Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 106

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (December 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sandstein at 15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) The Rambling Man prohibited


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Perhaps the many other participants to the WP:AE threads listed below could also be considered involved. I have not attempted to list them all here.
 * Perhaps the many other participants to the WP:AE threads listed below could also be considered involved. I have not attempted to list them all here.


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * The Rambling Man notified


 * Information about amendment request
 * The Rambling Man prohibited
 * Lift the restriction and replace it with another sa200nction if deemed necessary.

Statement by Sandstein
In October 2016, ArbCom determined, among other things, that The Rambling Man had been incivil and had resigned adminship after a desysopping motion had passed. ArbCom made The Rambling Man subject to a civility restriction, which was amended in September 2017.

This restriction has given rise to many WP:AE requests, including (I may have missed some):
 * 1)  14 December 2016: Warned by
 * 2)  22 January 2017: No action as closed by me,
 * 3)  5 March 2017: Blocked by me for a month; upheld on appeal with a reduced duration
 * 4)  10 April 2017: No action as closed by
 * 5)  8 July 2017: No action as closed by
 * 6)  5 January 2018: No action as closed by
 * 7) 25 January 2018: No action as closed by
 * 8)  2 March 2018: No action as closed by
 * 9)  31 May 2018: No action as closed by
 * 10) 20 June 2018: No action as closed by
 * 11) 23 November 2018 (permalink): Referred to this forum by me with the agreement of other participating admins
 * Links amended, thanks to   Sandstein   09:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In many but not all of these cases, I was of the view that an actionable violation of the restriction had occurred, but other admins disagreed. Regardless of which side one may agree with, it is clear that the restriction has failed to quell the conduct by The Rambling Man that others object to. It should therefore be lifted as ineffective.

I recommend that ArbCom examine the conduct by The Rambling Man (and possibly others) at issue in the more recent AE requests, and determine whether any other sanctions less open to interpretation should be imposed.

Personally, I am appalled by many of the incivil statements by The Rambling Man cited in these AE requests, and believe that a suitably scoped topic or page ban might be an effective remedy (the disputes seem to center around issues related to WP:DYK). I acknowledge, however, that other admins and users see this quite differently, and believe that The Rambling Man is the one being harrassed here (which I have not examined in any detail). I suspect that this reflects, in part, the abiding disagreement among Wikipedians about whether and to which degree we should attempt to enforce standards of civility.  Sandstein  15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Because you have asked for specific proposals, here's mine: Please don't replace the sanction with another that depends on the judgment of administrators, such as another kind of civility restriction. Instead, either forego any sanction, or impose a block or ban.
 * I agree with BU Rob13 that the social dynamics of this case are such that regular enforcement by individual administrators is very difficult. We are faced with a longterm vested contributor surrounded by what looks to me like a group of sympathetic administrators and other users who seem to be intent on protecting the user at issue from enforcement measures. We are also faced with a type of problem – notorious incivility combined with valuable content work – for which the community at large has long been notoriously incapable of coming up with broadly accepted enforcement standards. This means that any individual administrator undertaking or proposing enforcement action will face intense opposition, such as I am facing here: calls for recusals and threats of community sanctions, merely for expressing the view that the conduct at issue did in fact violate an ArbCom decision.
 * I've had experiences like these before, and I'm no longer willing to be the only admin to stick my head out in such cases. They need to be handled, decisively, by the people elected to do so: the Committee itself. The evidence in the AE requests should be sufficient for ArbCom to determine that either The Rambling Man's conduct is not a problem and lift the sanction, or that it is and impose a block or ban.  Sandstein   16:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
Double jeopardy time by the looks of it. The list above is confirmation that there's a consensus that no infringement of the sanctions per their current wording has taken place since Sandstein blocked me (twice), the last time being something like 12 months ago (which he neglected to note). Since then a litany of "no action" cases. But now that's not enough, let's go back over all the previous cases and find a different angle so we can re-word the sanction so we can definitely block me, even retrospectively! Bravo. I think (in fact, I know) that the way in which this has been opened already attempts to strongly bias this hearing, and so there seems little purpose in me contributing to it further at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde's example is a perfect exemplar of the absurdity of the sanction. That I could make a completely generic statement about the state of generic individuals attempting to run for offices in a generic grouping of individuals working generically for a generic group of users sums up the futility of trying to discover gold examples of sanction infractions.  It would be like sanctioning me for saying "I don't think Arbcom is working too well".  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde's latest example (of "casting aspersions") is a poor choice as everything in it is terribly accurate. Harsh perhaps, but fair (tinkering with approved hooks against consensus, introducing errors heading to the main page etc).  If we are now looking to level sanctions when someone dares to confront an admin's erroneous behaviour, I suspect we're heading down the wrong path altogether.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, you get to choose the venue, of course. This is quite irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and BU Rob13 makes a number of claims of communications from various "reluctant" admins, and a "groupies" list, this needs further investigation, with evidence presented here. As this list of "groupie" admins is fundamentally important to this case, we need to list them out and understand their involvement, as the Arb BU Rob13 has alluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, you've cast aspersions about the behaviour of a number of unnamed admins (you referred to them as "groupies"), you need to explain that further, are those individuals abusing their position? If so, we should investigate each of them per WP:ADMINACCT.  If not, then why would you use such an abusive term which indicates some kind of nefarious behaviour from a group of long-standing editors?  Or does this all boil down to the fact that a large number of individuals (some admins) happen to disagree with your position?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih says there was a consensus among Main Page admins that the "errors" or matters TRM raised at ERRORS were not always exactly "errors"? as if that's somehow relevant to any of this. But just a quick glance at WP:TRM will show that of the 879 reports I've raised there since mid-July, 815 of them have been resolved, i.e. a 90% hit rate.  Now please show me any single other editor in the history of Wikipedia who has a better ratio.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

General: by all means I will commit to reducing the harshness of my tone. However, there seems little purpose in doing that under the current botched sanctions, as evidenced above, it's clear there's far from a consensus that I've breached those sanctions for over a year, and going through this song-and-dance routine while Sandstein advocates a month-long block every single time and many, many other editors (Arbitrator BU Rob13 disingenuously refers to them as "groupies") disagree. Now there's a desire from those two heavily involved editors to silence the community and to allow that very group of individuals who crafted and voted on such a botched sanction to become judge, jury and executioner. Wow, only despots and Wikipedia could run things that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

General: Thanks to those Arbs who have recognised my current familial position. It will not be fully resolved for at least a month or more (complicated stuff) so I urge the community and Arbcom to press ahead. I'm sure I'll have time to contribute if required, and none of this is anywhere near as important as what I'm doing right now, and there appears to be an urgent need to look into some of the comments of Arbitrator BU Rob13 which should be prioritised, so go for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw, you make an offer, but you don't suggest the alternative, i.e. "I'd be interested..." but what if I'm not? It's clear there's no consensus that I've breached the sanction on numerous occasions, as noted above I do offer to attempt to reduce my tone to satisfy those who dislike it, but I'm more interested in whether or not this sanction still exists in reality. And if not, are Arbcom now threatening to conjure up some immediate punishment? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw, so can I just clarify, for you it's either "pledge to do better" or "face the uncertain fate of Arbcom's decision making process which will potentially ignore the double jeopardy of more than a year's worth of consensus against the sanction" and impost a retrospective block/ban? Either/or?  It's not clear what you are suggesting, nor the involved Sandstein (whose continual threats against consensus remain unaddressed here) nor the involved Arbitrator BU Rob13 (whose aspersions against "groupies" remain unaddressed here).  What are you trying to suggest?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you mean address me like a human using communication rather than something which would fail the Turing test? Indeed, thanks for your comment, and yes, I agree. But before this is moved along, the ongoing behaviour of Sandstein, and the comments of Arbitrator BU Rob13, need closer inspection. The former has very much lost the faith of the community, and the latter has accused well-established admins of being "groupies" who (it appears) are abusing their positions. Either those admins are still to be trusted in their judgement (so BU Rob13's casting aspersions and should be de-Arbed) or those admins are abusing their positions (so BU Rob13 should be mandated to provide evidence of this "groupie"ism or else redact such aspersions with apologies to everyone concerned). These behavioural issues from a long-standing AE enforcer and new Arb need to be examined in more detail, not just swept under the carpet once this show is done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, couple of points: I said the user page I host was less toxic when you weren't there because people were spending their efforts helping fix issues rather than simply defending them ad infinitum. As you are well aware, Crisco's DIVA quit and the subsequent assaults on me were completely unjustified, and many editors, including admins have stated as such. He quit incorrectly citing me as tinkering with "his" work. I actually hadn't tinkered with anything, an admin had moved a TFP hook which contained unverifiable material and Crisco DIVA'ed out. As for your other examples, well all the DYK regulars dislike me because I find so many issues with the work that the project ejects. Poor articles, poor reviews, poor ownership attitudes, there's a problem unique to DYK in that individuals get far too attached to "their" work (especially it would seem these regular contributors) so when someone comes in and (bluntly) tells them it's getting tedious to keep fixing up so many regular issues, they get bristled up and retaliate. It's clear and the stats speak for themselves, my aim is simply to maintain the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

as far as I can recall, I'd only ever had favourable conversations with Crisco around Indonesian FLCs etc. Nothing which I would have expected to precede such an unfair rant. Thanks for helping clear up the myth being perpetuated by some. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, your continued run-ins with Fram on that very talk page have seen you both at ANI, have they not? It would seem that the DYK project is the root of the problematic issues, with those who dare to criticise the actions of the regulars (who I note have all clustered here in on fell swoop) as being cast as pantomime villains, "nit-pickers", "MOS mavens" etc. Of course such personal attacks are ignored by those of us who are dedicated to main page integrity, but the regulars take umbrage when "their own" work is criticised. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But Cwmhiraeth, the point here really is that you have personally been involved in very heated and toxic discussions with an admin at DYK on numerous occasions. That underpins the point that the toxicity is around DYK and those regulars who seem to be denial that there are myriad problems there and those of us who clearly see these issues and refuse to be silenced by the regulars.  That is the point here.  I think my grandad referred to it as "people in glasshouses".  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Since a considerable portion of the complaint appears to relate to my abrasive requests for quality and queue updates at WT:DYK, I will happily recuse myself from that page. I would still report the myriad DYK errors at TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * no, that wouldn't be necessary. The treatment I've had from DYK admins and some of the regulars has pushed me away from donating any more of my valuable time trying to enhance their project's output.  I'll just stick to trying to prevent the litany of errors from getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'm not sure I understand how I would be able to conduct a multi-user discussion without mentioning users by name? Or how to refer one editor's edit to another editor? Unworkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's unworkable, and in many situations where I talk to the hundreds of editors who don't continually chase me to AE, I think being able to address them directly is not a problem and shouldn't be subject to an instant Arbcom block.
 * sigh* no, it's not about that at all, and honestly, I don't have the energy here to combat your aggressive tone. It's very simple, if I mention Dweller or Howcheng or DGG or anyone else in any content-related capacity, Arbcom will block me?  Not the point at all, not the point.  Plus, as an FLC director and mutiple-GAN reviewer, I always need to discuss content with people, using their names.  So no, that's a non-starter, but for practical reasons.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde, perhaps you missed the bit where I said I'd be happy to not participate at DYK ever again and it would limit the inflamed discussions to all the other editors who are actively patrolling hooks such as Fram (who gets more than his fair share of flak from DYK regulars for simply trying to uphold standards). I would restrict my edits about DYK to the highly effective non-toxic errors page which seems to be doing a very good job of picking up the pieces. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, you could have asked me to remove anything you didn't like. Did you do that?  Or did you go all back-office and (a) make a "complaint" (not my words) about me to another admin or (b) wait until an Arbcom hearing before telling me "I'm not addressing these issues"?  Feel free to delete anything you dislike about anything I edit.  This is Wikipedia, that's just fine.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, also happy to implement a one-way IBAN as well, voluntary or otherwise, so I never ever have to interact with you, speak to or of you again. That would suit me perfectly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, perhaps now we have the superset of contributors to the various AE discussions, you can now mark out the "groupies" against whom you continuing to cast aspersions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

DGG, I refute any claim that I'm "gaming" the system, I write things as I see them, which sometimes makes people sad. Gaming? I think The ed17 had a post removed for making precisely such a claim, just with an incredibly vulgar analogy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, there are many "real issues" here. (1) my abrasive comments unnecessarily upsetting people - I can moderate that by removing myself voluntarily from the main areas of concern (2) DYK as a whole - the project has a number of vocal critics, and several of those DYK regulars here calling me out have been called out by other people, other admins, and yet the problems from that "project" persist with no sign of improvement (3) we have an Arb here casting aspersions, implying that a number of admins are acting incorrectly - this needs direct attention, not sweeping under the carpet (4) we have an admin here who does not appear to be aware of community norms, despite many individuals noting it - this needs direct attention. I can certainly solve (1) but (2) to (4) must not go unaddressed now we're here, and the actions and behaviour of a large number of people related to this should be examined. Some of them are admins. One is an Arb. A serious state of affairs. Of course, while all this goes on, a few of us are still intent on keeping the encyclopedia's main page, with its 20 million visitors every day, free from issues and embarrassments, and sometimes that's a dirty job. I don't ask for thanks (indeed, I seldom get any, just jollies to ANI or AE) but I don't care, I just want Wikipedia to be something people are proud of, and not just littered with garbage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, it seems you're going to extreme lengths to attempt to justify your position of casting aspersions on other editors when the weight of evidence is completely against your position. I think we need further examination into your behaviour here, and even if this clarification doesn't do that, we'll need to start another case to do that. I don't think for a moment that those who voted for you to be an Arbitrator would expect you to make such subversive, divisive and unsubstantiated accusations against an (until now) unnamed group of admins about whom you have implied impropriety and failure to act in accordance with what we would expect from individuals in such a position. Doubly worse is to accuse such a group of behaviour without any tangible evidence and in a case which appears to have been initially posited on civility and good conduct. It would serve you well to remove yourself from any position of responsibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, BU Rob13, a complete inability to enforce a sanction that has been repeatedly violated, that's clearly incorrect, because if it had been violated, then sanctions would have been imposed. What you mean (and as an Arb, you should be precise here), "in my opinion  a complete inability to enforce a sanction that has been repeatedly violated". Because numerous times there has been overwhelming consensus that I have not violated the sanction. You need to remove yourself as an involved commentator (and an Arb who has made numerous unfounded accusations) and start to look at this objectively, as many others here are doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the reason there's a stark difference between the way DYK and OTD errors are processed is that OTD is run single-handedly by an individual who demonstrates day after day after day that they are more than content to take onboard my points, my error notes, my suggestions etc, without any associated ownership issues or filibustering. We have disagreements from time to time, but there's never the accusations I get from you and the DYK project "nitpicking", "MOS maven", "pedant" etc. I get basic courtesy from the OTD co-ordinator, whereas I get constant hostility and pushback from DYK. I will not contribute to the DYK project, as you and another admin there chased me off that with your behaviour (in your case, dragging me to ANI for daring to edit as and when I please), remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the inability of the DYK project to produce even one single set without an issue that needs to be addressed after all the levels of "quality control" is directly the issue. I don't care an iota about the DYK project, it's long since forgotten its purpose, and is just a conduit for cookie cutter articles with little or no consideration applied to our readers.  The so-called "scorn" which is actually abject disappointment comes from the all-too-regular ownership demonstrated over dubious hooks and article, the head-in-the-sand approaches to issues, the complete reluctance to enforce its own basic rules, etc.  I can probably provide a thousand examples of problems created and actually sanctioned by this project in the past four years.  Literally.  It doesn't seem to matter who's brave enough to bring issues up there, sooner or later the inertia of the project regulars ensures the lack of quality, the deliberate ignoring of rules, the promotion of error after error after error to the main page persists.  Of course, being run out of town, threatened and then being taken to ANI for modifying how I approached these hook sets was somehow deemed the most suitable approach, not actually working to solve the myriad intrinsic problems with the project, its implementation and those who strive to not see it for what it is, a failure and a regular embarrassment to the main page of an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no point in engaging further with you Gatoclass, you can safely rest your "animus". This is simply going over the same old issues that many of us have had problems with at the DYK project over the past few years.  There's absolutely zero sign of any improvement.  I've explained countless times why the OTD project is in no way comparable to the DYK output, so you can go back and re-read that for your benefit (e.g. a distinct willingness to correct, no filibustering, no name-calling, no ANI threats and trips etc etc etc).  Until the risk of paltry and erroneous material getting to the main page from DYK is reduced to a manageable level, I'm afraid we're going to have to continue to perform the required QC after all the so-called "reviews", "checks" and "promotions" have taken place.  This is all a side-show to this main event in any case.  I think we all know that DYK needs overhaul, and perhaps that will happen subsequently, but continually dragging up the issues, even attempting to defend them and comparing apples with pears here is wasteful and meaningless in this context. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex, no I'm afraid this project is an encyclopedia and the main page is its front door, shop window, however you want to put it. Not any article anywhere on Wikpedia, even FAs need to be perfect, so making some spurious claim that that's the level of expectation I place on DYK is pure falsehood. I simply expect articles to comply with the basic rules of DYK and I expect the hooks promoted to factually correct. The very idea that someone could claim I'm seeking perfection is preposterous. In actual fact, 99.9% of the effort of DYK reviews goes into checklist items, yet the main one (a true and verifiable hook) is so often the problem that it's getting intolerable. The DYK system has failed the project for years, and is now the home of those individuals mainly pushing out cookie cutter articles day in, day out. You even know that, we've recently had complaints over repeated Holocaust articles, day after day, we could say the same of a whole raft of other topics where well-established veteran editors are simply churning out basically templated articles to DYK. A quick look at the number of contributions from the nominators in each set will soon establish that the root of DYK, which was principally to show new editors that even they could get something on the main page, has long gone. And going back to quality, why our readers should be subject to a main page where one section is routinely promoting erroneous material is beyond me. It's not up to them to realise that the DYK section may be riddled with issues, lead them to poorly constructed and badly referenced articles. There's no such warning. I guess it depends if one thinks Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or another failed social media experiment, because I strongly believe we shouldn't be compromising the integrity of the main page for a bit of fun. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

OR: I already stated some dozens of posts back that I'd not contribute at WT:DYK where all the "think of the children" occurs. I'll just keep plugging away with the numerous individuals who are keen to keep the main page as error-free as possible. Great news, DYK are soon to be doubling up the rate of hooks, so I'll be twice as busy at WP:TRM once I get through my personal stuff. Perhaps those who follow me to my userspace from that project to bait me (as happened only a day or so ago) could be encouraged to make better use of their time improving the quality of the project as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I not a shrinking violet and when I'm attacked, I defend myself. I will remove myself from the DYK talkpage and errors will be reported in my own userspace.  If the DYK users who follow me there to bait me are encouraged to leave me alone there, then no problem.  I strikes me you (in particular) are very keen to enforce something on me, no matter what.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and "take a break from the main page"? No thanks.  After all, I scrutinise every section of the main page every day and the only section which reacts with hostility, filibustering, name-calling etc is DYK.  All other sections are content to work with me for the betterment of the readers.  After all, that's why we're here, right?  There's your first finding.  So, I'll stay away from DYK and their user community, as long as they stop coming to my userspace to bait me, as happened a day or so back, but will continue to report errors in my userspace so those dozens of editors who are committed to main page excellence will be able to fix problems (should they decide to so, no commitments, obviously).  Since we're soon heading for six or so errors per day from that section of the main page alone, it is unfathomable to me that I should simply ignore the situation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Huldra: no thabks, I’ve got plenty of experience at nominating my own DYKs, probably in the top 2%. Having experienced the cowboy activities there and been chased out by a couple of the admins, I now restrict my activities to checking for issues and errors before they pollute the main page which is nothing to do with the DYK project per se. I’ll leave the regular DYK users to “their own” project. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There are also certainly some significant ongoing behavioural issues around (a) Arbs casting aspersions (b) involved admins not acknowledging continual peer advice and community consensus (c) individuals baiting and goading me in my userspace (and in this very proceeding) (d) poor behaviour of admins and users at DYK against consensus (e) poor general quality of "approved" output and substantial ownership issues over material from DYK. Just for the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

And now a "ping" from one of those baiting me (one who has accused me of deception and lying about my motivations and approach to ERRORS). The same who baited me at in my userspace during this very proceeding. This is really too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And now a second "ping" from the same user who has been asked numerous times to retract accusations of lying and questions over my motivations. Could Arbcom intervene here and perhaps suggest that this user be banned from contacting me until such a time that she removes the false accusations from across Wikipedia?  Or is it just as simple as TRM is up for shooting down, so let's continue to harrass him using fake claims and continual pings?  Someone want to do something about that, or not?  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I think it's now time to either make good with your bad faith aspersions or wholesale retract the accusation. Your lame back-track was completely inadequate as it still leaves a number of editors (moreover admins) as "groupies" who are clearly (according to you) acting in direct contravention to WP:ADMINACCT. As for you, a "sitting" Arb, you simply cannot "accuse and run". I think it's time to do something here with your claims, or else request you to step down from your position as both an Arb and an admin, because you are not acting appropriately. Ignoring it (as you have done for some days now) is also wholly inappropriate. You are active elsewhere, ignoring the ongoings here is dereliction of your position, specificially when you've made unfounded, unverified and bad faith accusations against other long-standing editors. Perhaps we should ask Arbcom to look into your current indiscretions? Ironic that you and one or two of your committee are seeking an "Arbcom-only" despotic solution here, perhaps that's a good defence for the future? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

General: Are we done here? At least we discovered that people hold different opinions relating to civility, that people are surprised when admins or Arbs act against the community norm, that even editors who are persona non grata can be harrassed and offended, that some individuals should take advice from the community and recuse, that some individuals should take advice from the community and resign. In general, if the conclusion is that Arbcom take on the role of despotic leader to determine whether or not I am somehow in violation of a sanction as judge, jury and executioner, and despite overwhelming evidence that I have seldom been in violation of said sanction, so be it. It will be a landmark decision that Arbcom will ignore the community and do its own thing. Which is priceless considering that Arbcom is composed of a group of individuals who have already sanctioned me and as such are inherently involved. But honestly, the community are tired of this, I am tired of this, (I made my position clear about two weeks ago), so please Arbcom, just get on with it. This is (almost) worse than Brexit. And 90% of Arbcom won't have to live with Brexit. Ooh. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks for you thoughts, but you've missed the bit where I've said I'll recuse from DYK, I've never had major issues at ITN or OTD or TFL or TFA or TFP, (just DYK don't you know, where the owners of the hooks and the DYK admins have chased me away). This is all getting super boring now, I've offered a solution, Arbcom are disinterested, the case is split, the community couldn't care less, the despotic warlords want exclusive control over me, it's all a bit silly. I'll just keep on making Wikipedia a better place for our readers in the meantime, as I have done for years. And I'm sure that certain individuals, including sitting Arbitrators and involved admins, will continue to advocate for my permanent exclusion. Whatever. I'm done waiting for the Hammer to Fall (bless you Freddie, and my grandad Bill who died the same day), Sandstein has parsed my case and concluded an escalted block of four weeks, then reneged and sat back and moaned about it, Arbcom have done basically nothing but dither, and it's given some of the community a chance to take another swipe, including a sitting Arb, an admin and some others who "ping" me to taunt me. Disgusting. See you on the other side. And remember, I did nothing to harm Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

, sure, no mention of the editors and admins who create and pass errors to the main page at ERRORS2, not that I think I ever did, but will be sure not to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is, however, the irony that I got continual grief for not pinging the nominators, reviewers and promoters of all the erroneous hooks. Any such topic ban on naming such individuals would clearly curtail any such notifications.  I couldn't care less, but it wouldn't seem right to enable even more ongoing hostility, name-calling and accusations of lies from the DYK regulars.  Just putting it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I couldn't care less about notifying those directly responsible for all the errors, but I don't want anyone using it as a stick to beat me with without any recourse. If I'm banned from even mentioning DYK editors by name, then there can be no complaints from anyone, DYK regulars included, that I don't perform that task.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this thing still going? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I've never ever called anyone an "idiot", not even close. I have volunteered to remove myself from some areas of Wikipedia principally because some individuals find my tone too abrasive, but also because some individuals use those areas of Wikipedia to insult me, goad me, bait me and accuse me of lying. Of course, that's not part of this discussion, but I'm actually more than happy to not interact with such users who exhibit such behavioural issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass is, amongst others, on a fishing expedition now, where else are we dealing with such issues? In fact, given that the vast majority of "claimed issues" have been declined, this is now beyond a joke. I think certain individual users here should voluntarily recuse themselves from the ongoing hate-fest that is being seen here. It would appear that some users are using any excuse possible to continue to promulgate this haphazard and ill-thought-out mandate. I look forward to more investigation into the ownership issues, the baiting, the personal attacks, and the accusations of lies against me levelled by the DYK regulars, including admins. It has been said many times now by many editors that DYK needs a thorough investigation, and in certain cases that needs to delve into the behaviour of individual users in that project. As I have voluntarily recused myself from that aspect of Wikipedia, I won't be naming names here, but of course I am more than willing to assist Arbcom with the essentials during the required investigation that is now an aboslute requirement from this (and previous) debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So, just for my clarification, does this "motion": I'm pretty sure that absolutely nothing brought up in the course of this incredibly lengthy and tiresome discussion raised any issues with the work I have been conducting away from the DYK pages themselves. If indeed this is the case, it appears that Arbcom have decided to punish me for trying to maintain the integrity of the main page for no good reason. If it's not the case, then, once again, the motion is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Prevent me from raising error reports on any future or current DYK nominees in my own userspace?
 * Prevent me from fixing issues in articles which are future or current DYK nominees?


 * Exemptions noted but badly phrased: I can already edit my own userspace, but this exemption has to underpin the fact that I can still talk about various hooks and why they have failures associated with them, including references to DYK process failures. Also, what about editing of erroneous hooks in unprotected prep sets?  Is that banned or exempt?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, as you know, the DYK process is piled high with rules and regulations, and it appears that very few people know and exercise them. Errors include errors in the process of getting things prematurely or incorrectly formatted per the DYK rules to the main page. Fundamentally the process failures need to be highlighted to enable some of our handy admins understand why such problems exist and need fixing. As to the continued referencing of OTD, once again (for the avoidance of doubt), OTD is a one-man show, and as such poor old Howcheng has a lot to sort out every single day. DYK on the other hand should be presenting quality well-written verifiable hooks to the main page, after all no fewer than four individuals are responsible for this process, much unlike OTD. I suppose if people want to continue pretending that the DYK process isn't submitting between three and four erroneous hooks per day to the main page, that's another issue. Just look at WP:ERRORS today. Unbelievable that it is being allowed to continue, frankly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

DGG, I'm not even sure what you're really supporting at this time, the original proposal, the one with the exemptions added earlier today or something else? As it stands, the wording is still ambiguous and unsatisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde and Gatoclass: as far as I recall, I have never not once ever "named" any one specific DYK editor at ERRORS2, but I may be wrong, so please do let me see the diffs where I'm calling out editors. I certainly call out failure to meet process, failure to do exactly what the DYK rules demand, failure to correctly verify hooks, two or three timed per set etc etc, but these are fundamental principles of DYK which cannot be overlooked and avoiding talking about them just allows them to, once again, crawl below the carpet and be ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, that's a great example of calling out an unnamed admin's behaviour which falls far below our standards. Acting unilateraly, against consensus, etc.  I'm surprised you felt compelled to bring that up again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point. That you acted in abuse of your position isn't directly related to DYK, and no, you weren't named, but if you felt that your behaviour matched that as described as someone who abused their position in that regard, so be it.  I'm done here with you now, so feel to have the last word, but sayonara, I've got too many hooks to review (oh, and there are several DYK reports at the other place which could use the attention of an admin....).  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. The motion, as written, and even as modified is full of ambiguity and one could easily drive a tank, in either direction, through it. Your suggestions address the majority of the issues I can see. One thing, you said I made general comments that he has made stating or implying that all reviews are inadequate. but I'm not sure where that has ever been the case. For example, I have made a number of reviews myself which would obviously be adequate, plus only a few weeks ago, I reviewed a set of hooks, none of which had any errors, so by implication, at least eight reviews were eventually adequate. In fact, since the average number of issues per set is around the 3/4 mark, that would imply that I consider about half of all QPQs (and subsequent checking/promotions) to be adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

let's hope other certain users don't "game it" in the other direction. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * could Arbcom address EdChem's points below, especially including the editing of existing hooks etc, that seems to be disallowed, i.e. I can't fix overt errors in unprotected sets, is that right? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What a show. There's a huge inclusion from yet Arbcom members starting supporting an ever-changing motion a few days back. Honestly, you couldn't make this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SINCE THE MOTION HAS BEEN MODIFIED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, COULD WE AT LEAST GET A BLOODY BASELINE AGAINST WHICH ARBCOM MEMBERS SHOULD BE VOTING??? How can any process with any legitimacy vote on proposals which keep changing their verbiage? For the love of anything, get your own house in order before requesting a consensus. I know you have no idea how to run a such a committee, but this lop-sided, half-arsed voting against an ever-changing proposal is of the upmost embarrassment. You already know that. Get a fucking grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely have never posted anything here as a sock or an IP (unless I was inadvertantly logged out). Happy for some to Checkuser it too, especially as I happen to be somewhere completely different at this point. Please don't ever make any assumptions about IP posts being made by me without any concrete evidence, thanks. Oh, and Crisco's DIVA departure was entirely up to him. I had pointed out countless issues with POTD blurbs, but he flipped his lid once someone else (an admin) tweaked one of his precious blurbs. I think trying to associate that with me is crass, underhand and revealing more about those individuals who are trying to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OR, no, actually what's disappointing and depressing is the ongoing allowance for other editors to make false accusations and accuse me of lies while Arbcom dither and ignore (or worse, sanction) it. I don't edit logged out, that individuals here, after my 200k+ edits and my clear dedication should even think that is absurd and insulting. I wonder how many times someone has to lie and propagate lies about you before you want it to stop? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

TRM has contacted me offwiki and asked me to post this on his behalf:

''IRL, I'm organising a funeral and sorting out the affairs of a loved one who's died. It's time consuming, upsetting and not easy. Apologies for reacting badly to the length of time this process is taking, the lack of clarity on what's being voted on and false accusations of socking and causing Crisco's departure, but they were aggravating factors. I plan to discontinue watching this page and will only get involved again if a sitting Arb asks me to on my talk page. I'm happy for you to make whatever decisions you need to and inform me of them. Thank you.''

Posted by Dweller on behalf of TRM, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I'll have more to say about this shortly (I'm away for a couple of days now), but I'd just like to point out that Sandstein has omitted that The Rambling Man was blocked for 2 weeks in November 2017 for a breach of this remedy. I believe this was a unilateral act by the blocking admin, however, and did not make it to AE. Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironic that on a thread about civility, thinks it's OK to say "...because doing so immediately results in them being harassed by the "groupies" that show up to every single thread related to TRM".  The hypocrisy is startling, especially from an arbitrator.  Do you really think it's OK to be saying that, Rob?  Do you really think you can comment on someone else's civility if you can't do it yourself?  Care to name these "groupies" (especially if they're admins)? Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any evidence for the slurs mentioned above (actually I still don't see any comment at all on the subject by Rob), and that comment is still there, despite having been challenged by three people now. Not a great look, is it? Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And another comment on this page by, and still no response to myself, TRM or . It's almost as if he thinks it'll go away if he ignores it. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent reply, . To sum it up, it turns out that no, you can't name those people, except one, and it turns out ... well, to save you the work, here's a list of admins that have expressed an opinion (violation/no violation) on the eleven AE requests named above (there are actually 12 - one link contains 2 requests - but I've excluded the one that everyone including Sandstein agreed was a vexatious request).  I haven't included those who merely took part in a discussion without expressing an opinion.
 * Sandstein 5
 * Regents Park 4
 * Black Kite 4
 * NeilN 3
 * Dennis Brown 2
 * The Wordsmith 2
 * Vanamonde 2
 * Fish & Karate 2
 * Thryduulf 2
 * T Canens
 * Floquenbeam
 * Mike V
 * Neutrality
 * Peacemaker67
 * Salvidrim
 * Bishonen
 * WJBScribe
 * El C
 * Harrias
 * Coffee
 * Iridescent
 * Bagumba
 * Ealgdyth
 * 331dot
 * Alex Shih
 * wbm1058
 * Ritchie333


 * ... only one (and to be honest he only closed that), so I looked to see if Ritchie333 had commented as a regular editor on any of them. He has ... on three out of eleven (or, four out of twelve if you include an AE appeal).  So, really, you've added to your statement casting aspersions against multiple un-named people, with another one casting incorrect aspersions against one person.  Do you want to try again?  Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine,, let's look at the others that made comments at those thirteen AE filings (i.e. all 12 AE cases, and the appeal by TRM). Some were admins at the time but commented in the involved section (including Ritchie333 once - interesting), and some are admins now but weren't then.
 * Vanamonde93 5
 * Dweller 5
 * BU Rob13 4
 * Davey2010 4
 * Softlavender 4
 * WBG 4
 * EEng 3
 * 331dot 3
 * Beyond My Ken 3
 * Masem 3
 * WJBScribe 2
 * Fram 2
 * Andrew D 2
 * Banedon 2
 * Tarage 2
 * Serial Number 54129 2
 * power~enwiki 2
 * The ed17 2
 * and 32 editors who only commented on one AE. You'll notice there's a mixture there of generally pro-TRM editors, generally anti-TRM editors, and some who have commented both ways.  You'll notice you're right up there. So, again, name us the "groupies", Rob.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - I still don't see an answer to this, five days later, and your "groupies" comment casting aspersions on other un-named editors is still there, in an arbitration request. It would be extremely boring for all involved if this had to go further. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - if you're not going to name people, your only option is to redact your posting, otherwise you are violating WP:CIVIL. Please do so. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I haven't commented on the main issue; but I think that any point I would make has been covered pretty well by Thryduulf and Dweller (especially the latter's comment at 08:59 UTC today). I totally understand that people don't like being criticised for their work, but the Main Page is something of an exception to this, because it's the page that everyone sees if they log straight into Wikipedia. Yes, TRM's comments on DYK/ITN and other part of the MP are sometimes a little pedantic - but most of the time, they aren't. You only have to look back at the history of ERRORS2 to see the number of hooks and content that have had to be withdrawn, sometimes because the sources are poor, but often because they're simply incorrect. Indeed, it happened to one of my hooks recently - quite correctly (I only grumbled a bit because I wasn't pinged about it, but it was a correct decision, and that wasn't one of TRMs). You just have to live with it and say "I'll make sure it's right next time". Yes, TRM is often abrasive, but considering what we're discussing (i.e. the most visible page on en.wiki), I don't think that's entirely surprising. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Unless ArbCom do something to restrict Sandsteins interactions with TRM in any admin capacity (the latest bullshit AE filing laying out the problems as a number of other admins pointed out) at the conclusion of this process I will be opening a community discussion at AN to have Sandstein banned from anything to do with TRM.

Really this is arbcoms own fault for placing badly formed restrictions that are a license for editors to use to harass someone who is actually attempting to fix problems that ArbCom is unwilling to do anythint about - chiefly the repeat offenders who keep putting error-ridden crap on the main page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I think the creation of User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS (also known as WP:TRM or WP:ERRORS2) has helped defuse the dispute that has led to threads like this. TRM unquestionably does great work for the project, and in particular is one of our best featured list writers and reviewers. I do grimace occasionally at some of the comments he leaves at WT:DYK, and in particular I think he just needs to give Vanamonde93 a bit of a break, but by moving the complaints about the articles onto a dedicated page away from the general view, it means the issues get resolved without resorting to a huge post-mortem of who said what to whom and when. As I said on the other thread, if you gain TRM's respect and have a quiet off-wiki word, he is reasonable. If you charge in on horseback with Arbcom pro-forma templates, you'll get blown a raspberry.

To follow up on OID's point, there is precedent for sanctioning admins over-eager to block users without thinking of the full circumstances. AFAIK, is still community banned from taking any administrative action against TRM. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I closed the AE thread you started because it seemed that any administration action would cause more disruption that it solved (particularly as TRM had redacted the comment you were trying to sanction him for), and was specifically endorsing the emerging consensus of admins who had already expressed an opinion, particularly Vanamonde. Given the already publicised conflict between him and TRM, I take a "no action" request from him as more weight than from someone like me. When I spoke to you about it, I did mention that you had been accused of being a sockpuppet, though I also said I personally felt such claims were entirely without foundation and also said that you were helpful in other areas of the project. I was simply advising you on what a good course of action would be to sustain respect from the community and be able to do your job with the minimum of harassment. Given that it's fair comment to say that I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with on things, when I see he has also closed an AE report as "no action", it suggests a broad consensus across the administrative corps. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  19:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the discussion about TRM in 2017, I admit I have clashed with in the past. However, since then I have seen her deal with some off-wiki issues, and she has been intelligent, measured and tactful. So my view from about a year ago should be considered out of date. I still wished she could have warned TRM instead of blocking and I realise what I wrote in 2017 could be perceived as aggressive; but from my angle it was just a sense of disappointment that we didn't get on together. I think that situation has mended itself somewhat. I also don't think it violates WP:INVOLVED to state an opinion; I didn't explicitly say "I will not unblock TRM because it would be idiotic and cause untold amounts of drama and a possible desysop" because I thought that would be obvious :-/ Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo
The wording of the amended prohibition is a failure. It's worth keeping in mind that the prohibition was a civility sanction, based on a finding on TRM being uncivil. It has also been noted that a lot of the incivility was about constantly being hostile and rude over a long period of time, but not going too much over the line with any individual comment (i.e. flying just under the radar). So obscuring the prohibition with the "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" wording made it unenforceable. You can read all the recent DYK threads with such behauvior: 1,  2 ,  3  &  4  but I will also point out the exact diffs in the most recent AE thread. Yet many editors do not see these as being "reflections on general competence". What? Does he need to literally state "your general competence sucks" for the prohibition to kick in? Either improve it and start enforcing it or then just rid of it altogether. --Pudeo (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again
 * No thanks, better things to do to check "work in progress Phase I", and I'd suggest you leave them well alone with your recent track record!!
 * The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues.

The new motion is about a topic ban on DYK. DYK might have been the biggest issue at hand now, but as per the case finding, TRM has had the same behauvior at WP:ITN. And the problems that led to Crisco's retirement (which weren't caused just by TRM) happened at WP:TFP. So it has to do with everything about the mainpage, not just DYK. Just like WP:ERRORS2 is about the whole mainpage. --Pudeo (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
Unfortunately, we still haven't burned any witches. I hope that arbcom will remedy that. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I urge the Committee to consider why AE routinely fails to enforce this remedy. I've repeatedly heard from administrators that they aren't willing to enforce this remedy, even in cases where the violation is fairly bright-line, because doing so immediately results in them being harassed confronted by the "groupies" that show up to every single thread related to TRM. When I last previously tried to take a violation to AE, it was swiftly closed by an administrator who frequently works with TRM and defends him. I then received a rather threatening note on my talk page from that administrator that further attempts to have the remedy enforced would (somehow?) prove I'm some type of malicious sockmaster. The bite was quick, severe, and led to me recusing from further TRM matters.

Given the failure of AE in this circumstance, the Committee should at least consider making enforcement actions related to this remedy appealable only to the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. That would greatly reduce the influence of the involved editors that make enforcing this remedy difficult. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No reasonable editor can look at the quotes Pudeo posted and say TRM isn't commenting on the general competence of editors or groups of editors. One of the quotes literally even uses the word "competence". Yet AE results in no action, despite the clear violations. Anything that involves punting this to the community to solve isn't going to work. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have clarified above that the incident I was referring to was not the last time I took TRM to AE, apparently. It was a time before that. Stephen is not involved, as best as I can tell, though I haven't exactly looked. Every time I've crossed paths with him (admittedly, very few times), he's handled himself superbly. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-escalating blocks would not be preventative, only punitive. The reason blocks usually escalate for repeated behavior is because a pattern of behavior indicates that it is likely the behavior will continue in the future. Because recidivism is likely, a longer block is warranted to continue preventing the disruptive behavior. Non-escalating blocks for identical behavioral issues would be a short-term punishment rather than an attempt to prevent disruption. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually, sanctions are removed after evidence that the sanctioned editor can avoid the behavior that led to sanctions, not before. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For those asking about the "groupies" comment, are you really contending there isn't a tremendous pushback on anyone who even looks at TRM from an administrative perspective? No, I will not be naming some long list of names, because doing so would distract from the issue. I will soften my statement slightly: "harassed" should really be "confronted" or something similar, so I've changed it as such. If you want to identify people who seem unusually interested in preventing the enforcement of this remedy for yourself, look at the past 3-4 AE requests and spot the names of those who posted at all of them. Then check their contributions at AE. There are some who have shown up to nearly every TRM AE but rarely, if ever, edit AE otherwise. That's a pattern of people showing up specifically to defend TRM, not to offer unbiased administrative judgement. I'll provide one case study of someone who appears unambiguously involved here, since they've already self-identified as the person I was talking about above: Ritchie333. Since the beginning of 2017, he has posted in only five AE threads . Four of those have been about TRM. He's advocated against sanctions at each one of those. He's followed that up by repeatedly directly contacting admins who either place sanctions or request for sanctions, leaving chilling messages: . Now, I have a great respect for Ritchie333 and what he does for the project. I think he is a fantastic administrator and editor. We've even collaborated a couple times before. In this instance, I also think he has persistently shown up to make enforcing an arbitration remedy as hard as possible and closed one AE request in contravention of WP:INVOLVED. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be extremely supportive of Softlavender's idea. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Find me the diff where I ever said all or even most "groupies" were admins and I'll resign as an arbitrator and hand in the mop. It does not exist. I also invite you to read WP:ASPERSIONS. All the motions ArbCom has passed regarding casting aspersions specify that unsubstantiated allegations may not be made against a specific editor to damage their reputations. I have not named any editors without substantiating my claims, and therefore I cannot be damaging reputations. Indeed, I haven't named other editors because I don't want to call into question anyone's reputation or distract from the actual issue – a complete inability to enforce a sanction that has been repeatedly violated. You seem to be determined to encourage me to do so, for some reason. I'm not quite sure why, but perhaps you will instead strike your aspersions against me. Further, I disagree with your metric of choice. If an editor shows up at few to no AE discussions other than TRM-related ones and yet quickly shows up at multiple TRM-related ones, even if they don't show up to every one, that still indicates it's TRM that's bringing them in. The relevant metric is proportion of AE appearances related to TRM as a proportion of total AE appearances, not total AE appearances related to TRM. You also apparently ignored any comments outside of the "uninvolved admin" zone, which makes your metric rather irrelevant to anything I said, since again, I never said admins. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already said I will not be naming names, because it would only increase the drama and distract from the point of this ARCA. I've named one name as an example, which has gone unrefuted. I cannot cast aspersions against unnamed editors, because all arbitration remedies involving the prohibition on casting aspersions requires aspersions to be cast to damage reputations; I can damage no reputations if I name no editors. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not redact a true statement. I've provided sufficient proof that anyone who even tries to bring up TRM's conduct is met with an intensely unpleasant experience, as they are confronted by a variety of editors who routinely show up to defend TRM. I am not required to name every editor who defends TRM to demonstrate that; I've done it through multiple links to past cases where editors who reported suspected violations were severely bitten. Indeed, this has become one such discussion, as the mere suggestion that people vigorously defend TRM every time he violates his sanctions has been used to attack me, even when it is patently true and I have backed it up with diffs. I will not be responding further, as WP:ADMINACCT does not require me to answer the same question repeatedly, only to answer it. As an aside, it is not just my opinion that he has violated his sanctions. When I reported TRM, most people said it was a violation but did not want action and GW's block was never overturned. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be made clear that ARCA attention is required only to seek a longer arbitration enforcement sanction, not for regular sanctions. It is certainly not the intent of the Committee to prevent any admin for blocking an editor for violations of WP:CIVIL for an appropriate duration; it just wouldn't be an arbitration enforcement block beyond 48 hours. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 331dot
I find it interesting that the fact the lack of enforcement of the remedy under discussion here is somehow seen as a problem and not as the simple fact that the line has not been crossed. There seems to now be a desire to craft some sort of restriction for TRM to break, or to make it harder to defend him, and thus block him every time someone hauls him into AE. The remedy should either be left alone or removed. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
The arbitration procedures are already clear:

"Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions."

- WP:AC/P § Dismissing an enforcement request

Eleven enforcement requests later, this decision either isn't working or isn't needed. Please provide for its enforcement or vacate it. AGK &#9632;  21:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
If anyone actually reads through the AE discussions linked above, they will see that I have participated in a number of those discussions, and I have not yet advocated for a block against TRM. Despite stuff like this, I am not going to do so now. The ideal outcome here is for TRM to continue his content work without personalizing meta disputes the way he has been. As such that's what an ARBCOM restriction should achieve, by forbidding behavior that an individual editor is unwilling or unable to change of their own accord.

These AE discussions clearly include some filings that are frivolous, or include no clear violations (this, for instance). There are other discussions that clearly include violations of this editing restriction: this clearly speculates about the motivations of other editors; it was not sanctioned at least in part because TRM redacted the comment in question. That isn't a failure of the restriction; that's exactly what it's meant to achieve. Someone pointed out that TRM shouldn't have said what he said, and he retracted it.

Of late, though, we've had a somewhat different situation; the language TRM uses is again rather intemperate (links in the most recent AE filing). I am fine with people telling him to tone it down, instead of blocking him (indeed, that's likely to be more effective). Instead, most people in this discussion (with honorable exceptions) have refused to recognize that the comments like the following are indeed a problem: ""...anyone running this time would be doing it simply for hat collection purposes. But hey, let's see who "runs" (i.e. leaves it to the last minute to avoid scrutiny, then leap in with cabal backing!).""

I would be hard put to come up with a clearer violation of this particular restriction; it's explicitly referring to the motivations of anyone who ran for ARBCOM this year. Yet we have multiple admins arguing there's no problem at all. I'm particularly bothered by your comment at AE, which came after the link I posted: and it bothers me because I know you to be an entirely reasonable person. Refusing to recognize these edits as violations of the restriction has the effect of undermining both AE as an institution and the expectation that experienced editors are expected to conduct themselves with some decorum. And that is a problem ARBCOM needs to fix.

The principle of this restriction is a good one, because TRM has been unwilling to moderate his language of his own accord. If admins are unable or unwilling to enforce it (through blocks or conversation, it doesn't matter; the point is whether, when a violation occurs, admins take action to discourage further violations), then ARBCOM needs to revise it so it's enforceable, enforce it themselves, or to scrap it altogether and more or less make it official that once you've done enough content work, you can behave more or less the way you want. Vanamonde (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Could you refresh my memory as to where that comment was? I agree with Alex's reply to you below: I want to add that I'm puzzled by your suggestion that we reach consensus at AE. AE does not require consensus; a single admin could, while acting within policy, implement a sanction that others disagreed with, but such a sanction would probably end up at ARCA. We're trying to shorten that process here. Also, I've been fairly active at AE, and no restriction that I know of has engendered as much disagreement about its enforcement as this one, hence the request that the restriction be made easier to interpret. Vanamonde (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not an accurate characterization of those discussions. First, Dweller is not "unambiguously unbiased", and has admitted as much himself. Second, several admins (including myself, before my involvement), have made it quite clear that the diffs brought to AE were not acceptable; sanctions were avoided in one case via a warning, in another case because TRM redacted his statement, and in a third by coming here; there was also one AE block and one block invoking this sanction that wasn't from AE. The reports have been from a number of users, too. So the notion that this is all Sandstein isn't going to fly; I have no issues with anyone examining his behavior, but there's more going on. Also, if you can look at the quote I posted above and say that that isn't speculating about others editors' motivations, that bothers me; is there anything TRM could do that you would consider a violation? Vanamonde (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from which there's the fact that most of the threads linked above have had multiple admins saying TRM's behavior was sub-par, even disruptive, but despite that, there's little to no recognition that there's a behavioral issue here from a worryingly large number of people. Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I misunderstood the first part of what you wrote. I still disagree with the second part: TRM's restriction has nothing to say about whether the editors are individual editors or a group; in this case, the group isn't even a non-specific one; it referred to anyone running for ARBCOM this year. Vanamonde (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * how about a restriction on casting aspersions? Theoretically, that would require TRM to raise any personal issues with other editors in a civil manner, or to take them to the appropriate forum, or to drop the issues altogether; it would prevent this sort of thing, at least. A more practical but otherwise less attractive option might be a page-specific topic ban: or perhaps wording could be crafted preventing TRM from discussing general editor behavior except at user talk pages or dispute resolution fora. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point, TRM, is not that you shouldn't challenge what I do, it's that you should do it (preferably politely) in an appropriate place; not at a completely unrelated discussion about a different nomination. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. Vanamonde (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Re 's proposal: I'd love it if this could be solved by a voluntary commitment. I'm skeptical, though, because at the moment TRM has not even recognized that his behavior has been sub-optimal (and that's putting it mildly); and it hasn't helped that several others have not recognized this either. if there's anybody here who could actually persuade TRM to dial it back a little, it's you; but setting aside the specific sanction for the moment, I don't see anything in your statements suggesting that TRM is anything other than a victim here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you intended it that way, but your statement suggests that anyone making enough decent contributions can use those to hold ARBCOM hostage, in a sense, and force their restriction to be removed by ignoring it. Is that the message you're trying to send? OR is exactly right in saying that TRM's behavior drives away those who have the same goals as he does (and  is wrong;  he has, like TRM, gone down the "if you don't agree with TRM you don't care about the main page" route). My suggestion about casting aspersions was intended to be a more nuanced view of what Gatoclass proposed; TRM should be prohibited from alleging misbehavior on the part of other editors excepted at fora intended for that purpose. A simultaneous ban from WT:DYK may not be a bad thing. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (and really, anyone else who seems to be satisfied with the "voluntary recusal" business): I saw that proposal. I am skeptical of its effectiveness because several months after voluntarily stepping away from ERRORS, you returned simply to harangue another editor (me) without even doing me the courtesy of telling me what it was you disagreed with, , . I am also skeptical because you continue to belittle other editors in your userspace and elsewhere, with cherry-picked quotations, laundry lists of supposed abuse that you never take any action on (even, in one case, a link to a blog written by one of our worst trolls). I don't see you addressing either of these issues. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: You plastered a "quote of the month" by me at the top of your user talk page, and the "Vanamonde93 clause" at your personal errors page. You knew damn well I wouldn't appreciate it, and went ahead and did it anyway. That's entirely on you: don't try the "I didn't know you didn't like it" approach. Nor have you addressed the fact that despite your "voluntary recusal" from ERRORS, you have made more than 50 edits to that page in the last month, in addition to the unpleasant comments I linked immediately above. Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange as it may seem, I'm not terribly interested in a one-way interaction ban, because regardless of what you and Dweller think, I am interested in the integrity of the main page, we have worked together successfully before, and I (still) hope we can do so again. The personal commentary is what is at issue here; it's me today, it'll be someone else tomorrow. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the fact is TRM voluntarily "stepped away" from ERRORS, and yet has made over 50 edits there in the last month, including some rather unpleasant comments. Also, quite a while after suggesting that others could remove material in his userspace they did not like, has done nothing about removing material obviously placed there to disparage others (indeed, has added to it). A purely voluntary restriction isn't going to work. How about a combination; a restriction from ERRORS and WT:DYK, and a restriction preventing him from alleging editor misbehavior or competence except at fora designed for that (ie AN/ANI, user talk pages, DRN, etc)? Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Striking: some material was removed yesterday by WBG before I made this comment; I missed it. The rest was removed today by Dweller at TRM's request. Vanamonde (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm baffled by your most recent comment. We're at ARCA not figure out if a violation of the specific sanction occurred, but if the sanction is working/necessary. You speak as though the 11 AE filings were entirely frivolous: yet looking through those discussions, the appeal, and this one, there are no less that 33 administrators who at various points have endorsed blocks, supported sanctions or warnings, or otherwise said TRM's behavior was not okay. This isn't even counting the rest of ARBCOM or the (many) other admins with whom TRM has come into conflict over the last year. A substantial majority of those admins are uninvolved. Are you seriously trying to argue there's no behavioral issue here? Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that most of TRM's incivility isn't directed at the trolls and the POV-pushers, but at the regulars, and that several of said regulars have cited that as a cause of the burnout you mention? Vanamonde (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A few points; first, would it not be simpler to define the topic-ban in two parts; 1) a restriction from editing the DYK project pages (I have no objection to TRM nominating his own articles, but if he is uninterested in such an exemption, I'm not going to advocate for it), and 2) a restriction from commenting on the DYK process? As it is currently phrased, it seems slightly ambiguous, in that he's allowed to post about DYK at his userspace, but nothing prevents him from continuing to say "there's a typo here, reflecting the continued incompetence of Users X, Y, and Z, and the DYK process" which is more or less why we're here. Second; does this imply that TRM is allowed to make comments about the other main page items at WP:ERRORS? If that's the case, I think this remedy is more complex than it needs to be. Simply restrict him from commenting at DYK project pages, and from commenting about other editors at WP:ERRORS or his own errors page. If that's not happening, I would concur with Gatoclass, and ask that you replace "general competence" with "competence" in the previous remedy. Otherwise, we're ending up in a place not very different from where we began. Vanamonde (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not difficult to do, TRM; here's one example; there's others. But my comment was related to ERRORS, too, where there's good many more examples. Vanamonde (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point; you asked for an example of where you had brought up a specific editor. I gave you an incontrovertible example. If you're saying "I don't name editors except when I think they're acting abusively", then that's meaningless, because the very reason we're here is that you accuse me (and several others) of acting abusively at the drop of a hat, and that's the reason we're here in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no other Wikipedia admin with "93" in their username: an admin described as "the 93" can only be me, and so your claim that you weren't naming me is quite preposterous. Vanamonde (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean DYK preparation areas, and not DYK queues, which are full-protected, and can only be edited by admins. Otherwise, I think your suggestions are not terribly different from what I suggested above, though I'm leery of the "Freely discuss DYK-related topics on his user talk page" bit, which is going to have the effect of concentrating all the unpleasantness there, when his user talk is not a dispute resolution forum. If he wants to comment about editors, he should do it at the relevant forum or user talk page, or not do it at all. Vanamonde (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the 48-hour limit is for blocks placed for violations of this restriction. For anything else that would be blockable without this restriction, no such limit would apply, as with any other editor. There's no special treatment here. Vanamonde (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * with respect to your ping of some 12 hours ago: The framework you are setting up is, in my opinion, too complex. I completely agree that, ideally, TRM should be able to offer feedback not just on specific hooks, but on process and behavior, because we share the same fundamental goals. The problem with a single outlet for such commentary, though, is that it's not going to stop what bothers most of us targeted by TRM's comments. What bothers me, (and I'm fairly sure I speak for many others here) is the barrage of personal commentary, which at this point exceeds anything I've experienced from the LTAs, socks, nationalist warriors, and their ilk in ARBIPA-related areas. Which is why I still prefer a broader restriction on personal commentary (with an exception for dispute resolution), as I suggested many times above. ARBCOM, evidently, believes civility restrictions are too damn difficult to enforce, and have chosen a topic restriction instead. While I appreciate your analysis of the situation, and would welcome your comments (here, or elsewhere) about DYK and/or my conduct, I think your expanded proposal makes ARBCOM's relatively simple restriction more complex, without any associated benefit of making him play nice. Vanamonde (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about suggestions vs proposals. Aside from the complexity of your suggestion, though, there's one additional wrinkle; TRM has been able to edit preps for the duration of this conflict, but has declined to do so on several occasions (there's others, too). It's not unreasonable to suggest TRM might have accidentally participated in a discussion while logged out, but nothing we've seen in the last few years suggests TRM would be inclined to do so intentionally; besides which, the behavior doesn't match, and a CU will not connect an IP to an account. As such, it may be a good idea to strike that., your comment to Maile66 is somewhat ironic; you're asking him to take accusations to SPI or to stop making them, as is appropriate, but that's also exactly a number of us have asked TRM to do with his accusations of admin abuse. Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih
On mobile now so I'll have to substantiate with diffs later, but just wanted to quickly address 's ping: my comment at AE should not be read as an endorsement of "no violation"; my position is quite clear I believe in a previous long post I made about The Rambling Man and their civility at ERRORS. The purpose of my comment is to point out how the current wording of the restriction can be interpreted freely both ways, which is why we have found ourselves back at AE repeatedly without any results. The purpose of the remedy was certainly violated on more than one occasion, but the reality we have here is that the situation has been worked to a point that no administrator in their sane mind would enforce such remedy. In this situation, ArbCom needs to either take more responsibility or just declare the remedy as unenforceable. Alex Shih (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "the restriction is/was a mechanism to encourage The Rambling Man to be more civil in interaction with other editors" – Aren't ArbCom remedies meant to be binding, rather than serving the purpose of "to encourage" better editing behaviour? And this remedy is most certainly not about encouraging TRM to be more civil (because technically we should all be civil) when the wording is clearly written as "speculation about the motivations of editors". I also don't think it's true to say substantial portion of admins at AE "don't consider his comments over recent months to be uncivil"; there should be rough consensus that TRM has been uncivil in most of the instances, but no consensus on whether or not these incivility requires any action. And this no consensus mostly originates from the disagreement over the interpretation of the remedy as currently worded – what is the remedy trying to prevent? To ask AE to "get a consensus" over this basically proven unenforceable remedy is irresponsible on ArbCom's part. We can't get a consensus, and that's why we are here. If TRM can freely make insulting remarks, or make implications without making any direct reference, then this remedy is pointless and should be dropped so we don't find ourselves wasting time over this exercise in vain. Alex Shih (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the diff that I was talking about, which should reflect my general stance toward the issue of "The Rambling Man and civility". And while I am here, I would like to address a related point brought up by : please take another look at this discussion as an example. It is not as simple as just fixing the errors brought up by TRM; in many instances the "errors" brought by TRM are merely cases where the blurb/content could have been better or less misleading. I could probably find many examples where if someone tries to "demonstrate that the matters TRM is highlighting are not errors" per se, it will lead to TRM personalising of discussions with extreme hostility ; in my view, this is the editing behaviour that led to the original case, and this is the editing behaviour that the remedy in question should be preventing. I personally don't have a problem interacting with TRM dealing with their error reports as long as we know our content and focus only on the content (an example of my approach), but the unnecessary attacks of people needs to stop at one point. While I applaud 's creativity in "crafting" the amended wording, "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" has now essentially become a red herring where TRM can simply make generic motivations about generic editors and reflecting on generic competence which attacks other editors through implication but not direct reference (therefore not violating the restriction as worded). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ArbCom needs to be explicit on what the remedy is trying to prevent. If ArbCom is simply asking TRM to be more civil and play nice, this remedy accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time for all of us. So please don't avoid this issue like it do not exist or claim that it is no longer your scope; alternatively in 's words: Please provide for its enforcement or vacate it. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side note, needs to be careful not to cast aspersions on  over their close in this AE request as somehow "involved". In the same AE request they also claimed that  was involved. So we have a ArbCom member openly accusing two admins of violating policy as written, so I would like to ask the opinion of other committee members to clarify on whether or not this is a valid accusation. And while we are at it, for the sake of transparency please clarify on whether or not private discussions in regards to this ARCA request are held in a separate mailing list from this ArbCom member that is heavily invested in this matter. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not defend 's remarks in the example discussion I have provided because it was certainly far from ideal, but to characterise these remarks as "ad hominem" and "personal attacks" while ignoring the context is by all means unfair and false. Whether or not TRM approached the scope of his sanction is irrelevant; I have explicitly stated that TRM did not violate his sanction as worded in all of the instances that have been brought before us so far. The main point here should be that an arbitration case was brought against TRM about his incessant hostility, a remedy was drafted, an amendment was provided, but yet the same hostility persisted in different forms. Did you happen to miss the discussion that led to TRM exiling himself from WP:ERRORS, because there was a consensus among Main Page admins that the "errors" or matters TRM raised at ERRORS were not always exactly "errors"? Alex Shih (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Disturbing. with all due respect would you mind to spend a little more time looking at this request in depth if you are going to comment at all, rather than basically regurgitate the bureaucratic nonsense Mkdw just said? In what way would TRM moderate his tone and where would it be applied? What are you guys talking about? I really wish some of the ArbCom members can take note from civility notes like this one (credit ; sorry for pinging).  has this right: It should not be about the tone, but the " personally directed remarks " by TRM which does nothing but to stir bitterness for everyone. It doesn't have to be this way. And, despite of this copyedit, you would still need to clarify what you meant by "severe option": are you trying to make an implicit threat here that if the enforcement request goes before ArbCom it would be a "severe option" which presumably means resulting in sanctions? Is this not a textbook example of prejudging without considering all of the discussions so far about the unsuitability of the wording of the remedy? Why do you think it is okay to ignore all of the discussions and arguments that have been presented so far, and may I ask why you are not recused from all matters involving The Rambling Man as your impartiality is in serious question here, when taken the past history into consideration? Alex Shih (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Is "not so egregious" the standard of expectations now? Do you not find it ironic that while WP:ARBPOL is explicit about requiring all editors to "act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum" in arbitration pages, and here we are an arbitrator is openly accusing and labeling a group of editors/administrators as "groupies" in this arbitration page, while refusing to retract the claim by ignoring requests from a number of different editors on this very same page? What should we expect next, fanboys? One can only assume that the entire committee thinks this kind of vulgarity and accusation without evidence is perfectly acceptable and within reason, since none of you have called this committee member out for this very behaviour. And this is relevant because we are dealing with civility here; the committee cannot ask anyone to conduct themselves civilly when they do not call out uncivil behaviours. Alex Shih (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to change anything, nor am I trying to distract from the issue as you claim or start drama as you accuse, so please don't forget your good faith. The issue we have here is The Rambling Man is persistently uncivil, and the arbitration remedy is not working. Many editors here including members of the committee seems to have developed the opinion that the fact that the remedy is not being enforced is a reflection that the editing behaviour of TRM has changed for the better; is it? Why are there such diverging opinions? The fact that ArbCom is wildly inconsistent in their interpretation and enforcement of civility should be one main reason why we are still here disputing. Do you disagree? Alex Shih (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you continue with the same silly analogy that is only slightly less inappropriate than the previous one? The "legal restrictions" here isn't working and has reached an stalemate having been rejected by a rough consensus. So the next step can only be 1) draft new amendment 2) vacate the restriction. Unfortunately that's how things is; TRM is well aware of his restriction and quite consciously avoids violating the letters of the restriction while continues with the same hostility that violates the spirits of the restriction. This is however not a permissible evidence of "gaming", unless if we are going to speculate on the motivations of TRM, which would be hypocritical as it is the same behaviour we restrict TRM from participating. Alex Shih (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) I get where you are going with this but in the context of Wikipedia this reasoning is flawed and unhelpful. Please stop. Alex Shih (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * About DYK, there is one thing that I will probably forever disagree with you: The main purpose of DYK should always be about showcasing new articles that are not always perfect as a way to encourage new editors/experienced editors alike to create content. When I first started editing in 2006, that was the DYK I loved; I was editing unpopular subjects, and the articles I created (many of them with terrible grammar and occasionally factual mistakes) could only get the attention they needed by being submitted through DYK. While it's in the T:DYK process, I could receive encouragements from people of the project to motivate me to write more. Once the articles are on the Main Page, these articles could receive valuable copyediting and corrections, in which I was able to learn from them and become a better writer. If I am not mistaken, I think and I and perhaps a few others shares this same what might to be outdated vision for DYK (he can correct me if I am wrong). English Wikipedia is in a different stage now, where we try to promote higher standards in new articles and go over past articles to polish them. I think this is fine; but the moment that original purpose about DYK is lost is probably when I will join those who used to be active in DYK but are no longer editing any of the Wikimedia projects.There will always be mistakes in every DYK set, and I think that's okay for DYK even though you disagree. Even in reputable printed media you can always find mistakes. Does a few non-obvious mistakes in a hook set would shamefully discredit Wikipedia? I would need a citation on that. Mistakes should not be counted "errors". Errors should be for unambiguous errors. Wikipedia is not a printed media. If there are obvious mistakes in the queue/on the Main Page that can be fixed with a simple tweak, fix it (this is mostly resolved through the WP:TRM stuff). If there are problem with the content, raise it in WT:DYK and focus on the content alone, done. If the broken process produces atrocious article, pull it. If some DYK regulars continues to talk about "DYK rules" or "NOTCENSORED" in a what is probably misguided fashion, start a neutrally worded discussion that can gather consensus to make sure these "arguments" can never appear again, done. There is no need to attack the integrity of almost every single person that tries to disagree with you. Alex Shih (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Escalating sanctions are good when dealing with, say, a copyright violator or vandal, but not in difficult cases such as this. The automaton response to TRM's poking is to double the length of the last block but that inflames the situation because disinterested onlookers can see that a month-long block of the person who does most to keep errors off the main page is ridiculous. If necessary (that's if) block TRM for 48 hours. Do that on every occasion. Problem solved. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I may have more to add later, but for now I think is best to copy over a couple of comments I made in the most recent AE request, the first related to TRM's behaviour:
 * "I see nothing actionable here. I see frustration, exasperation and annoyance, and undoubtedly born out of that I see comments that are less than ideally phrased, but none of it is passing comment on the general competence of editors. If you wish to see TRM using less emotional language then the best way forward is probably to sort the problem at its root - i.e. either fix errors in DYK queues, demonstrate that the matters TRM is highlighting are not errors, and/or get consensus that errors in DYKs appearing on the main page is not a problem (this last will require a wider consensus than just the editors regularly involved with the DYK project, probably an RFC). Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)"

The second related to Sandstein's interaction with enforcement requests against TRM:
 * A (possibly partial) list and summary of previous occasions where Sandstein has commented on AE requests involving TRM

(Initial list compiled by Thryduulf. Others may expand it, but let's not go back too far.)
 * March 2017 Sandstein blocked TRM for 1 month 40 minutes after a report from a user with a known long history of antagonistic interaction with TRM. The only outside comment was "I think you can probably cut him [TRM] some slack for that [diff]."
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
 * March 2017 Appeal of previous block, length reduced to 1 week.
 * July 2017 Sandstein agrees with the unanimous consensus that the overly long request is not actionable]]
 * May 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month, six other admins and at least 12 other commenters said "not a violation", several also asking Sandstein to recuse.
 * June 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month. Six other admins (including me) and at least four others see no violation. 1 admin sees a posisble violation but no need for a sanction given the context. Myself and Dweller at least call for Sandstein to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted this in a collapsed section at AE as it wasn't directly related to the filing. I'm posting it uncollapsed here as it is directly relevant. This was compiled based only on the first 1 (or possibly 2) pages of results when searching the AE archives for "The Rambling Man". They may be others as the results I did get were presented in a random order. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I also endorse OID's comments regarding Sandstein. Before an ARCA was mentioned I was considering starting an AN thread regarding the matter myself. It is a fundamental principle of adminship that you recuse when you are not able to act neutrally and objectively regarding a matter so that it is dealt with fairly. It is an equally fundamental principle that such matters must be seen to be handled neutrally, and if you are repeatedly told by many different people that you appear to be biased in a particular matter then you should recuse, whether you think you are biased or not. Unfortunately my memory fails me regarding the name of the person concerned, but one (former, I think) arbitrator published a list of topics (and users?) in their userspace where they would always recuse. One of these was Armenia-Azerbaijan, where they perceived they had no bias but others perceived they did. This is a model Sandstein should look to emulate rather than doubling down when presented with repeated instances when they have been diametrically opposed to pretty much every other contributor to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with Sandstein is not how often he has commented on AE requests involving TRM (afaik nobody considers than a problem). The problem is how he comments: He presents himself as an unbiased administrator when literally dozens of other administrators in good standing tell him over and over again that this comments (including, but not exclusively, the calls to block TRM for a month when everyone else says there was no violation) demonstrate that he is really not. To me it has reached the stage of an admin competency issue: WP:ADMINACCT final bullet "Repeated or consistent poor judgment" and the general (but possibly unwritten) expectation that administrators will listen to an act on feedback given to them rather than doubling down. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The disagreement is pretty simple to characterise in almost every report I've seen - with very few exceptions Sandstein and those who are unambiguously biased or involved regarding TRM see a violation, Dweller and those who are unambiguously unbiased and uninvolved see no violation. Sandstein sees every report as warranting a month long block, pretty much everyone else who sees a violation thinks that the appropriate response is a chastisement or short block. This is not evidence that TRM is not being blocked enough. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood nearly everything I've written. I said "Dweller and those who are unambiguously unbiased" not that Dweller is one of those who are unambiguously unbiased. Likewise regarding Sandstein I'm not saying he is the only one who sees violations, simply that (a) he is the only one who is neither unambiguously involved nor unambiguously biased who sees them as such (you for example are very clearly involved) and (b) he is the only one of those who do see these as violations who thinks the most appropriate response is to block for a month. As for me, when I see TRM speculating about the general motivations of individual editors (rather than commenting about a non-specific group of editors in general or expressing exasperation about the actions (or lack of actions) of individual editors in a very specific context) then I will absolutely call him out on his breach of a topic ban. I will not vote to sanction him for things that do not violate his restrictions no matter how much people want them to be violations. As I said the best thing for everybody here to do is to actually fix the errors, that way there wont be anything for TRM to complain about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed that discussion I see that as a very good example, but not of your point. It shows TRM proposing a modification to a hook to (a) address an issue raised by someone else, and (b) correcting a simple factual error ("is" to "will become") this was then met with a string a ad hominem comments and personal attacks from other users against which TRM was defending himself, interspersed with comments about his opinion of the process - none of which is anything remotely approaching what his sanction covers. You apparently think that a "slightly misleading" blurb should not be regarded as an error, if so then that falls squarely under option 2 I proposed "get consensus that the matters TRM raises are not errors". Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is that while (almost) everyone can agree whether there have or have not been 3 or more reverts, the same is not true of civility. There is no objective definition of what is and is not uncivil that is independent of context - while (almost) everyone would agree that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not appropriate in almost all circumstances very occasional exceptions are possible (e.g. if the context is a clearly humorous reference to Arkell v. Pressdram and the exchange is occurring between editors who are not engaged in a dispute). Similarly if two editors are engaged in an acrimonious dispute and one responds the other with "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" that almost certainly would be uncivil but it is not something that could ever be codified. There also exist cases where cultural differences mean that one party sees something as entirely innocent while another takes great offence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's much more complicated than that - "Shrike's editing history indicates they are biased against " is a comment on an editor that is perfectly civil. "This so-called discussion is a fucking heap of stinking biased horseshit that makes Wikipedia look like the product of a three year old's tantrum." is an uncivil comment that is not an ad hominem. Even "Shrike is almost always right about this sort of thing" would be uncivil by your proposed definition. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that the issues around Sandstein and BU Rob 13 are still being overlooked but really do need addressing. The former has clearly lost the trust of the community that is able to be impartial regarding TRM but refuses to listen to feedback about his judgement (as is required of all admins) and the latter is casting aspersions without evidence (and not for the first time either) - behaviour that arbcom has sanctioned many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support your accusation that TRM is acting in bad faith? The ed17's comment presuming bad faith without evidence was correctly removed, would you please do TRM the courtesy of either removing the aspersions you are casting or providing evidence to support them? If you could encourage BU Rob 13 to either back up or remove his unsuppoorted aspersions against unspecified others as well that would be good. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again we meet the crux of the issue: there has been consensus after consensus from uninvolved users and administrators that the sanction has not been violated, and yet somehow those with an axe to grind cannot accept this and assume there must be some vast conspiracy to protect TRM rather than the more obvious explanation that the sanction wasn't violated. I mostly interact with TRM regarding ITN, where I agree and disagree with him in about equal measure. I pop in to AE sporadically but don't always comment - e.g. if there is an apparent consensus and I agree with it then I usually don't bother chiming in, or if informing myself fully would take more reading than I care to do at that point then I won't comment at all, and there are some dispiutes I'm just flat out not interested in getting involved in (most things related to Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan for example). However when I see a consensus heading in a direction I disagree with then I'm going to express my opinion - especially if it seems facts are being pushed aside as often happens with TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I fully endorse Dweller's comments over the last couple of days. The behaviour of certain other users - BU Rob13, Banendon and Cwmhiraeth perhaps especially - with respect to TRM is frankly disgusting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
Reading Euryalus's decline suggests an alternate wording to me: The Rambling Man is strongly encouraged to maintain decorum in discussions with other editors. He may be sanctioned by a consensus of admins at WP:AE for excessively uncivil behavior. No specific rules about belittling editors or speculating about their motives (that are in practice impossible to adjudicate), no potential for unilateral action by admins who may be viewed as anti-TRM. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
There's a recurrent cycle here. People drag TRM to AE, Sandstein says "block one month" and a variety of others point out there's been no breach of the sanction.

This recurs either because they don't understand the sanction or because they're gaming it. I'd AGF and go for the former.

The committee could opine that the fact that no action is taken is proof that the sanction and AE are working fine. I'd say that a) the recurrent no action is proof that TRM is no longer doing the things you didn't like (mostly, I suspect, because of WP:TRM) and b) things have got to a place where TRM feels harassed by this constant cycle, quite ironic really.

How about just removing this sanction? With past cases up your sleeve, you can always decide by motion to act if you think TRM has returned to behaviours you've deemed excessively objectionable in the past?

Sounds like everyone wins that way. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @BU Rob. Three diffs presented. In turn they deal with 1) specific competence, not general 2) specific competence not general 3) not aimed at anyone in particular and also about the specific competence of reviewing. You are making a very good case for my comment above - this sanction is poorly worded and people don't understand it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I welcome Newyorkbrad's suggestion and the tone of his comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The main problem here is that DYK (and to a lesser extent OTD and ITN) produce a lot of really poor substandard work that fails their own rules. It appears on Main page where it makes us look bad. TRM is one of very very few people that seems to care about this. We actually need to fundamentally decide what we do with those projects because you won't see TRM upset or upsetting others at FL (where he's been massively active) or FAC (ditto) because everyone in those places cares about the same things, quality output. If the community scrapped these awful projects or corralled them into only putting out quality material, you wouldn't be troubled by TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * TRM's rather gracious proposal is a different way of skinning that cat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

, I like your thinking but it's unworkable. It'll cause confusion when threaded conversation gets complex, make it impossible for TRM to call people to review suggestions and I think anything that makes communication more difficult is a really bad idea. Besides, it's better to be straight. Look how much fuss there's been on this page because Rob, an arbitrator, didn't mention people? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like the Arbs to make a strong statement (no need for sanctions, no need to name anyone, just draw a line in the sand) about some elements that TRM cannot control that are inflammatory in these issues: TRM probably won't thank me for writing this, because he's a big boy, but I think a lot of your looooong focus on his behaviour has been one-eyed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) profound OWNership problems at DYK (note the lack of them at OTD, and hence that there's no flashpoint there, when both are dealt with at WP:TRM))
 * 2) people who goad TRM and/or
 * 3) ...use his sanction as a stick to hit him with.

Opabinia, you want to know why he sounds snappy? Count em - 11 AE cases listed in Sandstein's evidence, most dismissed, including the last 8 in a row, and now this, and instead of looking to reduce sanctions that clearly are being used a stick to hit him with, despite a succession of admins saying "no problem here", you and others are saying that sanctions need to be tightened. That despite TRM offering to voluntarily remove himself from the area of conflict. There have been some atrocious comments on this page and others during this discussion, yes you Rob, you theed, you Banedon, you Cwmhiraeth, but who are we looking to criticise> TRM for being a little snappy. Honestly, I don't understand what you don't understand. I'm about as civil an editor as you'll find on WP and I'd be pretty irate too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

in the very section you point to as evidence that you haven't accused TRM of telling untruths, you accuse him of telling untruths. Not using the word "liar" is not the same thing as not calling someone a liar.

Let me make that clearer: 'you say X but I don't believe you' = 'you are a liar'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

, I'd additionally suggest that you bolster your offer: Assume that your frustrations with DYK as a whole are known so you won't refer to them at ERRORS2 etc, and that you'll deal with the issues there without referring to the editors and admins who may have 'caused' them. I think that would give Arbcom even more assurance they can close this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

Arbcom, this isn't getting anywhere now. Could you please make your minds up? I echo other voices. Take the quid pro quo approach of removing this divisive sanction, in return for TRM's now very comprehensive offer of self-exclusion from DYK pages and see how it goes.

I hold you in good faith: I believe you want the best for the encyclopedia. All you want is a productive TRM who isn't at loggerheads with others. Removing a sanction that there is some evidence for being poorly comprehended and used as a stick, and TRM totally removing himself from the main area of conflict, offers you a way to navigate a path. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to this from TRM, once DYK articles appear in the queues or on Main page, their process has 'finished' with them. WP:OWN would suggest that any further ping would be courtesy only. As there's a distinct lack of courtesy going on (regardless of who's at fault for that) it would be a false courtesy at best and a prompt for discourtesy at worst. Furthermore, the regular ERRORS page rarely pings contributors, because the imperative is to get the error off Main page asap, not wait for a contributor to be onwiki. I see no need for ERRORS2 to go further than ERRORS does. --16:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This motion, as currently constructed, effectively bans TRM from editing WP:ERRORS2, which is an appalling result for Wikipedia and an utter travesty. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 03:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Plea to ArbCom: please do not lose sight of points 3, 4 and 5 of EdChem's very wise comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I replied to your comment about accusation of lying, above, on 4 December, with a ping to you. So you don't need to scroll up to find it, here it is again:
 *  in the very section you point to as evidence that you haven't accused TRM of telling untruths, you accuse him of telling untruths. Not using the word "liar" is not the same thing as not calling someone a liar.


 * Let me make that clearer: 'you say X but I don't believe you' = 'you are a liar'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it's evident that there's good collaboration going on with regard to ITN. And Crisco's retirement was not caused by TRM. It would be nice if people could stop blowing that smoke because there certainly isn't a fire. See Amakuru's comments on this page from 12:50, 28 November, which explain what happened. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

and anyone else who'd like to fling about accusations of socking. Anyone who knows anything about TRM knows that he 1) really deeply cares about Wikipedia 2) isn't frightened of saying what he thinks needs to be done in support of 1) regardless of the results -> some clearly say that is a virtue he holds to a fault. Personally, I think TRM is more likely to be declared "DYKer of the week" than he is to sock. If you would like to open an investigation, you know where to go to. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop making unfounded accusations and you really ought to strike your comments and apologise, though I won't hold my breath. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions about revised wording "or reflections on their competence"

Given the history with people bludgeoning TRM with previous sanctions, I think this new wording could conceivably be used to justify a block or being brought to AE yet again if he said any of the following
 * 1) "you've made an error"
 * 2) "please don't try, it's complicated"
 * 3) "you've misunderstood"
 * 4) "this is football jargon, and I understand why it might not be clear to an outsider"
 * 5) "I see you're from the US, please don't worry, this is normal phraseology in BrEng"

Understand that this is not referring to DYK, where TRM has already pledged not to refer to editors, but in any of his work, at FAC, FL, discussing articles on talk pages.

In all cases, he would be referring to editors' competence in a manner we would find totally acceptable from anyone else.

I've said before that it is perverse to expect higher levels of compliance with CIVIL from TRM than from other editors. As none of these are comments anyone would reasonably bring another editor to ANI over, without risking suffering TROUT or BOOMERANG, why would we impose this on him?

These are extreme examples, but they should be indicative of trouble ahead. A review of the many many AEs closed without sanction, leads me to suggest you're missing the mark again. Just have the courage of your conviction, take up TRM's offers to stay out of DYK, not talk about DYK reviewers, scrap the sanction and see how it goes. It's a lesser burden on the community for you to flip the sanction back on (or worse) if you feel he's re-engaging in bad behaviours, than this drip-drip of unpleasant AE interaction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
I totally uninvolved in the dispute. The main problem that the one of the pillars of Wikipedia is not enforced.There should be no reason to comment on contributor only on content. There should be a bright line like 3RR till we tolerate the current situation those problem will return with different editors again and again. Yes there is always special circumstances and excuses per WP:IAR but how many times we allow this when 3RR is broken and how many ARBCOM cases about persons breaking 3RR constantly? --Shrike (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Civility is objective any comment on editor(ad hominem) is a breach.In your second example there were no comment on editor so the bright line was not crossed.--Shrike (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
The Rambling Man's level of energy and dedication to the project are widely appreciated. More specifically, there is broad appreciation for his commitment to maintaining the quality of items linked from the main page, although there are often sharp disagreements as to how those standards should be applied in specific instances. (These arise on the ITN and OTD pages as well as on DYK as noted in the request). Any user-conduct issues arise not so much from what he says but how he says it.

A couple of years ago, The Rambling Man committed to be a bit less sharp-tongued on-wiki. For several months, he kept that commitment. He made exactly the same types of substantive comments that he made before that and has made since, but unaccompanied by personally directed remarks that stir bitterness and distract attention from the substance of what he has to say. I still did not always agree with his every !vote on ITN/C and the like, but the man was a pleasure to work with. I wonder whether, if asked politely, he would be willing to try that experiment again. He would be just as effective in what he is trying to accomplish, if not more so, but without the distractions that can't be fun for him and which I know are not fun for the rest of us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru
As an admin who processes errors and main page updates, and sometimes opines at ITNC, I see TRM around quite a bit and agree that his commitment to the project and the value he provides are indisputable. I also think he is on the receiving end of some unfair treatment including the repeated efforts in some quarters to get WP:ERRORS2 shut down - really that page is a positive development because it removes TRM from some of the direct interaction which was occurring at WP:ERRORS which led to the sort of incivility we're talking about. That doesn't mean he has a carte blanche to be uncivil to other editors though, and like, I do cringe a little when I see TRM laying into people. Even if the complaint is justified, it doesn't seem useful for anyone concerned to turn it personal. So, to answer the question of what I think ArbCom should do here, I would say there must be a better way forward than the binary choice between just doing nothing vs ArbCom coming down on TRM like a ton of bricks. A renewal of the voluntary commitment that mentions to address the issues in future, rather than the person responsible for them, would be great if TRM would agree to that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since has been brought into the conversation, it should be put on the record that his decision to leave was entirely of his own making. TRM raised legitimate issues with a POTD entry, so I pinged Crisco at the POTD page to bring his attention to it. When he hadn't replied around 10 hours later (presumably because he was off-wiki for the day) I went ahead and swapped it out with the following day to give time to sort the issues. When he came back online and saw what had happened he got angry and left the project. He returned briefly to resign his admin tools, taking the opportunity to launch a broadside at TRM, accusing him of "meddling in processes he has no idea about". TRM tried to defend himself but was silenced three times. Presumably Crisco had some history with TRM, so I can't comment on previous interactions between the two, but it is very clear that TRM cannot be blamed for the incident which drove him off.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * right, so his actions at that time were not typical and perhaps there were other reasons why he was particularly stressed, who knows. Certainly I wish him no ill will, he's been a highly valuable Wikipedian over the years and I would welcome him back to the project if he chose to return. I just think it's fairly clear he was in the wrong in the incident mentioned. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know the identity of the "groupies" of which you make mention. Please either say who they are, and when they've grouped, or withdraw the accusation. As a sitting arb, you of all people should know that this isn't the forum for vague allusions. We need chapter, verse and diffs, so that the committee can evaluate the matter and decide if it is a justified comment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great idea if you're happy to do it. As I said above, your voluntary recusal from WP:ERRORS seems to have removed some of the tension that had been evident there, so this would be in a similar vein. Would you still want the ability to nominate your own DYKs when you feel like it though? (And review others' per QPQ if that comes up). That should be possible without getting involved in the talk page for the DYK process itself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Re - fair enough.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since TRM has voluntarily agreed to recuse himself from ERRORS and WT:DYK, it seems making that a formal ban might be a useful way forward, and it is clear that those are the pages where the clashes in question are most likely to take place. I don't agree with the suggestion for him to "completely take a break from the question of what's on the main page" though. Identifying errors is the most prominent thing that TRM does, and has a demonstrably positive effect on the main page and its accuracy each and every day. It would also be useful for those that we've already established don't get on well with TRM to avoid commenting on his user talk page or WP:ERRORS2. I don't see the necessity for them to do so. If, for example, an admin carries out some action based on WP:ERRORS2 that you don't agree with, take it up with the admin concerned rather than TRM himself. Hopefully with these practical steps in place, the civility problems should become fewer and farther between. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * without wishing to second guess what remedies the committee may be considering, it seems you have described the situation accurately, in that neither of the two civility-sanction options seem suitable: Lifting the sanctions altogether with no further action would not satisfy those who feel something must be done, and might well lead to them coming back here in future. OTOH, imposing harsher punishment would enrage those who feel that TRM hasn't done much wrong, and would also not be beneficial for the project as we all agree his contributions are valuable. Keeping the status quo also doesn't seem satisfactory as there is no agreement on what the current sanction even means. My suggestion, for what it's worth, would be to take TRM's offers to stay away from WP:ERRORS and WT:DYK as well as refraining from talking about individual DYK editors at WP:ERRORS2, and turn those into formal topic bans. And at the same time, to lift the existing civility sanctions on the grounds that they aren't really working. This is similar to Dweller's proposal, except that it makes the ban from ERRORS and DYK formal rather than relying on TRM to self-police. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * indeed, and in fact we should probably be treating ERRORS2 for what it is - an information page for use by admins who fix errors rather than a bona fide project page. As I've mentioned before, the page could just as well be hosted off-wiki entirely and it would still serve the same purpose. The actual decision to take action or not is up to the individual admins who read the page, and any fall out or discussion should be with that admin rather than TRM himself. These days I very often don't mention ERRORS2 at all in the edit summaries for fixes based on it. DYKers can take it up with me if they don't agree with the change. So I agree with you that there is no reason why TRM should ping anybody in particular when reporting errors. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the 48-hour restriction is sensible because this is an unusual case where admins disagree strongly with each other on the rights and wrongs of the case and what to do about it. There are some who think everything is hunky dory, and TRM should never be told off for anything; and others who think only an escalating block will do. By defining situations which warrant a 48-hour block but forbidding blocks beyond that limit, the committee is expressly disallowing admins from applying either of those extremes. And it takes into account TRM's known features, and an assumption that those won't change fundamentally. And if something does change, and TRM suddenly becomes a WP:NOTHERE vandal or something, then obviously a 48-hour block could be extended easily once it was already underway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Desmay
last tried in June 2018, to get TRM blocked through WP:AE, not January 2018. Though these repeated attempts by BU Rob13 to get TRM blocked are ironic because BU Rob13 himself topic bans an editor only for reporting a topic ban violation and here he says that he dislikes when other admins avoid taking action against TRM when BU Rob13 sanctions people for reporting the violators. We should at least accept that unlike BU Rob13, these admins who acted on these TRM related AE reports were not sanctioning the reporting editor on spurious basis.

BU Rob13 should not be talking about AE, since he is himself biased in that regard. His clear assumption of bad faith here just proves it further. desmay (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
More of an observation: parsing the vague difference(?) between "specific" and "general" competence is either a game, or will tend to lead to madness for all involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators, it seems time to arbitrate between the positions - for better or worse we do not always expect to be in agreement about a user's conduct, so what do we have, an arbitration committee to arbitrate. Novelly, perhaps, no one can be blamed for their construction of the restriction (hard to imagine not blaming, as it may be). We still leave the cutting of seeming Gordian Knots to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
I think TRM is clearly violating the spirit of the sanction, even if he isn't violating the letter of it (which itself is debatable; as some have already noted they consider TRM to be doing so). Even neglecting everything in the AE request, the diff Vanamonde linked is the same kind of behaviour that led to the Arbcom case in the first place. This is why I wrote in the evidence phase that TRM reforming is the best-case scenario, but doesn't seem likely.

I think Arbcom should:


 * 1) Award Sandstein a special "Arbcom barnstar" for attending to WP:AE and dealing with the inevitable flak that goes his way. AE admins deserve it - their tasks are especially thankless, as a look at the AE requests makes obvious. In this ARCA there are already editors questioning Sandstein's integrity even though, as OR notes, Sandstein attends to a lot of AE requests so the fact that he appears in a lot of the TRM-related requests doesn't seem particularly significant.
 * 2) Block and warn. Say something like "Arbcom has decided that this kind of behaviour violates our 4th pillar and is not acceptable, therefore we are blocking under WP:CIVIL". Outright say that this decision isn't open to discussion. Make it obvious that because the carrot clearly isn't working, Arbcom is willing to wield the stick.

On a side note I'll point out that civility is a major theme this ACE. Arbcom is setting a precedent here; if the reaction is poor, the incoming members will have something to shoot at. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked you're seriously considering a voluntary agreement. A key reason we had an arbitration case in the first place was because TRM had been given so many warnings to stop behaving like this, so much WP:ROPE. He's said he will be civil before, countless times, and still never managed. We got out of the arbitration case with a pretty mild remedy, which is now proving not to work, and your solution is to remove the remedy in favour of a voluntary agreement? Like I said, I'm shocked. Banedon (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Winged Blades of Godric - it could be interpreted that way, but think positive! This is for all the admins who do the hard work at AE. Banedon (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Floating this idea. Retract the sanction and replace with a voluntary agreement, but only if Dweller is willing to act as a guarantor. Something like, if TRM winds up at Arbcom again then any sanction that applies to TRM also applies to Dweller; or alternatively desysop Dweller. I understand this plan is radical, but it might make all parties happy. If TRM and Dweller genuinely believe that TRM is capable of reform, then this arrangement has no drawback. If TRM does end up at Arbcom again though, I hate to be sanctioning Dweller, since Dweller hasn't done anything wrong. Banedon (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * even if we agree there was no violation (and I certainly would not agree), compare Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. If you just count all the people in the world who don't find Muhammad cartoons offensive vs. those who do, you'll probably find the former group to be larger. That's because there are more non-Muslims in the world than there are Muslims. This doesn't mean it should be OK to draw Muhammad cartoons en masse. The same thing applies here: if there's a substantial group of people who find TRM's behavior offensive, he should stop behaving like that even if he's not violating any sanctions. If he does not - I would tweak the sanctions until the group of people stop finding it offensive (or TRM gets blocked, whichever happens first). Banedon (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dweller, eleven cases were filed by people who were offended, and none of which resulted in boomerangs (i.e. most were genuine complaints), and your conclusion is "there's no problem"? Further, you're explicitly singling me out even though I haven't interacted with TRM at all in almost a year (don't believe me - see if you can find something)? Honestly this is reeking of WP:UNBLOCKABLE. See also what I wrote to Thyrduulf above about Muhammad cartoons. This case needs a stronger sanction, not weaker. A topic ban from main page related pages is an alternative, and if I were an arbitrator I'd not be completely against giving it a try, but it would be on a WP:ROPE basis and there's already been a lot of rope given. Banedon (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If this impasse continues for longer we might need an ArbArbcom to handle disputes that Arbcom wasn't able to resolve ... Banedon (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

can I confirm that Arbcom is only looking at DYK? Because from the links given by Sandstein in the original post, several of the AE requests come from elsewhere (e.g. this arose from ITN, this came from WP:Errors. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I'm not criticizing the scope, I'm just making sure that this is indeed the scope Arbcom wants and not a scope that was inadvertently made. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll say Arbcom sure is optimistic, imposing the lightest possible sanctions on the hope that it'll work and that the sanctions can be strengthened if they don't. This isn't criticizing the motion, just an observation. Reminds me of what Dweller wrote in the previous ARCA, that he is an undying optimist. Arbcom sure are undying optimists too. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Some weeks ago, after an exchange with TRM, I turned off my computer and didn't edit again for seven weeks. At the time, I had no intention of taking even so much as a short break, but in the days and weeks that followed, the thought of returning to the unceasing barrage of snark that DYK has become so revulsed me that I could only wonder how I'd ever managed to hang in there so long in the first place. Indeed, the sheer pettiness of so many of the disputes, by comparison with the disproportionate degree of hostility expressed over them, was enough to turn me off Wikipedia altogether, to the point that I wondered if I could ever be bothered editing here again.

But then, as it happened, a few days ago a flicker of interest unexpectedly returned. I uploaded some files, and then thought I'd just pop over to DYK to promote a set to the queue if needed, which I did. Shortly thereafter, TRM turned up to welcome me in his usual fashion, informing me that I'm a "toxic" user. A post or two later, apropos of nothing, he thought he'd gratuitously declare my DYK work (for the thousandth time) to be "shoddy". And a little later, after seeing me labour to fix a couple of DYK errors he had identified - presumably out of concern that I hadn't yet gotten the message clearly enough - responded with a gloating edit summary.

In short, nothing has changed. This is what it's like to work at DYK now - indeed how it's been for much of the last several years - pretty much ''every. single. fucking. day.''

Meanwhile, TRM, who looks like possibly escaping meaningful sanction for his utterly uncollegiate and disrespectful conduct yet again, feels sufficiently emboldened at this point to magnanimously suggest desysopping and de-arbing a couple of his prominent critics. You can't make this stuff up.

Apart from myself and Vanamonde (who seems to have been promoted to "public enemy number one" in my absence), here are a few more users TRM has come into conflict with in just the last few days. There's, who expressed a desire for stepping down from DYK and going back to content creation as she has had enough of the endless nitpicking. , who expressed exasperation with his uncooperative attitude. , currently in conflict with TRM about an alleged incident of lying. , who in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=870844453#Prep_4:_Who? this thread] pretty much nails it with this post. From a slightly longer time period, we should not forget Crisco, a highly valued contributor, who recently quit the project after copping the TRM treatment.

If my point isn't yet clear, it's this: for all the good they may do, users like TRM are corrosive to the project. They sap the enthusiasm and commitment of multiple users around them. Apologists apparently see this as an acceptable price to pay, because TRM picks up an occasional worthwhile error at DYK (most of his "errors" are wording tweaks he could do himself without the fanfare). But nothing can excuse the barrage of hostility he daily inflicts on DYK contributors while doing so.

Now with regard to the existing remedy - clearly, when apologists can wikilawyer between "specific" and "general" competences, the remedy is useless. I said at the time that I doubted the remedy would be effective and unfortunately, the no doubt well intentioned change weakened it pretty much beyond repair. So I will repeat what I said at the original case: why not adopt the remedy that's been tried successfully at AE a number of times, per the wording of the personal attack policy, and simply prohibit him from commenting on contributor? That would at least be a start, and would constitute a clear bright line for action. And while that alone probably wouldn't prevent him from continuing to disparage users by blasting their individual edits or the DYK project itself, it should at least prevent the worst of his tirades, like the comments made to Vanamonde recently.

Other than that, I also like 's suggestion of limited non-escalating blocks for incivility and have suggested the same myself in the past, but quite frankly in TRM's case I don't think they would have much effect because he's generally too skilled at keeping his offensive remarks just under the radar. It's his chronic uncollegiality that's the problem, and one doesn't necessarily pick that up from individual diffs. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I came here today with the intention of endorsing, as a possible remedy, a combination of a ban for TRM on commenting on contributor, per and others, along with the "voluntary but binding" recusal from WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS suggested by, but then I saw this. Regardless of any other consideration, would anyone care to explain why such a reckless repudiation of every previous warning, remedy or commitment given to or by TRM should not be met by an immediate and substantial sanction? Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But setting aside the question of whether a belated sanction should be applied for the above egregious diff (though I'm amazed that nobody saw fit to take that to AE), the real issue at hand is still finding a longterm solution. I think we can all agree that the optimal solution would be to find a way to retain TRM's positive contributions while effectively curbing the negative. It seems clear from the discussion thus far that TRM's conduct is largely unproblematic in some areas - for example, at FAC - but not in others - DYK in particular. An obvious solution would therefore be to simply ban him from all things DYK, but then the project would lose his valued contribution there to quality control.

What I would really like to see from TRM would be for him to continue his DYK error checking but without the constant stream of snide and disparaging remarks, about both editors and the project itself. We know he is capable of such an approach, because he daily finds almost as many errors at OTD as he does at DYK, yet there is never even a murmur of criticism about OTD. The different approach lies in the fact that he essentially approves of the concept of OTD but disdains that of DYK. It's his need to constantly remind everybody on a daily basis of his disdain that is the problem.

So here's what I'm thinking right now. TRM offered to recuse himself from WT:DYK, which would certainly be a start. My suggestion would be a "voluntary but binding" commitment from TRM to confine his involvement with DYK to his own WP:ERRORS2 page. But I would also like to see an end to the constant sniping at the project on that page, because that too is problematic. There is no reason why he needs to do this, as his approach to OTD demonstrates. And it's not as if we don't already know, after four years of daily reminders, that he thinks DYK sucks. If after six months, the record shows that the persistent sniping has continued at WP:ERRORS, then perhaps as a next step we should consider banning him altogether from all things DYK, including his error checking. Yes, a section of the main page would lose a degree of quality control and that would be unfortunate, but WP:CIV is one of the five pillars on which this enterprise is based, and those who persistently and egregiously violate it must ultimately be shown the door, one way or another. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I see is keen to see the ARBS take some action against "people who goad TRM".

It's nice to know you deplore goading, Dweller, but strangely enough I don't recall you having anything to say about TRM's gratuitous declamation the other day of my work as "shoddy" the minute I turned up there again to try and make a contribution as I noted above, or that he acknowledged the fact that I had just spent hours repairing a couple of errors he identified - not by thanking me for my labours as perhaps one might expect - but by giving me the finger in his edit summary. Which in turn raises the question that put the other day but that TRM has signally failed to address: if all he cares about is protecting the main page, as he so righteously insists, why does he unceasingly heap scorn upon DYK regulars like me who are also labouring to maintain mainpage integrity? The answer is inescapable: he scorns our efforts because he scorns all things DYK, and can't or won't separate his animus for the project from the people involved in it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to TRM:

'' ... the inability of the DYK project to produce even one single set without an issue that needs to be addressed ... is directly the issue''

... which never bothers you with OTD.

'' I don't care an iota about the DYK project, it's ... just a conduit for cookie cutter articles with little or no consideration applied to our readers ... the myriad intrinsic problems with the project, its implementation and those who strive to not see it for what it is, a failure and a regular embarrassment to the main page of an encyclopedia''

I rest my case re: animus.

 ... sooner or later the inertia of the project regulars ensures the lack of quality, the deliberate ignoring of rules, the promotion of error after error after error to the main page persists

- And there is the rest of the answer to Opabinia's question: he is actively hostile to DYK regulars like Vanamonde and myself, who also work to maintain mainpage integrity, because he considers us to be, not colleagues with whom he might collaborate to improve the project, but enablers of a project he abhors and simply wants to destroy.

But with regard to his charge of the inertia of the regulars: I find this pretty ironic because, while on my recent hiatus, I had time to reflect on my long association with DYK, and it belatedly occurred to me that before TRM arrived on the scene about four years ago, we were constantly making improvements and adjustments to the DYK process - many of which I personally initiated or helped to push through. Since TRM arrived, I've done virtually nothing in that regard, and one reason for that is that every time I turn up at DYK, I'm kept so busy fending off his attacks or dealing with his chronic obstructionism or just his endless litany of minor hook quibbles, that I'm left exhausted and frustrated and with no energy or enthusiasm remaining for stepping back and thinking of the big picture. It's just another way in which TRM's scorched-earth approach actually inhibits, rather than enhances, any possibility of improvement.

Having said that, as I've said before, I acknowledge the value of his error checking in identifying legitimate issues. And to be perfectly frank, I worry that without such implicit criticism, DYK might grow complacent. That nonetheless doesn't justify the problematic behaviour.

The challenge then is coming up with a solution that retains TRM's positive contributions while effectively reducing the negative. The main reason I have participated in this request is my alarm at calls to simply vacate the existing remedy, because that would allow him to run riot again and make a mockery of CIV with impunity. The remedy needs to be strengthened, not vacated. Otherwise, I guess I for one will eventually be looking for greener pastures and TRM can realize his dream of promoting perhaps one solitary but *guaranteed error free* new hook per day. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

TRM's offer to recuse himself from WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS, and to refrain from using his ERRORS2 page to attack DYK or its contributors, looks on its face to be a possible solution to the DYK conflicts, provided it's made enforceable; certainly, it sounds worth a trial. But that doesn't address the question of possible continued incivility outside of those pages, either toward the same or other users, so if the current remedy is vacated and not replaced with anything but the proposed remedy pertaining to the abovementioned pages, I can't help but wonder how long it might be before we're back here again. Gatoclass (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to 's proposal below: I agree with TRM that he should be permitted to continuing copyediting DYK hooks if he is so inclined; he generally does uncontroversial work here and banning that just forces him to ask an administrator to do it for him on every occasion, which creates more work, and potential difficulty, for all involved as it means alterations and fixes occurring in a less timely manner. But I disagree with his comment that he should be permitted to continue to make reference to "DYK process failures" at his errors page; this is just asking for a licence to continue bashing the DYK process IMO and by extension those involved in it. He has no need to refer to DYK processes at all; he can correct errors perfectly well at OTD, as I have pointed out several times, without constant reference to the process, so he can surely do the same with DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I should also point out that the existing remedy, which bans TRM from making "reflections on [the] general competence" of other editors has demonstrably failed as this discussion has shown. At minimum, the word "general" should be struck from the remedy; TRM should not be commenting on anybody's competence, period - surely the record on that should be clear enough by now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

, I'm not sure if you read my comment above before approving the current wording, but regardless, I think I should emphasize that if the issue regarding the "general competence" phrase is not addressed, the Committee will in effect be handing TRM a licence to disparage users for alleged incompetencies, provided he is merely sure to be specific about them. Surely that cannot be your intention? Gatoclass (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive of the thrust of 's proposals, I think they are mostly tacitly covered by the Committee's existing proposal. I do think a word should be added permitting TRM to copyedit DYK hooks as well as articles, because as I've said he largely does useful and uncontroversial work there. I still strongly believe that the Committee should also (at minimum) strike the word "general" from the existing remedy 4; not to do so is just asking for more drama down the track. Those caveats apart, the proposed amendments, at least with regard to the DYK restrictions, look potentially viable to me, and I am otherwise reassured by the Committee's stated willingness to tweak the remedies further if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Narutolovehinata5
As I have mentioned several times on DYK, I admire TRM's dedication to finding errors and he has done a lot of good work for the project. However, his attitude has become a general problem, and as elaborated above by Gatoclass, not a few editors have considered quitting DYK over this. Two weeks back, I proposed a topic ban for TRM at ANI, which was quickly snow-rejected (and in hindsight, I realize that it was probably not a good idea; I sincerely apologize to TRM for what happened). Nevertheless, I still believe that TRM's attitude needs to change for the current situation to defuse or at least to improve, and knowing his editing history, I know this is possible. I'm just not sure what suitable compromise could be made that could be a win for all sides. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading the discussion again and reflecting on previous events, this is what comes to mind. On one hand. TRM has a point that DYK's quality control has been subpar at times, and inadequate articles tend to push through often. On the other hand, the way he expresses these comments have been suboptimal at best, and good faith suggestions on changing his tone have tended either to fall on deaf ears or to be responded in a negative way. From what I have experienced, the situation might be circular: TRM does things the way he does because he is frustrated with the issues plaguing the Main Page processes, while the MP people (DYK included) tend to be fearful of TRM's comments and thus in some cases editors become disenchanted with the process altogether. In any case, the feeling is that, while people mostly believe TRM is acting in good faith and wishes for the improvement of the encyclopedia, the way he expresses his comments tends to lead to tension which, rather than solving the issues, only makes them worse. The way I see it, this situation may continue for the foreseeable future unless a suitable compromise that pleases both parties may be reached. But how such a compromise may be reached, I don't know: while I was formerly in favor of an editing restriction from WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS, I don't really believe it will solve things considering that the issue is more of TRM's attitude. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I like 's proposed compromise, in that TRM shouldn't be completely banned from DYK and can still do DYK-related things, provided that he remain civil. If implemented, it could be, to quote, the best possible outcome here. TRM would be free to say what he feels are genuine concerns about the DYK process, while at the same time incivility from both sides can be prevented. This of course, would be dependent on if both parties would be willing to accept the proposed terms. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
As one, who mentioned the last AE filing as a time-waste, (out of a near-certainty about it leading to damn nowhere); I believe that the current sanction is worthless (to put it mildly).

It's undoubtable that TRM's behavior with fellow-contributors is far from optimal and heavily unpleasant but week-long blocks, (in recent past) had not made TRM any collegial and it's pretty irrational to expect that a month-long block (as Sandstein seems to advocate, near-every time) will fare better in that regard.

As much as it is a mystery to me about TRM's continual inability to pay heed to any concern, (from multiple quarters), about his behavior, I personally deem his work to be highly valuable and thus, don't see any viable remedy other than his pledging to abide by minimum decorum levels with an understanding that his prestigious track-records as a content-builder does not auto-confer a right to treat others in an abominable fashion.

Alternatively, just ban him from the entire DYK topic-area and be done away with him but at the massive cost of the quality of the main-page. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * And, Banedon, Arbcom Barnstar? This sort of behavior to indirectly bait TRM is something that can be quite looked-at......... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
I think Pudeo's diffs demonstrate that there is still a problem. I think Sandstein is overenthusiastic in his response to the problem. Sandstein should not make unilateral decisions about TRM.

So far I agree with the proposals by (in no particular order):, , , and.

-- Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What about a requirement that, in content-related discussions, TRM refrain from mentioning other editors (either indirectly or directly), and instead discuss only content and edits? That's fairly simply achieved, and a practice I find makes every interaction impersonal, civil, and much more effective. If content is factually incorrect, that's easy to demonstrate. If something violates policy, policy is easy to cite. If something could be better worded, specific better wording is easy to suggest. It's not necessary to mention or refer to any other editor(s) when discussing content. Of course, putting this into practice takes concentration at first and a change of habit, but once the new habit is formed it's easy to implement. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@TRM: Quote text, provide diffs, or specify what concept/text you agree or disagree with. There is never a need to mention other editors when discussing content, even in a multi-editor discussion. Content is content; who wrote or espouses it is immaterial. I've never had any problem confining myself to this modus operandi, no matter how many editors are involved, and it is especially useful in discussions that are contentious or potentially so. Softlavender (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dweller: Neutrally and succinctly pinging people to review something is not a content discussion per se, and therefore is perfectly acceptable as long as it isn't non-neutral canvassing in any way. Discussions about behavioral situations and ArbCom sanctions are not content discussions. Softlavender (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@TRM: You declare it's unworkable because you don't want the restriction. Your dislike of the restriction does not preclude its workability, and no matter how many editors are involved in a content discussion, there is no need to mention any of them directly or indirectly, unless you need to ping an admin to take an administrative action, or neutrally ping someone to review something. Not only is content-not-editors eminently workable, it's an actual policy. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cwmhiraeth
As the recipient of much abuse from TRM, I would say the present sanctions are not moderating his behaviour, and belittling others seems to be his habit. Gatoclass has mentioned how he stopped editing altogether after a recent altercation with TRM. Who can say how many other editors have ceased to contribute to DYK because of the barrage of disparagement showered on them by TRM, and the general hostility he contributes to on the DYK discussion page. He has stated several times that he is not interested in the DYK project, only in the integrity of the main page. Nevertheless, most of the incivility of which I am aware, has taken place on the DYK discussion page, which would be considerably more productive if he stopped contributing there altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The Rambling Man, you are mistaken, I have never been taken to AnI in connection with DYK. Your response entirely misses the point I am trying to make in my statement. It is your conduct and the results it has on others that I am concerned about. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

, When I asked a question on your Errors talk page, I had no intention of "baiting and goading" you. I was merely asking a straightforward question on the status of the 29 November batch of "errors", to which Dweller replied but you did not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has repeatedly stated that I accused him of lying. I have not done so and denied the fact here. He needs to provide a diff of the accusation if he wishes to pursue this matter because I do not intend to apologise for an accusation I have not made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that TRM has not responded to my statement of 11:19, 4 December 2018 (above). Seeing that he is unable to provide evidence of my accusing him of lying, I would request him to stop making these allegations.


 * And, for the record, having pinged him once at 20:44, 2 December 2018 (above), which seems to be the accepted way of communicating with specific people on this page, I did NOT ping him again and this comment he made is inaccurate: And now a second "ping" from the same user who has been asked numerous times to retract accusations of lying and questions over my motivations. Could Arbcom intervene here and perhaps suggest that this user be banned from contacting me until such a time that she removes the false accusations from across Wikipedia? Or is it just as simple as TRM is up for shooting down, so let's continue to harrass him using fake claims and continual pings?. What I did do was "thank" him, via the article's edit history, for one of the five edits he made to the article Freyellidae, which was shortly due to appear on the main page as a DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
We indef TRM and in doing so we have a ton of errors/issues on the Main Page, We don't indef him and he carries on doing valuable thankless work to the project and occasionally makes the odd funny comment, (I'd rather the latter!),

I honestly don't have a solution other than to simply suggest everyone stops these requests and let him carry on helping with the Main Page. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If I'm one of these supposed "groupies" then I will say this - I don't and never have came here to support TRM never, I've certainly on more than one occasion supported sanctions against him.... If I believe he's mucked up I will say so, If I think a report is horseshit and that TRM in my eyes has said or done nothing wrong then I will say so. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
I think a voluntary (but binding) page ban from WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS would be a concrete solution that could be agreed upon and would go some way to ameliorate the issue. By no means is TRM's "personally directed remarks" limited to those areas or this would solve all issues; however, by keeping his work reporting errors to WP:ERRORS2, where people who work well with him can address those issues, this would reduce friction. The other solution which does not involve blocking TRM, Newyorkbrad's suggestion that he voluntarily stop making those remarks, is not very concrete and not workable unless there's at the very least a recognition from TRM that there is a real issue.

In addition or otherwise, I'd suggest moving enforcement of the remedy to WP:ARCA; Arbcom is indeed tasked with dealing with these sort of long-running issues and in this case it may require a more hands-on approach rather than passing a remedy and leaving the work to AE admins.

(I do have to say, The Vanamonde93 clause: some admins get to junk anything they choose, with no consensus. present on the bottom of WP:ERRORS2 is quite the attack and really needs to go) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
Dear Arbcom: Let's suppose that a company was gaming the law. In response, would you advocate for vacating the legal restrictions in favor of the company agreeing to an entirely voluntary commitment to change its behavior? (This statement is being re-posted in a modified form after consulting with a clerk.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Duck test. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The C of E
I also have been on the receiving end of a lot of comments from TRM in relation to DYK like and ,. For me, I do DYK because I enjoy it but some of the comments I get from TRM about my work really stress me out and I have held back on DYK for the last few months as a result and only just started thinking about going back to it seriously.

I would also argue that the WP:TRM should not be used as a formal shadow WP:ERRORS page because it seems to me that if a hook were to get pulled based on something at WP:TRM rather than the official ERRORS page, that is not conducive to an open and accountable Wikipedia given most editors (and I count myself on this) do not watch WP:TRM and mostly would be unaware of a problem until the point at which it got pulled before they even had a chance to see what the complaint was.

I do think in light of the further and continuous comments I have been made aware of reading these, I would now think 's proposal of a voluntary non-participation on DYK might be a good idea for all.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
Having read some of the diffs TRM has made towards other editors, I am in no doubt: TRM should be banned from commenting on WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS for a minimum of 1 year, with one exception:

TRM can submit his own DYKs, and, in doing so, pr usual procedure, review one other DYK proposal. Huldra (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

People make mistakes. I am (mostly) a content creator in the I/P (Israel/Palestine) area, in my own estimates: up to about 1% of my edits contain mistakes (thankfully, I am also the person to find my own mistakes...90% of the time.) But if TRM were to concentrate just on my mistakes, then he could have a WP:ERRORS3 filled in no time.

At least one of my DYKs appeared on the front page...with completely false information. Nobody saw it. And guess what: the world didn't go under. (Read Talk:Nisf Jubeil to see the mixup between Nisf Jubeil and Khirbet Nus Jbeil)

It is especially some of the recent comments from TRM towards Vanamonde93 I find outrageous; if I (or anyone else in the IP area) had made such comment, then it would certainly have meant a certain block. If such behaviour isn't allowed (thankfully!) in the IP area, then why should it be allowed in the DYK area?

My suggested "remedy" (that TRM should only be allowed in the DYK area if he submits his own DYKs, is based on the experience that it is much easier "standing outside" criticising, than being "inside", doing the job that onlookers criticise. And TRM doesn't seem to have any great experience in submitting DYKs (at least he is not on List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs)

Statement by SMcCandlish
The TRM diffs I've looked at so far show frustration, criticism of edits, criticism of editing patterns, and criticism of judgement, not personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or presumptions of personal stupidity of incapability of competence. If people cannot tell the difference – if their judgement is being short-circuited by a confusion that "being civil" means "being sweet and complimentary" – then the entire project is in deeper trouble than I thought. The AE record above doesn't at all show that TRM is violating his restrictions, it shows that people are gaming the fact that he has vague restrictions to try to lynch him, over and over again, without success, and one particular admin seems to bring the noose.

It starts to look very vendetta- or vigilante-like (i.e. WP:INVOLVED), and matches my own historical experiences with Sandstein; I won't dwell on them since they're old news and not an active dispute of any kind, but the similarity to what compelled me to quit Wikipedia for a year is striking.

If TRM really, really is being a terrible person and an unconstructive influence, then AE without Sandstein acting as judge-jury-executioner would naturally come to that decision on its own, or if TRM's not such a bad apple, they'd hopefully start boomeranging the people who are trying to game his sanctions to hang him for things he didn't actually do. Another option is, of course, to take one of the things Sandstein suggested and just remove the sanctions. If TRM, say, had brain damage or was possessed by demonic forces, then I guess he'd go off on a terrible, unleashed rampage of attacks and get indeffed the same day. The end. Or – far more likely – things will continue as they been going, except the long litany of unclean-hands dramaboard activity. When TRM came up for desyopping on civility grounds a few years ago, I actually supported it, because there was a real civility problem at that time. I don't feel that way at all any longer, though his tone could be moderated a little further (whose couldn't?). His actions and approach genuinely have changed, even if they're not as warm and snuggly as some people would like. (I'm a curmudgeon myself, so it doesn't bother me. TRM gets stuff done.  Irritates some people, but we're not here to make e-penpals, we're here to build an encyclopedia.  This is why all the hand-wringing about cranking up the civility requirements never meets with community consensus.)

'There's a recurrent cycle here. People drag TRM to AE, Sandstein says "block one month" and a variety of others point out there's been no breach of the sanction.' – Yep. This approach doesn't seem to have changed in 6 or so years, other than the leaping-to-a-block-or-ban-without-cause thing has dropped from a year or an indef by default to a shorter time span. It's the same hangin' judge behavior, though. We don't need that at AE. All it does is encourage people to try abusing AE as some kind of vengeance slot machine. Drop another coin in and pull the lever, see if you get lucky this time, since the machine will keep letting you try over and over until you win, and this one pit boss will even give you free-spin tokens. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: If Arbs collectively reject any notion of removing the odd and conflict-generating restriction in favor of a voluntary agreement, and will only accept some kind of new restriction, I would only support the idea of a page-ban from ERRORS and WT:DYK. However, I think this should come with a proviso: a warning that anyone hounding, goading, or otherwise starting crap with him can also receive such a ban and/or from ERRORS2, and/or an interaction ban, as the incident seems to warrant. This "hunt TRM down with the hounds" crap has to end. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
In my opinion, this dispute, which seems to be over the details of a sanction, is sufficiently complex as to call for the opening of a new full evidentiary case by the ArbCom. It is agreed that The Rambling Man has strong positives and negatives, that he provides value and quality control to the highly visible ITN and DYK functions, but that he is also often uncivil. However, a sanctions regime that was meant to remind him to be more civil has evidently itself divided the community as much as uncivil editing does. The current sanction regime does not work. I suggest a full evidentiary case in order to ask several questions:
 * Have other editors been provoking The Rambling Man, and should they be sanctioned?
 * Are certain admins biased against or in favor of The Rambling Man at Arbitration Enforcement, and should they be disqualified?
 * Should the current sanctions be replaced with something else?
 * Does The Rambling Man do more good than harm at ITN and DYK, to the extent that his incivility should be tolerated?
 * Does The Rambling Man do more harm than good at ITN and DYK, to the extent that he should be topic-banned?

This dispute illustrates that a new full evidentiary hearing by the ArbCom is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
TRM's voluntary retreat from DYK looks like an amicable and workable solution. No need to open a full case for stale issues, especially seeing that TRM "did his time" already. We want sanctions to be preventative instead of punitive, so let's be mindful of double jeopardy. — JFG talk 01:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The problem is not TRM, the problem is DYK. There are determined POV-pushers who will golf around a subject to try to crowbar it onto the main page, there are vested contributors determined to have their contributions recognises, there are fringe editors pushing views they know would never make it to the main page otherwise, there are trolls and so on. There needs to be a broader discussion of DYK. The small number of gatekeepers there are burning out. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem remains DYK. That doesn't exonerate TRM as such, the issue is that very few people there are covered in glory due to hte fact that it is, well, a cesspit. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
I would like to put on the record here that, of the two reports Sandstein lists above that I closed, one was in accordance with a clear consensus of admins commenting that there was nothing worthy of action (regardless of 's opinion to the contrary - I considered further comments on the case to be only likely to increase drama levels) and the other I closed to head off a proposed arbcom case request against the filer. If anyone wants to see me as part of some cabal on that basis, I guess I can't stop them, but that's the start and the end of why I acted like I did.

I will not stand up here and defend TRM. I, like several others who have already commented here, cringe at some of his comments on others and I really wish he would change his ways. Part of the problem is that when an ARCA like this comes up, people bring up comments that indeed make me cringe and are indeed worthy of sanctions - but in the ordinary course of AE filings, the things brought to admins' attention are really not worth the time reading them. I think this is, at least in part, because the average editor who comes across TRM shrugs off his brash, abrasive comments whereas those with history, so to speak, dash to AE with the slightest (perceived) violation. And so the violations that could have been acted on go unnoticed, while the "violations" that are actually brought to AE are so ridiculous that poor fools like me have to close them to shut down the drama of an arbcom case.

To I really urge you to consider:  If you are making voluntary commitments to dial back the way you speak to others, isn't that an admission that the way you are speaking to others is not up to scratch? I for one don't suffer fools gladly and some of the people I work with will attest to it, but my experience is that telling them exactly what sort of idiot they are doesn't lead anywhere productive. What exactly is your goal here? If the goal of the way you treat people is to change their ways, I (and many others here) are here to tell you that it isn't working. If the goal of the way you treat people is to drive them off those areas of the project, then I have to side with those who say this is not the way we work here; it is fundamentally opposed to collegiality. GoldenRing (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
I'll try to be brief. I've held off commenting as I feel partly responsible for the mess that exists presently, but I fear the motion proposed creating a new mess...
 * The contested wording actually modified a suggestion I made. The original included separate reference to administrators and editors.  It may have been poorly worded on my part, but it was intended to address the fact that TRM was making comments about administrators acting in that capacity that were qualitatively different from those about editors.  This nuance was removed and I believe that contributed to the ensuing mess.
 * You do a lot of valuable work and my intention in commenting last time was to keep what you do that is helpful and to reduce the problems when you become what I see as aggressively or angrily critical. Clearly, with all the AE reports and debates that have addressed trivia, with the increasing conflict over DYK, etc, what I suggested has not worked – for you or for WP.  I want to apologise to you, what has been going on is not what I sought or imagined.  I do believe that your approach is seriously problematic at times, and I strongly disagree with some comments you make, but I don't doubt your dedication or that your intent is good.  I hope that it is still possible to salvage something workable and productive.
 * @Arbitrators: The problem here has numerous facets, including:
 * TRM's valuable contributions to quality and accuracy on the main page
 * TRM's deteriorating relationship with the DYK project and some of its contributors, which itself includes problematic behaviour from both TRM and DYK-related and other editors
 * The misuse of the AE system as a weapon against a single editor (TRM is not the only ArbCom-restricted editor who gets dragged to AE with great regularity)
 * Problems with AE itself, including its disdain for the contributions of anyone but admins and the actions of admins who are involved by any reasonable interpretation of that term, even if they manage to skirt just within the letter of WP:INVOLVED
 * Serious problems with the DYK project itself
 * To me, it appears that you are trying to address points 1 and 2 (which is good) but I perceive the approach in this discussion and in the motion does not address any of the others. Perhaps some are not in-scope for an ARCA discussion, and I accept that, but certainly you can act on part of point 4 by recognising that 's approach to TRM has been well outside the consensus admin views at AE and suggest a judgement that is not objective.  Sandstein should be asked by ArbCom to stay away from TRM AE's or to comment only outside the "uninvolved admins" section and not to take admin action on TRM; failing his accepting that, he should be declared involved (in the WP:INVOLVED sense) by ArbCom.  Sandstein's contribution to TRM and AE reports on him have not been advancing discussions towards sensible consensus-based outcomes (I know that AE is not based on consensus).  If he wants to comment, that's fine, but seeing himself as impartial and uninvolved when so many others see it otherwise is unhelpful and ArbCom can and should act to address this aspect of the problem.


 * On the proposed remedy 9: ... topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As exemptions from this topic ban, The Rambling Man may edit User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page, and may edit articles linked in DYK hooks or captions. I see potential problems:
 * Is TRM allowed to edit the queues? I think he should be.  Noting problems, suggesting copy edits, correcting errors through his user space page is needless complication in the case of non-controversial changes.  Further, knowing of problems but not noting / acting on them until they reach the main page is not beneficial to readers nor would it reduce conflict.
 * Though he likely doesn't want to continue, TRM has been a contributor to DYK and should be allowed to nominate his own hooks and carry out reviews (so long as they remain strictly focused on the article).
 * If TRM cannot make edits about DYK with his errors as an exemption, are there any limits on what he can post about DYK at his errors? Should he ping editors if he sees a problem in a review / hook being discussed at WT:DYK?  Are DYK editors needing to follow his errors page?  What about discussions at admin boards or other places about DYK reform?  Is he allowed to comment at (say) ITN/C that a candidate is ineligible as having previously appeared at DYK?  What if he posts at his errors with comments that are highly critical of individual editors?  What about comments on general editors?  For example, I agree with TRM that the QPQ system is problematic and has produced some inadequate reviews, and I have advocated that poor reviews should not be usable for QPQ until issues are addressed or a suitable additional review is completed.  However, I disagree with general comments that he has made stating or implying that all reviews are inadequate.  I take some pride in the fact that (to my knowledge) no hook I have reviewed has been pulled or needed significant change because I take the time to do thorough reviews, and I am disappointed that other reviewers do not always take similar care in their work.  I don't want to make the proposed remedy overly complicated but I do think it needs some editing.  Maybe something like:
 * Clarify that I meant prep areas rather than the protected queues, as noted by Vanamonde93. Further clarifying, I recognise "uncontroversial" is subjective, but my intent here was: TRM can make changes that he sees as unobjectionable, etc. If they turn out to be objected to (that is, are reverted), then he can't make further changes to that hook but can comment at his errors, and others can make changes if they find his argument persuasive.  No need for TRM to get into discussion over the issue with anyone who doesn't choose to engage with him at his page. EdChem (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to preclude any mention of editors, but rather to keep the focus on the article / hook issues. EdChem (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Strike and ce end to further clarify that editor comment is allowed consistent with focus on article content, hook accuracy, errors, etc., and within the remedy 4 bounds (since those are clearly going to be kept). In other words, a long comment with editor focus on DYK process and not a specific error / article issue would still be unacceptable. EdChem (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarify that I meant prep areas rather than the protected queues, as noted by Vanamonde93. Further clarifying, I recognise "uncontroversial" is subjective, but my intent here was: TRM can make changes that he sees as unobjectionable, etc. If they turn out to be objected to (that is, are reverted), then he can't make further changes to that hook but can comment at his errors, and others can make changes if they find his argument persuasive.  No need for TRM to get into discussion over the issue with anyone who doesn't choose to engage with him at his page. EdChem (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to preclude any mention of editors, but rather to keep the focus on the article / hook issues. EdChem (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Strike and ce end to further clarify that editor comment is allowed consistent with focus on article content, hook accuracy, errors, etc., and within the remedy 4 bounds (since those are clearly going to be kept). In other words, a long comment with editor focus on DYK process and not a specific error / article issue would still be unacceptable. EdChem (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to preclude any mention of editors, but rather to keep the focus on the article / hook issues. EdChem (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Strike and ce end to further clarify that editor comment is allowed consistent with focus on article content, hook accuracy, errors, etc., and within the remedy 4 bounds (since those are clearly going to be kept). In other words, a long comment with editor focus on DYK process and not a specific error / article issue would still be unacceptable. EdChem (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is just a suggestion and likely needs wordsmithing and to take into account thoughts of others (including from TRM), but I think it more clearly defines what is and is not acceptable. Thoughts?  EdChem (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Replies
 * First, thanks to those who have commented and given thought to what I wrote - that is nice to see. :)
 * , I'm glad you see my suggestions as positive / helpful. Perhaps some of the ambiguities will be clarified / addressed... though perhaps not...  Regarding my comment that you have made general comments that he has made stating or implying that all reviews are inadequate, the last thing I want to do is go searching for diffs, and I recognise that my recollection / perception may be inaccurate.  However, it is my impression both from times I have been editing and times when I've monitored quietly that your implied and even expressed view is that basically all DYK reviewing is poor / sub-standard / shit / pick whatever term.  Now, I am not suggesting that you have used the word "shit" nor that you hold that view, but I am saying that is the impression I've had at times and I believe it is one reason that your comments sometimes provoke strong responses.  I almost anticipate that a post from you about DYK will be critical or worse and at times overstated.  I doubt I am the only one at DYK who sees your name and feels defensive and  puts up shields anticipating a need for self-protection, and though I try to be objective when I read what you write, it can be a challenge.  I suspect that you have a similar response when Sandstein comments on you at AE.  I want high quality, I think the QPQ system causes problems, and I've seen some truly poor / inadequate / pathetic reviews.  I try to always accept and act on criticism / critique, especially when I see it as fair / accurate / justified... and yet, I feel that you have made comments that imply my participation in DYK means that I am not seeking quality or acting to pursue it.  It may be that there is no diff I could point to that supports my feelings, yet the totality of your contribution leaves me believing / sensing that your view is perhaps harsher than is accurate.  I want you to be able to work on quality and accuracy and yet the situation as it stands is a huge mess.  I hope there is a productive way forward, and I truly hope that you can moderate your approach enough to be able to work with those who agree with your goals (but not your methods) and without any draconian action being taken.
 * , my thinking behind the Freely discuss DYK-related topics on his user talk page bit was that it's worth having somewhere where TRM can contribute thoughts / ideas on improving DYK or offer advice to those seeking it, etc, without having to artifically try and cram it into an "error" or take it off-wiki. I included that it be initiated by another editor so it doesn't allow (say) a "DYK sucks" banner across the page, and yes he could comment on editors but those comments would still be subject to remedy 4.  I think extending some trust that TRM has good intentions and can make useful comments / suggestions is worthwhile, while avoiding such comments at WT:DYK.  No one has to watch / contribute to his user talk page.  Maybe it's a bad idea... maybe it's not something ArbCom would consider... but I consider it a worthwhile suggestion.
 * , regarding The idea being that he can post his findings in a place that people can self-select into (or out of) - that seems to have worked fairly well so far, if TRM can't edit preps then this is going to be more difficult. I have clarified what I meant about "uncontroversial" and how I suggest could work.  Do you see that approach as reasonable / workable?
 * Also, I'm not seeking credit for the original proposal, I'm actually embarrassed that the idea resulted in such a mess, but I do disagree that the distinction was an accurate one. Back at that time, TRM was making comments about admins and use of the tools etc that was qualitatively different from his comments about reviewing and non-admin editors.  My proposal was based on my perceptions of problem areas and the changes broadened the scope to something where some AE admins could see violations in comments that were not what I saw as needing prevention.  Nonetheless, we are here now and as I am not Colin Raston, I can't unboil an egg, so we can only move forward.
 * Regarding and your comment that having an opinion about strong sanctions is not "involvement", nor is sharing that opinion on multiple occasions, nor is continuing to hold an opinion after learning that some others disagree: having a strong opinion on an editor such that a strong sanction is the default response and lens through which any AE request is viewed may not meet the definition of WP:INVOLVED, but it is a bias that interferes with objectivity.  I recall episode 2 of Blackadder Goes Forth when General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, VC KCB, acting as the judge at a court martial, begins by asking for his black cap, stating that he's "going to need that later on".  It is my feeling / view / opinion that Sandstein's approach to TRM at AE suffers from a similar preformed view that is inconsistent with the objectivity that I expect of a genuinely uninvolved admin.  I know I take a different view on involvedness from some, and also on recusal, which some arbitrators clearly disagree with.  However, if I see TRM at AE, I anticipate a call for a long block from Sandstein without even reading the complaint.  If TRM is blocked by Sandstein, I doubt I'll be alone in having immediate concerns about fairness and objectivity.  ArbCom can choose to do something about this, or not... but it is worth considering that rather than we need to move on from this, maybe the editors with concerns about Sandstein are due some respect and consideration for our views?
 * , regarding Any sanction that includes a requirement for subjective judgements by admins (such as "uncontroversial") and will likely not be effective and suffer similar issues to remedy 4. A sanction that includes a requirement to comment only on content rather than editors is effectively strengthening remedy 4 (even if only some areas): I have clarified (or tried to) my intent on "uncontroversial".  I didn't mean it to be a new subjective standard for admins, which I agree would create more mess, but more of a guide for TRM.  If he thinks a hook change would be controversial, raise it at TRM errors.  If not, change it in the prep, and if it is reverted (ie. it proves to be controversial), TRM may not change it again but can raise it at his errors and see if others are persuaded to act on it.  I also did not intend a tightening to comment only on articles, but rather to focus on articles / hooks rather than editors with any comment on the latter needing to comply with remedy 4.  EdChem (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , re your recent comment, I did not expect ArbCom would pick up my suggestions in their entirety and I'm glad to see some feedback, but I admit I'm disappointed that nothing I've said seems to have influenced their thinking or actions at all. After the feedback from  and  at my user talk page and comments made by editors here, I thought my efforts would result in some substantive change / modification of the motion, even if only to close loopholes or to move in directions or ways other than those I suggested.  If this motion is passed as is, there is no doubt there will be further problems.  :(  EdChem (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , just for the record (so to speak), I am not setting up anything. Rather, I am offering suggestions / thoughts which (it appears to me) are going to have no effect on ArbCom whatsoever.  I don't want or mean to defend TRM's behaviour, which has certainly been problematic at times, offensive and overly-personal at times, and certainly not a model for others.  I want him to change his approach and manner, and have asked him to consider that in earlier comments.  Perhaps the topic restriction approach is best, I don't know, but I fear it will lead to further disputes in short order.  If, as it presently appears, TRM cannot edit preps, then the chance for errors / issues reaching the main page before being addressed is increased.  That serves none of us – not the readers, not the DYK project or its editors, not reducing further conflict over the future of the project and its reputation for problems, not TRM, not ArbCom in dealing with further appeals / clarification / whatever.  My suggestion would allow TRM to make corrections and in the event that anything is reverted, he could only post at his errors and leave action to others who are persuaded and willing to take responsibility.  I think that is sensible, but I have zero ability to implement anything.  I think discussion of DYK is warranted, though here is not the place (as you note), and I think what is needed is approaches to the problem areas rather than taking an editor-focused approach.  As for the benefits of my approach, I think treating TRM as an adult is more likely to be effective than setting up a system where he can be dragged to AE and treated as a naughty child for mildly-harsh-but-not-worth-acting-on comments.  I think preventing him nominating articles when that is not where the problems have been (and nor have his own reviews been problematic, as far as I am aware) is silly.  In any case, thanks for your reply and thoughts.  I have no problem with disagreement and editors having different views, nor is there any way to know if my suggestions / ideas are better or worse than anyone else's.  The problem here is difficult and I don't envy ArbCom for the challenge in acting in this case.  I just am frustrated to see an approach that I believe does not address everything that needs consideration.  I hope that I am wrong and this ends the problems.  EdChem (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , your post at WT:DYK is pretty obviously a reference to TRM, even if you also had other critics in mind as well. That thread was started by an IP who I am assuming is TRM (I have no proof, just a strong impression based on the comments), which (to me) strengthens the impression that you were writing about TRM.  TRM's post      , I wasn't aware that Crisco 1492 had retired until Maile's post.  Your edit warring   over your comments following Crisco's retirement was crass, as were the edit summaries, and your post to Maile falls into the same category.  Given comments from Crisco suggesting his departure was (even if only in part) connected to comments from you is not a false accusation, it's a difference of opinion.  I strongly advise you not attempt action against Maile66 as I think it would not end well.  EdChem (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)    Addendum:  I see that Crisco's departure was related to many factors and I don't think it was caused by TRM, but it does appear that a disagreement with TRM was one of the many factors.  EdChem (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I note your comment that Personally, I think TRM is more likely to be declared "DYKer of the week" than he is to sock. If you would like to open an investigation, you know where to go to. If you're not going to do that, you need to stop making unfounded accusations and you really ought to strike your comments and apologise, though I won't hold my breath. I know you addressed them to Maile66 (who has [ struck] the comment), but I see it applies to me too.  For the record, I struck and clarified as seen above and then posted a direct apology to TRM before I saw your post.  I mention this to emphasise that I agree that my poor choice of words and unintended accusation needed to be refactored and I acted on that as soon as I saw TRM's denial and recognised that my post allowed a reasonable interpretation that I did not intend.  I do not think that TRM would sock, I thought the IP comments in that thread were a case of accidentally-logged-out editing.  It did not occur to me that my comment suggested a WP:SOCK violation as I don't consider TRM to be at all the socking type, which was careless of me especially given the venue and audience here at ARCA.  EdChem (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ArbCom, I note Dweller's words relayed from TRM and TRM's personal circumstances. I regret that I have added to his distress and that my participation here, even if only by a small amount, is drawing out the process – and I apologise for that.  I will not post here further on this subject unless specifically asked.  I urge that this clarification / appeal and the motion be resolved as a matter of urgency, simply to put an end to this source of stress / pressure on TRM.  We have all been through grief and many of us have had to work on funeral preparations, and we can relate to the stress, distress, and emotional toll they take.  Please, will you resolve this quickly for TRM's sake?  Thank you.  EdChem (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23
I suggest a simpler and more readable punctuation in the second sentence of the first amendment:

If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block or other sanction is warranted, a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I just want to comment on the part that blocking TRM for more than 48 hours now requires an ARCA action. Why is TRM so special and so different than all the other Wiki editors who don't get this special treatment? If TRM is blocked for more than 48 hours and he feels it's too long, he can request an unblock, same as all the others. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66
I had no idea this was happening over here, until I got this from TRM on my talk page. It is a threat. He is responding to my post at WT:DYK which did not mention him. my DYK post For the record, I did not mention TRM in that post, as admins get flack at DYK all the time from various editors. I'm not interested in responding to anything TRM posts, because my time is better spent on more positive issues. Nor did I know he was responsible for anything regarding Crisco 1492. All I knew is what is on Crisco 1492's talk page. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * Re the comments from that the IP postings at WT:DYK are possibly "That thread was started by an IP who I am assuming is TRM (I have no proof, just a strong impression based on the comments)", this is not the first time an IP in that range has posted such messages on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS.  From my perspective, the previous IP postings did seem like The Rambling Man in content, sentiments and manner of expression. It wasn't worth it to me personally to pursue the matter, but what about ArbCom? Wouldn't that be socking?  If so, don't we normally block people who sock to avoid restrictions? Am I wrong to assume that ArbCom knows whether or not that IP range is TRM?  Or CheckUser? — Maile  (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * More
 * On my talk page just now. I have deleted it. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I am not the one on this arb case who said that specific IP was TRM. It was TRM's message on my talk page that alluded to my making that accusation at DYK, which I did not. That was EdChem here who assumed that IP was TRM, and he backed off on it.  I have NEVER said that specific IP could be TRM, not here, not on DYK. That was all somebody else's assumption of what I had written on DYK ... in which I never, but never, indicated I thought the IP was TRM. That's all an assumption of my intent by others. I do miss Crisco 1492, as he was one of the best contributors at DYK. I did not know why he threw in the towel.  I just went back and read his talk page, and there is some mention of TRM way down on the page, but it still doesn't read to me like TRM was the reason he left. So, I did not make the assumption I am being accused of, and I'm getting pretty tired of this. — Maile  (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by IP
I will just say here as well that i am utterly disgusted by the notion that i am somehow a sock of TRM, or anyone else for that matter. Please check whatever you need to check if you have not done so already. I have commented at DYK for quite a while now and all of a sudden i am a sock? That sudden bad faith assumption really is uncalled for. Utterly disgusted by it and hope a apology to both me and TRM is forthcoming. Hope no one minds that i post here, but this really is uncalled for. 37.138.75.30 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and i also posted to TRM's talkpage here earlier before i voiced my disgust about the bad faith assumption on Mailes talk page this evening. So again, do what you have to to resolve this pathetic situation about the sock allegation quickly. 37.138.75.30 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "I have NEVER said that specific IP could be TRM" And what did you mean by this Maile? "...this is not the first time an IP in that range has posted such messages on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. From my perspective, the previous IP postings did seem like The Rambling Man in content, sentiments and manner of expression. It wasn't worth it to me personally to pursue the matter, but what about ArbCom?" Is this not accusing me, or at least very strongly insinuating, of being a sock? So yes, you most certainly said that, on this page even. This is just getting more and more pathetic. And then people ask my why i don't want to make an account... 37.138.75.30 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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



The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion
Now, having looked at the remedy in question, especially the part about speculating regarding general competence, I can absolutely see why there have been so many AE requests. The diffs provided in those AE request include a fair amount of obvious (to me) speculation regarding general competence - though the word TRM uses liberally is "experience". Semantically different, yes, but the end result is the same. This begs the question - why hasn't the AE requests been acted upon. I don't agree with the idea of a small cadre of supporters, because there is a large variety of users who have pointed out that action need not been taken, including numerous ones I would not consider to just defend friends. I also don't buy the idea that people are scared to act - that's the point of AE and those who spend much time there act on very difficult cases all the time. Simply, I think it goes back to my post before the weekend, that when put in context, incivility often stems from frustration at behaviours which are worse than the incivility. That brings us back to what to do next. This current wording is clearly not working, so we should vacate that. That leaves us with a few options, a) put in nothing enforceable but get some agreement from TRM and hope for the best, b) throw our arms up and ban TRM (noting many of these issues are around the main page and therefore there is a possibility of a targetted ban - even with his 90% hit rate), or ... c) something else. As yet, I'm not seeing a lot of "something else" and I see benefits and down sides to both a) and b). I'll keep thinking and reading for the moment, but if anyone has a c), please do shout! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Civility is one of the most difficult points of Wikipedia, I don't think anyone disagrees that instances of incivility are easy to point out and while I haven't yet reviewed the AE requests (which I'll do over the next few days) I am unsurprised that a "civility restriction" hasn't worked. They historically been unenforceable as incivility is a reaction to other frustrating behaviours. I'm not saying it's the right reaction, but it's hard to sanction someone for being rude, when the reason they were rude is apparent and often worse than the rudeness. I'll await statements from those involved and the rest of the community and reply further after the weekend. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that I'm happy for this request to remain longer than usual and thank TRM for agreeing to progress. Off wiki matters should always come first, this is just a website.
 * Regarding the "casting aspersions", we do regularly let things slide on this and other arbcom pages because we know that by the time we get to here people are frustrated and have explanations. Whilst I don't agree with BU Rob13's explanation of why this has perpetuated (and have stated so above) I'm not seeing anything so egregious which needs to be dealt with here. Regarding Sandstein, I also don't see that he's lost faith of the community. He may be advocating for long blocks, but they do fall as an option within the scope of the remedy and like it or not, it would be a solution to the problem. Again, there are excellent editors on both sides of this issue, everyone is working towards improving the encyclopedia - our current remedy is failing and we're looking to move forward. Let's not call for heads, I don't think we have enough baskets. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be looking for drama to distract from the issue. I'm happy to say that I disagree with Rob's assessment, indeed I have done so. That's enough in my opinion. You know as well as I that I do not make public admonishments lightly - I don't like to make a public song and dance about things I feel to be an issue. I'm surprised that you are trying to change that. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I started my comments by pointing out why civility is so hard to manage on Wikipedia. TRM is not the first, nor will he be the last, editor who will exemplify the issues - a valuable contributor who is passionate about the content and can become frustrated by the what he sees. Is what he says problematic? Yes. When put in context, is it more problematic than the other behaviour? No. This is why "gotchas" don't work, and civility remedies are a gotcha. I do agree that there are diverse opinions on the committee and that's a GOOD THINGTM because there are diverse opinions in the community. If we can find a solution that the committee is happy with, in spite of the diverse opinions, then we have a good chance of finding something the community will be happy with. That's how Arbcom works. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, this has gone on far too long, and I'd like to extend my apologies to The Rambling Man for this just sitting here. The problem is that we're stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place - TRM's past "gentlemen's agreement" did work, but only temporarily - if we were to remove all sanctions and go back to that, isn't it likely that we'll just be kicking the can down the road? With no enforcement options, we may simply end up with yet another TRM case, and I don't believe that's good for anyone. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of just tweaking the sanctions and hoping for the best, nor do I like the idea of something draconian. The community cannot come to a consensus on the matter, the admins at AE cannot come to consensus. I don't believe that we could craft a remedy that fixes the problem gracefully - so perhaps the best option is to kick the question of what to do up to the committee when the community cannot make a decision. We are considering options, and hopefully we won't take too much longer. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll echo what Worm said, and I'd be especially interested in statements which suggest alternative options (different wordings, enforcement methods or otherwise). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline - the restriction is/was a mechanism to encourage The Rambling Man to be more civil in interaction with other editors. The history of its enforcement at AE indicates a substantial proportion of participating editors and admins don't consider his comments over recent months to be uncivil, at least not to the point of requiring any action. Playing around with the remedy wording isn't going to change that; and repealing the remedy simply pushes this conversation from AE back to Case Requests. The best course, if anyone feels The Rambling Man is uncivil in communicating with others, is to get a consensus for this point of view at AE and enforce the remedy already in place. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man says on their userpage that they're attending to a family bereavement. Suggest we pause discussion of this ARCA for a little bit until they return. World won't end if it's delayed a few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, as I recall I'm the author of the current wording, so you can all aim your torches and pitchforks in my direction (orderly line, please). Thinking out loud for a bit:
 * The idea that everyone is too scared to enforce the restriction leads straight down the same path that led to the AE2 case, and we already know that goes nowhere good, so let's not do that. AE admins are sort of by definition not wimps.
 * 331dot has a good point that the underlying premise to a lot of these comments is that obviously TRM should have been blocked more, therefore his lack of blocks is evidence that the restriction is failing. Of course, an alternative explanation is that people didn't think he needed to be blocked. Still, there is clearly a problem somewhere - that's an awful lot of AE requests, and from enough different filers that it's hard to make a "they're all out to get me" case.
 * Sandstein comments on a lot of AE requests, so the fact that he appears in a lot of the TRM-related requests doesn't seem particularly significant.
 * "Arbcom is unwilling to do anything about errors on the main page" - arbcom is unable to do anything about errors on the main page. If there's a user-conduct issue related to main-page errors (or DYK, or whatever) and it goes beyond TRM, well, I hate to be all bureaucratic pettifogging but you're in the wrong place; down the hall, to the right, please file Form 2b sections 5-12 in triplicate here.
 * I've written a lot of tediously long posts about problems in how we define and manage "incivility", especially in the context of expressions of frustration by people working on content. Despite the bullet point above, it's pretty clear that a lot of this is coming from frustration over highly visible poor content. On the other hand, if I had to make a list of the most unpleasant behavior patterns on Wikipedia, this kind of self-righteous, me-against-the-world, everything-would-fall-apart-without-me, Defender of the Wiki business would be right up there. Last time around I called it "really goddamn annoying", and on review I think I understated the case. I think if WP:CIVIL had somewhere along the line been replaced with WP:HUMBLE, a lot of problematic social dynamics might have been mitigated. (Yes, I appreciate the irony of advocating for more humility while writing seven billion bytes of text about my obviously very important opinion ;)
 * Regardless of what else happens, I think Johnuniq's suggestion about non-"escalating" blocks has merit. I never liked that provision and actually thought it didn't apply in this case (but now that I look I was thinking of another case). I think it's a perverse incentive that prevents blocks from being used effectively, and I said the same about AE2, and probably AE1 before that, so it's hardly a TRM-specific view. I don't have a good feeling about power~enwiki's suggestion, because that turns the problem back into generic "incivility", and the whole point of the current wording (and indeed, the original wording from the case) was to be more specific about the nature of the problem. Any other ideas? Having been on the other side of this dynamic a few times, with people I enjoyed collaborating with, who were prickly on-wiki but reasonable in private, I would've thought I'd have a better idea of what to do about it, but it turns out that it's harder than it looks. "TRM is required to remove all adjectives and adverbs from his posts"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A few of your links are broken; I think you meant: 25 January 2018 and 20 June 2018. I looked through the past AE cases; arguably my opinion as the author is no more relevant than anyone's, but: I agree with Sandstein that the 5 March 2017 report was actionable (but think the reduced block length made more sense); frankly I think the 5 January 2018 report was actionable too (again, block for a few days); the 31 May 2018 report was borderline; and the first diff of the most recent report is a perfect bullseye on what TRM is not supposed to be doing. What's gone surprisingly underappreciated in all this is the fact that being acerbic to the point that people stop working on the project (and thus stop helping to fix errors) is obviously counterproductive to TRM's stated aims. I'm personally interested in that - TRM, you say your goal is to make the main page better; why do you keep doing things that directly undermine your own goals by making people less likely to work with you? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to ping you, so you might have missed the above - which I really do mean as an actual question, not as a rhetorical point. You've gotten a lot of feedback about why your "the beatings will continue until morale improves" style of reporting potential errors is counterproductive to your goal of reducing the number of errors. What if anything do you plan to change about your approach to better meet that goal? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM: OK, but you also said you'd reduce the harshness of your tone, and yet you've continued to post harsh comments on this page. Even in your response to my question you take an unnecessary sideswipe at the DYK project and then point fingers at unnamed other people. I'm sure you see why that makes serious consideration of a voluntary agreement as an alternative to this restriction difficult. My personal view hasn't changed much since the original case, or from the last request that resulted in the current sanction wording - I think you should spend much less of your wikitime on criticizing others, and ideally should completely take a break from the question of what's on the main page unless it's an article you wrote yourself. Wikipedia is much more peaceful and less stress-inducing when you're working at your own pace and not on something that has frequent time pressures, which would make anyone snappy to do for too long. My view-with-the-arb-hat-on is that I think we're going to have to do something else about all of these highly personalized negative comments. The "competence" wording was intended originally to be very focused on a particular pattern of unpleasant interactions, but on review it seems that it's only resulted in new unpleasant patterns forming. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Real life and family must come first. I would rather have a thorough discussion about the issues and review potential changes than sweep this under the rug, so I am willing to keep this open for a bit longer than normal. If TRM is willing to make a commitment to "reducing the harshness of [their] tone" under certain conditions, I would be at least interest to hear what those would be and if they are compatible with the community's expectations on civility and conflict resolution. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In your offer to moderate your tone down, you also expressed there was "little purpose in doing" so under the current sanctions. I was responding to your point and asking you what might improve the situation. If you are willing to make a sustained commitment and proves to address the issue, then a civility sanction in any form may no longer be required. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Broadly, AE outcomes where there was a consensus are not the problem here; the problem is when there is no consensus at AE. A no consensus AE outcome for this sanction might not be suitable. In such a situation, it may need to go before ArbCom for a decision on whether the sanction was violated or not. I am not really seeing a lot of alternative wording that would definitively fix the core issue and if the community is having difficulty in deciding, then this is really a last resort option, but it does put the responsibility on ArbCom. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I am simply saying requiring our involvement should only be reserved as a measure of last resort. My first preference would always be to find a way for the community to be able to resolve these issues first. Which is why I discussed the option about vacating the sanction. Not that any punishment would be severe. I copy edited it out for clarity because even though I said "severe option", meaning requiring ArbCom review and taking it out of the hands of the community, I was concerned it would be interpreted as "severe outcome". I have only interacted with TRM as an arbitrator with no prior interactions that I can recall. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 13:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Given TRM's current family situation I also would be fine with leaving this open longer if needed. Reading his comments above, if he is willing to moderate his tone, I would want to know in what way, and where this would be applied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm also not in a rush. I like Newyorkbrad's suggestion. Doug Weller  talk 19:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Echoing everyone else that I am not in a rush here - real life trumps the internet every time. That being said, the current situation appears untenable to me. We can't keep changing the wording of the sanction hoping to arrive at something that will produce consensus every time, because unless we draw some absolutely draconian bright lines, there will always be problems with subjectivity leading to a lack of consensus over what constitutes a violation. I think we need a different approach, although I admit I don't have any incredibly radical ideas.If The Rambling Man is willing to voluntarily agree to moderate his tone again, I would be willing to look into suspending or even vacating the sanction. As NYB pointed out, a voluntary change was reasonably successful in the past, so I don't see what we have to lose by trying it again. As a distant second option, we could consider turning over decision-making about enforcing this sanction directly to ArbCom as Mkdw suggests, but I honestly think a voluntary change would be far more effective. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , 99% of the time I would agree fully, but the situation is basically a stalemate and it seems like a voluntary agreement might be a viable option where a sanction clearly has not effected the desired change. If we have to suspend the sanction to get TRM to agree to stop being hostile when frustrated, and it effects the desired change in behavior, then I'm fine with that. And if it doesn't, then no one can say we didn't provide the opportunity. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , see my comment to Rob, above: it's less about being held hostage and more about getting the behavior to stop. If TRM is willing to agree to conduct himself professionally and the change sticks, suspending or lifting the sanction is something I'm willing to look at. It's certainly not the only solution I will consider, but again, I don't see a lot of workable options for getting this to stop. A targeted TBAN for main page-related activities has been suggested, but I suspect that would result in the abrasiveness simply being moved to another area, rather than done away with entirely. Softlavender's proposal is interesting but has some issues with over-restriction of non-problematic behavior, which is something I'd prefer to avoid. Maybe it could be amended to say that TRM must refrain from mentioning editors when criticizing edits or content, but I feel like the definition of "criticizing" would be problematic to enforce in the same way that speculating on competence has been problematic to enforce. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I rarely comment about AE, because I find the proces so often unsatisfactory. But I'm making an exception, because the history of this shows why. Talking only generally:   It does work when there is general agreement among admins about what actions violate the remedy, and what level of sanction is appropriate. But when there is disagreement--even if that disagreement involves only one or two admins among those who concern themselves with the matter--there can be effective stalemate. Any one admin who refuses to enforce a sanction, or who does enforce one, can force  the discussion to escalate. The challenge is to find sanctions that clever determined people cannot game, and considering the actual people involved, we have not always been able to do that. Sometimes, the only way is a topic ban or a ban, which can cause us to lose a critical individual--there are areas in WP where one person does seem irreplaceable. All we have is our threat of doing this regardless of the apparent damage to the content of the encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Motion
The Arbitration Committee resolves that the following amendments are made to the The Rambling Man arbitration case:

Enacted --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) The best solution we could find.  DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comments below, while this isn't a perfect solution it is, currently, the least restrictive option I have confidence may work. Also as I said below, these sanctions do place some trust in TRM, primarily that he won't attempt to 'game' the TBAN. I sincerely hope that this trust is well placed and that further strengthening of the sanctions won't be needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that I still support the current version with OR's amendment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support this, and any reasonable modification/clarification with the same effect of telling TRM to do to DYK what he's doing to ERRORS and confine himself to posting in his own userspace or editing articles directly. The idea being that he can post his findings in a place that people can self-select into (or out of) - that seems to have worked fairly well so far, so if it continues to work and problems come up elsewhere then it could be extended to other processes as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One last thing before wrapping up: added a tweak of the existing wording to remove the word "general" from "general competence", as it seems to be the prevailing view that this doesn't add anything except ambiguity. I raised this on the mailing list earlier while off-wiki, but to make sure everyone sees, pinging current voters: . While I appreciate that he'd like to move on, also pinging so he's aware. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not perfect, but nothing will be I think. Hopefully this shows TRM we do have trust in him, and hopefully this will mitigate this issue to a low simmer rather than a raging boil. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm quite fine with the modification made by OR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm willing to try this out, but like OR I'm open to modifying if necessary. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically noting I support the current version as written, including the change by OR to remove "general". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I appreciate the comments by community members, especially EdChem, and have been thinking about this. Overall, I'm less keen on very wordy arbcom motions, prescribing every situation. I believe that this gets the main idea down, and leaves ARCA available for when it doesn't work, which as with everything, I expect there will be situations where it won't. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that I'm happy with the change and happy with the motion as present. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm a bit concerned about the time element but I think this is worth trying, and I like the appeal clause. Doug Weller  talk 17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) After reading comments from the community, including TRM and EdChem, I think we need to move ahead. I am not certain if these will work, but I think we need to try. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred trying the above changes first before imposing another new elements, but I won't hold up the motion. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Per OR. I agree with Mkdw that we need to move ahead. Katietalk 19:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator comments/discussion
 * The TBAN in this motion only applies to DYK, so TRM would be able to continue commenting on other areas related to ERRORS. I think this is a way for us to balance the positives that TRM has demonstrated he can apply in this error with the issues which have been occurring primarily to do with DYK. While I realise that people have pointed to possible issues on other pages, DYK appears to be where most of the problems are occurring. The prohibition remains in force too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added exemptions for these two. "Hooks or captions" covers it doesn't it? doCallanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've cleared up the wording of the exemptions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for this process taking so long. Before making a decision, I would like to review some of the community's feedback though I would like to see this wrapped up within the next few days. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since TRM has voluntarily offered to recuse from the DYK project space, I have no concerns about them continuing to work at ERRORS2 to correct issues related to DYK and making uncontroversial edits in the prep areas. 's list of exemptions are too extensive to the point where there is almost nothing restricted; in the DYK space would allow nominations, reviewing, copy editing, and dispute resolution (which would have to include talk page discussions). At that point, it would be better to simply write a new restriction about ERRORS and civility. I am not supportive of further complicated civility restrictions as enforcement has been an issue and TRM has already made a pledge with respect to civility. I wonder if Remedy 9 should be amended to be a topic ban from 'the DYK project space' instead. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , "the best solution we could find" does not necessarily mean the optimal solution. or even the best solution some other group would have been able to find DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The DYK TBAN is designed to remove TRM from the DYK process with the exception of the page in his userspace. That exemption is there solely so that TRM can edit that page without needing to completely avoid any mention of DYK. In addition, editors can look at that page if they wish, whereas ERRORS is much more visible and centralised. The other exemption is so that TRM doesn't need to cross-check every article he wishes to edit against nominations at DYK. It still does not allow him to discuss these on the talk page of the article in question or edit the any project space page related to DYK. Of course, remedy 4 is still in place and any ambiguities in how the Committee wants that enforced will be relatively quickly determined as requests are referred to ARCA. Regarding the suggestions from EdChem that I haven't yet touched on, nominating an article comes with the need to do a review (or comment on another review). Any sanction that includes a requirement for subjective judgements by admins (such as "uncontroversial") and will likely not be effective and suffer similar issues to remedy 4. A sanction that includes a requirement to comment only on content rather than editors is effectively strengthening remedy 4 (even if only some areas). That's something I believe that the Committee will consider in the future should these two sanctions prove ineffective, but I'd like to give two options a chance to work before we take more robust action. If TRM attempts to 'game' this TBAN by modifying his userspace page to make it broader than WP:ERRORS so that he can talk about more than just promoted hooks, I would be very inclined to propose an amendment to the TBAN removing that exemption and/or otherwise strengthening TRM's sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! If you have evidence of that occurring you're welcome to report it here and we can take a look if any action is needed (even if just a "don't do that again"). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'd forgotten about that; apologies for stealing 'credit' (if you really want it ;) I sort of disagree with what you describe as a lost nuance, though; I don't like the idea of differentiating between admins and others, and I don't think there's been a lot of difference between the way TRM treats admins compared to others anyway. As for the various people who have raised questions about Sandstein's involvement: I just don't see it. Without intending any criticism, it'd be fair to say he and I occupy very different points on the spectrum of approaches to sanctions in general, so if anything I'd expect to be biased toward supporting this view - but having an opinion about strong sanctions is not "involvement", nor is sharing that opinion on multiple occasions, nor is continuing to hold an opinion after learning that some others disagree. Without evidence from anything other than participating in AE filings, I think we need to move on from this.  It's unfortunate this went on so long, but by bad luck a lot of other drama fires happened to ignite around the same time. To the extent that people think that are broader problems - several people have mentioned interactions at DYK - that's out of scope for an ARCA about TRM; you'd want to be looking at a new case request if there are continuing problems there and efforts at community resolution haven't helped. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was kidding about credit :) but thanks for your thoughtful input, on multiple occasions (I think we all propose something that doesn't work out the way we'd hoped every so often). Unfortunately I think your proposal as written is too complex - in fact I think the motion we're voting on now is about as complex a restriction as I'd support on anyone. It's not that your proposal didn't have an influence - it did affect people's thinking, no doubt - but in a setting where we already had problems with ambiguity and differing interpretations, I think we need to keep it (OK, I know, relatively) simple. (BTW, for all his faults, I do not think TRM would intentionally edit logged out.)  and others - yes, this is optimistic, in a way. A lot of people, TRM and myself both included, really hate being told what to do, and will thumb their noses at whatever authority figures attempt to boss them around. In cases like that it's usually better to use less strict constraints and offer more room for judgment - the harder you hold on, the more sand slips through your fingers, and all that. But that being said, I expect that kind of vitriol to be directed at the authorities doing the bossing-around - arbs volunteered for a job that comes with the occupational hazard of being accused of various misdeeds, incompetence, corruption, power-mongering, score-settling, political gamesmanship, etc etc etc. The people updating the fun-facts boxes on a web page did not volunteer to be the targets of that kind of behavior, and it needs to stop. This is all kind of a long lead-in to say:, this post is disappointing and frankly depressing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the case that "competence" line has to do with civility per se. It's a topic ban. TRM can go around all day talking about how someone's userpage is ugly and their haircut is awful and their father smelt of elderberries and not get blocked (as an AE block, anyway). What he can't do is reflect on specific individuals' competence, because his past input on that subject has been unhelpful. This is completely normal when someone's input is unhelpful on topic A but helpful on topic B. It also seems common for people to believe that this is an unusually difficult or complex case, or that TRM gets special treatment (for better or worse, depending on your perspective), but it actually seems pretty ordinary to me - the only thing that makes it unusual is that topics A and B are closely related, requiring a lot of overhead in managing that boundary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do like this motion as a way forward, but appreciate the concerns raised. The target is the DYK process, rather than the articles themselves - and while that should not affect WP:ERRORS2, or indeed any articles themselves, I'm not sure how better to put it. What I find more important is the idea of a maximum block length under the remedies and referring a lot to ARCA. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I"m fine with 3 and 4, but I have to still look to support 1 & 2. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)