now a listed party I have to recuse myself anyway. TRM can be brusque, but not without provocation; he's a good admin and exemplifies a net positive to the project, the key issue here. This is a witch hunt (complete with canvassing), and the committee should decline the case.  Mini  apolis  01:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Jcc
Note: I am not involved with any disputes that TRM has had, and this is merely my thoughts on whether the case should be accepted, and have not been "pinged". I think it important however, that Arbitration accepted the case against Michael Hardy, and I think it fair that if ArbCom accepted that case, then this case should also be accepted- the canvassed editors have come up with remarkably polite and civil arguments, and TRM is worse than Michael Hardy. TRM has already been admonished by ArbCom, and even as a completely uninvolved editor, from the diffs and evidence provided, and after looking through the ANI threads and his talk archives, in my opinion, his behaviour is certainly not what you would expect from an admin, as an example, this and more recently, this

Why should we go after those who significantly help the project? Simple- even if they do that, that cannot be used as a justification to allow their behaviour. I remember quite distinctly, and I'm sure you do, the case of Technical 13. He went on personal attacks, and even outed someone. But admins let him continue- why? Because he was a wikicode genius. His programming and template coding ability was amazing. Of course, he got blocked a few times. He got warned countless times. In the end, someone filed an ANI thread against him. There, everyone flocked to his defense- the "most productive and active template editor", I quote. And he got away. But this editor was persistent. In PhantomTech's own words, "though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work"." So he took it to ArbCom. And guess who got indef blocked? Technical 13. The question is here, does TRM's poor behaviour overly burden the community and has he abused the admin tools and is lack of civility considered to be worthy enough of a desysop? (and here's where the parallels with T13's story ends.) That's what will have to be proven.

Conclusion? There is a case here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Civil applies, even to great content creators
Banedon says it all much more eloquently than I could ever hope to put it; I feel that there is little point in me repeating in slightly different words what he or she has written. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Gerda
A case would be a waste of time. Adding more words to what Casliber and Cassianto said the same. Let's get back to quality content. Thank you, Rambling Man, for doing the tough job of quality control, even if at times it hit me (most recently Bells across the Meadows, which admittedly was not perfectly sourced), but always in civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Edmund Patrick
As has already been said the case should be dismissed, many reasons why IMHO but the principle is TRM sometimes makes you shake your head and say "surely there could have been a better way to say that" but continually throughout TRM's interactions in / for wikipedia she/he upholds the highest reguard for the project and its aims.Edmund Patrick – confer 08:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * have you edited TRM's "Thanks" on your talk page? as I cannot find the word, or sentiment, at all in his message, rather a request for you to continue research to ascertain who actually did hijack your email account. I support that request as whoever it was would not get support from me, or I believe, others.

Editors are editors
There would be nothing gained in just repeating my statement above. Two points I will make, firstly, many have and are providing excellent diffs to show how TRM's input into ITN and DYK has been to the betterment and integrity of both projects. No one as far as I can see has criticised TRM for his work, but the manner of doing it, which creates his/her relationship with fellow editors. This is a social project welcoming one and all, and we have all met editors who quite happily question our existence, faiths (even if we have one) knowledge, mannerisms, abilities and manners etc. One is in danger of spending more time on the machinations of Wikipedia than on the project itself, (one of the driving forces, I believe, behind TRM's briskness). Secondly, acknowledging the limited research, (asking young people attending events / workshops at a museum) the main page is the 2nd viewed page after the subject matter which bought them to Wikipedia in the 1st place, (a facility that many many educators and teachers positively try to dissuade them using) and is the 1st page where they begin to make independent opinions on the worth, usefulness and factual honest the encyclopaedia has. To have any badly formatted, and/or incorrect and/or poor choice of language does not present Wikipedia positively, for the main page and the project as a whole. TRM though blunt has continually tried (and IMO successfully) to keep standards of the listings as good as can be within the limitations of time, pace and multiple editors. Like I would love to discuss his past incidents with others, in terms of the amount of times the listings have been improved by her/his blunt and to the point interjections, but they happened before January 2016

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Fyunck
Goodness these things get messy. Can TRM be brusk, surely so, but he has not abused administrator tools. I have found through the years that civility is given back by TRM as compared to what is thrown at him. He's scolded me and worked well with me on several occasions, and I can say he's fair but firm. That's all you can ask at wikipedia where tempers can fly off at a moments notice. We don't hear the inflection in our typing. Handling the stink TRM does on daily basis is bound to to ruffle feathers, so let's dump this misplaced complaint and get back to things that matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Count Iblis
This case is superficially similar to the Michael Hardy case. In both cases, there was no abuse of Admin tools, we're dealing with less than ideal behavior. In case of Michael Hardy, the problem was a single incident that escalated at AN/I in this case there is a longer term issue with the way the editor communicates when reviewing entries for the main page and the ITN section. What ArbCom could do is to accept the case but then also take a serious look at the way the venues for discussion like AN/I, ITN/C etc. function in practice. The cause of a problem doesn't necessarily have to originate from a person, it can also be that the way discussions are structured will tend to provoke tensions between editors whenever an editor would attempt to uphold high standards. The higher your standard is for an article to be mentioned in ITN, the higher your standard for good behavior is at AN/I, the more toes you will step on, you're bound to provoke negative responses. After a while you're bound to get into personal disputes. While ArbCom cannot impose such a system, ArbCom should be able to fault an existing system. While you could say that other editors do not show the same behavior like TRM, one should also consider if the nicer editors tend to refrain from criticism and if standards would slip if it were left to them. If so then there is a generic problem that could e.g. be dealt with via an anonymous review system (e.g. people can comment indirectly via email to a clerk, the clerk posts the message anatomizing the names of the commentators). Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by RexxS
Just to put some balance back.

I'm realistic enough to know that I'm not the easiest person to get on with, but I'd have to say that TRM is someone I've never had a problem with. That's not to say we've not worked together. I first encountered TRM back when I was working to try to improve the accessibility of lists for screen readers and TRM was the FL director. He listened patiently to many technical arguments I made and, having accepted them, he worked assiduously to ensure that Featured Lists are among the most accessible articles on Wikipedia. We worked together on designing a system for processing Featured Lists to take on a regular spot on the Main Page, and I never knew him to be anything but a pleasure to work with. TRM put his mark on the FL process and left it in a vastly better state than when he took on the job. (If anybody really wants diffs of all this, well, I can find them if you insist, but I don't think I'm making claims that are not already common knowledge).

I can see that not everybody shares my opinion of TRM, but I remember what it was like when I was the father of a very young kid, sleepless nights, friction at work getting me down, and so on.

Anyway, I'll make an offer to solve the above issues brought to ArbCom. If TRM wants to, he can email me or call me before he succumbs to the temptation to write something snarky and I'll try to talk him out of it each time. How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Robert McClenon
I have not been active at In the News or Did You Know. I have been active at the Reference Desks. The Reference Desks are a mess. As noted by previous editors, the Reference Desks have a history of unpleasant interactions, which have in the past resulted in interaction bans. The Rambling Man has contributed to the climate of unpleasantness, including by pushing conspiracy theories involving other administrators and the ArbCom. I ask the ArbCom to accept a broad case that includes interactions between registered editors at the Reference Desks. (The Reference Desks also have a problem with trolling, which provokes hostile interactions between registered editors.) I would suggest that the ArbCom consider imposing Discretionary Sanctions on the Reference Desks, because a few regular editors there engage in problematic behavior. I am not familiar with the environment at ITN or DYK, but the ArbCom might also consider imposing Discretionary Sanctions on ITN and DYK if it is as hostile as some of the parties have implied.

I will stress that I am not asking the ArbCom to desysop The Rambling Man, but that I am asking the ArbCom to examine the conduct of The Rambling Man and other editors at the Reference Desks. (I didn’t ask the ArbCom to desysop Michael Hardy either, only to examine his conduct.) I am asking the ArbCom to accept a broad case involving interactions at ITN, DYK, and RD, including but not limited to The Rambling Man. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference Desk Comments
One of the arbitrators asks what the problems are at the Reference Desks. There are several problems at the Reference Desks. One of them is trolling. There are a few known trolls, in particular an anti-Jewish troll. Because of questions by trolls, it is often necessary to semi-protect the desks. A few regular editors strongly object to all semi-protection, thinking that the Reference Desks have a special mission to unregistered editors. There are also improper questions, such as requests for medical advice, and arguments, mostly at the Reference Desk talk page, about whether to decline those questions, delete them, or hat them, and what to do with inappropriate answers. The Rambling Man has aggravated these problems with snarky and hostile comments about other administrators and about the ArbCom that come close to being conspiracy theories. Some regular editors have also contributed to these problems on the Reference Desk talk page by inappropriate criticism of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by EdChem
This is the sort of case request I had in mind when I commented at the Michael Hardy request about setting a precedent. TRM is even one of the admins I was thinking of, because his behaviour at DYK is problematic and at times objectionable. Like, TRM is actively involved in monitoring the DYK section of the main page. Both have found plenty of errors which should not have made it through reviewing, and I agree with Casliber that some of what they have found is truly embarrassing. Unfortunately, both also take an approach at WT:DYK which is aggressive and (in my view) counter-productive. Their posts often provoke a predictable hostile reaction and their agenda to improve quality (which is laudable) is being actively inhibited by their approach. I have tried to point this out and also that pulling hooks for trivial and easily correctable errors is unhelpful (in fact, it could be argued to be tool misuse as the main page is protected). TRM has declaration that DYK needs to get used to trivial errors resulting in hooks being pulled; Fram has stated that DYK rules do not apply to admins and he refuses to return pulled hooks after correction. I repeat that higher quality reviewing is definitely needed and they both have pointed out significant errors, so I support their goals – but their methods are problematic, uncivil, and (worst of all) ineffective.

I am conflicted on this case request, however. DYK certainly has problems which need to be addressed, but I don't know if ArbCom can help. Classifying TRM and Fram as INVOLVED as far as DYK goes, and thus only able to fix errors which are so unambiguous that any admin would do the same, would stop the POINTy pulls but also make the correct and necessary pulls more difficult. ArbCom could ban some of the DYK contributors who make mistakes in reviewing and editing most often – I am sure a list could be generated easily enough – but that would mean identifying those editors as parties early on as ArbCom refuses to sanction non-parties. Whilst both of these editors are blunt and direct (which is fine) and unpleasant at times (which is not fine), I don't see how desysopping is justified based on the DYK situation. ArbCom may decide to sanction TRM based on actions spread across multiple areas of the encyclopaedia, though he reminds me a little of other editors who contribute a lot of content (and in TRM's case, also in project space) but struggle with civility.

FYI, DYK areas which need to be addressed (but not sure ArbCom can help) include:
 * Handling poor-quality reviews - remove QPQ credits, require additional checks, bans, etc
 * Handling editors who generate flawed articles
 * Ensuring the prep and queue areas are populated long enough for extra checks to take place
 * Streamlining rules
 * was placed under restrictions from AN recently, some of these might be modified into a suitable standard model for future problematic editors. (LavaBaron, I'm sorry but it was inevitable your case would become a test for a more generally used tool.)
 * Hooks that are boring
 * Limitations on the "quirky" hooks

Action under Hardy
I had been planned to present evidence. This case is difficult because TRM behaves problematically but is correct that there are quality issues needing addressing at DYK. Unfortunately, I have now read the proposed decision in the Michael Hardy case and discovered that ArbCom now considers it has the power to sanction non-parties without evidence, to act beyond the limits of authority in the arbitration policy, and to criticise and sanction editors for bringing a case or presented evidence. I have described these actions as the Hardy precedents, and while such actions are considered acceptable by ArbCom, I believe it is unwise for anyone to risk arbitrary action by presenting evidence. EdChem (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by SchroCat
Responding to Andrew Davidson's comment on the use of the definite article, which was inserted after I posted to ERRORS. Unfortunately his grasp of the use of the definite article in good formal English is flawed. It's fine to use omit the definite article in other English variants, journalese, informal language or through laziness, but not in formal BrEnglish (the standard for British articles). Why The ed17 decided to edit war to the sub-standard form is for them, but to lower standards on our front page by omitting the word is poor. As to it being a "breach of WP:OWN", that's just eyewash: knowing how to write properly and ensuring a non-lazy standard is not OWN (the complaint may as well be made about other's wish to remove the definite article). The full thread of the discussion is here; despite the ping I left for The ed17, he did not respond to explain his sub-standard revert, but Andrew Davidson's stance on downgrading the front page to read like a cheap newspaper is there. There are an insufficient number of capable people overseeing areas like DYK; while TRM may get snarky from time to time, he is the one who has taken the responsibility and stuck his head above the parapet in an attempt to optimise and improve ITN processes.

I note that although the majority of the Arbs wanted to examine the wider ITN/DYK interactions, rather than specifically about TRM: this case shouldn't be "The Rambling Man" but ITN and DYK interactions. – Gavin (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17. You claim inaccuracies, but there are none, just a different interpretation of the facts. Yes, people with a poor grasp of formal English dispute the inclusion of the definite article, but I'm afraid that's a lack of understanding on their part, or an unwillingness to grasp this is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. You have stated that you did not see edit that added the definite article, which makes your single swoop into the DYK thread to remove the "the" all the more bizarre. When it comes to maters of BrEng grammar, in future you should pause for reflection. - Gavin (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned by the ongoing removal of an IPs comments on the basis they are "unsourced", (and because they make one editor look bad). The Arbs would be well-advised to look at the thread in question. A series of incorrect statements were given to an OP—these misleading statements muddied the waters but were subsequently defended as "tangential discussions". A reasonable request from TRM that people should only post if they knew what they were talking about, was met with immediate hostility and accusations TRM was "yelling" at people. If WP is to function properly it sometimes needs people willing to stand up and tell others to 'stop the noise'. There was nothing impolite in TRM's statement, but others generated heat in response. More sinned against than sinning seems to be the case here, and in several other pieces of "evidence" I've looked at. - Gavin (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

*Comments trimmed to bring within word count in this edit: no points subsequently addressed by others were substantivly affected. - Gavin (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Kurtis
Being a sporadic regular at ITN for at least five years now and a long-term editor before that, I do have some degree of familiarity with The Rambling Man despite my limited interactions with him. I don't think anyone would deny that he has a short fuse, and he's not known to "suffer fools gladly", so to speak. ITN would be affected if he were no longer able to serve as an administrator. Would that be for the best? I'm not sure, and it boils down to differing perspectives. For those who've been at the receiving end of his frustration, he probably doesn't seem like somebody who has the temperament for adminship in the first place, no matter how good his contributions have been. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that he has ever abused or even misused his privileges, and the maintenance of ITN would take a hit if he wound up desysopped.

I think the Arbitration Committee should accept this case and expand its scope to include ITN as a whole. Rejecting it will only kick the can further down the road. A full case will probably help the situation improve. Kurtis (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Guy Macon
This is in response to arbitrator GorillaWarfare's request:


 * "To those of you suggesting the case scope be broadened to include entire areas such as ITN/RD/DYK, can you elaborate briefly on some of the broader problems you've been seeing there that you feel the Arbitration Committee can address (and that can't be addressed in other venues), if you haven't already? I have submitted a few DYKs (though none terribly recently), but am unfamiliar with RD and ITN, and their associated problems. --GorillaWarfare 01:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)"

Please do not close this page without giving us a day or two to compose a proper response or suggesting another page (evidence? workshop?) where a discussion about whether the case scope should be broadened would be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in composing this.

In my opinion, arbcom should deal with the problems at the refdesk (and possibly ITN and DYK -- I don't participate there) but it seems cleaner to do it in a separate case.

The reference desks in particular have some longstanding problems that ANI is unable to address. The main problem is that we have a culture and in many cases specific wording in the reference desk guidelines that allow and even encourage behavior that is not allowed elsewhere on Wikipedia, Right off the top of my head, these problems include:


 * Deleting other people's posts, which is allowed even when all the other regulars say that the deletion was bogus.
 * Providing information that is completely unsourced and often incorrect.
 * A talk page that is not limited to discussing improvement to the article, but is instead open to editors trashing each other without limit.
 * A culture where feeding trolls is allowed and encouraged.
 * Some rather dedicated trolls who take full advantage of the above.
 * ANI not being willing to get involved in the quagmire that is the reference desks
 * Multiple productive editors leaving, so that what remains are newbies, trolls, and troll feeders.
 * No obvious "trouble" editors. In many arbcom cases, getting rid of a few of the bad apples fixes the problem. On the reference desks we need a new set of behavioral guidelines to replace the current, broken ones.

Combining an attempt to address the above with an attempt to address the TRM situation strikes me as being a really bad idea. But I really do wish it would be addressed some time soon. If arbcom wants to consider dealing with the reference desk, just say the word and we will put together and file a proper case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Fram
I haven't been active at ITN a lot, so can't really comment about it, although in general I have the impression that TRM tries to maintain some content standards there, which is a good thing, and in general does a lot of work there.

As for DYK: TRM, Gatoclass and I are the three main people trying to keep errors which slipped through the standard review process from appearing on the Main Page (or remaining there for too long). This is necessary far too often, and nothing that has been attempted seems to improve this. Removing those editors from DYK who lack the necessary skills or patience to thoroughly check the one line that will appear on the main page is almost impossible (I tried it in the past with LauraHale andd recently with LavaBaron, and should try it with Cwmhiraeth in all fairness), although some have voluntarily left DYK for the laughing stock that GA is at the moment (Nvchar is a typical example).

Dealing with errors on DYK almost invariably results in complaints, no matter how you handle it. People tend to defend their work against all evidence and insist that it would have been better to let the incorrect hook linger on the main page while a discussion was held about it, as if DYK exposure on the main page isn't one of the most time critical elements we have.

When the same people over and over again, or people who really should know better, try to disrupt the process and make it clear that having a hook on the Main Page is more important than having a correct hook and a decent article, then it becomes hard to remain civil and patient at all times. Some people (a type of editor which seems to congregate around DYK) see it as their playground, a place to collect icons to put on their user page and points for Wikicups.

And then we have editors like admin User:Ritchie333, who reinserts his own incorrect hook directly into the Main Page (through full protection) after the error in it has been spotted by Gatoclass, and when questioned ignores the WP:INVOLVED breach completely and dismisses the error in his hook as an "opinion", even though everyone else (even people who at first mistakenly approved the hook) now agree that it was incorrect.

The problem at DYK is not someone like TRM (who is sorely needed there), but people like Ritchie333, User:Cwmhiraeth, and a handful of others. Perhaps not something that ArbCom can tackle (apart from the infractions by Ritchie333), but surely something to take into account if this case gets accepted. People repeatedly bringing wrong information to the Main Page are in my view a much worse problem than the possible incivility of those dealing with it. Fram (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: you're confusing cause and effect. The DYK project is in crisis because the often humiliating errors from nominators and reviewers get found and reverted. When I pull hooks from prep, queue or main page I normally only indicate the error and the source I used. Only when editors (like you) refuse to accept or are unable to understand that they are wrong (e.g. in your case when you used some OR to write your hook) may things get humiliating for them. "Some of the problems Fram reports are genuine": that is "some" as in "99%"? Feel free to list some of the hooks I pulled from prep, queue or main page where the problems were not genuine. Or retract your claim of course. " I often feel constrained to build sets myself because nobody else has been doing so." Please don't feel so constrained, no one will blame you for not building prep sets. As for hooks you nominated, may I remind you of the very recent Template:Did you know nominations/Notiomys, where I tried a gentle approach without pulling it from prep, only to have it appear unmodified (and wrong) on the main page because you were unable to understand the problems with it. That wasn't the first one you nominated which I had to pull for OR reasons. That you also often are incorrect in hooks you review is simply an additional problem. Fram (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) @Cwmhiraeth: there are enough editors who would have argued vehemently if they disagreed with my pull or reasoning. They often do so when they think I made a mistake. The silence in this instance, except from you, is quite telling. Fram (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: that's not how I intended it. What I meant is that this Arb case is (or initially was) about a lesser problem, while the more major problem at the root of it remained unaddressed. The occasional incivility at DYK is usually exasperation about people not caring for the correctness and integrity of the Main Page. Fram (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 I apologized for that wheelwarring soon afterwards, as it was a very stupid mistake on my part. Don't you agree that we all can make errors, but that we should then acknowledge those, certainly when they involve admin-only tools like editing through protection? Fram (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is a problem area
An example from this weekend: Amafufunyana hook - inaccurate?. When a hook by infrequent DYK editor User:Silver seren gets pulled from the main page, the reaction is "that was incredibly rude", the error was "really just technical nonsense", and "How many editors such as myself wake up to find you all badmouthing them for a technicality in wording?" The editors supposedly behaving this badly include myself and TRM. No badmouthing or rudeness happened, but it is symptomatic of how many editors see having their article on the main page as much more important than avoiding errors there.

Cwmhiraeth
More problematic than a one-time pissed off contributor is the encouragement he receives from User:Cwmhiraeth here. "Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us" is nothing but a clear personal attack, in response to a hook which was pulled for a legitimate reason (examples of hooks being pulled for ridiculous reasons are welcome!) and without being "scornful, rude and disparaging". Editors like Cwmhiraeth are one of the main reasons that we still get so many errors at DYK, and his attitude towards editors who actually find the errors and remove them is often problematic. His DYK priorities are not the best for the project and his competence is sometimes seriously lacking (see the example in my preliminary statement, where everyone saw the problem with his hook but him). Fram (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen from Cwmhiraeth's reply below, he sees no problem in repeating his personal attacks even when they are pointed out to him. In a case about supposed incivility by another editor (who is one of the targets of that personal attack), it is a good indication of which editors are the actual problems at DYK. Fram (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth's obstruction at DYK is an ongoing problem. When at Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1 I explain that the hook has an error, I notify the three people involved with the DYK (nominator, reviewer, promotor), two of them respond in a normal fashion, while Cwmhiraeth first tries to defend his promotion (not realising apparently that he again makes his old mistake of inserting his OR into factual hooks). When it is again pointed out why he is wrong, he tries the excuse that "I don't have your expertise in German" (he was unable to understand the basic pronoun "er"). The idea that if you don't have even the most basic knowledge of German, you shouldn't promote never mind continue to defend hooks based on a German source, was then dismissed by Cwmhiraeth as "ridiculous". Fram (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

He even accuses me of "bad faith" and "despicable behaviour" for nominating an article by one of his DYK buddies for deletion (NOTNEWS violation). (an article Cwmhiraeth had accepted for the main page despite having a completely wrong title). Fram (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Cwmhiraeth
This case should be refused. TRM has been uncivil to me at times at DYK but not beyond the bounds of acceptability, and I have worked with him in other areas without problem. I would not have known about this arbitration request or been interested in making a statement here had it not been for the mention of my name by Fram in the statement immediately before this.

The DYK project is undergoing a bit of a crisis, largely because of attacks by Fram, pulling hooks, naming and shaming editors, and generally trying to humiliate other editors that make mistakes, ably supported by TRM. Some of the problems Fram reports are genuine, other are trivial and nitpicky. As a result, the number of editors prepared to build prep sets ready for display on the main page has dwindled to a point where I often feel constrained to build sets myself because nobody else has been doing so. The articles I nominate are not generally the ones that get pulled by Fram, however I get criticised for promoting hooks that are problematic rather than anything else. Since recently I have been promoting perhaps 70% of the hooks, it is not surprising that my name has been associated with some problem ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so . Nobody backed up your point of view which you expressed incoherently. I did not agree with you and nobody backed up my point of view either. This is not an appropriate venue to discuss the issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has negative and positive attributes
Although The Rambling Man has been rude to me on occasions, I have never felt that this was excessive. While being a bit abrasive, I think he plays a very useful role at DYK and ITN. I have also had positive dealings with him, such as this interaction at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for quoting the first part of a statement made to Silverseren at the DYK discussion page. Although irrelevant to this arbitration case, I would like to complete the statement for the record:
 * "Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us, with the result that many editors who used to help with DYK regularly have curtailed their activities, or been driven away from the project altogether." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Fram's evidence should be disregarded
This arbitration case concerns alleged disputes or incivility by The Rambling Man. I submit that Fram's "evidence" is largely irrelevant; it provides no evidence to refute or support the claim that TRM is uncivil or involved in unnecessary disputes. Fram's evidence is also biased. His objectives in improving the accuracy of the DYK hooks appearing on the front page may be laudable but his methods leave a lot to be desired. His evidence here is a personal attack against me and his actions at DYK seem to me to be part of the problem there rather than the solution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Wnt
This case is about one editor in multiple venues at Wikipedia. A case about "the Refdesk" is something completely different, and should not be conflated with this one. I emphatically oppose any extra administrative burden there; the only thing really wrong at the Refdesk is that a few people seem to want to come in and try to impose a lot of policies and policy interpretations rather than being interested in the content. I would prefer ten of the worst "trolls" ever to afflict the desk over one heavy-handed administrator. We are there to ask and answer questions, creating a broad if somewhat disorderly database of public Q&A, and any inappropriate additions, being merely superfluous, cause extremely little disruption compared to comparable "trolling" at article pages. Wnt (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Carcharoth
Just a couple of points of order: Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) People are using RD to refer to two different things here: (a) Recent Deaths (which is indeed part of the ITN - 'in the news' - section that appears on the main page); and (b) the Reference Desk (not anything to do with ITN or the main page). It is ironic that overuse of Wikipedia initialisms is causing confusion here.
 * (2) Please don't accept an omnibus case about DYK ('did you know?'), Ref Desks and ITN. That would take several committees several years to sort out and will lead to all sorts of bad blood and feeling - I don't see any evidence that the community is unable to sort things out if needed. Expanding from the initial request (which should also be declined unless you are actually going to deal with those who clearly are bearing grudges here) is pure scope creep.

A third point of order: Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (3) TRM's request for adminship was in May 2007 and was supported unanimously by 128 people. He may have changed since then (haven't we all?), but that era of RfA was not the same as the one when Michael Hardy was given the admin tools (RfA), which was in 2003 and had 13 people participating. I am astounded that you are even comparing the two when you say "from the days when adminship really was no big deal" and "whose adminship dates from the same era". What you are saying there is completely misleading.
 * you are still misrepresenting what it was like to pass RfA, even back in April 2007. RfA had evolved by that point to have extensive nomination statements and a list of questions for the candidate to answer. There were nine questions asked and answered. If you compare that to the RfA that is currently in progress now (in August 2016), that has similar nomination statements and questions for the candidate. The main difference is that there are twice as many questions. RfA in 2007 had a definite level of scrutiny, not vastly dis-similar to what candidates get today. It is wrong to say that standards at RfA were "much lower in 2007 than today". It is wrong to try and paint TRM as an 'old-school admin'. He isn't and never has been. Furthermore (and I only just noticed this), the reason he sailed through the RfA that time was because it was his second RfA (the first was under a different username from a few months earlier - it is linked from the top of the successful RfA). The fact that TRM failed his first RfA kind of puts the lie to your statement that standards were low back in 2007, doesn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, SMcC, and thanks for being nice about it. Sorry if I was a bit forceful. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by SMcCandlish
There are legitimate civility issues to examine here, and they don't seem to be improving over time. (I say that as a curmudgeon whose approach changed under direct pressure. People with temperament issues do not learn to self-moderate if they are always given a free pass or, as with many of the above comments, a high-five for their antics.) Much of the commentary above seems to focus on what TRM does as an editor, but this really doesn't relate to admin behavior. I shouldn't have needed to drop off a WP:ARBATC Ds/alert at TRM's page about referring to other editors in a style dispute as engaging in "insidious editing" ; nor, in response to that, should he have professed ignorance of ArbCom and DS, something we expect admins to understand pretty well (a post also laced with untrue, holier-than-thou aspersion casting). So, why exactly is this person an admin at all? It appears to me that TRM was "grandfathered" from the days when adminship really was no big deal and there were essentially no criteria for it other than "been around a while" and "not obviously insane". We have higher, more specific expectations now, and those who don't meet them shouldn't be left sporting the hat. Or, they could just bother to meet the expectations. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC) PS: Yes, as a civility matter, this pre-dates the Jan. 2016 date the arbs care about, but as a "seemingly unaware of basic, current admin stuff" matter, I think it's still valid, especially given the in-some-ways-similar RFARB going on about Michael Hardy, whose adminship dates from the same era, and whose case is examining older evidence. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll concede Carcharoth's point (though it is not actually a point of order) about over-generalizing about "the Olden Days". There was indeed a difference between 2003 and 2007 RfA. However, the criteria (both formal and, more importantly, in editors' minds) were still much lower in 2007 than today.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: Treat "why exactly is this person an admin at all?" as a rhetorical question for TRM, not a "desysop!" suggestion. My point is that this isn't 2007 any longer and expectations have shifted. I've considered on this a bit, and my issue is with the tacit but widespread treatment of admins, especially "old-time" ones, as essentially exempt from civility expectations, as if once they have the badge all bets are off. This is not a TRM matter in particular, he just happened to come up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but do not agree; I went through RfA in 2007 myself (as did you), and remember it well; it was a straight-up popularity contest, in which support or opposition by one or two key people was all it took to succeed or fail, and virtually no due diligence was performed to verify pro or con claims, nor did anyone much care if someone's vote was inexplicable; this was still true three years later. The experience level expected, the temperance expected, the particularity of the Q&As, the expectation of verifiability and semi-recency of claims about the candidate, and expectation of some kind of defensible rationale not just-a-vote (especially for opposes but increasingly for supports, too) have all markedly increased in the intervening half-decade or so, along with the tension level and the need to police the proceedings.  It's all gotten much more serious.  It was still frequently said ca. 2010, with a straight face, that adminship was no big deal, yet virtually no one holds this view any longer, including admins.  I don't see much point in arguing about this further here; ArbCom has accepted this case, and had before I said anything; the two diffs were all I had to provide (I have no grudge against TRM and am not going to go digging for diff-dirt); I've conceded that my admin-civility concerns are broader than with just TRM's own individual posts; and I won't be participating in the case proper once it gets going.  It's okay for us to have different retrospectives on what 2007 was like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Upon more reflection, after comparing TRM's original RfA under another username with his second, successful one, and looking over some of the unreasonableness people bring to DYK, ITN, TFA, OTD, etc., I only want to add the following: I'm in increasing agreement with previous parties' observations that the "badge collecting" feel, for some editors, of some of the main-page processes probably has a great deal to do with the issues raised here and why tempers flare. This doesn't seem to be a TRM problem, really, even if he could be more collegial (which people also say about me). Cf. recent tooth-gnashing about FAC and the conflict between "authors" versus "drive-bys"; our peer-review processes also have a badge-collecting aura about them. Though none of these processes are intended that way and are meant to be about the content, even FAC disputes can cause lapses in admin judgement, along with that of other parties, so I'm not surprised that stuff associated with the main page itself also does so, instead of just getting editors working on content and readers shown interesting parts of it.

I don't think "it goes with the territory" is an adequate ; it's just an observation of initial conditions which need to be addressed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Jehochman
I concur with Carcharoth that this request should be rejected as ill-defined, because each case consumes a lot of volunteer time and can lead to more conflict. It is unwise to try to determine the scope on the fly. Instead, reject this request and ask the parties to reconsider. If they can't find a way to solve problems, then somebody can come back with a proper request with a clearly defined scope. A good question to answer in a case request is "What encyclopedic content or process has been damaged as a result of poor behavior, and by whom?" The second point to address is "What steps have failed to solve the problem and what do you want the Committee to do about it?" Jehochman Talk 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Dweller
Back from holiday to find this distasteful timesink flagged on my user talk. Others have made excellent comments above about the poorly defined scope of this request. TRM is one of Wikipedia's finest and stands up for our quality standards including a quite astonishing record of assisting users with Featured Lists. I wish we had dozens more problem users like him. Arbcom, feel free to look into the problems at the Ref Desks, ITN, DYK and wherever but this is a bad case. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This case is intrinsically flawed
Instead of looking at some very serious issues on Wikipedia, namely the difficulties seen at ITN, DYK and the Ref Desks, it's focussing on the occasionally exasperated responses of one of our best editors. If this was ANI, there'd be a slew of BOOMERANG references all over this page.

CIVIL
I'm a huge advocate of CIVIL. I wrote WP:MOBY and founded this club (check its membership, btw). Wikipedia users, newbies and old hands, deserve CIVIL interaction. But when problem users repeatedly niggle to the extent that we reach WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and beyond, we can all understand why terse responses may be forthcoming. It may be as well for the Arbitrators to check out TRM's contributions more generally, particularly his outstanding work collaborating with others and guiding them through the process at FL.

Sanctions
The very possibility of sanctions (and why else are we here) against TRM leaves me aghast. Any type of sanction would damage the project. TRM clearly has lost faith in the Arbs and this process, which is a shame because he could do a much better job of defending himself than I can. But I, perhaps naively, do have faith in you. I have confidence that you experienced editors on Arbcom can see who is the gleeful trouble-maker ... and who is trying ever so hard to make this place excellent.

Whatever you do
This case cannot stop here. When you're done doing whatever it is you're going to do, you must look into the problems at the areas I mention above. Properly. Please don't forget. I might not be here to remind you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Black Kite
Only a short note from me, because I think Fram and Dweller have said everything I would have done. TRM might occasionally be abrasive, but at DYK (and to a lesser extent ITN) it is almost impossible to prevent misleading and/or plainly incorrect information reaching the Main Page without upsetting someone who has worked on it in the past. Having said that, ArbCom would do well to read Cwmhiraeth's statement, because they have often been in the firing line and even they do not think this rises to the level of a case. Since this is being accepted for some reason though, it should be wider than TRM. Some of the "evidence" provided above against TRM is laughable and almost, ironically, rises to the level of a PA against him... Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Prelimiary statement by George Ho
TRM's arrogance is over the top already. Worst of all, certain people tolerate TRM's behavior and follow along and make vicious antics on me. Also, TRM is using ITN as his tool to put down on people. AHeneen, WaltCip might explain their own perspectives about him. --07:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

condensed further comments below; some responses to other editors eliminated. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * TRM threatens people, including me, if he is reported again. I was intimidated into not reporting him because... of my conflicts with others besides him, not because of him. 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Iridescent called me "problematic". Sure, I'm unpopular at ITN. However, ITN always has problematic ranting editors in the past long before my involvement on ITN. Unfortunately, ITN admins don't see the problems on so-called "minor" problems that annoy editors in the first place. Instead, two of them just see me as irrelevant and unnecessary. I'm trying my best to adjust my behavior until I realize that, until Wikipedians turn themselves around and be very warm and generous to all editors and help them, I don't need Wikipedia anymore. See my contributions? I have become less frequent than I used to be. I had enough of being put down and scolded until I decided to let others take TRM's side and then to do important stuff in real life. TRM and some gang made fun of me just because I had concerns about ITN and its editors and just because my ideas are poor quality. Also, an administrator, while not taking sides, found unpleasantness from TRM. I might provide more if any of claims are rebutted.


 * For those saying it's a witch hunt, can anyone rebut this evidence and that evidence and that evidence? 20:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, one of arbitrators, might be involved with TRM per this discussion. Same for DGG, who voted for his bureaucratship.


 * Look at the FFD discussion, the ITN talk about fair use, and the Sally Brampton RD nomination. He and ITN admins could not commemorate the woman's name in the Main Page just because a non-free image is used (and considered replaceable) until weeks later the free-to-share image replaced the image. Also, he berated people for not thoroughly searching for a free image of a deceased person... or finding ways to make an image free, especially in the time of mourning of recently deceased. The case is not a farce; it highlights everything he has done to others. Maybe his participation at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal counts? 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * [Comment redacted just for space]. George Ho (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I received "thanks" from TRM for notifying two editors. Several months ago, he thanked me for requesting speedy deletion on File:Sally Brampton at Malou efter tio TV4 2009.jpg, which I fought for keeping it until TRM uploaded a free image. [Comment redacted]. 21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Arbs, regarding time limit, why limiting time span? Look at TRM's dispute with those working on TV-related articles, like Friends episode list, from four years ago. I was participating in the dispute, but I was trying to calming things down back then, unaware of TRM's viciousness. 07:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN and TRM
At the time of commemoration of Prince (musician), the article had issues. One whole section lacked sufficient sources at the time, even with some improvements. I requested that the listing of Prince be removed from the Main Page, but TRM rejected quality concerns by using "be bold" rhetoric. The removal of Prince was the aging, not quality. At the time of removal, not much of quality improved (though the article is in better shape). Then again, someone else said that the uncited material is not controversial enough for delisting the entry. However, I wonder whether leaving the quality as is should have been admins' parts besides TRM's and consensus's.

When I complained once about incivility, people there would pass it off as one of my usually dismissed complaints: this, that, that. Nevertheless, this does not imply that they did not reduce incivility. Indeed, they changed ITN's Recent Deaths (RD) criteria to suppress arguments about recently deceased themselves. Most of bickering about recently deceased Americans occurred as often.

TRM's behavior
However, that's not the only issue about ITN and TRM. The whole ITN community, including TRM, was disputing on non-free images of (recently) deceased people. This led to the. While I applauded TRM for somehow convincing some image owner to change copyright of the Sally Brampton image, TRM still berated people for not working hard on searching for free images of deceased people, especially by using words like "lazy" or "laziness". I brought this issue to ANI, but it was dismissed. As for the FFD discussion itself, while the Brampton was replaced, the Reg Grundy infobox image was "kept" by default due to "no consensus".

Also, he was reported again for edit-warring, especially at one of RD nominations:. Worse yet, TRM lashed out at mike V when Mike told him (and Calidum) to behave (themselves). Also, TRM lashed out on some others at ANI, especially purplebackpack89.

Also, TRM threatened me (or made empty threats) whenever I would contact Banedon again about constructing another complaint against TRM. He also accused me of "pretending" to quit Wikipedia and accused me of acting all "high-maintenance" or something. He demanded that I spend time "improving" articles and less on social interaction (or something like that), but Wikipedia is already flawed and clunky. Actually, I have problems on my own, but you don't see much doing much on Wikipedia as I used to. That would indicate that I'm closer to quitting (or I have no longer enthusiasm toward) Wikipedia, especially once this case is done, regardless of outcome.

Sometimes, TRM and I have not been tense toward each other, especially in WP:ERRORS page. As much as usually chummy Iridescent and TRM are, whenever I talk to Iridescent about myself (or turning myself around), TRM would pop-up and tell me what to do, and Iridescent apparently goes along with it. As you notice, I tend to ignore TRM because I don't want to battle with him a lot. This should not imply that Iridescent is involved with ITN.

True that Iridescent believes that I was implying that always. I get that often; (s)he doesn't have to repeatedly say that. Nevertheless, the evidence provided beat me to it.

Also, TRM once had a conflict with DuncanHill per edit warring:. When I introduced myself to Duncan, I told him to never mind TRM. Then TRM popped up and told me to "drop the stick". Later, Duncan removed the whole thread as one of "bitchfests" or something. Correction: I like to mention TRM, but I want to never directly contact him for now. I asked my current mentor MagogTheOgre about introducing myself to others like Duncan, and Magog told me not to press TRM's buttons. There is further discussion, but that's not relevant to this case... I think.

I would love to discuss his past incidents with others, but they happened before January 2016.

Time since the case began
TRM resorted to accusing certain people of "incompetence" and making empty threats, i.e. "dead, dead, dead." He did that again and again at WT:DYK.

WTF?
I don't know quite why George Ho has suddenly decided to drag me into his narcissistic delusions yet again with the As much as usually chummy Iridescent and TRM are, whenever I talk to Iridescent about myself (or turning myself around), TRM would pop-up and tell me what to do, and Iridescent apparently goes along with it he's just posted above, but it has no basis in fact; I suspect there's not a single person on this page with whom I've interacted less than I have with TRM, as we have virtually no interests in common. I have made precisely two posts to TRM's talkpage in my entire time on Wikipedia (one of which was a mass mailing, and the other was in 2008), and TRM has made an average of two posts a year to my talkpage in the same period, virtually all of which are routine notifications. The only posts from TRM on my talk which could be taken as referring to George Ho in any way were all in direct response to his turning up on my talkpage out of the blue for no apparent reason asking bizarre questions about "how to be useful and influential". As per my comments in that thread (and its follow-up), George appears to have somehow got the impression that I have something to do with the management of In the news and to view me through that prism, and no matter how often I explain to him that I have no interest in or involvement with ITN (the only edit I've ever made there was to fix a typo plus a dozen or so edits to the talkpage), the message doesn't appear to have sunk in. &#8209; Iridescent 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Banedon
I'm filing this case request against (TRM) for long-term civility issues. TRM's abrasive and incivil editing style has antagonized countless users        —note how every single one of these examples involved a different editor. There's no shortage of diffs.

TRM has been the subject of several ANI cases   going back to 2014, all of which were also filed by different editors. He has also been admonished by the Committee for incivility in January. 

TRM is a longtime editor with a productive track record, and he has not abused his admin tools. But he's also defied multiple good faith attempts by different editors to work with him, and—contrary to policy—has handed out no shortage of demeaning insults. His edits are of the kind where he comes as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it, while trying to goad the other side to break the rules first. It is arguable that none of his edits individually deserve a sanction, but there are a lot of them.

If the Committee has repeatedly admonished and sanctioned those who act poorly when confronted with provocation and coordinated harassment, including TRM, then it surely must respond to a pattern of the same behavior in the face of repeated attempts by numerous long-standing editors to work with him in a productive and civil manner.
 * Clarifying that for this case request I'm not linking the incivility directly, rather evidence that multiple different editors have expressed disapproval of TRM's editing. Hence, I'm changing the diff that Iridescent is referring to. If this case is accepted, I can provide diffs that explicitly illustrate the incivility. Banedon (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Explaining why I filed this to Arbcom instead of starting another ANI thread. There are several reasons. One, TRM suggested several times to different people to do so.  . Two, he has already been the subject of multiple ANI cases, but his behavior has not improved. I don't see why yet another ANI case will help. Finally, TRM has stated that he doesn't think highly of Arbcom  . If this is his attitude towards the highest court in Wikipedia, then it's unlikely he thinks highly of ANI discussions, and a case there is probably futile. Banedon (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing: my understanding is that this is a case request, not (yet) an evidence page. In other words its main purpose is to answer the questions "is there a dispute?" and "is another form of dispute resolution possible?". I think the answers are fairly obviously "yes" and "no" respectively. Therefore Arbcom should accept this case. Accepting does not mean the committee must find against TRM. If, after considering all the evidence, the committee decides that TRM has done nothing wrong, that is also a result. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM has been uncivil
If the initial statements are anything to go by, nobody is disputing this. I'll add some diffs here anyway. 

These are only from WP:ITN/C. I don't watch DYK or the Ref Desks, where others have pointed out incivil comments. Odds are that there are more examples from pages like WT:ITNR, but I have not looked through them. As I said in the case request, individually, it's easy and maybe even expected to be able to brush off these incidents—but there are a lot of them.

For those who said some variant of "TRM has been uncivil, but only the people whose nominations are rejected are angry at him", note how many of these diffs apply to people who do not have a vested interest in the nomination. I add that having supported or opposed a nomination should not count, since if one reads ITN with regularity there will be lots of such supports and opposes, and every individual nomination quickly ceases to be emotionally impactful.

Finally there is this diff, which is especially troubling because of the threat of extra-wiki actions:

TRM is extremely difficult to work with
If getting snarked at because one holds a differing opinion from TRM isn't enough, it must also be pointed out that TRM has refused to participate in this arbitration request. Whatever else arbitration may be, it is still part of the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia. It's hard to see how one can build consensus with an editor who refuses to participate in dispute resolution. The only real alternatives are to agree with him or to ignore him.

TRM has been uncivil even to people who do not have 'lower standards' than him
This is in response to the preliminary statements that said some variant of "TRM has been uncivil, but only because he has high standards / because the other party deserves it". TRM has been uncivil to other long-time ITN editors who do not have weaker standards than him, such as 331dot, Masem , Fuebaey , Tone , Thryduulf and Mjroots , and Jayron32.

It's noteworthy how many of these long-time ITN editors TRM has raged at are admins. It's also noteworthy that, although ITN is watched by very many different admins (such as the admins being raged at above), TRM is the only admin to annoy a large number of different people over long periods of time.

TRM has been uncivil even when discussions are not heated
This is in response to statements that said some variant of "TRM has been uncivil, but only because discussions at ITN / DYK etc can be very heated". An example of TRM being uncivil outside of these discussions is here. The section in question is here. Given the context of what I wrote, this thanks is clearly not a genuine one. Sending public thanks also requires several clicks, and even one where the system asks "are you sure?". I therefore interpret his thanks as both deliberate and malicious. This was not a spur-of-the-moment bit of incivility, it was a conscious and intentional attempt to catch my attention and let me know he was reading whatever I wrote (WP:HOUND).

It is unlikely TRM is able to reform
TRM reforming is undoubtedly the best case scenario, and after I filed this case request, he has suddenly become more civil, at least within ITN (aside: this shows that TRM is capable of being civil even in the ostensibly-heated atmosphere of ITN—in other words, his incivility in the diffs above is because he chose not to be civil, not because he can’t be). However, I am not convinced this will last. There are two reasons for this:


 * All reform begins with an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. The way TRM has been behaving with regards to this case request (example), he does not believe he has done anything wrong.
 * He has said he will be civil before. In 2013, Dweller started an "old fashioned" pledge page. The pledges include "Be unfailingly polite, even to vandals, let alone regulars with whom I disagree". TRM was one of the first signatories. This did not stop him from getting admonished by Arbcom earlier this year. Neither did it (or the Arbcom admonishment) stop the incivility in the diffs above.

ITN is more collaborative without TRM
This is in response to "net positive" statements. In January this year after Arbcom admonished him, TRM decided to retire for a while. The log for ITNC during this period when TRM wasn't editing is here. A Ctrl + F search for "rambling" reveals the period when he wasn't participating (most of the page is full of results, but there are no results for this period) and this period can be compared to other periods. ITN not only worked fine, but in my opinion the atmosphere was friendlier and more productive (compare the long and potentially heated discussions about planet nine or the US blizzard without TRM’s influence, to other discussions in diffs above). Another thing to note about "net positive" is that, several editors have expressed in their preliminary statements that they are less inclined to participate because of TRM's behaviour. Any positive effect by TRM must be balanced by the loss of contributions from these other editors.

Ultimately then this case is about the so-called Malleus defense
Does having more than ten years of experience, and 131 Good Articles, 64 Featured Lists, 19 Featured Articles, and 2 Featured Topics allow an editor to ignore WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? I strongly believe the answer should be “no”, but if the preliminary statements are anything to go by, a good number of editors believe the answer should be “yes”. I ask Arbcom to make a decision on this. Whichever side the coin falls on will have lasting impact on Wikipedia.

Banedon (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ceoil
TRM, like Fram, like Nikki, is a gatekeeper, enforcing minimum standards where standards have been historically poor. That there has been improvement in the last year is exactly down to a few reformers committed enough to roll up their sleeves and get to into the dirty business of daily findings, highlighting and pulling from main page schedules - within in a reward based culture that cultivates easily bruised egos.Day after day battling this stuff can lead to frustration, but we as a project owe it to ourselves to encourage front line quality control. For people not old enough to know wiki history, the down-voting arguments against are similar, but not quite matching, the histrionics leveled against SandyGeorgia during her, successful, reform of FAC. She never lost her cool, but the circumstances are very similar, although the foes were more impressive.

In my view people like TRM are hard to come by, and our internal structures should support rather than inhibit and frustrate reform. Either customer facing pages like RN, DKY, and RD, are allowed as breeding grounds for editors too incompetent to survive elsewhere, or how do we control them seems to me the central issue; sanctioning TRM as a scapegoat on the basis of civility is narrow sighted to say the least. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Baseball Bugs - you said "I have often said that getting it right is more important than most anything else" - if you honest think thats a summary of your career to date on wikipedia than you have even less self awarness than I had miserebly given you credit for. You have been at best an agent provocateur on your 10000 odd ANI/I posts, and I have personally found myself baited in to a block, a few times, curteously of your "observations". Thats one side of your career here. The other is your consistently incompetant and flippant attitude at the ref desk, which I find humilitating to be associated with. How to deal with you and problem editors of your ilk SHOULD be why we are all here today. I would be agaist sanction in principal; but would dearly love for learning to be learned. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Andise1
One cannot deny that TRM has done a lot for Wikipedia, whether it be at ITN, DYK, the Ref Desk, or creating/improving articles. Just because one does some good deeds, or spends time trying to make something better, does not mean they are inherently a good person. I have not had too many interactions with TRM, only ones at ITN every so often (and usually it's related to something I nominated, as I don't comment on noms that often), but I do do quite a bit of reading and observation. If we go back to my first sentence and examine it, is the good something that can be done whether TRM is around to do it or not? Most definitely. I do not think that TRM's many useful contributions to Wikipedia should be used as a reason for no sanctions to be given. I agree with what Masem said above, TRM has a "I'm better and have more knowledge than you, so what I say is what is correct" attitude at ITN. While his comments may be constructive, the snakiness in his comments is rude and unnecessary. I think sometimes it is easy to forget that behind the computer screen the user you are responding to is a real person who (for the most part) is just trying to help out Wikipedia in whatever way possible. When they receive a snarky reply from someone like TRM, it may turn them away from helping out more with Wikipedia.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Gatoclass
I didn't comment on the original request as I had planned to sit this one out, however, as there appears to be no sign of improvement since the opening of the case, I have reluctantly changed my mind.

I am one of DYK's "veteran" admins, having served there for going on nine years now, and I like to think that in that time I have established a strong track record of positive collaboration with the overwhelming majority of contributors. TRM has been a rare exception. In my experience, he will almost invariably personalize a dispute at the first opportunity. It seems that the issue for TRM is never just the immediate matter to hand, but always (or including) the other party's competence/attitude/whatever.

A recent dispute between us is I think a classic example: after an edit I made to a DYK hook on the mainpage with which he disagreed, he opened by accusing me of weakly "folding" to a complaint at WP:ERRORS and reducing the hook to "mindless trivium", before continuing in successive posts to accuse me of a "lame reaction", a "problematic" failure to "get it", "implementing your personal preference to create a hook which sucked", "bad form" and "personal editorializing", "abus[ing] the process and your tools", "should take time off to reflect on your poor decision making", "shouldn't be editing hooks", "should be warned not to do this again", "abusing tools ... flawed judgement ... tinkering with the main page to make it please you" and finally "lying". In response to these barbs, I finally blew up and responded in kind (for which I will now take the opportunity to apologize to the community). Full thread here.

Despite the above, when TRM started a thread entitled "Back on topic", I took him at his word and responded positively to some of his suggestions, only to have him reply with this and this. (Full thread here).

Since then, the sniping from TRM has continued, albeit more subdued, in threads like this. But just when things appeared to be improving, I logged on a few days ago to find this comment, and yesterday this. (Full thread here). Even today, the unprovoked sniping continues (made in response to this comment).

I want to emphasize that I'm prepared to work constructively with anyone, at any time, including TRM, and have never attempted to drive critics of DYK away, as I feel that Wikiprojects sometimes need criticism in order to lift their game and I think this is currently the case with DYK. I also recognize that TRM makes a very fine contribution to mainspace, including DYK and the other mainpage projects, and indeed I strongly sympathize with his desire to improve standards. But I'm afraid that at this point I have just had enough of the relentless negativity and serial disrespect from TRM's corner, it's becoming a major distraction and I'm tired of having to deal with it. I have put thousands of hours into the running of DYK over the years, I think my record of quality control there is second to none, and while I've never expected much appreciation for my work there, neither do I log onto the project every day expecting to be serially abused for my contributions. I am also concerned about the chilling effect this may be having on others. I really don't care what you choose to do or not do about this, but as of the last few days I am no longer willing to sit quietly on the sidelines and behave as if everything was just fine. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by MPJ-DK
So I am not providing diffs or a long statement or anything else, but I find it very telling that there are generally two types of comments


 * TRM is uncivil
 * TRM is uncivil because ....

That seems telling to me. To me this case boils down to "Are there circumstances where it is okay for an Admin to exhibit such negativity and uncivility towards others"? No diffs, just an observation.  MPJ  -DK 21:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mike V

 * I've gathered a number of diffs from February 2016 and beyond that highlight concerning behavior from The Rambling Man. Since it's close to the deadline to submit evidence and you have enough to read already, I've omitted most of the verbiage and will allow the diffs to speak for themselves. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has engaged in uncivil behavior and personal attacks

 * A few weeks after the Future Perfect at Sunrise motion was passed, Opabinia regalis held a discussion with The Rambling Man about inappropriate rhetoric.


 * He often resorts to sarcasm and insults in discussions. 1, 2, 3, 4


 * He responds to uncivil comments with his own incivility and attacks. 5


 * He rudely dismisses concerns of incivility and does not appear to be concerned about how his comments might offend others. 6, 7


 * When asked to be less condescending, he responded in a snide fashion.


 * He acted uncivilly towards an editor who was conversing in good faith.


 * Frequently, The Rambling Man belittles other editors. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
 * Discussion with The ed17: 16, 17, 18
 * Discussion with Jusdafax: 19, 20


 * At times he's unable to remain calm during discussions and lashes out towards others:
 * ITN#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section: 21, 22
 * DYK#LavaBaron's editing restrictions: 23, 24, 25, 26
 * DYK#Slow down: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31


 * Additional insults: 32, 33, 34


 * Writing uncivil edit summaries to remove discussions he was involved in. When another editor raised concerns that it was an “abuse of process” he reverted the edit with a snark reply of “abuse of reading".

Evidence presented by {your user name}
*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.