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

Clarification request: The Rambling Man (March 2017)
Original discussion

Initiated by Sandstein at 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Bishonen notified, 17:31, 6 March 2017

Statement by Sandstein
Yesterday I blocked in response to an AE request and then protected their user talk page, as provided for in the decision: "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." Bishonen subsequently reverted that protection without any attempt at discussion with me. She has also declined to act on my request to undo her unprotection.

I initially considered this to be a disallowed unilateral reversion of an AE action, but there is a nuance that gives me pause, which is why I am filing this as a clarification request and not as a request for sanctions against Bishonen:

I did mark the talk page protection as an AE action, but it does not appear to be a "sanction" as this term is commonly understood, which is why I did not initially log it. But the Committee's procedures tell us that "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator", without indicating whether AE actions such as talk page protections count as sanctions. Moreover, the rules about appeals, etc. "apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature." This seems to leave ambiguous the status of AE actions like page protections that are, as here, neither discretionary sanctions nor blocks, nor functionary actions. On the other hand, Bishonen's comment about being about to be desysopped indicates that she herself understood her reversal to be prohibited.

My main question is therefore: What, if any, prohibitions exist against unilateral reversion of AE talk page protections (or user rights removals, or other non-block AE admin actions) outside the regime of discretionary sanctions, and should the procedures be amended to remove this uncertainty?

There are also two additional questions that have come up in the, er, rambling AN thread about this matter: Does the Committee expect that there be a certain period of time in which an AE thread is left open for comment by others after the editor at which the request is directed has responded (or declined to do so); and is it problematic if the same admin who decides to act on an AE request also closes the thread? My impression is that the answer in both cases is "no" (after all, admins can take AE actions without even a request, let alone a formal closure), but perhaps I am mistaken.

I do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here, unless asked to by an arbitrator, because I think that ought only to be discussed in response to a proper appeal (if any) by The Rambling Man at WP:AE.  Sandstein  17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now.  Sandstein   18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmies: I did not mention the protection in my original closure because I decided on it after The Rambling Man's reaction to the block in which they continued the prohibited conduct. I assumed the protection provision was in the remedy to allow for such eventualities. If it was intended for other situations such as grave-dancing then this is not apparent from the remedy's wording. I chose it instead of talk page access removal because this action was specifically provided for in the remedy, and because it would also prevent disruption by others in addition to The Rambling Man, which given the circumstances seemed a possibility. I ask this question now because I want to know to which extent I must anticipate disruption of AE actions in the future, and whether this Committee is interested in preventing such disruption and therefore allowing for the orderly operation of AE.  Sandstein   00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with you and Bishonen that a waiting period at AE would be a mistake. I am sorry that you feel a "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude from me. That's not what I am intending to project. I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. My concern is that in situations like this that apparently involve a WP:UNBLOCKABLE editor and excite a lot of people, I do not want to discuss my actions in a zillion places at once (my talk page, the other editor's talk page, other admin's talk pages, AN, AE, ARCA, etc.). I simply do not have the time for that. I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible. And that is, in my view, an appeal discussion such as the one that is now underway at AE. This is why I decline to discuss the merits of the sanctions elsewhere.  Sandstein   11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee: I intend to be open to good-faith questions. Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to. This is why I consider her asking for them now to be a bad-faith attempt at distraction from her own actions.  Sandstein   11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee: I have no problem with discussing individual admin actions with individual editors. However, in situations such as here where the blocked editor apparently has a lot of friends, and noticeboard threads and accusations of ADMIN ABUSE!!! are flying left and right, I think I am justified to wait until there is an actual appeal discussion in which an actually affected party raises specific issues that I can address all at once. I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors. Accountability does not mean that I have to reply to each and every question by each and every editor, but to the community as a whole in the context of a sensible process.  Sandstein   13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller: You raise issues regarding the usefulness and policy-compliance of the talk page protection. These are valid questions, but above my pay grade as an enforcement admin. If ArbCom tells me in a remedy that I can do something at my discretion to stop a problem for Wikipedia, I do it and assume ArbCom has done the serious thinking about any policies that may apply. If you conclude that talk page protection isn't so good an idea after all, you should change the remedy.  Sandstein   11:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation". I will not do so. I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE. If an editor has been restricted by ArbCom, they have already been found to be a problem to Wikipedia. I will continue to attempt to apply sanctions as they are written and intended, without regard to reputation, contributions, or any particular editorial or social context (and it helps that I am normally quite ignorant of most of these factors). But, I must say, this episode reminds me why I took a long break from AE some time ago: if ArbCom is not willing to pull the ban or block trigger on problem editors themselves, delegates this to random admins, and then fails to back them up when they take heat for it, why should anybody continue to help ArbCom enforcing their decisions?  Sandstein   18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several editors also raise concerns about my communication. I respectfully submit that I have made the reasons for my actions sufficiently clear in the AE closure and now in the AE appeal discussion. The problem seems to be that these editors do not agree with my reasons. That is their right, but they will have to live with this situation unless their view prevails on appeal. In general, while I acknowledge that it is possible that the drama around this action might have been reduced if there had been more discussion at AE before the block, it seems equally possible that the AE discussion would have failed to reach consensus for any one course of action, given the number of friends this problem editor apparently has, and that any subsequent unilateral enforcement action would have resulted in just as much brouhaha. Bishonen and the other editors who are now raising a ruckus should be ashamed of themselves for, in doing so, enabling and supporting the disruptive conduct of the editor at issue, and thereby impeding the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision.  Sandstein   17:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
You "do not intend to address the merits of the block or the talk page protection here", Sandstein? Discussing the block may be best kept for a response to a block appeal, OK, but why are you bundling the protection in with it? You should address the merits of the protection here, in view of the questions you're asking about my unprotection. You ought to explain why you thought protection was the right thing to do, especially as compared to the alternative of revoking talkpage access. You haven't explained that anywhere AFAICS — not on TRM's page, or my page, or the AN discussion. Now's your chance. It's ridiculous IMO to discuss the formalities you describe above without even addressing what the protection was for. I don't intend to take part in such a discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
 * you ask for my hefty support for a minimum waiting period for AE complaints. (No, User:Bishzilla is the hefty one.) Sorry, I don't support it, as I have already said at AN. It's called discretionary sanctions for a reason: admins can place sanctions, including topic bans, at their own discretion in certain contentious areas, that the committee has placed under discretionary sanctions. And we do. I placed a number of topic bans in 2016, off my own bat, without reference to the page WP:AE. What's WP:AE for, then? It's for users to be able to draw the attention of uninvolved admins to supposed disruption in one of those contentious areas. If I'm reading you rightly, you're suggesting that once a complaint is at WP:AE, the quick, simple, single admin discretion no longer applies? Remember the committee came up with this system in order to make it simpler to admin these difficult areas, not to add a layer of bureaucracy. It seems unreasonable that I should be able to topic ban a user without further ado as long as it's not on AE, but once it is, I wouldn't be able to. Example here: just as I was typing up a one-month topic ban for a user for disruption at Donald Trump, another user took that disruption to WP:AE. I hesitated; should I hold my fire? But it seemed quite paradoxical to let the AE report prevent me from the simple adminning of the area that the discretionary sanctions system is supposed to encourage, so I went ahead. I reported fait accompli at WP:AE, some hours before any other administrator had commented, indeed while America was still asleep. America came by later; I want to draw your attention especially to Seraphimblade's comment right at the end. If you think my action there should in the future be classed as wrong, then surely it would also become wrong for us place discretionary sanctions on our own discretion at all. And if we can't do that, they will no longer be discretionary and should be renamed. "Special bureaucratic sanctions for contentious areas"..? Hmm, no... but I think I need to digress a little.


 * It must be baffling to many users that we bother referring to discretionary sanctions at all, which is a pretty bureaucratic thing even when done without WP:AE: the alerts, the special templates, the logs. Don't admins have a lot of discretion in all areas in any case, being as they are trusted users? Yes; they can block users, up to indefinite, in all areas, at the drop of a hat: no alerts etc etc. Sandstein could have blocked TRM in that way, i.e. not per AE, and I would have, if it was me. The only thing is, we can't topic ban other than per discretionary sanctions. The discussion at your talkpage doesn't seem very interested in this difference (it speaks mainly about blocks which needn't go, and normally don't go, via discretionary sanctions at all), but I think it's vital. That we can't topic ban in all areas has its own paradox: compare an indefinite block, which can be just slapped on, and a one-month topic ban, which requires a song and a dance. (In non-ds areas, topic bans have to be done via community consensus on AN or ANI.) All right, I'm getting to my conclusion: if you want, say, a 24-hour waiting period for AE complaints, then we surely can't also have the single admin topic banning per discretionary sanctions without involving WP:AE. We can't have such a double system. The savvy complainer would soon realize that they'd better avoid WP:AE, and speak directly to an admin they trust. And it doesn't make sense that if I'm about to topic ban somebody, and they unluckily just get taken to WP:AE, that prevents me from going ahead. So: a 24-hour, or whatever, waiting period would be OK, provided that WP:AE becomes compulsory for topic bans, and the double system of "WP:AE and lone rover admins" goes. Admittedly it would bring more bureaucracy instead of less, and the word "discretionary" would have to go. Rename them "topic sanctions", and rename WP:AE to Arbitration/Requests/Topic bans, for example.


 * I'm sorry, I guess I digressed a lot and not a little. I'm trying to make the point that a waiting period for WP:AE would defeat the purpose of the discretionary sanctions, which was to simplify; would encumber them, bog them down. I don't really want them to be renamed, I want them to remain discretionary, and that's why I don't support a waiting period. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Belatedly, I didn't intend to respond to your pissy reply above to my question why you protected TRM's talkpage: "Bishonen: You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now." But I will, after all, because I've just noticed some relevant discussion on the AE talkpage. Two people there asked politely if the talkpage protection was necessary, and you explicitly refused to lift, shorten, or discuss it: "I do not think that we should devote a lot of our limited time to fine-tune sanctions applying to problem editors, and therefore I do not intend to amend the protection duration. This concludes my discussion of this sanction, except in the case of an appeal by the sanctioned editor themself." That was just 50 minutes before I lifted the protection. When I did, I didn't know then that you had just refused to discuss. But you knew it. With what face do you show temper here on this board about me not asking you first? Why did you want me to ask you? Purely to have the pleasure of rebuffing me like you did those people? "This concludes my discussion of this sanction". I realize I've now asked another "why" question, and you don't like those. There's no need to tell me at this time that the rules say I must ask you first, which I already know. That would not be an answer to "Why did you want me to ask you?"


 * For my money, taking those procedural issues to ARCA was the real waste of "a lot of our limited time". Replying to questions in a timely manner would have saved time. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Sir Joseph
This is a simple request. Was the protection of the page an AE action, or was it a general administrative action. If it was an AE action, then Bishonen acted outside the scope of administrative privilege; if it was a general sanction, then Bishonen acted appropriately. I don't think there needs to be any other discussion as that will get too messy and is irrelevant to the actions and procedures of arbritration. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Points:
 * If an admin is going to be a stickler for process, then they should expect others to act in a like way; they should expect consistency. If an enforcement is not logged as an AE enforcement it cannot fall under AE; it is not an AE enforcement. Therefore an unblock is also not an AE Enforcement violation
 * Bishonen's edit summary is clearly irony and refers to how some might view her action rather than how she views her action. It seems disingenuous for Sandstein to use that statement as an admission of some kind of guilt.
 * As for closing AE's so quickly, while it might be possible for an admin to judge and close an AE in 40 minutes, the question is, is it wise to not include the input of one's colleagues. Unilateral actions by a single admin can often lead to decisions based on opinion rather a gathering of facts. If AE is to be revised or updated it would be humane to include in an AE enforcement request, the time for input and the thoughts of more than just one person. As a general observation:Unilateral actions on Wikipedia can be non- neutral as actions from admins as well as from non-admins. I would like to see admins with less ability to carry out actions unilaterally especially in the light of the present size of the encyclopedia and given that size and complexity, the inability for anyone to know all of the facts in any case. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC))


 * Laser brain. AE is not easy, but that fact and condition cannot allow contested actions to be ignored. As well, disagreement can be a necessary part of growth and is not the same as undermining. I assume Sandstein wanted discussion or he wouldn't have posted here. I certainly don't want to undermine anyone, but I also think there is reason for disagreement and clarifications and in the case of AE in general some fixing might be in order, too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

AE vs discretionary sanctions and the letter of the law, and power:


 * I'm not sure where this could be discussed further. I agree with Bishonen that there is a conflict between posting an AE and the implied or even explicit usefulness of a discretionary sanction. I understand that admins are overworked, that AE is often a quagmire. I'd like to add a note for the editor who is not the admin. Are admins always right, always fair, always neutral, always without bias, always acting without the input of backroom politics and never corrupted by their own power over individuals. Let's say for a minute that despite the mostly good admins acting within the best of their abilities as fairly as they can, and I always want to assume this is true of all admins, that some of these more human-based concerns - that a lack of neutrality in some cases is merely human, that fairness is subjective- can lead to decisions that are unfair. Sandstein was acting within the rule of the law when he closed an AE he had judged. My concern, and this now is  not about Sandstein but is more general, is  not that admins act within the rule of law, but that the rule of law both at AE and with DS gives too much power, to much ability to damage, because it allows and supports fast-acting, unilateral actions. There are answers if a community is willing to discuss them, but I don't think the answer is to fall back on what is in place which supports unilateral power. I see very little in our RfA process that suggests our selected new admins have the ability to act above and beyond their own human ness, to be good judges of other human beings. Acting within Wikipedia's boundaries placed to protect both the encylopedia and collaboration may take more than acting within the law,  more than unilateral decision making and the beginning of that might be  more time rather than less and more input which tempers the individuality of any admin. Disrupting the encyclopedia does not just mean removing someone who is deemed to not be acting with in the best interests of WP but also of working with editors so we don't lose them and yes, as on Wikipedian said, we are bleeding editors. Much of the discussion on this page assumes at the base, a punitive model. How do we change that?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

I wasn't going to comment because Rexx's comments are clear and precise and true... and above all so obvious to anyone with WP experience at all. And to repeat, this is a false dichotomy, "You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED." No he didn't say all he said some and some it is, some does not equal all. For anyone who has any WP experience at all, yes, any admin can take a case to AE and ask a like minded buddy in private to "take the case". Do all admins do this, no. Some do. End of obvious story. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)) You said no one agreed with Rexx. That's not true and I said so.

. Its very true that AE is a difficult job, and its true that ArbCom has to support those like you who have spent so much time there. What I see is not a lack of support  but that in a big community there are nuances rather than strict letters of the law. AE could be revamped so that weight does not fall on any one or a very few editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Andrew D.
In considering this issue of access to the talk page, please note TRM's behaviour while blocked. He is creating daily lists of action items which ping other editors, directing them to make edits. This seems contrary to WP:BLOCKEVASION, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor". Multiple pings might also be considered vexatious in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As there is some debate about this matter, a point which may require clarification is the clause "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". In some cases, we see a dialogue between TRM and the proxy editor on the talk page or a specific attribution such as "Posted here on behalf of The Rambling Man"  Does this mean that they are not acting independently?  If there's a lot of this, it might cause disputes or make a farce of the block.  Isn't the point of a block to suspend an editor's activities, whatever their merits?  Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some contention about the difference between a block and a ban. My understanding is that the sanction imposed by Arbcom upon TRM is a type of ban which WP:BAN defines as "a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits".  A block has now been applied to enforce this ban.  Insofar as TRM has continued to be uncivil on his talk page, the enforcement should cover that too.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I think there are issues here that go beyond this specific request for clarification, and I'd like to beg the Committee's indulgence to outline them here.

Here is the time line:
 * 21:01, 5 March 2017, who by his own admission has had disputes with (TRM) files a request for AE enforcement against TRM.
 * 21:37, 5 March 2017 makes this comment at the discussion section Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one.
 * 21:42, 5 March 2017 Sandstein posts his decision to block TRM and then closes the AE thread and logs the block at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
 * 21:48, 5 March 2017 Having been informed of his month-long block, TRM vents his feelings in a sarcastic reply to Sandstein, culminating with what looks like a "rage-quit": Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won!
 * Over the next 20 minutes, TRM actually posts notes to other users, suggesting needed edits to upcoming main page content, as well as an almost chummy grumble to Floquenbeam about how other admins swore at him but were not sanctioned.
 * 22:08, 5 March 2017‎ Sandstein picks up on TRM's reply and fully-protects TRM's talk page giving as a reason in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins", but does not log the action as AE enforcement.
 * 23:57, 5 March 2017‎ removed the talk-page protection with the edit summary: "must be some mistake. If you want to stop the user himself from editing the page (not that I see much reason for that, either), then revoke tpa, please."
 * 01:42, 6 March 2017 Following a note from on Bishonen's talk page, I explained that the full protection had not been logged, so could not qualify as an AE sanction.
 * 06:14, 6 March 2017‎ Sandstein states that he did not log it because it is not a block, restriction, ban or sanction.
 * 06:23, 6 March 2017 Sandstein mistakenly claims the remedy does not permit revoking talk page access, even though Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man specifically states Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
 * After I pointed out to him that only sanctions placed under AE enjoy exemption from normal admin discretion to overturn them, Sandstein changes his mind.
 * 11:09, 6 March 2017 Sandstein retrospectively logs the full talk page protection, some 11 hours after it had already been removed.

Now I have multiple concerns about Sandstein's judgement in the choice of block length (going right to the maximum allowed); his closure of the Discussion at AE only 40 minutes after the request; his lack of understanding of the most appropriate measure in response to TRM's venting; and his shenanigans with the Enforcement log, but all of that is expressed by others much better that I can at Administrators' noticeboard.

Nevertheless the current state of AE – which I accept is designed to cut through the phenomenon of WP:UNBLOCKABLE editors – now has the potential to be used to do an end-run around the WP:INVOLVED policy. The situation now is that an involved admin can simply post a request for action against an adversary who is subject to an AE warning, and – even if 100 admins opine against action – a single admin can still super-vote and take action. That leads to the situation where an involved admin can still be virtually certain of being able to indirectly take action, if the other party has an AE remedy hanging over them. Not only that, but the action now carries a "seal-of-approval" (no matter how ill-judged it was) that prevents other admins who disagree from overturning it (no matter how reasonable that might be). The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and I'm asking ArbCom to consider carefully whether in non-urgent cases there should be (1) a mandatory minimum period during which an AE request should remain open for discussion? (2) whether when contention is apparent, but some sort of consensus is emerging, that consensus should be respected? (3) whether it is desirable for the admin who takes action to be able to stifle discussion of their action by closing the request? --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you, in particular, didn't understand the point I am making. INVOLVED does indeed say that editors should not act as admins in cases where they are involved. It is to prevent one side of a dispute having "weapons" that the other side does not. But what we have here – and this is pertinent to 's misunderstanding as well – is a situation where an involved admin can use those "weapons" by proxy, simply by making a request at AE, with a near-certainty that the request will be carried out, because one admin who acts overrules all the others who don't believe action is the right course. That's even worse than asking another admin to apply a sanction for you (as that could be simply overturned on the judgement of a third admin), and it's precisely what the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:INVOLVED should prevent. If admins taking issues to AE really don't know how it actually works there at present, then the problem is even worse than I feared. --RexxS (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the point of a block is purely to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. The dialogues on TRM's talk page are certainly not disruption. Perhaps you're thinking about a site-ban, where it is considered best to revert ban-evading contributions, even if they are constructive? --RexxS (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * you state the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. If you want all AE actions to be protected from overturning, then you'd better change the policy that explicitly only states sanctions to say what you intend it to mean. You'll also need to change the logging policy to include "all actions", rather than just the laundry list of "block, restriction, ban, or sanction" that appears at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, as even an experienced admin like Sandstein managed to get himself confused over that. --RexxS (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you don't seem able to grasp the point. Try it this way: an admin wants to place a sanction on an editor with whom they have a dispute; they can't do it themselves because of INVOLVED, but the other editor is subject to an AE warning; so all the involved admin needs do is request AE because it's certain that at least one other admin will agree, place the sanction and close the case, no matter how many others might disagree. That's what happened in this case, and we might as well have just let Ed17 place the sanction in the first place. If you don't see what's wrong with that, then you don't understand that exercise of effectively unfettered power is anathema to a collaborative project and that appropriate checks and balances are required. Those checks and balances have been sadly lacking here, and I don't accept that the enforcing admin should act as judge, jury and executioner, and then be able tell the community that they refuse to answer reasonable questions about their actions. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're just wikilwayering the word "uninvolved". If you have an argument with an editor who is subject to AE, and want them sanctioned, you know as well as the rest of us that there's bound to be at least one other admin who will act on an AE request for you. That doesn't make them involved: it makes them your proxy, and it removes the protection that WP:INVOLVED is supposed to provide for anyone in dispute with an admin. It's just like the bad old days when involved admins were able to do an end-run around policy by asking one of their chums on IRC to do their dirty work for them. As far as anyone subject to an ArbCom prohibition is concerned, there might as well not be an INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Come off it – you're not talking to someone born yesterday. You think I haven't heard the fallacy of the excluded middle before? "Rexx suggests that some admins proxy for others; it would be ridiculous if every admin action were a proxy for another admin; therefore Rexx's suggestion is ridiculous." "Some" ≠ "every". The only thing ridiculous is expecting anybody else to buy into your transparent defence of the indefensible. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker: Your refusal to face facts is astonishing. I would have preferred not to personalise what is a general problem, but if you can't see the issue without specifics, here they are: Sandstein takes AE action over the objections of other admins, and this is not the first instance of that happening. Do you deny that? Sandstein imposed the maximum penalty allowed without consideration of any extenuation. Do you deny that? Sandstein misunderstands ArbCom remedies and misuses sanctions like pre-emptive full protection? Do you deny that? Sandstein closed an AE request that he has decided and refuseed to allow further comments. Do you deny that? Sandstein refuses to answer reasonable queries about his actions per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Do you deny that? If you don't think that creates any room for misuse of the system, then I really have no more time for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which admins? Ones who can't tell the difference between "admins" and "involved admins" certainly shouldn't. Tell me: (1) when you filed the complaint, did you expect another admin to sanction TRM or not? (2) Was the block length of 1 month appropriate or not? (3) In the circumstances, was full protection of the talk page better than removing talk page access, or not? --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
As someone who works WP:AE regularly, I'm interested in seeing some answers here. Sandstein acted in accordance with the remedies in TRM's case. The block and the talk page protection were allowed (And if I had to guess why it's protection and not revoking talk page access, it's because of the circus that normally ensues on TRM's talk page when action is taken against him). The remedy states also that the block can only be appealed at WP:AE. So now we have Sandstein facing criticism for the manner in which these actions where taken when they were taken within the bounds of the remedy (leaving aside discussion of the merits of the block) and another admin reversing an AE action without discussion.

If it's a badly written remedy, it should be amended. But we have to support our admins who work in this area and not allow them to be undermined when they act in accordance with the remedy. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
I agree with the concerns RexxS has expressed. I would also appreciate confirmation from ArbCom that all actions by administrators, including enforcement of sanction via the WP:AE process, are subject to review by the community at WP:AN in the ordinary way - and can be overruled should a consensus to do so form. AE actions are already privileged through the threat to desysop those who reverse them without consensus, it would be quite another thing to give admins who make AE actions immunity from the scrutiny of their peers for the actions they take in the event that they prove to be contrary to a clear community consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I worry about the way the process has played out here. A WP:AE appeal can only be made by the sanctioned user. If the community has a problem with the manner an administrator is undertaking AE enforcement actions, can we - absent an appeal by the user - review and modify what the administrator has done? In this case for example, there is clearly zero community support for the talk page protection and a fairly strong consensus that, even if the block was OK, it should have been 1 week or less, not 1 month. But would both these actions have had to stand if: (i) Bishonen hadn't acted boldly to revert the protection (apparently risking her tools in doing so); and (ii) TRM had not appealed at AE? One of the biggest concerns about overzealous WP:AE enforcement is that it may drive people away. By definition those people will not file appeals. So was Sandstein entitled to refuse to answer for his action at WP:AN per WP:ADMINACCOUNT prior to TRM making a formal appeal, and was the WP:AN capable of causing the talkpage to be unprotected (if Bishonen had not already unprotected it) and the block length to be reduced? WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that concerns with Sandstein's communication in respect of AE actions have been raised before, resulting in the following remedy in May 2011: "Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions." (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling) I think that is again the crux of the issue other administrators have raised on this occasion. Poor communication with colleagues before and after the AE actions were taken, despite clear evidence that they are regarded to have been manifestly disproportionate. WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
The whole circus is presumably why the committee remedy was to have the appeal at AE, and regardless of why the ctte adopted that, it is total waste to second guess and rewrite it in the middle. Just follow the route for appeal, no more is needed, here. It is simple, if the remedy laid out is followed: 1) editor action 2) AE complaint and/or discretionary AE sanction 3) appeal at AE. There should be none of this other stuff going on, it's just unneeded, and wasteful. And should the parties want a different route of appeal they can request it, here, later. --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a further note. RexxS comments about INVOLVED make little sense.  It is expected that many AE filings come from involved people.  That's not an end-run around INVOLVED, at all, that is precisely the way INVOLVED is to be handled. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, RexxS, your arguments about INVOLVED still make little sense. A User complains, an uninvolved Admin acts -- that does not make for an INVOLVED issue, anywhere on Wikipedia, including AE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: I understand that is your claim but it makes no sense, whatsoever: viz. I complain about someone who is breaching policy in a dispute I have with them, they are sanctioned by an uninvolved admin -- it is impossible (either by letter of policy or by spirit of policy) for my involvement to make them INVOLVED. Your argument would make every admin always INVOLVED - your argument is thus irrational. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Now, as for the rest, RexxS, apart from your odd INVOLVED claim, there is an appeal process for those questions, just follow the process, and don't turn it into a drama fest about over-the-top existential issues (that's not how to advance a collaborative process or project), because it can all be handled at the appeal.  It's really quite simple and logical and community minded, someone does something so draining on the community that it actually results in an specific arbitration remedy, AE then provides enforcement, and the check is appeal.   Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. RexxS. You are ridiculously arguing that every uninvolved admin acts as a proxy for a complainant and that somehow makes them INVOVLED. Your argument makes no sense.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: You come off it, as you are just making a totally ridiculous argument.  Perhaps it is because you are not saying what your really mean to say -- if you want want to accuse Sandstein of bad faith, and not actually trying to act appropriately to do the work of AE, and accuse him of being INVOLVED, then do so - and take the consequence of having the actual courage of your conviction -- but don't make your totally nonsensical argument about a policy that has absolutely no application, here - with a hand wave to your dark aspersion implication about "some admins" (who?) . And that, if you have not noticed, absolutely no one has bought into, because your argument is just so poor, when it is not just a veiled aspersion against "some". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS: No.  In fact, almost none of your so-called Sandstein "facts" are not controverted.  Most are being controverted at the appeal right now, and the rest are being controverted, here.  More to the point, none has to do with your nonsense arguments regarding INVOLVED, they have to to with other provisions of policy.  That you have no facts regarding INVOLVED, is progress, because now there is no further reason to discuss INVOLVED. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Little Olive Oil: Give your evidence, here, or don't cast you weird aspersion.  Just whom are you accusing?  Your silly claim of experience rings particularly hollow as evidence, or just very bad and useless argument, to anyone here who has any experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Little Olive Oil: I said, no one had bought into it before you cast your aspersion. RexxS argument is nonsense as a general proposition, although, yes, I did note it could possibly make sense as an accusation against someone in particular. Where is your evidence and who are you accusing? If you are just making claims for which you have no proof, than why are you bringing them up? Sure, it's always possible some unknown people are evil, and corrupt, but Wikipedia does not work under such conspiracy assumption, as any experienced person would know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to the WBScibe issue, I get that his position is that he want's to jump in and do something but it is wrong. The appellant and the blocking administrator are the ones who need to work it out for the good of the community, so yes, the effected party is the one to appeal, and then the uninvovled rest can help them work it out. If the effected party does not want to work it out with the uninvolved administrator via appeal, then the party that refuses the appeal is refusing the community.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On the page protection: Opibina has hit on the nub of the problem, if the ctte did not want uninvolved admin to protect the talk page for what in the uninvolved admin's discretionary view was continuing of the blocked for behavior, it would have been good to be more explicit: 'only protect if there is gravedancing', etc. That being said, there is enough confusion (although BU Rob makes some good points, as does some of Drmies reply) not to take any action against Bishonen -- she tried to do her best, too -- but rather clear-up the confusion, which is Callanecc's direction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller: There is subtlety in both what you say and what Rob says.  (From 10,000 feet view, IAR is just the tip of the iceberg in the realization that we work in a fuzzy policy environment.)  With respect to the committee specifically, you are tasked with providing tailor-made remedies, so the difference between you bending and breaking policy - in that specific task of tailoring remedies - is going to be very subtle, at best.  The committee on the one hand seemingly explicitly adopted page protection as a good remedy, here, so then getting a bit up-in-arms about how it should really be very, very rare, leads to the question of why mention it at all in the remedy?  (It is at least by one possible appearance that the ctte, already marked this precise circumstance as a good rare instance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor
I don't really understand why this TRM guy gets such leniency for violating various policies (including the one, as commented above, about using other editors to do things for you while you are blocked). Do the rules apply to all of us equally, or do they just apply to ordinary people who don't have administrator buddies? Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mifter
I made a formal statement concerning my thoughts on the block at AE (link to my comments) but in regards to this clarification request I wished to concur with the points raised by RexxS and WJBscribe regarding examining this issue fully and clarifying that AE actions are subject to consensus in the usual way per discussion at AN. I write primarily, in response to the points raised by Andrew D. about TRM creating a "todo list" on his talk page and his raising concerns about WP:BLOCKEVASION. I will note from that policy that "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand" and in this case TRM's expertise in handling errors on the Main Page is not in dispute, rather it is the way in which he interacts with other editors. To summarily revert or prohibit those contributions just because this is being worked out is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia and arguably is cutting off our nose to spite our collective faces. I would rather have him ping me (as one of the primary and few admins active at DYK) over an error that is about to hit the main page than revoke talk page access because of the letter of a policy. In my estimation even if the committee finds that the letter of WP:BLOCKEVASION applies here (which I do not believe it does) I believe the net positives of allowing TRM to request the correction of errors about to hit the main page (with millions of views per hour/day) justify ignoring it as prohibiting such corrections would cause more harm than good and additionally simply escalate the situation further. Mifter (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In further response to Andrew D., where he states, blocks per our blocking policy are preventative and not punitive. I believe you are referring to a ban which is a blanket prohibition on editing either a specific topic or the encyclopedia at large imposed by the community, Arbcom, the WMF, etc. and a declaration that an editor is persona non grata.  When a user is banned they are prohibited from editing regardless of merits.  Blocks are merely a preventative tool to protect the encyclopedia (blocks are used to implement bans but the vast majority of blocks are not bans.)  TRM is not banned, he is only (temporarily) blocked in this case.  Further, per my above argument and verbatim quote from the Block Evasion policy I do not believe block evasion applies in this case.  Mifter (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
Given the valid concerns expressed about Sandstein's own unilateral actions, it is disappointing that he is making an issue out of Bishonen's removal of page protection. If Sandstein wanted the protection to be seen as part of his arbitration enforcement, he should have made that more clear. The block was too hasty and the protection was too careless. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mojoworker
Since it's caused some confusion (as seen in the statement by Jtrainor above), it would have been helpful if Andrew Davidson had quoted the entire sentence from WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." As Opabinia regalis notes below, if an editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them. Mojoworker (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17
Please see WP:INVOLVED: "" My bolding. Bringing someone to AE is not an administrative action. Can you correct your statement above? Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So in your view, admins can't bring other editors to AE? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Ritchie333
Sandstein seems to have confused what Arbitration Enforcement allows as what it mandates. Had a 24-hour block been handed out, there would have been a small amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, then it would pass and we'd all move on. By jumping to the maximum penalties allowed, he has created a wholly disproportionate amount of drama and his judgement has been called into question. For all the mantra of "blocks are preventative, not punitive", the block certainly isn't stopping draining conversations here, and at AE, and at AN! Some prevention! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would echo Boing's comments below and say that some of Sandstein's comments, such as "Bishonen's unilateral actions, however, indicate that she is not really interested in my reasons at all, or she would have consulted with me before lifting the protection, as admins are supposed to" can be construed as violating WP:CIVIL. Bishonen made a good-faith attempt to quell a dispute and gave an explanation, and you don't seem to be giving her respect for that. Why are you so keen to see her punished? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to follow multiple noticeboard threads 24/7 repeatedly justifying myself at great length over and over again to random, often involved editors" You blocked a long-standing, albeit controversial, editor for a month. What on earth did you expect, high fives and barnstars all round? I am not at all surprised that you have received all this attention, and with a bit more foresight, you really ought to have expected it. Perhaps if you had thought about the harassment you might have picked up in advance, you may have decided on an alternative sanction instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Boing! said Zebedee
I think the suggestion of imposing a 24hr period before admin action can be taken in response to an AE request is missing the point and is, as Bish suggests, a mistake. It appears to me the frustration felt by some is over the enforcing *and* closing of the AE request by the same admin in a very short time and the cutting off of any further discussion that that entailed, not the enforcement action itself. I suggest the admin making an enforcement action should not be the one who closes the request, and the enforcing admin should always be open to question and/or discussion from colleagues after taking such action. (The apparent "I've spoken, and the rest of you are beneath me and not deserving of any consideration" attitude I see here stinks - I know this discussion is strictly about clarifying the pedantic minutiae of the rules, but I think that would be missing the wood for the trees.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't unilaterally closed the AE request, then you would have had a place to respond. Also, how does "You did not ask me for my reasons before unilaterally reverting my talk page protection, so I think you are in no position to ask for them now" tie in with "I completely agree that as an admin I should respond to good-faith questions by other editors regarding my actions. [...] I want to discuss them in one forum where focused, structured discussion is possible."? In this sorry affair I have seen little from you but a steadfast refusal to discuss your actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find your accusations of bad faith towards User:Bishonen very disappointing (and unfounded, as she has clearly explained why she did not think asking you first was required). Also, your insistence that you will only discuss your actions at an AE appeal mean that unless a blocked editor should make an appeal (as they actually have done in this case), you would refuse to discuss your actions with your fellow admins and community members. I do not think that is an acceptable attitude from an admin, and I would like to hear the opinions of Arbs on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) (Adjusted for clarity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Well, When you were asked why you protected that talk page, I think you'd have done yourself and the rest of us a far better service if you'd just answered the bloody question instead of giving us this evasive and pompous runaround. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
Commenting on one thing and one thing only:
 * The Committee very much can override policy. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Also see many, many historical examples such as WP:ARBPIA3. The Committee can't create policy, but it can issue binding remedies that overrule policy when tackling behavioral issues. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As written, the remedy allows for Sandstein's actions. They do not need to defend their actions based on the protection or blocking policies, because their authority derived from the remedy, not policy, and the remedy itself is exempt from consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT. They should still fulfill WP:ADMINACCT, and I believe they have, stating clearly that they believed the remedy gave preference to full protection over talk page access revocation. Now, if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy, that's a valuable but very different discussion. 's statement that Sandstein didn't act within the bounds of the protection policy or blocking policy doesn't make much sense, because the Committee passed a remedy that allowed for these actions. This is similar to how I don't need to defend a protection under WP:ARBPIA3 as preventing current disruption, normally required under the protection policy, because ArbCom has decided that the topic area's volatility allows for extra-ordinary actions at administrator discretion. Policy writing is hard, and if the Committee got it wrong, it needs to own that, not say that some uninvolved admin should know what you meant to write in the remedy. I find it disturbing that Sandstein is under the microscope for acting at his discretion to do exactly what you wrote he could do at his discretion. Other admins are watching, myself included, and we will certainly remember that AE actions no longer require consensus to reverse when we go to make them in the future. We'll also remember that the Committee considers it overtly improper use of the tools to act as prescribed in a remedy if we don't do so how they expected. I doubt the Committee fully grasps the chilling effect this discussion is likely to have on AE actions in the more complicated cases. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can avoid talking about chilling effects, . We now have precedent that an administrator can reverse an AE action with impunity entirely unilaterally instead of discussing it. ArbCom is in the process of gutting its own ability to credibly address civility issues of long-term editors. I'm not saying the result here should have been page protection, but the reversal without discussion is beyond the pale. As for whether the action was valid under the remedy, the remedy states "The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block". There is no requirement for anything to occur beforehand to justify such a protection. Now, I'm not arguing that admins should go around doing things willy-nilly under ArbCom remedies without reason, but I think Sandstein clearly stated his reasoning. He saw TRM as continuing to be condescending and belittling, and he believed the remedy preferred protection over talk page revocation to address that. That is a valid rationale under "their discretion". You can reverse the page protection because you think it's not the proper action, certainly. But a claim that it was invalid is far too generous to the Committee that wrote and approved this remedy. I can't bring myself to believe you truly think ArbCom remedies must follow usual policies. If so, how was WP:ARBPIA3 passed, which allows ECP protection on all pages in a topic area whether or not disruption has occurred, contrary to the community-based ECP policy? This was even more not-in-keeping with ECP policy at the time ECP was created, when the community had authorized its use for nothing. Moreover, if ArbCom restrictions had to abide by policy, then the community could overturn any remedy by altering policy to disallow it. Is that actually something this Committee would consider acceptable? I'm bewildered. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of walking away from this request with progress, can we get a clear statement (preferably by formal motion) that all AE actions cannot be reverted unilaterally but must be discussed first? In off-wiki discussion, it's been argued that this reversal was valid because the page protection wasn't a sanction, but just an action. That type of distinction clearly was never the intent of the bar on reverting AE sanctions, and clarity is always helpful. This isn't a change of policy or anything; just documenting current practices. I'm still seriously worried that the vague "Well, this reversal was understandable!" type comments by arbs below are going to affect the efficacy of AE. Sometimes we have bright lines for a reason, and requiring discussion is not a high bar to meet. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 09:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussing the actions of contributors is literally what you're doing in the post you just made about EEng and I. Is that a violation as well? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
Regarding a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open - we wouldn't need this if admins acted like they were supposed to and used their judgement and common sense when handling these cases. Case involving a clear-cut breach of a topic ban? Block away. Case involving WP:CIVIL and an editor with a controversial reputation? You know there's going to be various viewpoints so propose a course of action and wait an appropriate time for discussion. Or, if you feel you must take action right away, make it a regular admin block which allows the use of regular unblock channels. If you really, really feel you need to take unilateral AE action in a controversial matter then don't close the request yourself. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MLauba
a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction  - I believe going down that route is exactly the wrong path. On the contrary, an admin who wants to protect an action under the provisions of an arbitration remedy should always log them as such. Doing anything else opens the door wide open to gaming, or for instance, this very ARCA here. Otherwise, your motion will clash with WP:WHEEL. MLauba (Talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The clash with WP:WHEEL would happen when an action gets reversed and claimed as being under arbitration remedy after the fact. Given the extraordinary protection afforded by arbitration enforcement actions (which I don't dispute) against reversal, properly logging them in the same go doesn't seem like a particularly onerous requirement. Do we ever get away with deleting an article while forgetting to close its AfD? We have stringent processes for many admin actions. The thought that for the most protected admin actions clear logging would be a burden too much is baffling. MLauba (Talk) 10:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

''I think this attitude is exactly why some editors have effectively become WP:UNBLOCKABLE. ''

I believe most of the very few true unblockables have become unblockable in no small part because they were hit by disproportionate sanctions by some admins. Refusing to give clear and forthright explanations to their peers at AN makes it worse. When a significant portion of the community starts to feel that an editor, even under harsh sanctions, is being treated unfairly, that's when subsequent enforcement actions become more difficult. In this specific instance, your constant evasion of your accountability towards your admin peers and your dismissal of any questioning as coming from "friends of the blocked" will, I trust, have done a lot to make future administrative actions against TRM more difficult. I'd suggest you ponder that the next time you consider what a proportionate sanction may be, rather than how much discussion is required to apply it.

For someone who has been active in AE for longer than I have been an admin, I keep being surprised that these drama fests pop up regularly around some of your actions (as opposed to other long term AE regulars). When the Arbcom issues restrictions instead of outright bans, their purpose is to try and retain the positives an editor has to offer. Some reform. Many get eaten up by resentment and earn themselves a ban later. If their resentment shifts from the existence of the sanctions to the fairness of their enforcement, and that fairness is questioned by others for good cause, it defeats the whole purpose of the sanction in the first place. The role of AE is to deter editors from resuming the conduct under sanction, not to drive them to the brink, and even less to generate a wave of undue sympathy for them.

To wit - TRM's appeal discussion centers on the duration (not the validity) of your sanction. If that were off the table, the admins discussing the appeal would most likely have spent a lot of time examining the nature of TRM's defence, which IMO doesn't do him any favours. We should not be discussing the merit of your actions. That we do is entirely on you. MLauba (Talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I quickly wish to note my support of Rexx's comments, particularly regarding WP:INVOLVED.

As for the meat of the situation I think there are four things that the Committee can do that would resolve most of these sorts of issues going forward - statements/amendments/declarations that:
 * 1) Arbitration Enforcement actions must be proportionate to the situation.
 * 2) The protections afforded to Arbitration Enforcement actions apply only to those actions that are unambiguously logged as being AE actions.
 * 3) *This noting can be in the block/protection/etc log and/or the case log, but must happen.
 * 4) *A sanction that is not logged is still valid, but only at the level of an ordinary admin action
 * 5) *A sanction may be logged retrospectively, but the AE action protections apply only from the time it is logged. Retrospective logging must be justified.
 * 6) *If it is unclear whether an action is an AE action or not, then users are encouraged to seek clarification from the admin making the action. Such clarification asked for in good faith must be given.
 * 7) Every admin making an Arbitration Enforcement action (or explicit inaction) must explain their action and the reasons they chose when asked in good faith by any user.
 * 8) *If an (in)action is based on non-public information, then the answer to the question should state this (e.g. "I blocked Example based on checkuser evidence." or simply "This was due to non-public information." where giving more detail is not possible/advisable).
 * 9) *If a question has been previously answered, simply pointing to that answer is permissible.
 * 10) Arbitration Enforcement actions do not require discussion, but if good-faith discussion is happening then the consensus of uninvolved administrators must be respected. This excludes situations with changed circumstances or new information, but any such action must be explicitly justified at the venue where discussion is happening.

I'd like the third point to apply to every admin action, but that is outside the scope of the Committee's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The more I read about this, the more I am in agreement with El C. Sandstein, not for the first time, has been overly harsh in imposing restrictions and then steadfastly refused to discuss his actions, in clear breach of WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." and "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. [for example] Failure to communicate ... (e.g., lack of explanations of actions)". This is backed up by a link to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand "Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.". A block of TRM was probably justified, the length possibly not, but the talk page almost certainly wasn't and there is no justification whatsoever for the refusal to respond in good faith to queries about it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
We need this many words over talk page? Cut to the chase: Talk page access should not be revoked when sanctions are enabled. It's the only way to appeal. Sending email to ArbCom is insufficient. Here's a remedy that will work: Don't read another editors talk page if you  don't like what they say. The corollary is already widely accepted: Don't post in User Talk space if the user has asked you not. Unlock the talk page. Trouts all around. --DHeyward (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
Well, this block has caused more cyber-ink to be spilled, by more people, across more pages, than any event in recent Wikipedia history. I am much in agreement with RexxS and NeilN. I would also like to state that if community (especially additional admin) input had been allowed and assessed before any actions were taken, all these millions of bytes of commentary and drama would not be happening, and we would all have accepted whatever final decision/actions as fairly discussed and implemented. I'd like to compare the last AE report on TRM with this one: On 22 January, an AE was opened on TRM, and 9 people gave opinions. Sandstein closed the AE 7 hours later as "No action is required.":. The current AE was opened on 5 March. One person (administrator Iridescent) briefly commented, recommending cutting some slack for one of the reported comments. Sandstein closed the AE 40 minutes after the opening with a one-month block and 15 minutes after the block locked TRM's talk page. Given the stark difference in the level of community input between the January AE and the March AE, and given the enormous amount of controversy and back-and-forth generated by the action(s) this time, I think it would be a show of good faith if Sandstein would dial down at least somewhat and allow, in a show of good faith (not just to TRM, but mainly to the community at large which has been so disrupted by it), a reduction in the block length. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorely disappointed in the amount of self-justification that Sandstein has been engaging in since the block was enacted. We all do rash things and make public mistakes and get defensive about them (that's human nature), but this new post is entirely inappropriate in my opinion. I would like to see an official block review implemented. Or, if that's no longer an option, an official review of Sandstein's actions in this case. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are selectively removing pieces of civil comments from someone else's talkpage. Editors are allowed to discuss all kinds of things on their own talkpage; removing them is a violation of WP:TPO unless the editor whose talkpage it is agrees to the removal. I'm also not sure why you think those moderate comments are any worse (so to speak) than the harsher comments people have posted here or at AE or various other venues. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , please read the scope of this ARCA: It is for clarifying the legitimacy or allowability of Bishonen's unilateral unlocking of TRM's talkpage vis-a-vis the ArbCom sanctions enacted in the TRM ArbCom case. That you did not have ARCA on your watchlist is no one else's problem. If you wish to create an ArbCom case request or other noticeboard thread about some other subject, you are free to; if it is a WP:RFAR other editors will opine on its merit and if accepted you and others will provide evidence that the Arbitration Committee will then respond to and address. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , here the Committee is responding to hundreds of points made by 29 people so far. If you want your specific points to be specifically and singularly addressed (or !voted on) by a specific group of people, you will need to open an appropriate dedicated thread in an appropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

 * 1) The AE report was closed too quickly for a case involving an established editor.
 * 2) The block was overlong, and that is precisely something the Committee should be voicing its opinion on, seeing that consensus is currently disputed.
 * 3) Sandstien has been less than communicative, despite the controversial nature of his action (speaking on it only when pressed).
 * 4) Sandstein should be admonished for all of the above, and the resulting mess. El_C 16:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Please note that some of the evidence compiled against TRM was, according to him, a product of himself being provoked by a personal attack directed against him by Floquenbeam, who himself was responding to TRM's "useless comments" reply. A personal attack which, on March 4, I warned Floquenbeam about. I note this for the record because it is mentioned only once in passing throughout this entire Request. I leave to the Committee to decide whether it constitutes as mitigating circumstances. El_C 21:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum2:

TRM kept making the comparison: Floquenbeam was only given a warning for a personal attack, but TRM was blocked for a month for mild incivility and impatience. He is not without a point. I want to make one thing clear though: I, myself, never immediately block for NPA violations (unless they're especially egregious), I always give a one-time warning. I mention this because I had come under criticism, on the one hand, from Floquenbeam for the warning—and the other, from TRM for not blocking Floquenbeam. El_C 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum3:

TRM writes about how Floquenbeam said to him: "makes people think you're a prick." How that was on Jan. 30, "falling squarely in the centre of the diffs presented." El_C 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum4:

Committee members, I now notice that it has been a few days since any of you commented. If you were to please address my original four points as a single proposition. El_C 04:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum5:

Next time, I best not raise attention to the Committee's inactivity (it wasn't inactivity then, it was lack of publicity—somehow, this entire ARCA existing was hidden in the body of the lengthy appeal), since it may end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. This entanglement is exactly what the Committee has been set out to do. And I regret to see that its latest iteration through the years has resulted in such a passive Committee. I realize I'm making no friends among the Arb Committee members when I raise attention to this and that probably, at best I, can expect further stonewalling to my comments here. But Committee members: I still challenge that you have failed to do your part here. El_C 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum6: Softlavender, I do have it on my watchlist. I also have ~60,000 other articles on my watchlist, so some do slip through the cracks. I never much like an Arbitration Committee that acts like a court of law, shackled by bureaucracy and legalism and proceduralism of the wiki, and I hope this isn't the case today. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need a separate RFAR for my points to be considered and commented on. If the Committee is looking into an issue, it ought to have the authority to examine its full scope, period. El_C 20:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum7: How many addendums?—and all for naught. I think that using an IP rather than one's own regular account works against the very argument s/he is purportedly advancing. El_C 11:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

 * I don't need to write anything, because El_C has summed it up beautifully in the section above. FWIW the block was not wrong, but certainly overlong, and the TP nonsense was definitely out of order. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I find 's comment Bishonen and the other editors who are now raising a ruckus should be ashamed of themselves to be insulting and belittling. All anyone is asking Sandstein to do is communicate with other admins in good faith, and work to find a solution. At every turn, Sandstein has shown no indication that they are at all interested in resolving the problem at hand, instead attaching unnecessary preconditions to each step. He refused to discuss the page protection, unless a direct appeal from the blocked editor (who was unable to directly comment due to the page protection) was made. TRM later proposed a voluntary restriction for himself that would demonstrate that he was attempting to resolve the issue, but Sandstein was "not convinced". I went to Sandstein's talk to mediate in good faith, and asked what it would take to convince him. He declined to put forth any suggestion. I then came up with my own counter proposal, but Sandstein again refused to discuss it unless it came from TRM himself, and only if the current appeal was declined. TRM agreed to my proposal, and yet Sandstein and others still believe he has no intention of abiding by the restriction. So TRM clearly states that he understands the restriction and makes statements like Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC), which fulfill every hoop that Sandstein has asked him to jump through, and yet instead of speaking with him or commenting on how to move forward, Sandstein is instead here insulting and belittling the admins who are attempting to resolve this contentious issue. It is becoming obvious that this issue is just an attempt to punish TRM, using Arbcom procedure to bludgeon anyone who wants to work toward a preventative solution. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floquenbeam
Regarding 's recent statement: This is tiresome to repeat, but... it is impossible that some of the evidence compiled against TRM was a response to my personal attack, because none of the diffs presented against him occured after my personal attack. They all occured before it. You have cause and effect backwards. My personal attack was a frustrated response to his comment, not vice versa. I had assumed that you'd checked this out before giving me a warning; did you not do so, or did you lose track? Before I get another helpful warning on my page, I'm not excusing my personal attack, I'm not saying that your helpful warning was not justified because you've confused the order. I'm saying that you need to at least look at the diffs before saying things that are demonstrably not true.

While I'm here, may I suggest that this is as simple as telling TRM that the ArbCom remedy is functionally equivalent to "TRM is instructed to suffer fools gladly"? Then we'd at least all be on the same page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
You know I try to avoid arbcom, and don't want to take the time of readers. Boing! summarized well for me, and so did the line just above "... suffer fools gladly" which might be true for all of us. A longer discussion can be read under User talk:El C. Nutshell: Imagine how much more time we all would have for article writing if nobody reports to AE, - very generally, not just this case. I am known for my dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
El_C has absolutely nailed it, Don't get me wrong I still think the block was pathetic however the way Sandstein has handled it all has been laughable, This may sound extreme but fuck it - Sandstein IMHO should be desysopped not only for their actions but also for not discussing any of it,

All's I'm seeing is "It's not my fault" and "I'm not discussing it" sort of attitude here,

Admit your mistakes - Discuss the solutions and or your mistakes, Resolve shit, Move on, Not that hard. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved admin Coffee
Could the committee please be so kind as to remind our editors (, highlighted) that all editors are to comment on article content not their fellow contributors? It doesn't matter how disruptive an editor becomes; their behavior is not a free pass to break our rules of conduct. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved IP editor
Am I the only one that finds it absolutely hilarious that arbcom openly decides to take no action, when the admin openly admits to gaming the system? Sandstein openly admitted in his latest reply that he closed it so quickly to stop a non consensus from forming specifically to force that a strong consensus against would be required. That's nothing short of gaming the system, and that's just supposed to not even be commented on? While gaming the system isn't a policy and "only" a guideline, that just stinks. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think I even have an account? Because I don't. Never had, and unless Wikipedia changes quite drastically, it's highly unlikely that I ever will. It's simply not gaining me anything that I'm interested in in even the slightest. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting a sanction though. I'm sorry if it came across as if I was. What I find to be stinking is that arbcom is choosing to not even comment on that it's a clear case of gaming the system. Just a simple acknowledging that that is indeed gaming the system would set a clear case that it's not acceptable for the future to game the system that way. I'd also ask, why mistakes having been made by both sides matter? Last I checked, arbcom is not a court and does not require one winner and one loser, so both having made mistakes doesn't make sense as some sort of defense. 213.112.98.111 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision 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

 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , there's a lot in these various contributions, but I think it's important to note at least one thing: Bishonen did not undo your block, which, it seems to me, is the most important part of the sanction. I note also that in your decision you didn't mention the talk page protection, and if this is going to boil down to procedure, that is not unimportant. It is correct that the possibility of talk page protection was there to protect TRM from gravedancing in the case of a block or other sanction; the argument that protection was to prevent TRM from any further incivilities is not so strong. Obviously, removal of talk page access would have done that, and I don't know if we'd be here if you'd decided on that (and announced it in the decision, I suppose). So, why the protection? And given that the AN thread focused on the length of the block, why should this particular disagreement be so important as to warrant this request for clarification? [There may be more to discuss--questions about involvement, for instance, coming from various sides, but this one decision on Bishonen's part is the heart of the matter.] Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13, User:Doug Weller, I'm not sure what CONEXCEPT is doing here. Doug is laying out that there seemed to be no reason for preemptive protection, and that policy supports this. Sure, ArbCom can override consensus--but that's not the same as saying an admin can, citing Arb-enforced possible sanctions, set aside policy for apparently no good reason. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think the committee wants to see drastic actions be documented and explained properly. Whether that was done or not is one of the things we're looking into, I suppose. Also, Several editors suggest that AE admins such as myself should use particular caution when dealing with "longstanding editors" or those with a "controversial reputation"--I am not one of those editors, and I think the committee agrees that we should have parity. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, "the remedy allowed talk page protection"--and you mention "...if the Arbitration Committee passed a bad remedy", but that's precisely it. If ArbCom passed a remedy against policy, it shouldn't have passed, but it wasn't a remedy against policy. Sandstein's protection could have been perfectly in line with the remedies drawn up by ArbCom, but, so the argument goes, it wasn't--some argue because it wasn't announced or argued explicitly or even recognized, some (Doug Weller) because there was no apparent need for it. DS/AE gives admins power, but not unlimited or arbitrary power. These are strong words, and I am not accusing Sandstein of being a kind of dictator--far from it, but we expect admins at AE to give a good reasoning for their decisions. I read over Sandstein's decision again, for the third time now, and there is nothing in there about the need for protecting the talk page, or about evidence of talk page disruption in the first place, never mind likely hypothetical evidence of talk page disruption. As for this chilling effect, I think that's overblown. Admins know, or should know, that the power that comes with acting at AE comes with the burden of having to explain their decision. No one I know, on ArbCom or outside of it, wants admins in general and Sandstein in specific to stop weighing in at AE: we, and the community, need them there, but, again, with disclosure of a. their precise actions and b. the justification of those action. You know as well as I do that revoking talk page access is rarely a first step, and protecting a talk page is exceptional--and, in this case, included in the remedies to prevent the editor from suffering abuse. That's all--I don't see this as a case that is so fundamental that we have to talk about chilling effects and remedy vs. policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13, I do not subscribe to these alarmist expressions which, I believe, are stated too strongly--for instance, that ECP is somehow "contrary" to policy, or that undoing one aspect of an administrative action, in this case an undiscussed and relatively minor part of an administrative action, is to be equated with the entire undoing of someone's work with impunity. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't read enough of this yet to have an opinion on the overall issue, but I do have an opinion on the small sub-issue that's been raised in a few statements about TRM using his talk page to make edit suggestions. If a blocked editor wants to post suggestions on their talk page, they can hardly force anyone to take those suggestions, and if an unblocked editor in good standing wants to make those edits in their own name, then they've taken full responsibility for them and it doesn't matter if the idea came from a blocked editor or they thought of it in the shower or it came to them in a dream. I happen to think it would be good for TRM to take a real break and not look at Wikipedia for at least a few days, but I'm not his mother. Let's leave that sub-issue aside and focus on AE. Moving along, I too am curious about the decision to full-protect the talk page, which is certainly unusual - the fact that it was explicitly mentioned in the remedy is, I think, a testament to how unusual an action that would be. (As a historical matter, the wording in the TRM remedy was clearly derived from this restriction in the GGTF case. AFAICT protection was used under that remedy once, for about a day, under circumstances that look at this remove like both continued misbehavior and baiting/gravedancing by others.), do you mean that you decided on protection over revoking talk page access because only the former was explicitly listed in the remedy? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of stuff here that people seem interested in discussing, and that is worthy of discussion, but this isn't really the right venue or format for it. If you think there should be a rule about blocked editors posting article work on their talk pages, WT:BLOCK would be a good place to start. If you think WP:INVOLVED is insufficiently clear, there's a talk page for that too. I'll also put the various arguments/memes about "unblockables" and "people with admin friends" and so forth in that category, and the wiki-philosophical matter of the relationship between "policy" and arbcom decisions. I took my own advice and cut a bunch of comments about those issues from this post. I'm sympathetic to Sandstein's argument here that we can't realistically say "Use your discretion within parameters X and Y" and then when controversy erupts, respond with "Well, we didn't mean like that!" Admins should be able to expect that their discretion will be respected. On the other hand, I think most observers agree here that blocking TRM for a week and revoking talk page access only if significant disruption occurred would have been broadly considered a reasonable action. The decision to use the maximum available block length and do something unusual like full-protect the page is highly conspicuous, and I think that an admin making unusual and conspicuous decisions should expect to be questioned about them and should be prepared to explain them - being annoyed with the popcorn eaters at ANI is fine, but you don't need an arb-managed venue to respond to reasonable questions. (For one thing, it's not possible to stop the community from discussing a decision if they want to, and for another, arbs are slow ;)  On the issue of the protection in particular, it just straight-up didn't cross my mind that the protection sentence might be read as implying that the full range of block parameters couldn't be used, because this remedy wording has been used before and it hadn't come up. (FWIW, I did think of it as primarily protecting TRM from unwelcome talk-page posts he couldn't respond to or remove.) If the wording of the remedy is a sticking point, I'm sure we can come up with a revision that will introduce other unanticipated subtle ambiguities be clearer ;) Finally, I agree with Bish that there's no need for a general imposition of a mandatory waiting period for AE requests, though I do think it would be collegial to wait on a request you can reasonably expect disagreement about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to agree with and amplify 's point above that all of this angst and drama was an avoidable outcome. Yes, Sandstein's decision was "valid" within the written scope of the remedy - and I don't think there's much need for us to opine formally on that - but being permitted by the rules doesn't make a decision a good idea, and it doesn't excuse someone from the expectation that they will be responsive to comments and questions about their decision. I also want to highlight another point: editors who are under an arbcom restriction of some kind tend to feel bitter or frustrated or (rightly or wrongly) like they are being unfairly targeted for criticism. Sanctions that are severe and delivered rapidly tend to perpetuate that narrative. Feeling targeted, underappreciated, and "wronged" is not a good state of mind for the introspection we might hope to see following a sanction. Choosing sanctions that are disproportionate to the offense makes them less effective than they might otherwise have been, makes it harder for the next admin to apply proportionate sanctions for a subsequent problem, and creates a community distraction with significant opportunity costs; there are very practical reasons for being judicious in meting out AE sanctions. For those reasons I find it strange to react to this incident by suggesting even more rigidity in responding to disputed AE actions. Much like the last time this came up, a perfectly reasonable outcome is "there was some disagreement and differences of interpretation, and then everybody went to neutral ground to sort things out". On the other hand, while I hope that community feedback on this particular decision has been clear, I don't think that 's proposed formal admonishment is a useful path forward. Making a decision that turns out to be a bad idea is a "lesson learned" situation, not one necessarily calling for even more escalation. Given that the AE thread is still trundling along, and TRM hasn't chosen to appeal to arbcom, I'm not sure there's really much for us to do here at this stage, other than the log cleanup Callanecc mentioned.  I noticed your ping on preview,, and to be frank I think you're overreacting. If anybody sees anything further about this situation and thinks "That's an outrage! I must do something about this awful behavior at once!", don't. Just go get a beer or take a walk or whatever and see if you still care tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I expect everyone watching here is also watching there, FYI: the AE appeal has been closed upholding the block's basis but commuting the time to one week. Since the underlying matter is settled, and none of us thought that the original block was an invalid action or that any sanctions were needed in this incident, that likely concludes the need for our involvement here. I believe there's a separate motion in the works to streamline logging, but that's not directly related to this request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse due to The ed17's involvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * 1. On the block - The block is a legitimate arbitration enforcement action under the TRM remedy. Arguments about the block length are matters for the block appeal at WP:AE.
 * 2. On talkpage protection - The talkpage protection is also a legitimate arbitration enforcement action, and should not have been unilaterally undone. Three qualifiers: First: if we want to dispute technicalities it's worth noting that the talkpage protection was not logged at the time it was reversed (per point 1 above by ). Is an unlogged sanction still sanction? Yes, but there's a tiny amount of wriggle room. Second: the reversal was in good faith, and ties up with a legitimate sense that the AE complaint discussion was hastily closed. Third: there is some legitimacy to the idea that the rationale for Arbcom's talkpage protection rationale (gravedancing provoking more TRM replies)hadn't been met when the protection was applied (though this is really a matter for the AE appeal).
 * 3. On the AE closure: There is nothing in the AE rules that mandates that discussions stay open for any period of time, or that individual administrators cannot act unilaterally. This is a flaw in the AE rules, which periodically gives rise to issues like this. Separately from any outcome of this or the AE thread, the Committee or community should endorse a minimum 24-hour period for an AE complaint to remain open. That way there's at least some opportunity for other admins to weigh in, and some opportunity for a consensus to form. Most AE complaints are important, but few require such urgent responses that a 24-hour minimum would cause irreparable harm. There's a lengthier discussion on this here, which also proposes other minimum requirements. For now, suggest we start with 24 hours and see how it goes.
 * 4. What to do - Noting the above qualifiers, suggest the following:
 * , your actions were within the letter of the law, though there are some who might legitimately feel the block was too long and the talkpage protection unnecessary. Please feel free to respond further to these matters at the current AE appeal.
 * , the talkpage protection was an arbitration enforcement action and shouldn't have been unilaterally overturned. However the overturning was explicable in the circumstances listed above. Please don't do it again. Instead, do please lend your hefty support to a minimum waiting period for AE complaints, so we can avoid future repeats of this burgeoning multi-noticeboard circus. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5. On proxying from TRM's talkpage On an semi-related matter - Agree with, and note the second half of the sentence from BLOCKEVASION applies: ... unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I can't get my head around your refusal to explain your reasons to anyone but an Arb. Reasons for Admin actions should always be open unless they involve confidential material. My opinion is that one way to avoid 'disruptions of AE actions' is to be open and willing to respond to reasonable questions such as "Why?". After all, you stated when you protected it that "I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block." As has already been pointed out, removing talk page access would have done that. Full protection might have been reasonable later if there were serious problems. And we normally don't worry about editors venting when blocked. In fact, sometimes it provides evidence as to whether the block was actually necessary (note that I am not suggesting this wasn't a good block, no comment on that right now, but that I've seen seriously unacceptable editors explode and make it clear that they don't belong here). In a nutshell, I agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller  talk 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this some more and took a look at our protection policy, specifically WP:NO-PREEMPT which says "Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it." Our policy also has a section on blocked users which says "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the template, re-blocking the user without talk page access should be preferred over protection." On one hand the remedy allowed talk page protection, but of course the Committee cannot override policy. Where's the evidence that there was disruption at a level of frequency that required page protection, or even that TRM's posts required removing talk page access?  Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what Rob is getting at, but the wording at CONEXCEPT is unclear if not ambiguous. I see it as meaning that we can override a consensus decision, eg one made at ANI. Rob's reading it as overriding policy, and if that's what it means I wish it it made that explicit. Doug Weller  talk 13:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm in agreement with Opabinia. I also agree there's not much more for us to do here. Maybe we need to rewrite the remedy regarding protection, but we can do that after this is closed. I don't think any other action by us is required at the moment and so far as I'm concerned this can be closed shortly. As several have said, there's been too much avoidable sturm and drang already, we don't need more. What we do need is appropriate sanctions with the reasons provided openly. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus pretty much said everything I was thinking. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * I agree broadly with what said above, with the exception of introducing a compulsory waiting period for AE requests.
 * I agree with the points gives about why a waiting period isn't a good idea - they aren't discretionary anymore and we have two classes of sanctions, those imposed by individual admins and those imposed by consensus at AE.
 * Sandstein's block and page protection were not discretionary sanctions but rather the enforcement of a Committee sanction to which the standard provision on enforcement applies. This also means that the requirements at WP:AC/DS do not apply (that's something I'm working on fixing at the moment).
 * More generally, I agree with some comments made throughout discussions about this that the removal of talk page access could have worked in this situation. As far as I'm concerned (when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, or discretionary sanctions), unless stated otherwise in the decision, the authorisation to block includes all parts Special:Block (talk page access and email for accounts). Perhaps that's worth writing down somewhere for the future...
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm working on a motion to do that now. Primarily it indicates that some of the stuff in discretionary sanctions procedure applies to every AE sanction/action. For example, a failure to log a sanction doesn't invalidate the sanction and that sanction is defined as a discretionary sanction or as "any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions".
 * I take your point regarding bright-line rules, and generally I would absolutely agree with you. But, in this specific instance, rather than threatening/warning/desysoping, fixing the issue for next time is a better outcome for everyone. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already the rule for a discretionary sanction, all the motion will do is extend this for every arbitration enforcement action. If an action is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log then the rules currently apply. As far as I'm concerned, ignoring "arbitration enforcement" (or "AE") in the block/protect/deletion/etc log or notification and then arguing that it wasn't recorded on the case page log is gaming the system. In this instance, it was unclear to both parties whether it needed to be logged and then that not logging it meant it was invalid.
 * Not sure what this has to do with wheel-warring? For example, what this motion will do is that when admin places sanction (e.g. a block) and notes that it's arbitration enforcement (in the block log for example) but forgets to log it (in the DS log or the case page for non-DS) then it will be a valid sanction and cannot to unilaterally overturned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that accidentally deleting an article without closing its AfD happens reasonably regularly without too much kerfuffle (and generally with someone just doing the paperwork for the admin who clicked the delete button). I'd agree with you there would be a WHEEL concern if it hadn't been noted as arbitration enforcement when it was done (in the block/protection log), the central log that you type into is there for the record and the future rather than recording that a specific action was done as arbitration enforcement.
 * I think we might have our wires crossed a little. I'm saying that if an action is taken (such as a block or page protection) and it is noted in the automatic (block or protection) log that it is an arbitration enforcement action then it is a valid AE action and under the protection of the protections against reversal. The admin then going to the log page (whether WP:DSLOG or the individual case page) and recording it is not required for it to be considered under the protection of arbitration enforcement rules (only that the action itself is clearly recorded as "arbitration enforcement"). When the new (current) discretionary sanctions procedures were being written, that was one of things suggested during the community consultation to reduce the bureaucracy and complexity of the system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the AE request has now been closed there doesn't seem to be too much for the Committee to do here. In summary, it's good that this request was brought here so that the Committee was able to review the situation (that is, the questions around DS procedure being followed). There were mistakes on both sides and that looks to have been satisfactorily sorted out at AE; I don't see a need to sanction anyone. Stay tuned for a motion to clarify some of this in the near future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that formed part of the reason I (and I suspect other arbs) decided not to sanction the two admins. Mistakes were made by both parties so sanctioning them doesn't really solve the problem and give us a way forward. Instead we've left WP:AE to resolve the AE action itself and now we're looking at what we can do to try and stop this from happening again (by modifying some rules around AE and discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether one or both actions are as clear cut gaming the system as you suggest they are is a matter of debate. I can only speak for myself here, however my decision not to propose/support a motion to sanction both of them for (technically, and very technically for Bish's action) what is allowed by the policy/procedure was primarily because I'd rather avoid that dramah-fest and allow the community (in this case WP:AE) to solve issue at hand (TRM's block). Plus it allows me (as an arbitrator) time (and a lack of arb and community angst) to work on trying to fix this problem in the procedure so that it doesn't happen again (that is, closing the loopholes). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse, FWIW Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Rambling Man
Original discussion

Amendmentq request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by Dweller at 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * I've gamed this, by notifying and reverting. He knows I'm doing it and I've promised to not to bother him with it till it's done, so much as is possible


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man
 * Replace "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors" with "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians"

Statement by Dweller
Since the Arbcom case, TRM has been approached from time to time by editors and administrators who have warned him, taken him to AE or even blocked him over breaching remedy 4 of the case. It is my belief that at least some of these approaches have been 100% in good faith, nonetheless, some have undoubtedly been problematic and they are having an unfortunate impact.

It seems to me that the vague wording you applied is having an unintentional effect. It gives license to users to wave the banhammer at TRM for too wide a range of wording. Pretty much anything other than the meekest and mildest behaviour can be cast in these terms. For an example, please see this warning, which was definitely made in good faith but the community strongly disagreed with, and the filing editor himself has agreed was incorrect.

I agree with the comments on TRM's usertalk that we shouldn't expect him to behave better than others, including admins who feel free to use appalling language without of being warned or blocked. And the constant hauling over the coals must be very wearing.

The standard for behaviour on Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL and this policy applies to all, whether ArbCom targets or vested administrators. I'd suggest that you focus the problematic remedy on the policy language at Civility: "Editors are expected to avoid ." as far too much can be construed (especially by anyone with an axe to grind, which has happened) as "belittling" or "insulting".

It is worth noticing that "belittling and insulting" is dealt with in CIVIL. As is using foul and abusive language, which TRM doesn't do, but has received. It's right there, in the messy section that begins "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not", and that half sentence is all you need to understand why it is everyone ignores it, including successive ArbComs who've danced around thorny CIVIL cases for years and years.

TRM is worn out by ArbCom processes and has little faith in you, but I am an undying optimist. I hope you will agree to consider and then agree to this request. I also hope I've not broken this insanely tricky template --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @ specifically not. My point is that the language there includes matters that Wikipedia seems to tolerate, (ie "rudeness") from admins and in ArbCom cases over the years, or find difficult to define (ie "belittling"). I'm very happy for you guys to open a big case and work out how you're going to untangle years of neglect of CIVIL, but this is a simple suggestion that limits the remedy to "harrassment" and "insulting", which we understand well and police ish well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply and . You say that the wording I suggest won't help with curbing the "annoying" behaviour of TRM, but I'd say that your current wording is equally unhelpful, but worse it has negatives on top, being unclear, too broad, and setting parameters easily gamed by those with an agenda. On the basis of do no harm, you might therefore be better off revoking the measure altogether.


 * Those advocating pointing to CIVIL more generally should be aware that doing so takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire, as it takes the too broad parameters and makes them even broader! The terms that I'm objecting to here (and I'm getting some resonance from you and others) are included in CIVIL: they're right there, in the part that everyone, including Arbcom, traditionally totally ignores.


 * Yes, the community needs to get to grips with CIVIL, but that has been the case since I first starting editing 12 years ago and I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I will happily start an RfC but we all know how easy it is to keep an RfC on long-established policy on-track, focussed and with a useful outcome.


 * If there's no Arbcomese that deals properly with the 'disruption' caused by TRM, don't legislate for it. Or take a closer look at it and find specific language. Or go for my suggestion. Don't leave it in a bad state... or make it worse.


 * Oh, and of course, I support the Motion, as it is precisely what I suggested at the start of this, in your insanely tricky template, above, if you remove the reference to incivility, with it's wikilink to the broad CIVIL policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * the answer to your question to The Wordsmith is in the whole of what I have written above these words. CIVIL is completely broken and has been through the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. I explain why above. I hope to do something about that, but a) it won't be fast and b) even I, the eternal optimistic, is pessimistic about the chances of success. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * perhaps a good step then would be to just remove this remedy altogether. I think you're right, it doesn't lend itself to Arbcomese, it's not easy for good faith admins to interpret, it's easy for bad faith admins and editors to game, and perhaps, just perhaps, this small concession from ArbCom to TRM would see him respond in kind, as I think (my words not his, and apologies, TRM for putting words in your mouth) he feels thoroughly badly treated by ArbCom over a period of some years, which really hasn't helped things. TRM already knows, with or without this remedy, that significant 'bad behaviour' will lead to hefty further measures by ArbCom so perhaps you have little to lose and much to gain. Even TRM's greatest critic has to see what a tremendous asset he is to the community. In his early days, his perception by the community was such that he flew past RfA and RfB. That person isn't a changeling. What's changed is that bad blood in various areas has soured relationships. We're not so flush with editors that we can lose mediocre ones, let alone good ones. How about trying to turn this round? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In a case where the Arbs want to point someone to WP:CIVIL, arbitrator is flagrantly breaching WP:CIVIL. If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about how useless and broken CIVIL is then nothing will. If you make this remedy point to CIVIL broadly, TRM could and would be blocked by an admin or hauled off to AE for making a comment like Opabinia's. Ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom. Please read 's words at least twice. It's about the wisest thing I've read on any Arbitration page, ever. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Recent contributions have suggested simply scrapping this clause, rather than replacing it. I'm persuaded. Suggested options are all flawed, although not as bad as the original. There seems to be consensus that things have improved and I think toning down the Arbcom rhetoric on this user can only help. Delete it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Arbs, given that the problems you're trying to address are not about incivility, given that TRM is the frequent recipient of unpunished incivility and given that WP:CIVIL is a horrible mess, why mention it in your motion? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
Yes, what Dweller said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, one more thing. I'm happy to always comply with WP:CIVIL (as all editors are bound to do so), I'm not sure why that needs explicit statement. When admins are immune to any kind of admonishment when telling me "fuck you" or calling me "asshole" or calling me a liar across multiple venues on Wikipedia, it leaves me completely impotent to do anything.  Even when requesting Arbcom's input on a previous IBAN, I was simply blocked without any kind of communication whatsoever, despite the original email about the issue being instigated by me.  That's not "arbitration", it's "punishment".  I am out of faith with this committee, I do believe they are avoiding the issues I've raised (some of which are still outstanding, e.g. including abuse of oversight), but all I'm asking for is a level playing field when it comes to discussion.  Find a diff where I told someone they were an "asshole" or told them "fuck you" or told them they were a detriment to Wikpiedia or told them they were an "outright liar".  I can give you diffs, from admins, directed at me, that have been accepted (or are under scrutiny) by Arbcom and the rest of the community.  I know I'm an outcast, but a right to reply should be something that Arbcom works hard to preserve.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I warned Dweller that this would probably be a fool's errand, especially given how precious his time on Wikipedia is right now. It appears that Arbcom are using this appeal to actually make matters worse.  The very fact that two members of the current "active" Arbcom have admitted to the edits I have apparently made as being "annoying" (rather than blockable) sums it all up perfectly.  Bravo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw this, as it's clear that Arbcom aren't interested in making actual progress here, it's just being used as another opportunity to berate me. Which is both harmful and a waste of everyone's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear this is now a waste of time, as with most dealings with Arbcom. Wrestling with a convoluted yet objective wording on how best to enable admins to block me is proving impossible, OR now suggests that I shouldn't question the competence of other editors, yet (ironically) I had to question the competence of an admin at ANI where there was near-unanimous support for his desysopping, but of course, that can't happen because Arbcom are the only people who can sanction such a decision.  This committee is the weakest I have seen for a decade, that they need to file a case to find that an admin who ardently refuses to comply with WP:ADMINACCT is astonishing, the evidence is there, it's been there since April.  This amendment is going south, and users like OR are simply using it as an opportunity to stab at me again and again, and provide no actual useful remedy.  Bring on the Arbcom elections, I have so much to provide our editors.  Any one for oversight?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * this is being closed because.... Arbs can't be bothered to contribute? Why do we have them?  There have been a number of calls now to remove the restriction altogether yet no Arbs are bothered to even respond.  What's the point of this process if even the Arbs themselves are shirking their position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * this isn't good enough. There's been virtually no real input from the Arbs here, no actual effort made to look at all the proposals.  Even in recent days there have been several calls to remove the restriction yet that has received no attention whatsoever from any Arb.  Am I to believe therefore that this sanction is indefinite and cannot ever be overturned or modified simply because of the intransigence of the committee? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either) apparently that is actually far from the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

so you want The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence., does that mean I can't discuss the incompetence or general dereliction of duty of rogue admins or Arbs? Or do I have to take any discussion I wish to have about the behaviour of such rogue admins and Arbs to ANI each and every time? Could you please clarify that? It's very important because I have a lot to discuss about the current committee's inabilities (both collectively and individually, including abuse of position) and I don't want to be summarily blocked in case it's deemed an infringement of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
This was something I had doubts about during the case. After all, we're all bound by WP:CIVIL, so what's the point of "TRM is prohibited from ___"? It's already implicit in WP:CIVIL. Why not tie the clause to WP:CIVIL directly -

4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is reminded that WP:CIVIL applies to all editors, under all circumstances. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to violate WP:CIVIL, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does violate WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way. Banedon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support OR's wording, which I think is extremely well worded. If someone is opposing that wording I'd like to know why. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I have no comment on this request, just a question that I think the Committee must answer before proceeding. Public policy works well when it tries to achieve a clearly defined goal. The same applies to ArbCom remedies. What is the goal you're trying to achieve here? In particular, is it compliance with WP:CIVIL or something beyond that? I think you'll have a much easier time crafting an appropriate remedy once you answer that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on ' comment, I have to add that the Committee should consider what remedies administrators can effectively enforce and whether an alternative venue is appropriate (such as ARCA) for enforcing a remedy that goes unenforced by the community. User_talk:The_Rambling_Man is relevant, especially the comment claiming the remedy wasn't intended to be enforced against anything other than "personal attacks" and "aggressive and harshly personal comments". Whether or not this was your intent, that's how admins are enforcing it. The few that are interpreting the remedy as OR intended it to be interpreted are severely pressured to change their thinking. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I absolutely endorse this request. After the last incident for which TRM was blocked, people began to understand that the restriction itself was too vague and open to interpretation, both by TRM and by others. I advised TRM that he should consider it to mean that he shouldn't discuss "the suspected motives or competence of other editors", and he hasn't been blocked for it since then. However, the proposed wording here is also fine with me.

Vague notions such as insulting or belittling have been misinterpreted multiple times, both unintentionally and (I suspect) intentionally at times by some with longstanding grudges against TRM. Directly tying it to NPA and WP:HARASSMENT at least gives us solid definitions to work with that have lots of precedent. It also makes it clear that he is not being held to a higher standard than the people who interact with him, which would probably reduce the likelihood of another incident like previous occurrences of admins personally attacking him with impunity, then him being blocked when he responds in kind. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: I believe the new motion is actually worse and would be more heavily abused. As it is, TRM can defend himself when making the occasional mildly snarky comment because it is not insulting or belittling to a specific editor. Including wholesale incivility would strip him of that defense, and would mean that his blunt and to-the-point comments that he doesn't dress up in flowery prose could (and will, by those with a grudge) be construed as mild incivility. This is an insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to. If we did then everybody in this thread, including the entire Arbitration Committee, would be indeffed by now. The Wordsmith Talk to me 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * By linking it to WP:CIVIL, you're (intentionally or not) making a statement that the things in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL are sanctionable for TRM. This includes things like "rudeness (often mistaken for bluntness)" and judgmental edit summaries/talk page posts (which aren't necessarily directed at an identifiable editor). All established editors sometimes get mildly snarky, especially in edit summaries and talk pages. This is a standard that has not ever been enforced among the general population during my tenure on Wikipedia, so to attempt to broaden the sanction (again, knowingly or otherwise) to include these things, when it was asked that the sanction be narrowed, is unreasonable. The Wordsmith Talk to me 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
I've disagreed with the wording for a very long time - As noted above it's way too vague so it essentially means he can be reported for absolutely anything even for comments that are in no way personal attacks or belittling, The current wording also gives those with a grudge against TRM an excuse to drag him at Arbcom and constantly block him for no reason at all so I fully agree with the proposed wording. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (Updated 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Statement by EdChem
I am grateful to Dweller for beginning this request. This remedy has been misapplied at times and been needs clarification. What it does not need is to be expanded by reference to WP:CIVIL so that TRM is at the mercy of the most trigger-happy ultra-uptight admin whose idea of incivility is way out of line with community values and common sense, all protected by the power of AE to prevent the timely reversal of an over-the-top decision.

TRM has a history of unhelpful and pointed posts, certainly at DYK. I believe these have markedly reduced since the decision, and keeping the limitation on the problematic behaviour, as the original form of the motion did, was appropriate. Turning it into a broader-than-present wording not only ignores what Dweller is requesting, it is difficult to see as anything but deliberately punishing TRM for the request having been made.

made a mistake in the recent warning, and had the character to recognise when the views of others disagreed and offered an apology. Some admins, who decide to police TRM with all the subtlety and nuance of a certain recently-former White House Communications Director, are not helping TRM or WP, and ArbCom further empowering them would be to the manifest detriment of WP and TRM. TRM is like a work colleague many of us have encountered, who can be brusque, direct, and blunt, who many wish would curb his words, but who is also usually right. His behaviour has improved and that should be recognised and appreciated. He was previously pushing towards a ban, his problematic comments are much reduced, please, ArbCom, please don't take an action the rest of us will regret.

Inconsistent views and actions on civility are a major problem on WP, and we all know it. Coming up with a policy that make sense is beyond ArbCom's remit and beyond the community's ability, sadly. But, knowing it is dysfunctional and that the present restriction is not working, changing the restriction to point to that known dysfunction would be irresponsible. It makes further conflict inevitable, wastes everyone's time, and generates ill-will. EdChem (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Addressing a couple of specific comments...

of course TRM and every other editor is bound by the civility policy, and he is required to stay within the general bounds by which we are all constrained. However, naming WP:CIVIL in a modification would bind TRM (or any editor in a similar circumstance) to the standards of the most uptight and block-happy admin, backed by AE unquestionability. That is not asking that he comply with the civility policy, it's painting a target on him and making him wear a cap with a flashing sign that reads "shoot on the slightest deviation from hyper-civility, for protection from consequences ring 1-800-Arb-Com". If you believe you must remind TRM of WP:CIVIL, please please please restrict it to comments on the motion and not within the motion itself, because in the comments its a reminder and in the motion it goes from OR's stick to more like a semi-automatic machine gun.

I am one of the editors who has received snarky comments from TRM, and one who has commented critically to him at times. If approached as an intelligent colleague and taken seriously, a useful discussion can be had and civil disagreement is possible. Approaching him with snark is unwise, as it will likely be returned with interest. I have to agree that TRM can be, and has been, really goddamn annoying... but in this request, you have no one saying that has become worse, and me (at least) saying there has been substantial improvement. If you respond with a broadening of the restriction, how should that be interpreted?

Subsequent comments in reply to specific questions from Arbitrators and 

Doug, I appreciate the follow-up question and have been wondering about how to reply, especially in light of further comments from OR. My reply here is meant for you both (and anyone else interested, obviously) as I have formed a hypothesis that I hope explains our divergent viewpoints. Feel free to correct me, obviously, if this does not resonate for either of you. Some comments, and particularly those from OR, appear to reflect the situation as it was at the end of the case. OR says that: TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. As someone who has criticised TRM at times, I can only agree that this has been a problem, but one that has decreased significantly. This request was started by addressing overly zealous /  aggressive policing of TRM nearly two weeks ago, and yet no one has made a comment arguing about continued comments from TRM such as OR has described as being a problem.

The case was closed nearly 10 months ago and the Enforcement log shows a warning on December 1, 2016 which was struck as a misunderstanding, and a 3 day block on December 14, 2016, which was overturned as hasty and involved and a warning substituted. An AE block for a month was imposed on March 5, 2017, and reduced to a week on appeal as having a justified basis but as being overly harsh. The AE admin fully protected TRM's talk page, an action overturned within two hours and criticised as overzealous enforcement. Discussions occurred at AN, Bishonen's user talk page, and an extensive WP:A/R/CA discussion. Despite the activity, we are talking about a grand total of one justified sanction and a week's block. It's also worth noting AE requests closed as "No action required", "Complete waste of time", and as "Utter nonsense and a waste of time". TRM's block log shows a recent (unlogged) block for an iBAN violation, unrelated to the topic here. To me, all this shows, when coupled with warnings like the recent one from Oshwah, shows over-eager administrator actions and harassment of TRM by editors seeking to weaponise the ArbCom sanctions. My hypothesis, though, is that OR and some others are seeing the situation as it was at the end of the case, with suggestions from Dweller and others of problematic behaviour being predictions rather than observations, and comments from editors like me as to TRM's improved behaviour as being inconsistent with your existing perceptions. OR, TRM's self-regulation has improved, and your comment that I am behaving like a child is both unjustified and offensive.

More generally, we have an existing remedy which has had unintended effects, we have an editor whose actions have improved but is also clearly being monitored closely, we have one valid action under the remedy (the non-iBAN) part, we have an undisputed community request for the unintended effects to be addressed and advising the proposal will be gamed, and we have arbitrators concerned that the behaviour that was seen as problematic is unaddressed by either form. The obvious approach to me would be to draft an entirely new remedy with a focus on sequences of comments amounting to snark or whatever and not creating the opportunities for the most conservative view on civility / whatever to prevail. Perhaps something like:

Obviously, the views of and  are important on how this version might be seen as well as the views of Arbitrators. My idea was to add OR's concerns about series of edits, but also to codify that the standards applying to TRM are the same as for everyone else (to discourage action that would never be taken against another editor) and to offer some constructive advice. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This post of yours begins by directing it to myself and The Wordsmith, it concludes that "everybody" (not TRM specifically, but everybody) should "act like grownups," and it has the edit summary "re edchem + wordsmith". I think interpreting your "everybody act like grownups" comment on childish behaviour as including (inter alia) The Wordsmith and myself is a reasonable reading, and whatever your intent, I don't think it reads as a comment only on TRM. In fact, if it was meant to imply childish behaviour from some of those who have made some of the spurious AE filings against him, then I would have to agree that TRM has been being treated poorly and provoked, which is another reason the gaming of this restriction requires action.

I'm glad to see that you liked part of my summary and agree that those sorts of comments from TRM or anyone else tend to be unhelpful. Part of my point, though, was that these types of comments have been much reduced at DYK and ERRORS and ITN/C. You reference the WT:ACN discussion from late May / early June, but that was hardly representative of his more general editing. Please bear in mind that ArbCom had just banned him from discussing Bishonen, who he sees as an exemplar of the abusive admin problem on WP. (For the record, I have considerable respect for Bishonen and though I agree with TRM that there are some abusive admins and getting things done about poor admins is exceptionally difficult, I don't agree with him that Bishonen is a major problem.) ArbCom's handling of the subsequent discussion was not good, in my view, and I was certainly not convinced by the arguments made. That TRM has a poor opinion of ArbCom and expressed it is not news, nor is it really surprising that he vented in that circumstance. I cannot say that everything he said was justified / appropriate, but equally I think it is unfair if ArbCom takes that discussion as typical of his recent posts in areas where his behaviour has previously been contentious. Surely if there was a pile of recent diffs fitting the pattern you describe, theywould have been posted at AE or here by someone. Instead, you have a request to address a problem with the remedy you crafted where no one has yet posted disagreement with the basic request Dweller has made. Despite this, and even following the recent comment from, I am concerned that either nothing will be done or that any change made will be equally vulnerable to being weaponised by those wanting to see TRM banned from Wikipedia. In my suggestion, I tried to provide framing to clarify what the remedy is meant to address. There are surely other options to craft something that is clear in intent, constrains the problematic comments (which I believe have been much reduced), and doesn't require more of TRM than is the common behavioural standards to which we all (hopefully) endeavour to abide. EdChem (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
Aren't reminders unenforceable by sysops? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I am a bit concerned by Opabinia's alternative motion. TRM does a lot of work at places like ERRORS and DYK where (by the very nature of those pages) such work involves pointing out errors and - sometimes, although it's better than it used to be - complete nonsense that is either on, or due to appear on, the Main Page. It is not a stretch to think that at some point an editor whose contributions are being criticised may stretch that to "hey, you're commenting on my competence, you're not allowed to do that". People do - naturally - often react poorly to their work being criticised, however valid those criticisms might be. Surely any restriction needs to be focused on attacks on editors, not edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Support, though fix the grammar, e.g. to "engaging in personal attacks against or harassment of other Wikipedians". "Making ... harassment" isn't idiomatic in English, nor is "attacks ... of" [in this sense]. "And" and "or" are not synonyms; using "and" here gives the unintended meaning "both of those things at once, not just one of them".

I thought the original "insulting and/or belittling" wording of the remedy was too vague and gameable from day one. I say this as someone who supported kind of action in the original case, having been on the receiving end of TRM's historical incivility more than once. However, the remedies do appear to be punitive and unfair in actual practice at this point. And TRM's behavior has actually been markedly remedied anyway. It's not the intent of decisions like this to be permanent scarlet letters, or shackles; they're to address a problem until it's addressed. If there's a concern the proposed change is too narrow, include "incivility toward"; CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS are all policies that apply to all of us anyway. The community knows what they mean, and that their application in a remedy means "you've transgressed in this direction before, have some strikes against you, and thus will be held to a high standard henceforth". But the community (or its admin subset) is not going to consistently interpret ArbCom-invented, undefined standards like those in the original remedy.

"Insulting and/or belittling" is just radically subjective. Many people feel insulted any time someone contradicts them and points out logic holes in their arguments. Many feel belittled when their real-world credentials are not considered equivalent to reliable sources. I feel insulted and belittled every single time an OWNish or TAGTEAMy editor in a content dispute suggests my viewpoint should be discounted because I'm not a regular editor of that article. The average liberal feels insulted and belittled every time a conservative dismisses their viewpoint as liberal bias, and vice versa, even when it clearly is.

A remedy that effectively makes someone defenseless against verbal attacks will inspire more of them, inevitably. A remedy for one editor being verbally combative that empowers many more editors to be verbally combative toward that one, because he's trussed up, is no remedy for anything, but a baby-with-the-bathwater worsening of the original situation.

Finally, please keep in mind that having WP:HOTHEAD tendencies (I would know) isn't in and of itself a WP:COMPETENCE failure; it's a habitual set of responses that can be moderated, just like other habits that are unhelpful at WP (carelessness with facts, officiousness, hyperbole and histrionics, forgetting to punctuate, sarcasm and faux-civility, etc.). TRM is already showing this self-moderation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My peanut gallery perspective on the alternative proposal is it's better than the extant remedy, though it still has the flaw of also being made-up ArbCom-ese. At least the bit about assuming motives is one that's been used before, and the one about reflections on competence isn't as vague as "insulting and/or belittling".  Neither of these are very hard to abide by, though it takes some practice (and helping others do it with regard to both is, entirely coincidentally, the exact subject of the WP:HOTHEADS essay I wrote.) That said, I've reviewed the recentish background since the original case, and I see a) TRM showing contrition and reasonableness, thereby getting a three-way IBAN lifted unanimously at ANI; b) a way-calmer approach in general with other editors by and large; c) lots of productivity, despite d) frequent unaddressed verbal attacks/harassment against him; e) an attempt to drag him into a case about someone else (the old-time admin returning from a CBAN, I forget the name), and f) an  mysterious dispute which the community response so far indicates raises more concerns about ArbCom than about either party.  Even if that last really does involve some kind of horrendous flamewar between the two editors and it's so crude no one should ever look at it, that's an isolated personality dispute, and isn't a "TRM is disrupting WP" matter. The fact that he's so vocally pissed off at ArbCom about this fiasco maybe has a bit of a "mooning the jury" quixotic element to it, but everyone has limits, and this ire is very localized, seeming to have no effect on his encyclopedia work. I have to question the idea of any of these remedies remaining. What exactly are they preventing?  He's already been desysopped, and subject to a hell of a public pillorying, so what's the point?  TRM has clearly received the message, in his everyday activity here; ANI supported easing restrictions on him; and he's only being hotheaded about what he perceives as his treatment in  venue and by people connected to it as members or enforcers.  I've been in an eerily similar boat, many years ago, including getting no recourse from the focused hostility of a clique of "Judge Dredd" AE admins, but a pile of additional sanctions for things no one else would have been sanctioned for, just because I'd ever gotten one; until a third party intervened and filed a motion on my (and some others') behalf a year+ after it all started, with barely any relief emerging from that.  So, I sympathize very directly and more than I came here ever expecting to (while, like TRM in his case, conceding my own fault in and growth since mine).  I have to wonder: why is this stonewall pattern repeating, pretty much down to the last detail?  I'm sure the ArbCom work is challenging, including trying to deal with the mistakes of previous ArbComs, but repeating one of them as if following a playbook doesn't seem like a good plan.

Statement by Mr Ernie
This relatively simple issue has been open for quite a while now. It does not seem like Arbcom will be able to provide a workable update, so I suggest to simply abolish the sanction per WP:TNT. Numerous others have pointed out the problems with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There has not really been any substantive comments from Arbs regarding this issue for quite some time now. I'm respectfully asking the Arbs to please come together to resolve this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mkdw Why not close this by removing the restriction? Many other editors have described the problems with it - just get rid of it. If issues arise later, than can be dealt with. A close with no action doesn't really help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mkdw Thanks for the response. So we're going to keep an unclear and relatively unenforceable (most arbs already commented that the sanction should be covered by the normal CIVIL or NPA policies) sanction that makes it easy to bait a productive editor? Personally, I can't understand why - but that's why they pay you guys the big bucks. Maybe just propose the deletion via WP:TNT and see what happens. At least this way we'll get a clear picture of which arbs in particular prefer to keep TRM under a sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2017 (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

 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pending comments from TRM and other arbs, but I think this change is a good idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a follow up (so I remember as well) probably looking to change it to "The Rambling Man is prohibited from making personal attacks or harassing other editors." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dweller's points are well noted, and I cannot see anything that I disagree with in that regard. Indeed belittling and insulting should be covered under the standard NPA policy and I take no exception to rewording as per Callanecc's suggestion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy with Callanecc's suggestion. As I understand it, this would mean that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Civility. Doug Weller  talk 09:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree broadly with Opabinia regalis's comments and think that if we are going to remind TRM that incivility is prohibited that that still means that he is prohibited from making any edit covered at Civility. I can't see why we should water that down. Doug Weller  talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your point. But I can't support Callanecc's motion as it stands. Have you a suggestion that meets the concerns below? Doug Weller  talk 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of WP:CIVIL must be decided by the community should they desire changes or modifications to close any gap that may exist between the wording and community accepted norms and practices. In terms of the ArbCom remedy regarding TRM, I believe it exceeds the expectations of the policy and enforces a more strict code of conduct on TRM than intended. CIVIL has been brought up several times in the statements above. It may be worth including in any adjustment (since it already covers harassment and NPA), while ensuring the wording avoids any compounding restrictions. <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 15:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only inconsequential aspects of the situation were discussed at WT:ACN. I am not surprised that anyone's review of that discussion would be unsatisfying. A conclusion (albeit not resolution) occurred only thru the private dialogue between the parties involved, and not public disclosure or discussion.
 * The inequities some editors experience on Wikipedia are certainly apparent and can be unfair. The systems we have in place for handling disputes often fail with respect to consistency. The inherent problems of a policy or community to follow through on enforcement are not going to be resolved in a remedy against one editor. It only creates an argument for more rigidity rather than leniency. The "same standards of behaviour as all other editors" is an impossible qualitative requirement or criteria to assess. It will create the same problems with discretionary interpretation as occurred with the wording "belittle". I don't want ArbCom creating new codes of conduct on an editor-by-editor basis. <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 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to even modify the language with respect to easing it; there is even less of a chance of a committee consensus towards outright removal. <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 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not what I was hoping for either. I already put forward a proposal that was a compromise between the original request and comments made by the community and committee. It did not gain any traction. There is no point on putting forward yet another proposal that will obviously fail. I would even suggest it would gain even less support than the other failed proposals. This conversation has been going on for months and removal was eliminated from consideration early on as some deemed it a step backwards and worse than the status quo. Additionally, there's much more support to simply withdraw the request despite it being without progress. <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 19:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing the request be closed because no progress is being made -- something observed by multiple editors including yourself. If people want to keep it open, I'm not opposed to that either. There is no consensus even among participants. The issue of consensus is not currently being blocked by quorum. The idea of removing the remedy altogether is a step in the opposition direction from the views of the opposing side. It's not surprising it was met by little or no discussion. I would expect a comment proposing the remedy be strengthened and made more ambiguous would also not receive a meaningful dialogue. The point should be to find a compromise where both sides give -- not fail to compromise and then propose something even further a part. <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 20:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being so late to the party here, but Dweller's proposal (and thus Callanecc's motion) doesn't quite work for me. I understand the problem with the current wording; arbcom remedies aren't meant to be sticks to beat their subjects with (and the original source of the "insulting and/or belittling" wording didn't have great success either). It is true that warnings and blocks have a way of becoming self-reinforcing - "He's been blocked so often, he must be really awful!" - and that cycle is both unpleasant and difficult to break. But the specific proposed change doesn't quite cover the problem at hand IMO. For one thing, personal attacks and harassment are already prohibited, for everyone. Yes, people differ in what they think falls in those categories, and enforcement varies even for clear-cut cases, but it seems like that particular rewording would just be creating the same situation this is trying to avoid - singling TRM out for extra-special enforcement. More substantively, the specific problem with TRM's behavior hasn't really been about personal attacks or harassment, and thus making that change significantly affects the scope of the remedy. The problem is that TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. In short TRM violates FidoNet Rule 1, "Thou shalt not excessively annoy others", and the fact that others around him are violating Rule 2, "Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed", only partially mitigates the issue. Unfortunately I don't know how to write "be less annoying" in arbcomese. I believe the underlying problem is a bad case of Someone is wrong on the Internet! - but arbcom has not historically been very effective with that issue. "Every time you make a snarky comment, any editor may respond in full by posting beneath it one (1) image of a hissing cat"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM, if you read my post and what you got out of it was "ha! she said I wasn't doing anything blockable!" then I do not know what to tell you. I normally try to avoid comparing editors' behavior to that of children, but I can't think of a better analogy - you are behaving like the stereotypical bratty little brother who plays the "I'm not touching yoooou!" game in the back seat of the family minivan, with his hand an inch from his sister's face, and when she finally loses it and smacks him, he moans and whines - "Help, help, she hit me! I think my finger's broken! Moooooom! She hit me! ...What do you mean, 'Don't bother her and you won't get hit'? Are you saying it's worse to bother someone than to hit them? She was violent! This is child abuse! Why aren't you punishing her??? Mooooooooooooooom!" (The copyright police will come after me if I link it, but Google the "I'm not touching you!" scene from Lilo and Stitch for a good example of this game.) The TRM case last year was filed in early September, so we're coming up on a full year of attempts to prompt some kind of effective introspection or self-regulation. I don't know what happened to the guy who did some honest self-reflection and posted this request two years ago, but more of that would go a long way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * EdChem and Wordsmith, I'm not quite sure what you mean... in my view the defect in the motion, regardless of whether it mentions WP:CIVIL or not, is that it requires an admin to assert that individual examples of this annoying behavior are uncivil/a personal attack/harassment in order to implement a sanction, which is worse because it could appear to set a broader precedent when the problem is really quite specific. The best solution is for TRM to self-regulate his own behavior, or maybe commit to immediate withdrawal from any conversation when someone he trusts tells him to quit. What I think would work isn't actually something arbcom can do - that is, firm message discipline on the part of those who interact with him. When he says something snarky, just ignore him. Don't post "please remember to be WP:CIVIL!", don't put warnings on his talk page, don't take him to AE, don't even save the diff in your offline "Misbehavior by my wiki-enemies" folder. You thought you heard a funny noise in the distance, but it turned out it was nothing, so you just carried on your conversation with the other people in the discussion. And if he says something useful and reasonable, even if it's negative or critical, just respond as you would to anyone else making the same point. In other words, everybody act like grownups. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * GW, I don't know about that - I'd much rather just be ignored than get the escalating WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK, talk page template, AE filing treatment.
 * EdChem, I don't really understand part of your post; I don't see how my previous two paragraphs could be interpreted as calling you childish. Maybe I'm missing something. The person acting like a child is TRM. Anyway, I don't think your hypothesis is correct; as you know, TRM's most recent interaction with arbcom was not the end of his case in October 2016, but was just a couple of months ago. That said, your suggested wording Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators is a pretty good summary of where the problem lies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize that it's difficult to get a full picture of this spring's incident involving TRM, because aspects of it were private, but it was certainly not merely for making allegations of admin abuse. To be frank, the behavior that prompted that decision burned up a significant amount of my personal stockpile of patience with TRM, and I think I'd been on the more sympathetic side beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for Dweller's position - I've certainly had the experience of enjoying the presence of "difficult" editors and wondering why so many other people seemed unable to leave them alone. I suggest a briefer variation on EdChem's wording - just replace the first paragraph of the remedy with "TRM is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors and administrators or reflections on their general competence". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis said it well above. The intention when drafting that remedy was not to repeat the civility policy, but rather to try to address a pattern of snide, unhelpful remarks that The Rambling Man had been making. These remarks generally fell short of what most admins would consider uncivil, but when repeatedly made against the same users were creating a very difficult environment to work in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain more how the motion below would be "worse and would be more heavily abused," and is an "insane standard that we would never hold anybody else to"? "incivility, personal attacks and harassment are prohibited" is a statement of fact—this is a reminder of what is already reflected in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of that kind of wording has always been that it's a reminder not to do something that everyone on Wikipedia is similarly prohibited from doing—hence why I'm often unwilling to support those kinds of restrictions, since we shouldn't have to repeat what's already in policy and what the sanctioned party almost certainly knows about by now if we find ourselves needing to remind them. I guess perhaps the motion could link to Civility, though per my previous comment I don't see the benefit in reminding/warning TRM of something he's already well aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on your suggestion that the thing to do in situations like this is to just ignore TRM (or anyone who makes a habit of making remarks like the ones that ended in this sanction). That just creates a hostile environment where everyone "in the know" about the issue is bothered but tries to ignore the person who's making jabs, and people who aren't just wonder why the hell this kind of thing is accepted on Wikipedia. It's still an unpleasant environment for anyone to work in. "Just ignore him" is great advice when applied to a barking dog looking for attention, but I think that in this case it's a bit insulting both to TRM and to the folks he engages with to suggest applying that kind of psychology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general remark, a few folks have expressed concern that we'll try to further restrict TRM in this ARCA. I personally don't intend to do that (and it doesn't seem like other arbs really do either)—we're not really looking at evidence that the restriction isn't working, rather that the restriction is not being applied or that it is being misunderstood. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Motion



 * Support
 * 1) The above proposal is still way better than the current the wording. There is a stalemate between the sides and I don't necessarily think there is wording that may address the concerns on either side completely. In the absence of such, pointing to policies and taking away "insulting" and "belittle" will be a step (however small) in the right direction. <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  16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Time to get moving on this. The wording (I) proposed makes the remedy clearer and more enforceable. The rest of the motion (which I've now added above for reference) gives a clear enforcement provision. The proposed change includes "reminder" purely to make it clear that all editors are also prohibited from this conduct, not just TRM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Not really the intent of the original remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain/Recuse
 * 1) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I'll leave this as written for a bit to garner some more comments, in particular from and . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For everyone, the bit about personal attacks and harassment could probably go but it might be worth having it there for clarity? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we considering downgrading the prohibition to a reminder? I'm not sure that's a good idea. I liked the wording of your second attempt much better. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The rest of remedy is the authorisation for sanctions, this sentence just defines what "prohibited conduct" is in the context of the remedy. My reason for using "reminded" is that the purpose of this remedy is as an authorisation for admins to make AE actions (rather than normal admin actions) rather than as an extra prohibition on certain conduct. Every editor is prohibited from being incivil, making personal attacks and harassing others so saying that TRM is specific prohibited seems inaccurate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see what you're getting at now. Alright. I'll await comments from TRM/Dweller before voting. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was puzzled by that also. I think it should specifically say prohibited, or there's an opportunity for further quibbling. In general direct wording is better; in this case, the history indicates direct wording is necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My thinking here is that everyone is prohibited from doing this. The rest of the motion, which I haven't quoted in the motion above, makes it clear that it isn't a "reminder" but it instead a motion to give a clear method of enforcement (that is, under AE protection rather than normal admin actions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ""; if it necessary that TRM be reminded that they must adhere to our policies prohibiting harassment and personal attacks, then civility is a well reasoned inclusion and something you already argued was covered by another applicable policy. The separate issues of equitable enforcement and the very issues with the policy itself are well beyond the scope of ARCA. Those issues will need to be raised and addressed either against the individual editors violating CIVIL or through RFC policy change respectively. <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  16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that "reminders" are non-enforceable provisions. I supported the changes with it being, in my eyes, a significant reduction in the force behind the previous remedy. <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 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally yes they are unenforceable, however this first sentence just defines "prohibited conduct", the rest of the remedy (in the collapse box) gives the provision for enforcement. However I wouldn't mind changing it to TRM is prohibited from [what's there]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Alternative motion


Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Sorry, I said last week that I meant to post this as an alternative, and I forgot to actually do the paperwork. I think this is more specific about the nature of the problem and its scope, and doesn't carry the risks associated with the various policy links. As I said above, I think this has the potential to cause problems from overgeneralization, where it is really a very specific and idiosyncratic behavior we're dealing with here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Clearer.  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) This is stronger than the proposal above, but ultimately it would remove the insulting or belittling ambiguity issue. <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  21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a much stronger sanction than its previous wording. However this proposal does clear up the wording and does more specifically target the problematic behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) This is better than the existing wording and the first proposal.  Doug Weller  talk 10:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) kelapstick(bainuu) 11:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) I have my hesitations, but this should work.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain/recuse
 * 1) Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I've removed "and administrators" as "editors" includes everyone who can edit (IPs and admins). I wonder whether this is going to broaden the restriction rather than define it more precisely? . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing my bad paperwork :) No objections to your edit - you're right that it's an unnecessary distinction. I'm not sure about broader or narrower; my feeling is that the original wording was never quite right as a description of TRM's particular brand of problem behavior, and this description is a much closer fit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delayed reaction here, but on Callanecc's post above, I still don't think this is "much stronger" than the existing sanction. The new version allows TRM to insult and belittle people all he likes about their ugly haircut or whatever - or at least the resulting block will just be a garden-variety one, not a special mark-of-AE one. He just can't do those things specifically about someone's competence. (It's very difficult to question someone's competence in a way that isn't insulting or belittling, and experience has demonstrated that TRM does not have that skill.) TRM, my opinion is still the same as when Dweller asked about this proposal awhile back - your best approach would be to spend much less of your wiki-time on criticizing people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Close

 * Unfortunately, it seems like this is at a standstill. Several editors have called for it to be closed, so motion to close. <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 14:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn since there's growing support for the second 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 20:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (September 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The Rambling Man at 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * George Ho


 * Information about amendment request
 * The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned
 * Removal of IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
No need for a ban when we don't interact, haven't interacted, one of us is mainly retired, and there's not one iota of evidence that any threat to Wikipedia or any undue incivility will occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * no, as I stated clearly, this is just to clear the slate, neither of us have interacted, least of all negatively, for as long as I can recall. This isn’t supposed to be a big deal but thanks to Arbcom bureaucracy it’s no doubt going to become a complete timesink. What is the benefit to keeping this IBAN in place please? I see that reading your post you see these bans as being punitive.  If you other George or I were to step out of line, (something which has not happened s for a year or more?) I’m sure we’d both be sanctioned.  This IBAN is just an Arbcom device with no current real purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, given the statement made by the other party, I suggest this request is now moot and should be speedy closed (although it should be clarified explicitly that the last interaction occurred more than a year ago). Cheers, and thanks for the personal attacks on the way out the door.  At least we got a contribution from one of the sleeping Arbs!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * no, it's fine. You've made about the same number of contributions to improving this encyclopedia in a year as I have in the last four days, but you're still charged with enforcing the punitive bans despite that.  It's fine.  I've already made a request of Arbcom that the other punitive increase in ban length without appeal be allowed to be discussed on Wikipedia, I hope you'll contribute then with such enthusiasm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho
I'm not retired as TRM asserted, though I have spent less time and energy on this project than I used to. Also, I see no point on appealing the IBAN, considering that he and I were blocked last year for IBAN violation. Since then, I've not interacted with him at all and have no plans to do so at the moment. Furthermore, considering the way he interacts with other editors who are not his friends, not to mention two other AE blocks last year, and another IBAN slapped on him last year, I found myself compelled to leave the IBAN intact for now. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 12 September 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

 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally believe that interaction bans are an extension of "it's a big encyclopedia, get on with something else", and once placed I like to see a good reason to remove them - people sometimes do not get along and if they need an enforceable remedy to keep the peace, then so be it. As such, I'm not prepared to accept "we don't interact" as a reason as, quite simply, that's the point. Can you tell me, has anything changed? Is there an area you'd like to be editing but cannot due to this interaction ban? Do you have any other good reason for it to be removed? I'd also like to hear from as to whether he'd like it removed. <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>) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand wanting to clear the slate, as being under sanctions is not something I'd enjoy. However, as I hoped to make clear, I personally consider interaction bans one of the least stigmatised restrictions upon editing and as such am generally reluctant to remove them without good reason. I can think of situations where I'm happy to lift, but they generally include both editors wanting it lifted and having a plan going forward. For the time being, I'll wait for George Ho and other input. <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>) 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm generally about by email TRM and often watching, feel free to poke me if you think I'm asleep! <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>) 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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 sanction 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 :-/ <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">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:


 * In relation to the DYK project and its related pages, TRM is permitted to:
 * Nominate article / hooks for consideration in the usual way
 * Carry out reviews so long as they focus solely on the article and hook in question
 * Make uncontroversial changes to hooks in queues prep areas for the purposes of copyediting / clarification and correcting errors. In the event that any change is reverted, he may not make any further change to that hook

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)
 * Use his errors page (and its associated talk page) to discuss problems / errors (including in cases where a change has been reverted), so long as these discussions are focused on article content, hook accuracy, errors, etc, and not on editors any comment on editors is relevant to the focus and consistent with remedy 4.

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)
 * Participate in dispute resolution processes related to the main page and the DYK project, including any Arbitration Committee proceeding such as AE, ARCA, and A/R/C
 * Edit articles linked to in DYK hooks and captions in line with standard WP policy
 * Freely discuss DYK-related topics on his user talk page with any editor who chooses to initiate such a discussion




 * 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)

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (February 2019)
Initiated by Sandstein at 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * The Rambling Man notified


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
 * Impose a block on the order of a month in length. Lift the sanction or replace it with a topic ban or site ban.

Statement by Sandstein
The Rambling Man is subject to a Committee-imposed civility restriction. By motion of 13 December 2018, the Committee decided that, if "in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. 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." Such a request is hereby made.

On 29 January 2019, made an arbitration enforcement request against The Rambling Man, linking to various diffs in which The Rambling Man violated their restrictions. I identified additional violations in my assessment of the request. Enforcement action is therefore required.

The Rambling Man has previously been blocked for up to two weeks for similar conduct, and this has not deterred them from now continuing to engage in such conduct. A block of 48 hours or less would therefore, in my view, be ineffective in preventing further misconduct. By the terms of the motion previously referred to, the decision about which action to take is now the Committee's. Based on the generally accepted principle of escalating block lengths, I suggest a block length on the order of a month.

Because there is no indication that The Rambling Man understands, or is willing or able to abide by their restrictions, I also suggest that the restrictions should be lifted because they are ineffective. They should either be lifted entirely, or be replaced by a topic or site ban of a scope and duration to be determined by the Committee.  Sandstein  11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
Words fail. The last time we were here it lasted months and ended in an amendment that was voted on while it was being reworded and that then failed at the first time of asking. I suppose if Sandstein keeps this up, eventually the result he is searching for will be delivered, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, it's because no-one outside this tiny quorum gives a toss about such low-level baited crap. We're here to build and improve the encyclopedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you've nailed the patent absurdity of it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you continue to do nothing than underline the complete absurdity of the sanction and its possible interpretations. So thank you for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you can probably add this to your list, but it's abundantly clear that Sandstein is operating in a different way to most others. He continually seeks the most stringent penalty (even today, after closing the AE and then starting this ARCA incorrectly, he starts to position for a site ban).  For the love of anything normal, that's patently absurd, this individual needs to be removed from any further commentary on me, a little like dismissing the highest and lowest scores from ice skating, you have a general consensus for a 48 hour block, one or two saying no block, one or two saying 12 hour block, one or two saying one month block, and one individual saying topic ban, site ban etc etc.  Clearly out of step with the community, despite being told that numerous times.  But the drama!  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AGK, do you mean the sanction whose wording was modified during voting last year? Is that the one? If so then quite probably yes, it could be interpreted that I questioned the competence and motivation of editors who had suddenly started editing those items which were on my watchlist. Mea culpa. But that Sandstein can comment on the AE, then close the AE himself after little time, and then start this ARCA, when the previous ARCA has not been enacted even once... well it speaks for itself. AWiley has it spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, which would have been fine until Sandstein got involved on his continued quest to escalate the block despite the last ARCA. I do note you have been editing around areas that coincide with me lately, you'd never edited Warnock even once until you undid my revision, but I'm certain that's a coincidence. Perhaps you received off-wiki notification? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course, that explains it perfectly. We won't discuss the other curious coincidences, let's just leave that until another more appropriate time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "acknowledge" your version of how you came to be the busy admin suddenly there within minutes when thousands of other editors are available, and particularly when you have been so involved with me in the recent past. Indeed, others here have already made it clear that it's not as simple as you are suggesting.    The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, as noted, happy to avoid you entirely (and have actively tried to do so actually), but when you made your first edit ever to the Warnock article with an edit summary that said "How is that a controversy? also, who cares", if you had known anything about the situation, you'd have known that quite a few reliable sources did consider it controversial and thus many, many people did care, for myriad reasons. Sorry for the harsh edit summary but you were very wrong on both counts of your own edit summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom, please can we address the issue with Sandstein's overt lack of alignment with the community and his involved stance, in particular here where he commented on this sanction, then closed the discussion prematurely, then opened an ARCA discussion prematurely? Time after time it has been demonstrated that he is too involved here to be independent enough, and his involvement clearly has a chilling effect, hence the lack of commentary on the prematurely and incorrectly closed AE report made by involved admin Vanamonde. If this is not addressed, then we will be here at ARCA once again as soon as Sandstein sees fit to make the same involved and incorrect decisions. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this whole thing a complete waste of time, please spend some time examining why this erroneous course of action (the ARCA) was taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any evidence of Arbcom looking into the peculiar approach of Sandstein to all this. There's considerable concern over his behaviour, both this time, and many previous times, not to mention that he erroneously initiated this ARCA, both from a procedural perspective, and from an INVOLVED perspective.  Arbcom would do well to start answering the many questions on this very fragile situation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, indeed, that Sandstein both got involved at the AE, then unilaterally (and incorrectly) closed it while opening this wasteful ARCA at the wrong time, needs further investigation. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that Sandstein should recuse himself from cases involving me, and these are just further examples that it appears he cannot take an independent role in such matters any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, you're entitled to that view, but that effectively renders the months of debate the previous ARCA went through completely obsolete. Is that really what you're saying, that the previous ARCA was a complete waste of time? You wouldn't be alone in that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
I'd love it if Arbcom were to withdraw sanctions. The last time it was discussed wasn't very long ago, so I suggest this discussion is premature.

Can I offer anyone any WP:TEA? It tastes better than a one month block. And especially if one month blocks are your staple diet. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , the only uninvolved administrator to comment on the case, spoke a lot of sense. It's a fuss over nothing and other users feel free to bait and prod TRM because they know of his sanctions. It's same old same old. The 'offence' here is minor in the extreme and no threat to the encyclopedia. The sanctions are ridiculously broad and reward baiters. And we go round and round with nonsense, rightly ignored by admins at the case page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
I don't know why the standard block was not imposed. In this one single incident there were 8 violations of TRM's sanctions:

and now more:
 * speculations about the motivations of editors
 * (edit summary)
 * (edit summary)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * reflections on editors' competence
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

So that's not just one violation, it's eight nine twelve violations.

Either the ArbCom sanctions should be enforced, or they should be reworded, or they should be removed entirely. There are no exemptions or exceptions to the sanctions as currently written. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC); edited 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: Sandstein opines on and closes the majority of AE requests. He appeared to follow your Civility restriction, which reads at the very top: "Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA." , although he closed the AE after 2.5 days rather than 3, so that was an error which should not be repeated; the AE should have remained in place for at least three full days in accordance with the terms of the restriction. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
Diff-19/24, as linked by SL, is a clear-cut violation. I though think that blocks (48 hrs./1 month/6 months/whatever) won't make an iota of difference to TRM's attitude and this has just manifested into a recurrent time-sapping drama. Either the sanction needs to be vacated outright or he be banned from the site, in entirety. I was thinking about a one-way-IBan with V93 and/or Drmies but that will near-certainly shift his line-of-fire to someone else or give rise to even more time-wasting about whether he did violate the IBan or not. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (+1) to Harry. Seems to be a good-enough middle-road. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Purplebackpack89
Look, it's pretty clear that TRM has a very, very long-term problem with civility, spanning a very long time, a whole bunch of other editors, and with dire consequences. Therefore, we should not talk of withdrawing the sanctions, and instead enforce them vigorously. I would recommend that TRM be blocked for at least a month, and considering his intransigence and how many violations have piled up, perhaps considerablylonger. TRM is not indispensable to this encyclopedia; we've gotten along with him when. he was blocked before and we can do it again. Frankly, we need to stop believing he's indispensable because it's just made his behavior worse. p b  p  14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me also express agreement with Jtrainor's comments below p  b  p  00:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I just left a note for Sandstein, thanking him for closing the ARE thread. I don't know what might come out of this; I do know that the "low-level baited crap" was in TRM's edit summary of his revert. He didn't have to revert me, he didn't have to make it so personal in that summary. As someone said above, with some sort of iBan he might shift his focus to other editors/admins, but for my peace of mind it would certainly be nice not to have to worry about him. As I said at ARE, I don't look at his edits, I don't revert his edits, I don't usually look at his talk page, I stay away from the pages he frequents. I once tried to help him with something and it bit me on the ass, so I'm not doing that again; he does some good work, and there are plenty of other admins with whom he gets along (I suppose) who can do the things he needs doing. So I leave him alone. If he were to extend the same courtesy to me, that'd be nice. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
How long is it going to be before someone at ArbCom runs out of patience with Sandstein's vendetta against TRM? Last time we were here (when an ArbCom member embarassed themselves too) Dweller, Nov 18 331dot, Nov 18 etc, etc, et bloody cetera. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
If I block TRM for standard 48 hours can we skip this exercise and go back to editing? ~ Awilley (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor
I really REALLY hate how established members of the community get a light touch with rules and sanctions just because they're "valuable" to the encyclopedia, while newer accounts can get permanently blocked very quickly for similar conduct. I hope that SOME kind of sanction starts getting enforced regularly, because this whole thing where older editors get to openly flout the rules is an extremely toxic thing for the community. Jtrainor (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re TRM)
We have almost unanimous agreement on two things here:
 * 1) TRM violated his restriction
 * 2) TRM was baited into violating his restriction.

We don't have agreement on whether a sanction for 1 is appropriate in the light of 2.

I think the best way to resolve this would be for everyone who, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, baited any user into violating a restriction imposed on them would automatically get the sanction instead of the user with the sanction - in this case that would be a 48 hour block. That would quickly put an end to much of the sniping around TRM (and others in unrelated disputes). Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
Please be more specific, ; which edits do you consider baiting, and who are you proposing to sanction? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , that's absurd. The content in question was a) redundant, as the quote was already in the article and b) included unsourced information about a living person. Is he now so sensitive that anyone he has been in conflict with cannot fix problems on articles he edits? Furthermore, when I made that edit TRM had already violated his restriction, in the edit summary of the edit I reverted. So, he was baited into violating a restriction by something that occurred after his violation? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to seek sanctions against me, go ahead and drag me to ANI or ARBCOM; but TRM violated his restriction before I ever got involved. Talk pages are for genuine disputes; edit-warring over a quote pasted twice into an article isn't a genuine dispute, it's silliness. I expected the kerfuffle to end with my revert. He chose to revert once more, to declare he hadn't violated his sanction (something he has repudiated now, after a very large number of people told him he was wrong) and to challenge me to prove otherwise. The escalation is on him. Furthermore, he and I both work on main page content. If he is going to react allergically every time I make an edit he doesn't like, even when the edit is justified, that's his problem, not mine. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, TRM, I saw the edit on your talk page, as I have already explained. Had it been an ordinary content dispute, I would have reminded you of your sanction and left the edit alone (as indeed I do with the vast majority of things on your talk page). Given the obvious nature of the redundancy, I reverted your edit as well. That would have been that, had you not challenged my interpretation of your sanction. I'm not interested in seeing you blocked, and never have been: but further interaction between us is inevitable, and all I'm looking for is for it to be civil. If you're acknowledging that the commentary on your talk page, and those edit summaries, were unnecessarily and inappropriately personal, I for one have no further interest in proceedings here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a recognition of anything; indeed, it sounds like a threat. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not terribly relevant here, but the simplest explanation is that the IP address realized their addition was redundant; the quote was already in the article, as was explained in the later removals. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave
The last part of the edit summary to Drmies was IMHO very disrespectful and should not have been said, That aside Vanamonde's very first edit to that article was to revert TRM - Vanamonde made no edits to that article prior to the revert so IMHO their revert as well their talkpage replies were all tantamount to baiting,

IMHO this should be declined. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No it's not, I find it strange your first and only edit to date was to revert him, If you objected to the content you could've gone to the talkpage or failing that gone to his talkpage and left a message, The moment TRM was in a bit of bother you jumped in and tried getting a reaction or get him to say something he shouldn't before going to his talkpage to essentially finish the job, You baited him sorry. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Harry
Drive-by comment: It's been shown time and time again that definite-duration blocks have little long-term effect on "civility". In my opinion, this is at least partly because each individual outburst is an isolated incident (editors sometimes get frustrated and lose their temper and say things that are unwise; I don't condone this, though I've been guilty of it myself). A one-month block will not make TRM any more or less irritable. My suggestion would be to quickly impose a short block for ech incident to remove TRM from the situation and thus de-escalate it without all the wasted energy on ARCA requests. If no block is issued within 12 hours of a violation and TRM is no longer escalating escalating the dispute, the matter should be considered stale. Rinse and repeat for every violation. This strikes the balance between Something Must Be Done&trade; and turning the whole thing into a carnival while making the point that the community does not condone TRM engaging in the conduct covered by the restriction. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
What's up with an IP adding text that becomes the subject of an edit war and then removing that same text during the edit war?


 * 22:55 An IP adds 670-byte paragraph w/ec: "Controversies"
 * 22:55 removes it "How is that a controversy? also, who cares"
 * 22:56 Drmies removes 25k more "so this is as informative and encyclopedic as a list of tiffs, beefs, rants, and spats"
 * 22:57 restores the 670-byte paragraph "was hugely covered in UK press, and something which is relevant and something our readers would expect to see, perhaps avoid editing things you know absolutely nothing about in the future"
 * 22:59 The same IP removes the text they just added??
 * 23:00 Drmies starts new thread "hugely covered" on TRM's talk page: "Didn't think I would see you use such atrocious language in an edit summary--it sounds a bit Trumpian. But yeah, you sure put me in my place, big guy. Be proud."
 * 23:03 TRM restores again
 * 23:05 removes it "You do realize the damn quote is already in the article?"
 * 23:11 TRM restores again "you do realise that your edits are an adequate demonstration that you are stalking me, that you are following my edits, that you are hunting me down and following evertyhing I do?"
 * 23:25 A different IP removes it "is already in 'personal life'"

How often do you see an editor on both sides of an edit war? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
The recent motion re TRM can be found here. Just to remind everyone, the relevant bits are here:

"In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

and the third paragraph is amended to read:

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. 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.

The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:

1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. 2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above."

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

 * True, a rule of No Consensus For 48 Hours was recently adopted; this is its first test. Clearly, the rule was designed to prevent stalemate among enforcing administrators.  Leading up to the rule's adoption, several enforcement requests had been prevented from being actioned because administrators were stopping by to oppose the action.  However, in this request the administrators agreed that action was necessary, but Sandstein wished to impose a harsher sanction than the standard one.  I do not think this is how the new rule should be used.  Nevertheless, here we are.  I would resolve the escalated request for enforcement with a 48 hour block.We should not depart from the standard outcome in any way here, because I actually think the very best thing is for The Rambling Man to learn that breaches of the remedy will now be enforced.  Enforcing them excessively, or not at all, would be unwise.  I plan, after a period for further comment, to propose a motion for a 48 hour enforcing block.It troubles me that The Rambling Man does not contest they breached the remedy; was it intentional?  Politics should not be played on Wikipedia.  But again, it seems to me that the best response to such behaviour is to stoically apply the very clear rules that were set out late last year.   AGK  &#9632;  18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As we unanimously agree that a 48 hour block should be imposed, I have asked a clerk to make the block on the committee's behalf. (Decisions made on-wiki are usually implemented by a clerk rather than any single arbitrator, and as I say I wish particularly in this case to avoid any departure from the norm.)   AGK  &#9632;  01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough of this. TRM came out the gate swinging on this one with his initial edit summary and then continued to escalate the situation with his responses. I see no merit to a claim that he was baited into acting like this. I agree with AGK that consistent enforcement is the only way to get a handle on this, because clearly TRM is not willing to self-regulate. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Block for 48 hours and lets move on. Next time the matter comes here, we can move it up to a week, and then a month, etc. As far as I can see that's what the motion was intended to do, and we have to carry that out. I see no wriggle room. And I see no point in changing something that hasn't been tried yet. So, I don't agree with throwing the motion away, or lifting sanctions, or site-banning. SilkTork (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. Katietalk 23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I said last year " Hopefully this shows TRM we do have trust in him". That trust was violated. Agreed with SilkTork that a 48 hour block is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Block for 48 hours as a clear violation. While I agree that consistent enforcement of the sanction is necessary, TRM shouldn't be excused for continuing to violate the sanction because it was poorly-enforced in the past. He isn't a dog who doesn't understand English or a toddler who can't fully comprehend the consequences of his actions; he should be able to understand cause and effect here without repeated demonstration. I would also like to emphasize that TRM should not interpret the modified sanction as an agreement that he can reflect on the competence of editors if he's willing to put up with a 48 hour block; continuing to violate the sanction will show it is ineffective and needs to be reconsidered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus at AE and now here that the restriction was violated. Therefore TRM is subject to the enforcement conditions. If the number of violations accumulate to the point where it proves ineffective, a much [more] significant preventative block may, unfortunately, 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 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support a 48 hour block as the first step set out by the previous motion. But after that, any further breaches should be brought here so we can consider escalating sanctions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (August 2019)
Original discussion

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=873547734#The_Rambling_Man:_Motion


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Notification to User talk:The Rambling Man


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=873547734#The_Rambling_Man:_Motion
 * Propose changing the ban text to the following (deleted words struck, new words in bold):

The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process), or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited.

Statement by Ritchie333
I have recently made peace with The Rambling Man (TRM) following an earlier dispute. As he has been very helpful in the past with good article reviews, I suggested one he might be interested, and also mentioned an earlier thread where had wanted a DYK hook reviewed that TRM would probably also be interested in. TRM simply said that he was unable to help due to the ban listed above.

The bold addition to the ban text above would allow TRM to make more positive contributions to the project in a good spirit of collaboration with willing editors, while continuing to address the concerns raised by the proponents of the original ban. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
I've been asked many many times to contribute to, review or otherwise provide wisdom on DYKs. I'd be delighted to do so, thus enriching our main page for our readers, and reducing the shocking error rate we currently see. As long as it's only when someone asks me nicely, I can't see a problem in me generously offering my time to enhance the experience of our audience. After all, this project is all about our readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, hang on, let's correct, it's only when the nominator of a DYK asks me nicely then I'll allow my expertise to be sought. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "DYK privileges", just an aspiration to stop the usual errors getting to the main page. And for what it's worth, I'm not happy with the sudden relaxation in quality going to the main page, the ERRORS page has been full of issues with DYK lately.  Let's try to work together to reduce the garbage our readers see, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  And yes, I'm only going to comment on DYKs whose nominators have asked me nicely to comment on.  Nothing else.  That's what this amendment is all about.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, once again. Indeed, before I was topic banned, I had participated many times at DYK during the review process.  I can't think of a single instance where my reviews weren't considered (as a minimum) perfectly suitable for the process.  It's clear to me that there's some very unclear thinking on this proposal from a few, where various issues are being incorrectly conflated, not for the betterment of the encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

seriously, the quality of the DYK section is so poor, every day, that it really needs help. I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get sarcasm really, right? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

great input, I'm not sure it makes any sense though. This is simply to allow me to review articles for suitability. Nothing more. The hysteria surrounding some mythical "slippery slope" is pure fiction, there are plenty of people, yourself at the head of the queue, who are there to ensure I will remain persona non grata. Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, it's just how these cases work, people ping each other to let them know that they've responded to their comments. But I suppose it's yet another chance to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not hostile at all, just conventional. Deary me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ERRORS2, as the name suggests, is for ERRORS, not for DYK reviews. That's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already said once My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit. I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself. Does any of that need clarification? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

PBP89, that's false, I don't expect anything to adhere to one particular "style", that's a very odd (and fake) accusation. I expect general compliance with MOS, but that's just what you'd  hope from a professional encyclopedia, isn't it? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!)
 * And please stop following me around Wikipedia. This is basic harassment.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only you who is harassing me PBP89, casting aspersions about my "requirements", telling me to "shut up", calling me a "bully". Disgusting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should leave it now, many other editors have asked you to dial it down a couple of notches. As this is about the DYK process, something you don't participate in, I'm not even clear how you found your way here to start harassing me again.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, you've been asked to dial it down a notch or two and avoid personal attacks and other such problematic behaviour. I'm not displaying arrogance, just honesty.  My skills are in demand, as noted by many many editors here.  That you arrive here to attack me again and again is highly problematic.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And you would be advised to strike your personal attacks and stop harassing me. This isn't a case against me, by the way.  Your hyperbolic "increase sanctions" is a very good example of why you really need to dial it down a few notches.  Or I suppose you could just tell me to "shut up" and call me a "bully" instead?  As for examples, I'll leave that to the hundreds of editors I've reviewed GANs, FLCs, FACs for.  Several of them have commented right here.  You might like to read what many of them have said.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And that logic is flawed twice over. Firstly, this is about reviews asked for by specific editors.  So they can choose whether to interact with me or not.  Secondly, DYK is the only section of Wikipedia where I don't interact with other users.  I have given literally thousands of reviews at GAN, FLC, FAC etc with no problem at all.  I know there's a desperation to keep "punishing" me, but when attempting to do so, people should use logical arguments and really resist the temptation to just reiterate their grudges. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

what do you mean "user subpage"? That's just for reporting errors on the main page (or about to go to the main page, around six per day), not for requesting review of items at DYK. I think the point being made here is that people are looking for me to actually review the DYK nomination. Which of course I'd be glad to do, and as described, I'm very good at doing, but the current ban precludes that. Hence one of the reasons for WP:TRM funnily enough. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

One step at a time. There's so much protection around the DYK project from regulars, there's little chance of opening up the topic ban to that extent, we'll still have to wait until the last moment before queues are promoted packed with errors, but the initial proposal might just help those who need a critical pair of eyes before that last moment. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

boom, there it is. Exactly. Appreciate the level-headedness. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

since you're wikilawyering, please take this as me requesting that this amendment be heard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, personal attack noted. This really isn't the appropriate venue for such insults. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, no that's an errors page. This is about reviewing DYKs. The two are completely different. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you've missed the point again. To perform a review of a DYK at the request of a nominator, the review must be conducted on the relevant DYK template.  It makes literally no sense at all to place the review in a user ERRORS space.  I don't think you realise how DYK reviews work.  Nor do you appear to be paying attention to the vast majority of the contributors here.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I said you weren’t paying attention to the community consensus here which is clearly in favour of allowing me to perform formal reviews of DYKs when explicitly requested to do so by nominators. Indeed, even those intimately involved in the process are encouraging my input. And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it, but you haven't offered a single reason in logic to oppose me from providing high quality DYK reviews, but then I suppose that's how you arbitrate. Who said anything about counting votes?  I was considering the array of logical arguments from many who are actively involved in the DYK process, and from those who have received quality reviews from me in the past. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even more now. Those that are espousing logical argument are in favour of me helping out.  Those who are espousing hate and grudge are not in favour of me helping out.  I see which side you have selected.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

that's bang on the money. I challenge those here to actually look at the quality of the reviews I have provided in the past, and even quite recently, at DYK, FAC and more frequently at GAN and FLC (where I suspect I've made in excess of 1000 reviews over the years). I challenge those claiming that allowing me to provide such quality reviews to those who ask for it and those only would be of any issue to the community to provide evidence as to why that would ever be the case. As I think several editors have noted here, this is simply about improving the quality of the main page, yet unfortunately it appears that this is being used by certain users and Arbs as a chance to berate me once again or to simply state the status quo as if that is, in any way, helpful to this process. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, calling me "toxic" is a direct personal attack (I know you didn't) and of course I'm more than happy to help the project with my expertise, but we have Arbs here who are just making personal decisions and ignoring the community. It's a lost cause really, as they'll all gather round the Arb for self-protection.  C'est la vie.  PUNISHMENT is alive and kicking at Wikipedia, and some Arbs are promoting it.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I just took a quick sojourn around my "template" edits (which is where you'll find DYK nominations, preps etc, for those of you unaware of the arcane DYK process), and didn't quite realise how many incredibly helpful edits I'd made in a bid to keep the main page free from so many errors. I went back over a thousand or more, practically none of them saw any kickback. So given none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable, I would venture to suggest that the only real objection was to me time and again berating the project for its general lack of quality at the project talk page (which, for those not in the know, can be found at WT:DYK). So, perhaps to simplify things, we could actually just make the topic ban applicable to the project talkpage itself, as that seems to be where all the problems manifested. There really was never an issue with my reviewing, that's fake news I'm afraid. Opposing allowing me to do the encyclopedia a favour by performing reviews upon request really is punitive. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that  the DYKs  etc I've reviewed have gone through the main page etc  without any complaints. In other words they're of a quality sufficient for our main page. Plenty of people complain about other DYKs, etc. It's not just me. Or else why do we have the quaint WP:ERRORS? It's not circular at all, it's just evidence that what I do in my reviews is of benefit to Wikipedia. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. Because right now, all those in opposition have offered not a single shred of evidence in that regard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you know what, I'm not sure I've ever used the word "perfect" in relation to my reviews, so you might like to revisit all your comments and adjust accordingly. All I know is that I see errors (like "I see ghosts") just before the hit the main page.  On average, around five to six per day.  So all I'm saying is that I could probably help reduce that.  You need to choose your paraphrasing more carefully friend! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sure I've ever said my reviews couldn't be criticised. You need to work on that again.  Please stop putting words in my metaphorical mouth.  If you want "the answer" (TM), then it's "all my reviews are designed to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way".  Feel free to use that verbatim, or how you see fit.  But stop making stuff up about me.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, but now your comments make no sense. There's nothing circular about an open review system where I do my utmost to fix things and leave it to others to finish the job.  Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that I'm the ultimate perfect reviewer.  I doubt that too.  Once again, please think about what you're saying and how you're saying it.  This is a very serious Arbcom case, and we already have several contributors simply not reading evidence, please don't exacerbate the situation with further obfuscation and confusion.  It seems like some people contributing here can't quite grasp what's happening, and your misguided assertions really aren't helping. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I appreciate your comments.  Just the problem is we already have one Arb who has literally shown no interest at all in the evidence being provided, and hyperbole like making claims I think my reviews are "perfect" just feed that problematic behaviour.  There's no "logical fallacy" at all.  It's empirical evidence.  Please,  before you continue to make  such bold claims, re-assess what you're doing.   I'm here to reduce problems on  the main page.  Arbs, users etc don't like it.  Individuals who have experienced what I do believe it's a good thing.  Let's leave it at that.  Stop trying to re-position it.  You're not quite making it, and every time you try, it's still  not quite right.   The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again I appreciate your support, but I've never made any claims that I am infallible or perfect or close.   I'm  not  clear on  why you're making such claims using various different terms.   I'm here to improve the main page.  Let's  at least agree on that.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid if we can't see this kind of thing for what it really is, we're beyond repair. I think humour plays a large part of a community, if EEng's block and subsequent friendly discourse with the blocking admin is now being positioned as something "disappointing", all hope is lost. Forget it all, block everyone, the game is over, Pacman is dead. Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't get it, I get that. It was humour, and every single person but you got it.  Never mind. By the way, what does any of this have to do with my ability to provide top notch reviews at DYK if someone requests it?  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there are some basic communication problems then. Not one single soul at ANI had a problem, including the admin, yet you personally found it problematic without being involved at all.  How curious.  I'd suggest a break from trying to continually identify problematic behaviour in my posts when you don't appear to understand or appreciate the context in which the posts are made.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically there are several errors about to go the main page tomorrow, i.e. in less than three hours. No-one cares here, because it's all about process, bureaucracy, grudges, etc. Bravo. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

bravo. I posted a few hours ago that the main issue was with the interaction with the overall DYK community, not with individual reviews. I continue to maintain that the DYK community have to work harder to make their contributions more inline with the main page quality expectations, but this request is not about allowing me to post there, it's just about posting and reviewing specific nominations. So there should be absolutely no problem at all. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * could you describe why you think the proposal is too broad? After all, it's all about me being constrained to review a DYK if and only if a nominator requests me to make such a review.  I have then stated that I would make such a review and if subsequent comments were made, I would ignore them.  Can you explain what is "too broad" about this proposal?  Can you explain the negative aspects of this suggestion?  (PS No-one has suggested I would post to "that page", which I believe you mean WT:DYK, so can you clarify your statement?) The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

spot on. It's abundantly clear from the two or three users here staunchly against any kind of relief of the topic ban that it would only take the slightest lapse before it's all rushed back here again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disappointed, it's the quality of the encyclopedia that you've let down. I guess I am disappointed by Arbcom's inability to read community consensus, with overwhelming support for me to be allowed to conduct these reviews under highly constrained conditions, even by those at the coal face of DYK right now, but that seems part and parcel of how the system operates these days. Punitive sanctions are very much in favour for certain users. We should certainly amend WP:PUNITIVE to reflect the outcome of this proposal. Cheers to  however for trying, I think we knew where this was headed from the get-go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

AGK, you need describe where my behaviour has been "appalling". And as for your threat, I don't appreciate that either. Is that really what you should be doing here, bullying and threatening me? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

you couldn't be more wrong, as most of your colleagues at DYK have testified here. Spectacular would be a great way of describing my reviews. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because I said you were wrong, that isn’t condescending or rude, just the truth. The barnstar is a perfectly apt example that when I am asked to contribute a review that I can do so very well and work incredibly well with nominators to help them improve Wikipedia. Disallowing nominators from seeking my input in a formal review is harming Wikipedia, we can see that from the ongoing error rate at DYK. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point. This is about offering reviews to people who specifically ask me to. Nothing more. You’ve blown it up into something it never was, and coupled with your attacks, I’m no longer interested in what you have to say. I’m not shooting myself in the foot, you are continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I think fundamentally if people want me to review their nominations, and as I said, I will provide the review and not interact with any one else during the review other than the nominator, there is no conceivable issue. I was pleased to receive a reviewers barnstar this morning, isn’t that a pip?! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

General comment, such a time sink, imagine if all the time spent here trying to continue the punitive measures had been spent reviewing DYKs? Sometimes I think all perspective is lost here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is all over Wikipedia. I've conducted dozens of DYK reviews in the past without a single problem (as I have had dozens of DYKs of my own). I've done a couple of hundred GAN reviews and made possibly in excess of a thousand FLC reviews without problems. I've also engaged in scores of FAC reviews without issue. That's the problem here. The focus hasn't been on what I can bring to those individuals who seek my help, it's all about a bunch of other grudges. If people could focus on the facts and that is that I have provided and continue to provide (even during this timesink) top notch reviews to those who want to work with me. Everything else, including the threats, baiting, attacks and harassment I'm receiving here, is irrelevant to the purpose of the request. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, if people continually attack and bait me, they will receive what they dish out. That has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal which, once again, relies on my proven track record of hundreds if not thousands of problem-free reviews. You can all make up as many doomsday scenarios as you like, but simply put, that's a waste of time. I will work with only those who request my help, and then only in the capacity of reviewer and then only to make my review, respond only to the nominator,  and no-one else. Now then, I'm really exasperated by this giant timesink, and I have far better things to do than continue to battle against all odds here, so I'm getting back to reviewing  articles in every other part of Wikipedia. If it's decided that the only part I can't do it (DYK) remains thus, well that's punitive to both me and the DYK project (and patently absurd as there's not a single  shred of evidence that my reviews have ever been problematic). If the evidence is overlooked in favour of long-standing grudges and the attacks, harassment continue, well there's nothing I can do about that, I'm a fair target these days. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's a huge timesink for the community. Just look at how many people have edited here over the last couple of weeks, how much support there is from those who are deeply invested in the DYK project, how frequently the evidence of my reviewing has been completely ignored, how often I've reiterated that I won't engage with anyone outside those who have asked for my assistance.  The problem is, as always, that these are always an opportunity to bring out the grudges, personal attacks and harassment.  Many thanks to the many many level-headed individuals who have analysed the facts and are encouragingly non-punitive who wish to see the encyclopedia and other good faith editors benefit from my reviews.  That, after all, is all this clarification is about.  Now, back to me reviewing OTDs, GANs, FACs and FLCs.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Worm That Turned, I've already told you how this can work. I've already told you all that I support the ARCA.  I've already given a plethora of evidence as to why it would work.  I'm not going to beg for these punitive measures to be removed, that you have testimony from a dozen or so people that support the modification should be more than sufficient.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And please demonstrate evidence that in any of my reviews in any format that there is a risk that this might not work out very well indeed for everyone concerned? I.e. could you please make an evidence-based decision constrained to the request in hand? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you have precisely no evidence that any single review of mine has been problematic? I didn't think so.  And forgive me for asking, but what makes you think you know more about how I will behave in the DYK review process than all of those involved in the DYK process?  Gatoclass, Vanamonde etc all do sterling work there, were party to the project talk page topics for which I was topic banned, yet they still believe I can be of benefit.  But you don't.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're still not getting in. There exists precisely zero evidence that I will be nothing but helpful in reviews.  You keep arguing about what could happen but nothing of that sort ever has happened in the review process.  Moreover, I will only be commenting on DYK reviews that I am asked to review.  Honestly, exasperating doesn't really cover it.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I'm sorry but you're just saying the same thing again and again. And none of it is based in any way in relation to the reviews I have made or the caveats I and others have already stated would be in place. There is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination. There never has been, nor ever will there be. Claiming otherwise goes directly against all available evidence of my reviews over the past 14 years. Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you. Clearly I would not be invited to review anything you ever produced, but that's the whole point, because you find me unpalatable we still wouldn't need to interact. I am simply offering my services to those who actually want to work on improving their articles and DYKs, no-one else, and nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been very clear about what this proposal would mean. And it's not bragging, it's simply pointing at evidence, rather than just making hand-waving arguments up about scenarios which may well never exist.  It's all about assisting those who ask for it, nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, thank you, your comment barely makes sense and literally has no relevance at all to this proceeding. Having said that, it's a great example of why TRM is a simple target as users and arbs alike pay no attention to actual evidence. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For those continuing to advocate punitive measures: "When a toxic person can no longer control you, they will try to control how others see you. The misinformation will seem unfair but stay above it, trusting that other people will eventually see the truth just like you did." The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Actual evidence update turns out I've had 72 DYKs which means I've done at least 67 DYK reviews. And I know I've done more than that because I gave up on nominating my own DYKs and just reviewed other DYKs for fun. Can anyone find a single instance a DYK review that I've made which resulted in disruption or dismay? I'm sure those commenting here have done the research. I've got time, so please, take your time and let me know. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

with respect, I think it's pretty obvious that this has been entirely about the formal review process as if I want to review any DYK informally and engage in any kind of conversation, I can already do that. But that's not what's been requested of me from others. However, no harm I suppose in using the term "formal" review, or even your suggestion. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the wording is: The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process). In other words there's nothing stopping me talking about the DYK process at ERRORS2, so I'm not sure what I could say about the process there which could be "actionable" (as you put it). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording as I've described to you is clear. And the restriction on commenting on the process is not restricted to ERRORS, but ERRORS2.  And no, I don't comment on editors, I comment on the process failures.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It now feels like it's getting to filibustering time. Continually raising the same concerns again and again which are covered by other existing sanctions which aren't being modified here is outside the scope of this amendment. We all understand you  don't  like me, but many many others appreciate the work I do and I've given  all I can here in terms of my assurances that I will review only those DYKs I am asked to, commenting only on the content, and not responding to anyone but the nominator. I fail, therefore, to see the purpose of continually hammering the same points to death. Please take a moment to re-read the statistics. I've conducted literally thousands of reviews across all aspects of Wikipedia. I have been waiting for any evidence that all the purported hypothetical horror stories could come true during such reviews. I haven't seen anything. Now could we put this trivial amendment to bed one way or the other? And then we can spend all the valuable time wasted  here arguing about things which aren't going to happen on other things  like improving the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

perhaps you're not aware, I already can discuss anything related to DYK at WP:ERRORS2, including nominations. This amendment doesn't modify that at all. Yikes indeed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, well ERRORS2 is to point out the many problems with the DYKs (and other main page content) that I'm not permitted to comment on directly (per existing sanctions). This modification would allow me to simply review DYKs which nominators have asked me to help with (usually to prevent last minute issues and to improve the content of the encyclopedia).  It's unfortunate that you are commenting as you are with the limited understanding of the overall picture.  To summarise: I am disallowed from discussing DYK processes or nominations anywhere other than at WP:TRM.  This proposed amendment seeks only to enable me to assist editors who wish to ensure that DYKs on the main page are promoted while minimising the usual (3 per set) error rate.  I have made it clear, many many times what this minor adjustment to the terms of my topic ban would mean.  I have also noted, perhaps five times (?) that I would only respond to the nominator, and if the nomination became entrenched, I would walk away.  Sadly, some users are intent on continuing the punitive measures and are apparently not interested in the community's well-argued and considerable consensus.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * well said. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see how I could ever "game" any sanctions. As you noted, and as is evident here in this very case, I'm being carefully watched by a number of users who are waiting for any kind of indiscretion to haul me back to Arbcom.  After 14 years and 230,000+ edits, it befuddles me why anyone would think this amendment is doing nothing other than to enable me to improve Wikipedia solely at the direct request of others.  Sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, and I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence anywhere throughout this entire process which could demonstrate that any reviews I have conducted of any material anywhere on Wikipedia has caused any disruption, and that includes the four score or so DYK reviews I have conducted previously.  In actuality, the topic ban (which was actually constructed by Arbcom, so complaints about micromanagement should start there) really only prevents me from doing two things: (1) commenting at WT:DYK and (2) registering errors at WP:ERRORS.  The former I've never missed, the latter is a real shame, but WP:TRM continues to provide a reasonable place to highlight such issues.  This amendment really just aims to provide some insight to the people and only those people who are interested in my capabilities as a reviewer, and there's overwhelming evidence both in this ARCA and across my contributions to Wikipedia that demonstrate the move would be almost risk-free.  If someone wants to add some "trial period" to this (although that would probably be construed as even more micromanagement, but meh) then I have no problem with that at all, of course.  But fundamentally that would appear (to me) to be a waste of time since as I noted at the start, if I put one toenail out of line, there are at least four users here who would notify the authorities post-haste.  But if it counted for anything, I'd be happy to work under "probation".   The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
I haven't had much time to consider this proposal, and will be going offline shortly so will be unable to comment further for some time. I'm a little concerned about some of the comments TRM has been making with regard to some DYK hooks lately, so I'm somewhat ambivalent about the notion of his DYK restrictions being eased at this point. However, I have said from the outset that he should be permitted to copyedit DYK hooks himself as his work in that regard has always been both useful and uncontroversial, and as he would no longer have to prompt other editors to do it for him and those editors in turn could employ their talents elsewhere. With regard to 's proposal above, I have considered making the same proposal myself occasionally, but I worry about the potential for abuse, as his supporters could constantly canvas him for his views at DYK and we'd be back to square one. But at the same time, I don't want to be unreasonable. I'll need some more time to think about this, and see what others have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I see TRM has amended his previous statement to propose restricting his commentary to requests from nominators only. On the face of it, I can't see much objection to that. Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: I have refactored my original statement as I think it could have been better expressed. And of course, I'm always happy to work together constructively to improve the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Having had some more time to think about this, I'm struggling to see a downside. TRM's problematic behaviour has arisen almost entirely around his dissatisfaction with the quality of reviewing at DYK. It's hard to imagine any such problems arising if it's TRM himself doing the reviewing - is he going to be castigating himself for not doing a good enough job? Moreover, DYK is always in need of more reviewers - particularly quality reviewers - and TRM is about as rigorous a reviewer as they come. So I see this as potentially a win both for those who are seeking TRM's assistance in creating better nominations, and for the DYK project at large. In short, providing he intends to confine his reviewing to the nomination pages of those who request his assistance, I'm in favour of it. And it's not as though, after all, we can't return to the scope of the original ban if new problems arise. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

, I probably should have responded to your question earlier asking why TRM can't just conduct a review on his dedicated "ERRORS2" page. The reason (if you are unfamiliar with the process) is that DYK reviews are conducted on dedicated pages which look like this. They can also at times get quite complex, like this recent example.

TRM's errors page is not designed for extended reviews, it's there to identify hook and article errors. You can't approve a DYK nomination anywhere but on the dedicated nomination page, and if TRM were to conduct reviews on his errors page, you would have to save the resulting discussion to the nomination page anyway for future reference. So why not simply have the discussion at the dedicated page from the outset?

I reiterate my previous statement that I think easing TRM's restrictions in this manner would not only be highly unlikely to have a negative impact at DYK, it should have an outright positive impact as we are always in need of more reviewers at DYK and TRM is the kind of rigorous reviewer that the project needs more of. Moreover, he will only be reviewing the articles of users who have specifically invited him and with whom he therefore has a positive working relationship.

Perhaps I should also remind the Arbs that I can hardly be described as a fanboy of TRM, having strongly advocated for his DYK restrictions in the original request. In that regard, I am still strongly of the opinion that his ban from DYK talk, WP:ERRORS and any other highly visible page, where he has shown a persistent tendency to soapbox about the DYK project, should remain in place. But for dedicated (and intrinsically low-profile) DYK nominations pages - where he has been specifically invited by the nominator - it's very hard to imagine how that could become disruptive - on the contrary as I've suggested it should be of net benefit to the DYK project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

- yes it's true that individual nominations pages are transcluded to the global nominations page, but relatively few nominations get input from more than one user as people are generally looking for a new nomination that has yet to be reviewed. And as TRM is a rigorous reviewer, it would probably only be on rare occasions that somebody would want to challenge his conclusions, so the likelihood of exchanges with DYK regulars would probably be slim. As I've said previously, the main issue with TRM's participation at DYK in the past has been his disparagement of users, and of the DYK project in general, for defective reviewing. Since the proposed modification to his sanction would only allow him to do his own reviews, by invitation, there would be little reason or opportunity for him to be commenting on the reviews of others. But again, in the event that this modification did result in significantly more problematic behaviour, which seems unlikely, one could always go back to the previous regime. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ - that was an exceptionally long nomination discussion that is a rarity at DYK - I included it only as an example of how long the occasional review gets, and how impractical it would therefore be for TRM's ERRORS2 page to be doubling as a review page. Most DYK discussions are brief and have only one reviewer. In TRM's case, he doesn't miss much and consequently as I said his reviews are only likely to be challenged infrequently. Also, if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ - apologies for the delay in responding - I've had a very busy last couple of days. In response to your comment:

I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK"

- With respect, there is a world of difference between allowing a user to comment in an obscure nomination page, where he has been specifically invited and is welcome, and allowing him to comment at will on any topic he chooses on a high-traffic page like WT:DYK, potentially causing chronic disruption. Having said that, I have acknowledged that there would be some risk of disruption, however small - I just thought the proposal would be worth a try. Regardless, it looks as if it's on the verge of failure now (TRM has hardly helped his cause with some of his comments), I'm just putting my response on the record. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The motion to amend as currently worded does not I believe accurately reflect the discussion here. The amendment states: As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination, but that would allow him to review a nomination by request of the nominator anywhere, when there were clear objections to him being permitted to participate in DYK discussions at high-traffic pages such as DYK talk or WP:ERRORS. The motion should read he may review any DYK nomination on its nomination page only, at the direct request of the nominator, or something similar. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the proposed amendment could be better expressed anyway, as the wording is somewhat confusing as it stands. I would suggest striking the second sentence altogether and simply modifying the last sentence, which is currently This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) to: This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page, to DYK nomination pages where TRM has been invited to conduct the review by the nominator, or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) or something similar. That way, all the exceptions are covered together in the one sentence. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

, he could do the same thing at his own errors page, WP:ERRORS2, if he wanted - and in fact he has sniped at DYK on occasion there, but not to a degree that I've felt was actionable. Given that that page has been extant for a considerable period now, I'm finding it hard to imagine how he could be more disruptive at individual nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: I would have to refamiliarize myself with the context of the debate that led to your sanction in order to respond fully to that, but while it may be true that the wording of your sanction does not expressly bar you from commenting on the DYK process at WP:ERRORS WP:ERRORS2 there is the restriction against commenting on the competence of editors, and there sometimes can be a fine line between the two - though as I've said I don't think you've overstepped the line. Given that, my point is simply that I don't see much reason why you couldn't be trusted to also conduct reviews when invited at nomination pages, where the incentive to soapbox would be further diminished. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber
I think the modification provides clarity. Wikipedia is also desperately short of reviewers. I see this as a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Narutolovehinata5
Considering the issues with TRM's behavior at DYK before, I still feel that it would be better to stick to the status quo, unless TRM would promise to abide by the rest of his topic ban (i.e. refrain from making judgments about editors' competence) and he would promise to tone down his rhetoric. The main issue why he was banned from DYK in the first place was due to his attitude, which led to conflicts and frustrations with the rest of the DYK community. I'm not comfortable with him coming back unless there is effort that these issues would not happen again.

If consensus determines that this proposal be implemented, may I suggest some kind of probational period where in he could be allowed to contribute to DYK again (in what manner, let consensus determine), but if returns to his old ways or the prior problems return, then the stricter ban would be reinforced. I'm not sure how long would this period be, but probably no more than six months: if after the period there are no problems then he can be allowed back for good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Upon seeing TRM's new comments in his section, I am putting it for the record that I am opposed to this proposal at this time. Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before, with statements such as "Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer" and "I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really" showing that he either is unable to or refuses to stop belittling other editors (whether implicitly or explicitly). Considering it appears that his attitude remains unchanged from before, I fear that letting him back even in a limited capacity will result in the resumption of toxicity that greatly hurt the project in the past. Thus, I strongly advise that the status quo remain for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Gerda if the word "toxic" was harsh, but it was a frank assessment of the situation at DYK in the past. Too much drama, too much fighting, and sagging morale took place because of TRM's comments (whether directly or indirectly). Sometimes you need to be direct to the point to get your feelings across, even if the words sound harsh. I would only be open for TRM to return to DYK if he can promise and prove that his prior attitude problems will no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude. I suggest to the arbitrators to keep this in mind when discussing the matter and making a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to stalk or anything (in fact, the discussion I'm about to link, I had stumbled upon for reasons not related to this ARCA discussion), but I am very disappointed at the behavior TRM showed at WP:ANI and am starting to feel that he is being given special treatment on-Wiki. I'd imagine if a different editor with the exact same attitude did the same thing, they would have been gone long ago, or been given stricter sanctions. As a response to the other comments below, while I'm very much a believer in second chances and I'm not closing the door on supporting this proposal, I will only do so if and only if TRM promises to be more civil, refrain from making insults or other similar comments, and only follow the rules of the proposed motion. Right now, with absolutely no sign that TRM is even willing to change his ways, it greatly disappoints me that people here are even willing to consider this proposal, and I fear that, in spite of this proposal having limited scope, it would still be enough to make the old issues resume. (I personally have my opinions about WP:ERRORS2 and think it should go away, but that's a story for another time, and right now I think it's a necessary evil if only to prevent more drama). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What I find unbelievable is how an editor can get away with a comment that simply says "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" in a discussion. That's not humor, that's incivility. TRM, I was not even referring to EEng's block or EEng in general, but rather your behavior on that discussion. Did you really need to gravedance on the block being lifted or doing that "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" comment? If any other editor did that, I'm sure they would have been given at least a warning. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between humor and insults. Humor is supposed to make you laugh, make you feel good. Like for example a comedy show or a light-hearted moment. Laughing at people's misery is not exactly what you'd call humor in that sense. At best, it's a lame attempt at humor, and at worst it outright does the exact opposite (i.e. it makes people mad instead). And again, I was not referring to EEng's block. I don't have any opinions on said block or its circumstances. I am only referring to your "HAHAHAHA" comment. replyNarutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I know this is basically a slippery slope fallacy, but there is a fear that, even under the limited set of circumstances that he would be allowed, it might not be enough to prevent the issues with civility that were commonplace in the past (and indeed can even be seen to some extent in this discussion). Sure it could be argued that those with issues with him could simply avoid interacting with him, but what if such an avoidance is impossible? There also seems to be the fear that, in practice, such an exception could be abused to the point that it would make the original restrictions useless in the first place (i.e. people would just keep asking him to participate, rendering the original topic ban moot). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * After reading Vanamonde's proposed guidelines, I would say that I would be willing to support such a proposal, if TRM would be limited to strictly only talking about the hook wording and the articles themselves, and that he can still be sanctioned in case he goes beyond such restrictions without approval. However, I still have concerns that, due to his alleged reputation for "nitpicking" (note that I am quoting other editors here, this is not necessarily my thoughts), that even such a limited proposal may not be enough to mitigate concerns about civility. For example, I fear that, even if he is only asked to discuss about article and hook issues, he may raise "issues" that the nominator or other reviewers think aren't issues at all, which could lead to problems. I also agree, that if consensus is to add another exception to TRM's case, that such an exception should initially be short-term and should only be made permanent if the previous issues no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well AGK, if, as you say, TRM's attitude in this discussion has been "appalling", then I honestly and frankly have little hope that things will improve if this exception is implemented. It's kind of worrying that TRM is still showing a really condescending attitude in this very discussion (about granting him an exception), when him keeping civil and working on improving his attitude would have been the proper action, to increase the chances of the proposal passing. With the way things are going, it seems very likely that, considering TRM's continuing attitude, that the proposal will fail spectacularly if it was implemented. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're being unnecessarily rude in this discussion TRM and that is not giving confidence on your ability to keep civil. So what if you were given a barnstar? That is besides the point for the purposes of this discussion.　Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a late reply to your last comment, but considering TRM is already showing signs of incivility on this discussion, as well as apparently showing a superiority complex, it leavea me with little faith that he would suddenly turn civil and the issues would not reappear if the proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're pretty much proving my point here TRM, about the superiority complex. Sure it's nice to get a barnstar at all, but you don't have to brag about it. And in any case, the fact that you received a barnstar here has little-to-nothing to do with the actual topic of this discussion, which in the end, boils down to civility. Few people here are doubting your reviewing skills and in fact even some of the opposers here acknowledge your ability to detect errors. The question of this whole discussion is basically if that is enough to excuse your previous and current issues with civility, or if the proposal has enough safeguards to ensure that the previous problems won't resurface. And from the way you've been replying all this time, I can already tell that this proposal, of accepted, is doomed to failure. You were already asked nicely by some of the comments here to cease your tirades against DYK or its participants, and it was even proposed by another editor as a condition for you to return even in a limited capacity. And yet you have continued to berate DYK, as can be seen in your last message. It does not matter if it's "the truth" or not, that is for consensus to decide. But what is clear is that, with your current attitude, you are basically shooting yourself in the foot. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gerda: If we really need to pass this proposal, then at least to me Vanamonde's proposal seems to be the most reasonable: TRM would be allowed to comment, but only upon the request of the nominator, and can only bring up article and hook issues, but cannot say anything about editors or the DYK process; failure to adhere to the latter could result in sanctions. If further safeguards are necessary, then perhaps there could be additional restrictions. Like perhaps TRM could be limited to a maximum of one or two comments per nomination, and/or he can only comment on a certain number of nominations per day or week, and/or he can only participate upon consensus agreeing to do so (either on WT:DYK or the nomination page). The proposal to allow him to comment "if no one else has commented" honestly seems too broad for me: there could be various reasons as to why no one else has commented, including the fact that the nomination was just newly-started and no one else has gotten around to reviewing yet. It could actually mean that, under the proposed criterion, it's possible that the nominator simply requests TRM to do the review immediately (i.e. before anyone else could do the review), when as far as I have interpreted the proposal, it's intended mainly for cases where the nominator and reviewer(s) can't come into an agreement and TRM is intended to break the ice. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew


 * Well, the fact that you have been very rude in this discussion (which is a fact that even some of the supporters such as AGK have acknowledged), as well as showing an apparent superiority complex (in which you imply that everything you do is correct and the encyclopedia will "collapse" if you do not get your way) is enough to give pause as to your possible behavior if you come into DYK-related conflicts. If even here in this very discussion you have been unable to keep civil and been unable to refrain from attacking editors who do not agree with your work or sentiments, it makes it seem unlikely that your behavior will suddenly change if this proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you. While I acknowledge that some (and indeed arguable the majority) of DYK participants who have commented so far are supportive of the proposal, there are others who are opposed as well (such as BlueMoonset), and even among the supports (including from both DYK and non-DYK participants), other editors have also have reservations about your behavior, such as AGK, SL93, Vanamonde93, among others. Meanwhile, as for your statement There is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination. Well the fact is, you have been unnecessarily rude in this very discussion. If you claim that "I am going around in circles", then sure, but that's also because it appears you have also been unable to do something that has been requested from you multiple times: to keep civil. Let's put it this way. If, for the sake of argument, that this proposal does end up passing, would you promise to keep civil, refrain from making the kind of comments that you have give in this discussion, refrain from belittling editors and the DYK process (whether implicitly or explicitly), cease bragging about your on-Wiki contributions, and only comment on article and/or hook issues but not on editors? Because if you can answer yes, then maybe I would consider changing my mind and giving my support. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The motion wording strikes me as too broad. "But may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination" seems a bit too unspecific and still leaves open the possibility of making comments about editors or the DYK process even in an initial comment, which has been a major reason for conflict in the past. Would highly suggest that wording be added along the likes of Vanamonde's proposal, wherein TRM would only be allowed to comment on content but not editors or DYK. Also, would also suggest that the new motion, if passed, initially be only done as a limited-time trial, which could be extended or made permanent if no issues arise during such a trial. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gatoclass - The issue with your proposed rewording is that, if it only includes the words "or to DYK nominations where the nominator invited them to review", that would still leave open to TRM commenting on editors or the DYK process as a whole, which is something that other commenters here are worried about. I understand that the current wording about TRM's topic bans include the statement that he "cannot make reflections about the competence of editors", but it does not seem enough. If perhaps some kind of wording was added which would say something like "in cases where TRM is invited to review the nomination, he may only comment on the articles or hooks but can make no comments about the editors or the DYK process" then I might be more open to the idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What worries me about this whole discussion is that most of the comments have either ignored or declined to talk about the civility issues that TRM has faced in the past and arguably continues to have problems with. It's like the elephant in the room that people don't seem to want to talk about. And in fact, some of the supports even more-or-less say that they don't care about TRM's attitude, as long as he does what he does. What kind of editor would you prefer: an editor who is civil and good at what they do, or one who is an expert on such things but has a very questionable attitude? The way things stand, the proposed motion is too broad and in my opinion does not have enough strong safeguards to ensure that civility issues won't happen, and it shocks me that most of the comments here are supporting such a lenient motion. I mean, if the exception would be to allow TRM to comment when requested by the nominator, what would happen if, for example, TRM wholeheartedly disagrees with the nominator's work and begins to question their competence? Personally I would not be opposed to the motion if there was a restriction against commenting on the competence of editors or soapboxing, and I find it very strange that such a restriction doesn't have more support. I fear that if the motion is approved, TRM will end up back here at ARCA or even at AE or ANI sooner than later. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
Not a fan of this change. The current text means one can read DYK without encountering TRM. This change means one can again encounter TRM as long as someone has invited him there (and someone is undoubtedly going to do so). Adding this kind of loophole makes me uncomfortable - it makes it harder for anyone trying not to interact with TRM to also read DYK, plus it's a long slippery slope all the way to just not having any restrictions at all. Banedon (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way arbs, you can see above that TRM has pinged me again even though I told him not to do so in the past. In other words, the objectionable behavior is still there, it's just at a lower and less visible level. This is also but one example of TRM trying to attract my attention even though he undoubtedly knows I am manually ignoring him and don't care about anything he has to say. I consider this incident another reason not to make this amendment: it makes it easier for TRM to aggravate people. You don't even need to interact in any explicit way, simply reading the same pages is enough. Banedon (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind TRM participating, I don't mind him rebutting what I wrote, I just do not want him to ping me. That's easy to do: just don't include the tags that ping the person, so in my case I would simply type Mendaliv or @Mendaliv without using the replyto command. It's something that's easy to do, so since he did not do it I interpret his action as hostile. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: why can't anyone who wants TRM's input ask him on WP:ERRORS2, where the restriction already does not apply? Banedon (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @valeree if you don't like the atmosphere at WP:ERRORS2, there's a good chance you'll regret this amendment if it passes. ERRORS2 is hosted by TRM, after all. @Mendaliv, this is a long and complex case. If you're looking for evidence that the restrictions are beneficial, I'd suggest the amendments & enforcements section of the main case page (and discussions within), as well as searching AE for results. I was in favor of simple restrictions as well, but Arbcom in general have given signals that they'd rather impose minimally restrictive remedies (see e.g., such as the ones in this case. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do DYK nominations involve only the nominator and the reviewer? If not, then I don't see why adding this loophole makes sense: any other reviewer or reader is going to be affected as well. Even if the nominator doesn't care, others might. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

that sounds good on paper but is risky nonetheless, because if someone is annoyed they might not complain but simply not participate. See statements by e.g. Kevin McE and Sunshineisles2 in original case request. Further, fighting these cases & going through dispute resolution takes a mental toll. As you can see from the case request, the alleged problem behavior went on for years before it wound up at Arbcom. Would you fight a case if half the people are going to say TRM has done nothing wrong and you should grow a thicker skin, when the alternative of simply not participating is painless and instant?

Looking at the complex discussion you linked, lots of people participated: Ted52, DannyS712, SkyGazer 512, Peacemaker67, Flibirigit, EdChem ... further, it looks like that nomination was for an article created by someone other than the nominator. How would this amendment not lead to people who don't want to interact with TRM having to interact with him? Banedon (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK". Banedon (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand - if this amendment is implemented, what if someone who doesn't want to interact with TRM wants to participate in a DYK nomination for which the nominator has invited TRM to review? Even worse, what if the author of an article (who doesn't want to interact with TRM) is not the nominator, and the nominator invites TRM to review? If the answer to these two questions is "just avoid that nomination", then this amendment is not harmless; it has collateral damage. On the other hand if it were possible to make an amendment that is harmless - such that only those who want to interact with TRM actually interact with him - then I still don't see the purpose of that amendment, because anyone who wants to interact with TRM can already see his input on ERRORS2 or his talk page. The only thing that changes would be the venue. Banedon (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
Since I have been called in the proposal. I have found The Rambling Man (TRM) most helpful regarding the quality of the Main page, and had frequent positive interactions, before and after WP:ERRORS2 was established. Yes, it's sometimes time-consuming to have to supply, and I sometimes think that it would be more urgent to write about a person who recently died and has a poor article than supplying references for stage productions which nobody would question anyway, and sometimes I decide to not take the time to search for the refs missing in translated articles, and feel a bit sorry for the readers who then have to go without those facts.

How would it hurt others if TRM did a DYK review for me, or improved "my" hook, when asked? Fondly remembered: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Martin Kränzle. I would like the committtee to find a creative way to make that possible. My way would be to let go of all restrictions with probation.

@Narutolovehinata5: I believe that DYK would profit if all participants would refrain from comments about the shortcomings and the attitude of others, which make "judgments about editors' competence" as you said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: "Civil and respectful people should not apply the word "toxic" to fellow editors." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Still same: you paint a rough picture of the DYK scene without any diff. I invite you to read the review I linked above from start to finish. That is what I call a model of constructive reviewing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@PBP: I ihave interacted with TRM for many years, and found him always civil (to me), and never insisting on a style, just on facts and references. I don't see you much at DYK, so what do you observe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@PBP: I am often at ITN, for the sad reason that people die and have insufficient articles (see above, now on the Main page). TRM helped. At ITN, he also has never been incivil to me. Do you see any incivility in the model review? Do we perhaps have different ideas about civility?

@Sandstein: ARCA for someone else whom you see in trouble is not frequent but has been done, and even successfully so in a seemingly hopeless case, remember? (admittedly a pointed edit on Bach's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (forget the following for now, please, baby steps, only within DYK nomination)
 * I made a corner on my talk, User talk:Gerda Arendt where people who think as I do can sign that TRM is welcome to review their articles, provided this little step to more article quality will be taken. We can make it a template like this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I am not sure I understand what you mean. I wanted to give TRM permission to review all my nominations (implying: within those nominations), but heard advice to take baby steps, so: I am ready to invite TRM within each nomination (even if 20 times per month, sigh), and his input only within that nomination. What I read from your comment is to ask the question on TRM's talk, and then somehow copy his answer to the nomination, - that awkward construction is what should be avoided by this amendment if I get it right. Ritchie, perhaps clarify the request, because it can be interpreted differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Same: What I would like to be able to request is not just some comment, but a review, - otherwise someone else would need to work on that part, which I think is needless double work, and a waste of time. It's kafkaesque that TRM can handle GA and FA reviews, without complaints afaik, but not simple DYK reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: you say "it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not", which is true but besides the point. DYK is not about an article, but about the proposed hooks, and to make comments about them anywhere else than in the nomination seems needlessly complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful that TRM took up the GA review for my last Christmas gift. My suggestion for a modified request would be (instead of "or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited"): "or to DYK nominations where his review has been solicited and no other reviewer has commented". Better wording welcome, - the idea is to make sure interactions happen only where they are wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@WTT, @Edchem: about when does a review end. Perhaps we can define: when the ultimate icon of approval or failure was given? Don't think a review always ends then. Example: Template:Did you know nominations/Antigone oder die Stadt. Approved 14 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Would you rather support letting go all restrictions on a parole? Do you find any fault in what I mentioned above as a model review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv
As an outside observer, I find TRM's behavior here to be perfectly normal, if a bit jocular. We aren't monks, and this isn't a court. As to TRM's pinging of Banedon, I believe this complaint is both frivolous and vexatious. Banedon came here voluntarily to oppose TRM. Banedon's statement invites interaction from TRM. I believe that this is yet another case of unilateral WP:KEEPOFF-style declarations that the Committee should rightly hold as unenforceable in this case. Yes, if someone is bothering you, it is reasonable to ask him to leave you be, and it would be rude for that person to not leave you be for a reasonable period of time... but it's not an interaction ban, nor is it a restraining order. What else is not reasonable is to keep a reasonable request like that in your back pocket for three years only to throw it down as a "gotcha" in a situation like this. It's dirty pool, and moreover, it's a form of incivility to bring oneself into this discussion and then complain when a participant talks to you. It's frivolous and vexatious and should expose the person making such a complaint to sanction if repeated. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein’s latter point, that the sanction regime that exists is needlessly complex. Just lift the whole thing and if there’s a problem, hand out IBANs and sitebans. I see no evidence that it’s still necessary to prevent disruption even being presented. Rather concerns about having to see his posts. That doesn’t merit continuing this ban. Sandstein’s former point, on the other hand, is moot: TRM is here and is participating as though he wants this specific outcome. So there is standing to proceed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what's being missed here is that as part of a preventive (i.e., nonpunitive) regime, there should always be a default position of determining whether the sanctions are still necessary. I posit that this hasn't been done. Most of the argument against loosening these sanctions seems to come from a position of "why should we?" I would counter by asking, "Why shouldn't we?" I've yet to see anybody credibly answer that question here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As an alternative suggestion, let's even take this as a chance to try something different: Give TRM six months of this and then revisit it. If there are no credible complaints about his conduct at DYK, then it becomes permanent. If there are credible complaints, rescind it. And of course, if there are serious misconduct issues, rescind it early. This way there's no knock-down drag-out fight over whether and when to reinstitute the previous regime. The Committee has crafted relief from sanctions in this manner before and, if memory serves, it has been successful. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Banedon and PBP raise some legitimate concerns that we shouldn’t dismiss (though I won’t call all concerns legitimate), but at the same time, these should be balanced against the guiding principles for sanctions (i.e., “preventive” means they must be preventing something). Taken with a genuine interest expressed here by multiple editors (including those with past dust-ups with TRM) in seeing him able to help DYK noms with their noms outside of TRM’s walled garden. When coupled with reasonable safeguards against this reduction becoming permanent without Committee approval (as I suggested in an earlier post), this is both eminently reasonable and quite compelling. I urge the Committee to give TRM a chance here. We do this sort of thing all the time for people who were previously sockpuppeteers. I understand that some may view TRM as toxic or an unblockable, and thereby see granting any request as making that greater problem worse. But it is not the place of the Committee to legislate or to be a roadblock or to supervise quasi-permanent sanction regimes. The Committee’s job is to arbitrate. If TRM is given this chance and bottles it, reimpose the sanction as-is, and possibly sanction him more. If TRM takes this chance and does nothing with it, then the Committee can have it default to being reimposed. And if TRM takes this chance and succeeds, then the Committee has succeeded. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we might conclude the discussion between TRM and valereee by recalling that we're all giving our own opinions and arguments here, and that valereee is here more as an amicus than a direct participant or party. Thus it's entirely reasonable and normal for their framings of the situation not to line up perfectly despite generally supporting each other's views. And I think that's what's important. Spirited discussion is a positive thing, and even difficulty can be positive. There is a recent research article on Wikipedia that comes to mind that concluded polarization in a topic area was correlated with more neutrality on average, despite the views of the participants that the discussion was difficult. See —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * as my first post in this request somewhat addressed, TRM has been getting baited and bullied throughout this request, so I think some understanding would be in order. While he's had support, an unfortunate fact of life is that TRM is not too hard to bait. And so, rather than enjoying the broad support he's received throughout this request—and as you can see, that support has come from virtually every sort of editor—he has a tendency to react when people try to cause him to react. But is it fair to blame him for the wrongdoing of others? I don't think so. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to understand your rationale that TRM is "not invested" in light of all (or any) of the discussion that's taken place here. Sandstein's point is a patent non sequitur, as well as completely inappropriate given (as far as I know) we do not have a legal standing requirement here. Yes, it's poor policy to allow third parties to start proceedings, but that is dramatically different from the jurisdictional bar Sandstein appears to be raising. And again, TRM has mooted that objection by participating. If the Committee is going to enact rigid procedural requirements, it should do so through its rulemaking processes and not piecemeal through adjudicative processes (unless, of course, we are starting to follow a stare decisis system here). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In line with what Nartuolovehinata5 suggests, the wording could be tightened a bit, though I don't think it's necessary to expressly prohibit such commentary. Rather, I would prefer to see the motion make clear that when TRM is invited to comment on a DYK by the nominator, he will be held to the same minimum standards of behavior of other editors. Let AE figure out what that means in practice. I think we should be clear here, the goal of this change of sanction is not to prevent every possible disruption or hurt feeling, but to loosen the restrictions with the intention of letting TRM prove himself useful. It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to be the permanent babysitter of a few well-known editors. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by StudiesWorld
While I have at times found TRM to be unnecessarily rude, I have also found that he seems to be the person who cares the most about the quality of the main page. Therefore, I would be very pleased to be able to have him review my hooks at DYK. I believe that the committee should adopt this, so long as the request must come from the article's nominator, updater, or improver. I would also appreciate if the committee would permit general kind requests on all of a user's DYKs, to avoid the need to ask each time. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by valereee
I have no objection to TRM commenting when requested to. I often find his comments useful, though I also find his definition of “error” loose in the extreme, as it includes non-crucial stylistic preferences different from his own. And I sure wish he could exercise some self-discipline so we wouldn't need this silly rule. TRM, why only the nom? Oh, I see the comment from WTT. Frankly, I'd probably ask you him every time I moved a prep to queue if you he'd be willing to take a quick look at the set before it hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm not reading this as only doing DYK reviews of nominations awaiting approval when requested. I'm reading it also as doing rechecks when requested. I agree with WTT that it should be someone involved with the nom who makes the request, not just some random drive-by potstirrer, but there are multiple editors involved with every nom. Creator/nominator, reviewer, promoter, and whoever moves prep to queue, at minimum. I would think any of those people at any point would be able to ask you what you think. --valereee (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, but to be fair, it's a little circular to argue that none of your reviewed noms receive pushback, hence they're perfect/there's nothing an editor with your skills and inclinations would complain about you've already done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way''', when you're probably the person most likely to be pushing back. --valereee (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, and I'll add that I'm also not arguing that they aren't beneficial. They are both good and beneficial, and I wish I could take advantage of them. But the fact they don't get complaints can't be taken as evidence that another person whose eye was similarly sharp, whose willingness to go over the main page with a fine-toothed comb was similarly obsessive, but whose opinions about various issues were different from your own -- say TRM's doppelganger showed up -- that they wouldn't receive complaints. You aren't going to complain about the quality of your own reviews; you've already perfect/good enough to need no criticism done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way from your point of view. That's all I'm saying. --valereee (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Gosh you’re difficult. You realize I’m supporting you here, right? 1. You complain about DYK more than anyone else. 2. You aren’t likely to complain about your own reviews. 3. Your reviews get few complaints. You’re using that to, and I quote, argue that “none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable.” It’s a logical fallacy. If there were someone scrutinizing your noms as closely as you scrutinize everyone else’s -- but there's not -- then perhaps you’d have a different set of data. --valereee (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I was trying to work with you when you said "none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable" was not a claim to perfection. A lot of folks might take exception to that, but I backed off, twice, with still no joy. It absolutely is a logical fallacy to claim that no objections = nothing objectionable when the source of the lion's share of objections has been taken out of the equation. --valereee (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no question on your motivation; it's clearly to protect the project by ensuring errors don't hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Banedon, I don't mind reading there, but I don't want to post there. I don't like the general atmosphere; it feels the opposite of collegial. I probably wouldn't ask for help there. I'd post to TRM's user talk, I guess, but I'd really rather just have all discussion in one spot. So, yeah, being able to ask TRM at T:DYK to do another recheck on a prep set I'd finished rechecking and was ready to move to queue would be useful to me. I'd rather have potential issues pointed out before the thing's just hours from or already on the main page. But as TRM said, baby steps. If all Ritchie is suggesting is that TRM be allowed to do the original review when asked, that's also fine with me. --valereee (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Banedon, yes, I'm aware of that. I read there regularly when it was being updated and often made article fixes or suggested main page fixes at ERRORS when I agreed an issue was an error. --valereee (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Purplebackpack89
Oppose proposed amendment, and support additional sanctions. The Rambling Man is perennially uncivil to many, many editors and no evidence that his continually uncivil behavior has abated has been provided. If anything, the present topic ban doesn't go far enough. I'd also like to echo the above point that, both in DYK and in other areas, TRM is too interested in making everything conform to one particular style, when conformity to said style isn't necessary. p b  p  23:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM's attitude in dealing with this arbcom, casting inaccurate aspersions (such as accusing people who oppose the amendment as "harassing") and making snide remarks, steels my opinion that this topic ban is justified, probably even an under-reaction. Furthermore, if you were to peek onto ITNC at almost any time, you'd find TRM badgering other editors, essentially mimicking the behavior that got him the DYK topic ban.  p  b  p  17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 to Naruto's comment's above where it's said Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before and Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude. That's exactly why I feel he cannot be trusted to be civil at DYK, or, frankly, anywhere else. Instead of quelling concerns about his behavior (which should be the main focus of this discussion), TRM has assailed those who criticize him. He seems to be ignoring the guidelines at the top of editing this page, Be professional. Comments that are uncivil or intended to provoke a negative reaction are unhelpful. p b  p  11:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He is incivil and badgering at ITNC, among other places. Heck, he's incivil in his post here.   I feel like you're ignoring the reasons this was originally implemented, and the reasons his other sanctions exist.  p  b  p  23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, small point of order: a quick perusal of my user page reveals that I do have DYK credits, so TRM's statement above is inaccurate. p  b  p  12:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You'd be helping your case a lot more if you provided examples of how you can interact civilly and positively. Because, right now, you're doing the exact opposite.  .  p  b  p  16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we allow TRM to review DYKs? To succinctly answer your question: reviewing DYKs inherently involves interacting with other editors.  These sanctions were put in place because TRM demonstrated serious problems interacting with editors when reviewing DYKs.  Since those sanctions were put in place, TRM continues to demonstrate problems interacting with editors in the spaces he is still permitted to use.  Because of past problems interacting with editors on DYK, and current problems interacting with editors elsewhere, we shouldn't allow him to review DYKs in order to prevent him from interacting poorly there.  p  b  p  22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting prostration, I was expecting civility. If TRM had said nothing in this ARCA, this might have not been controversial. If TRM had said nothing but, "I'm good at reviewing articles", this might have not been controversial. Instead, TRM attempted to bludgeon everybody who disagreed with him, something he's done on almost every part of Wikipedia he frequents. You yourself said that his behavior here was disturbing, yet you've chosen to ignore that in your vote. p  b  p  15:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I don't have an opinion on this particular situation or editor(s), but I'd like to put it to the Committee that (a) that this is an appeal by somebody other than the sanctioned editor, which is normally not allowed; and (b) based on my AE experience, the Committee should refrain from micro-managing editors' behavior through complicated and individualized sanctions with exceptions and qualifiers. Such sanctions are invariably difficult to apply and enforce. Sanctions should be as simple as possible - ideally, a plain site ban, interaction ban or topic ban.  Sandstein  08:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
semi-involved only due to frequent interactions at ITN, another main page section. What TRM is good at is accuracy and language precision. TRM isn't great in the "process" part of things (that is where past issues have come up), but if you are just asking TRM to review and comment (and asking without contempt for his past actions), it will going swimmingly well and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Yes, there will be some disagreements on TRM's suggestions but as long as that does not create the same behavior that TRM's concerns on the process had created, we should be okay to add this additional allowance. --M asem (t) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jip Orlando
The committee should endorse this request. Some agree with TRM, and some disagree. TRM is an exceptional reviewer (GA, FAC) and cares deeply about the integrity and accuracy of the main page. I don't see there being any trouble with allowing his solicited opinion on DYK items. If he reviews something, and the nominator disagrees with his assessment, the onus is on the nominator. Simple, really. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
I’ve had many disagreements with TRM at WP:ITN. I support this request. He should be allowed to comment whenever invited by the nominator. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave
I too support the request - If TRM's been invited to DYK then he should be allowed to comment there. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
If a nominator has solicited TRM's input, I see no reason he shouldn't give it, assuming his other restrictions continue to be adhered to.

Also, since we're here, this is probably a good time for someone besides myself to remind TRM that the exemption to his tban is specifically User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS, and not (for instance) his much more visible talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @ all the folks who are concerned over conflict arising from TRM reviewing DYK nominations; there's an easy way around this. Word the exception to the TBAN to allow TRM, in the course of performing a DYK review, to comment on a) the hook(s) on offer, and b) the bolded article, narrowly construed. He can then do what he's good at, but he would remain restricted from, for instance, making comments about the nominator, the promoter, the DYK process, and anything else that bugs him. Not only would this reduce the reviewer burden at DYK, I believe this is more in keeping with ARBCOM philosophy in general; we should work toward a situation where remedies are no longer necessary. This provides a good test case; if TRM returns to making unnecessarily personal comments, the old restriction can be imposed again; if not, we're all the better for it. If we want to add further safety valves; word this exception so that it expires in six months, at which point TRM would have to demonstrate constructive contributions at DYK for the exception to be restored. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
Why not? If a DYK editor has specifically requested TRM's input into a singular nomination, it would make sense for the good of the encyclopaedia if he is allowed to assist that editor. To those complaining above about TRM in general, just don't ask him to comment on your nom and ignore him - you don't have to get riled just because he has an opinion and you don't like his personal style.

It seems as if many would like a pound of flesh here, rather than anything aimed at improving the standard of the front page. God knows DYK is quality sink normally and the MP would be better off without it, but while it is there, let's try and ensure standards are adhered to, and if TRM's offer takes the pressure off some of the other reviewers, that can only be a 'Good Thing'. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BlueMoonset
The proposed additional wording strikes me as far too broad. In particular, the DYK talk page had become a highly unpleasant place to work on for a very long time, and the atmosphere there improved immediately and significantly once the Arbitration committee's decision was handed down. TRM should continue to be restricted from posting to that page: if people have questions or requests and the committee thinks it's important that he be allowed to answer, they can easily be made elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, the proposal as written at the top of this section still reads to add the following to the remedy: or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited, and that seems to be what the arbs are responding to. I don't see that Ritchie333 has rethought the wording; indeed, valereee's most recent response indicates a desire to ping you from WT:DYK and have you answer there. Under those circumstances, I thought it was important to register my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv
I doubt TRM has any recollection of many of our interactions but there have been a fair few, some positive and some negative (currently we're having a positive one). I actually take issue with TRM's behaviour at ERRORS2 and also support this modification (understanding it to mean: if a DYK nominator wants TRM to review a nomination then TRM is permitted to). On ERRORS2, the issue I have is with the often factually incorrect nitpicking of all of the DYK hooks, which some admins who've watchlisted ERRORS2 blindly rush to pull out of the queue and complain about. I often watchlist ERRORS2 when my hook is in the queue in case someone starts trying to tear apart the nomination because I have a period out of place. But if a hook nominator wishes for TRM to participate then I see no issue with this, as TRM's thorough reviews mean there'll be no problem with the hooks he accepts. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I'm honestly struggling to understand why the suggestion to allow nominators to seek input from TRM if (and only if) they desire is at all controversial? If anyone does not want to interact with TRM they don't have to - they can just choose not to comment on those reviews where TRM's involvement has been solicited. All those in opposition seem to be arguing against things that are not proposed or are even less relevant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM would only be allowed to participate if the nominator asks, so unless there is some grand conspiracy among DYK nominators the chance of the restriction being moot or TRM being unavoidable is not realistic. If it does turn out that this very small limited exception does lead to TRM being uncivil then it can simply be withdrawn. Given the number of people who are desperate for TRM to make any transgression so they can pounce on him any problems will be reported PDQ and sanction will be swift. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
To Thyrduff's point, the reason that point does not seem persuasive is because someone like Gerda can go to TRM's DyK page and seek their practically unbridled input without any fuss. Take what, eg. Gerda, learns there and make the DyK nom anything they think worthwhile with the input. All of us, when we choose to, from time to time go to someone's user pages and ask advice on things, and we don't normally say, I will only take your advice elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda: Not sure why you would have to copy anything: 1) Go talk to the person whose opinion you want; 2) ask them for their opinion/critique etc on your DyK 3) incorporate their ideas/critique in the DyK yourself. If I go to someone's talk and ask them if this is a good way to phrase something, or to source something, they don't have to go phrase it or source it, I will do that, taking their advice into account. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Gerda, to comment on something capably, reveiw is usually involved. You can ask him anything you want and get his answer.  Assuming you both do great, you make the nom process a cake walk for everyone else (win-win).   It's doubtful even Kafka thought consulting an editor on his work was kafkaesque (even if many editors and authors 'hate' each-other, just a little). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
I didn't think I was going to post here, but I guess I am. The original proposal fails flat on its face as making the entire sanction toothless and pointless. If literally anyone can just ping TRM and suddenly the sanction stops applying, then it really isn't much of a sanction.

As for the talk of limiting it to only when the nominator asks for TRM's input, well it's certainly more agreeable than the original proposal (which isn't saying much). However, and this is why I decided to post here, let me break down as to why I specifically still see this as causing more issues than it helps and provide an alternative.


 * Background: In 2016, arbcom had found TRM was consistently being uncivil. If that is no longer the case, then fine. Let's just not forget that the remedy we are talking about was designed to resolve that issue.
 * I'm really confused by your statement. If you think TRM is still acting poorly in this request, then why... support granting it?
 * Scenario: Okay, so here's a likely situation that I can guarantee will happen at some point were this to pass:
 * A DYK reviewer (let's say ) starts a review for a new DYK made by someone who knows TRM well.
 * NLH is doing his reviewing thing, maybe even suggests an alternative hook, but the nominator takes issue with it.
 * They ping TRM for advice who, while not exactly siding with them, completely disagrees with most everything NLH said.
 * TRM comes in and disparages NLH for giving such a poor review (by implication or otherwise) because he missed some mistake found in the hook's reference
 * There is no recourse for this, and NLH is just either supposed to drop the review altogether or just sit there and take it.
 * Suggestion: If the issue there are nominators who want TRM to do their review for them, then I do have an odd suggestion.
 * Iff the DYK nomination is a self-nomination, they can forgo transcluding the nomination subpage to Template talk:Did you know and instead use WT:ERRORS2.
 * WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not allowed (pick one; no take backs).
 * There TRM can proceed as the reviewer just like the regular process. Other people reviewing WT:TRM noms should be discouraged when avoidable.
 * If a hook is approved, then someone should transclude the nom subpage to WP:DYKNA.
 * It goes through the normal channels from there like any other nomination (except TRM can participate if civil)
 * This process would require ratification from a majority of editors in an RFC at WT:DYK to take effect (closed by a super uninvolved admin- no major interactions with TRM even if just admin actions).
 * Conclusion: This is certainly... an idea. I don't know. It's probably a bad proposal, and it at least nominally addresses everyone's concerns here.

I'll leave off by just saying that I sort of hate that long established editors get this special treatment even if they're uncivil. If you can't get through a disagreement with someone without insulting them or being unnecessarily hostile, then I genuinely question why you are here. However, Sanctions always seem more designed to accommodate them rather than the project. Even my proposed sanction modification is way too lenient imo, but at least the DYK folks get a direct say in it this way. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC) It was at that moment in time of which I read that response where I completely gave up any hope I had left here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. If I had read the latest comment from, I wouldn't have posted this. It doesn't address those concerns. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: this. Well, truth be told; this discussion inspired me to learn more about the DYK process, so I promoted some DYKs on Prep 6. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: this. See... this is what I'm concerned with. NHL claims you are uncivil, you disagree, you display incivility right now, you disagree again, you claim your reviews are crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia, NLH politely argues that there still exists civility concerns here, you spout off your accomplishments, NLH says you are shooting yourself in the foot, you say NHL is continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head.
 * I'm really confused why everyone else gets a ping but me. I'm not like Banedon here; I really like pings lol A few things: (1) If you are aware enough of your situation to think/know you are being baited, then don't take the bait. (2) It's really not a battle against the odds here. A good amount of well established users have commented here to support this request. (3) If this is really such a time sink for you, then ask for it to be withdrawn. People with past issues with you are going to comment here, it's unavoidable and necessary to gain their perspective. (4) You also never commented on my suggestion (which was skind of the important bit?). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Facts: I'm better at this stuff than DYK prepping lol &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yikes That motion below is decisively not what I want to see. It completely avoids the self-nomination issue. It also effectively kills the sanctions imo. It's poor wording means that can continue to discuss the nomination on User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS. If you think that won't happen, then I'd like to point you to the discussion on this very ARCA there. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @: [Thank you for the ping] You are correct in that I do not know many of the circumstances that surround this sanction. My concern is that if you are prohibited generally from further commenting on your DYK reviewed hooks, then I don't see why you need ERRORS2 to be an exception. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm in over my depth here. I fully admit have no decent response. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SL93
The scenario presented by is what I have been afraid of happening. The Rambling Man's reviews are great, minus being uncivil. If editors think that he can remain civil in his great reviews then fine, but there should really be a trial run at first. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like the immediate issue to me. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky caldron
Seems straightforward to me as someone completely uninvolved and totally disinterested in the topic in hand. TRM is clearly the subject matter expert. There seems reliance - far too much - on him. This is not good for a Main Page feature and needs to be addressed. However, as far as this request goes it seems obvious that if he sticks to his self-imposed constraints it will be for the betterment of the feature. If he fails to do so he will no doubt end up back here fairly quickly. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Firstly, I want to echo Sandstein, this is a clarification request not started by TRM so it should be TRM. Secondly, I think it should be denied. As others have pointed out (or I believe I saw it) TRM is at ITN and it's not a friendly place. If he's banned at DYK we don't need a loophole. If he has a place at TRM/ERRORS, let him stay at TRM/ERRORS. If someone wants to talk to him about a DYK, they can talk to him at TRM/ERRORS. Letting him in to DYK is inviting trouble by letting him talk to unsuspecting people who may not want to interact with him. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jonathunder
As someone who has occasionally worked on DYK and other main page queues, I find User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS quite helpful. Why wouldn't we be free to ask this editor's opinion if it benefits the project? Jonathunder (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

 * TRM has a long history of expressing his views in problematic ways, reflecting on other editors in a way that has caused issues and led to sanctions being imposed, and struggling to recognise and respond colleagially to views with which he disagrees – and particularly about the DYK project. TRM is also strongly motivated by and committed to quality encyclopaedic content for WP, has a well-established and entirely-justified reputation for identifying and addressing problematic content and providing high quality and persuasive reviews.  I believe that neither of these observations can reasonably be disputed.
 * I applaud the comment from AGK that ArbCom acting to modify a sanction does not require grovelling. The question here – is a modification appropriate for pursuing the goals of Wikipedia and will any modification lead to disruption – does not require TRM to act in a certain way.  To me, the two most significant facts in this ARCA are, firstly, that the views of other editors offer a consensus that allowing TRM to review DYK nominations on request is a net positive, and secondly, that that consensus recognises his prior behaviour (which justifies maintaining a ban on WT:DYK and meta-discussion of the DYK project) and so demonstrates nuance.  Support is not "TRM is perfect, remove all sanctions," it is "TRM is capable of contributing positively to nominations without causing additional problems and this is a reasonable step forward... if it turns out to be problematic, the step can be reversed."
 * I have one suggestion regarding the proposal from, which is that the restriction "but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination" is too strict, in my view. If I, as a nominator, ask TRM for a review, and he complies but I don't understand his concern, I can ask for clarification but he can't respond.  I would change the added sentence to something like:
 * As an exception, at the request of the nominator he may review any DYK nomination including subsequent discussion of that review at its nomination page only, but may not engage in discussion of the DYK project or its editors
 * I think TRM would be a valuable reviewer and demonstrating this is in everyone's interests.


 * , it is true that some of the material at TRM's ERRORS is nit-picking and trivial, and he does clearly still have strong views on DYK. However, speaking as a DYK editor, I find it irritating to have problems raised so late in the process and I would much rather have TRM point out an issue on a nomination than when it is on the main page. I agree with TRM that some reviews are very inadequate and if TRM can help to establish a new standard of what is and is not a sufficient review (by example), that is a positive thing IMO.  If he uses the opportunity to review to just post criticism, his ability to offer reviews will quickly be rescinded.  If the motion were worded as I have suggested, you could add that any uninvolved administrator can instruct that he cease contributing to a particular nomination – though that would add complexity and I don't expect it would be needed.  His contributions on this page have been less than ideal, but that is TRM... had he been all politeness and grovelling, I would have thought he was playing games or mocking the process.  EdChem (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the principal difference lies in the interpretation of the word "review." I was taking the term as referring to the first post, that might raise problems for the nominator to address, rather than to the whole process.  I'm fine with your interpretation, which addresses much of my concern, so long as it is clear to all that that's what ArbCom is intending.  TRM deserves clarity on what is being allowed.  Regarding your point about a nomination being re-opened, it does happen, and more often than might be obvious.  The most common reason is a concern raised once a hook is in a queue (or has just appeared on the main page), and not infrequently because TRM has raised an issue that is recognised as needing further consideration.  Sometimes these are discussed (or even resolved) at WT:DYK – where TRM cannot post – but if a nomination is re-opened and he was the reviewer, should he be allowed to participate in that further discussion of the nomination?  Should his involvement be requestable at any stage in a nomination, or only the start?  I don't have any answers on this, but do think the questions are worth considering.  EdChem (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable perspective / position. Taking the term "review" as covering the process up to giving the tick addresses my concerns, so long as it is clear that that is the ArbCom-mandated intent of the motion.  I just don't want TRM to be dragged to AE or otherwise threatened because someone makes the same mistake that I did in interpreting what was meant here.  EdChem (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , not sure why I am not getting pings at the moment. In any case, I think your suggestion is also sensible and is another approach that WTT / ArbCom might take.  EdChem (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can see the point that you are making, but unfortunately inexact wording has been weaponised against TRM in the past and I want to prevent that happening again. The situation has similarities to Fram's circumstances, sadly – an editor with good intentions who speaks inappropriately at times, and who has both supporters who seem to believe that he can do no wrong and detractors who think any pretext for sanctions should be exploited to the fullest... and in the middle are the editors who see a flawed but net positive contributor and the content of the encyclopaedia.  TRM is a difficult case for ArbCom to manage, I recognise, and the usual approach that simpler sanctions are preferable runs into problems because the two entrenched camps are looking for reasons to attack / defend.  I hope that I am seen as one of the editors in the middle and not part of either of those camps (certainly that's how I see my contribution here) and I can respect the view that  takes that a modification is not presently justified.  I am in favour of this modification, obviously, and am just hoping that it be constructed in such a way as to avoid it being gamed by either entrenched camp.  TRM is an excellent reviewer – thorough, respectful of content policy, dedicated to quality encyclopaedic content, and supportive so long as an editor shares those goals – and I want to see those characteristics used for the benefit of Wikipedia and the DYK project if possible.  You may have the view that now is not the time to try a modification or that if he can't contribute fully to DYK then he shouldn't at all, and I can understand that.  I ask, however, as a DYK contributor and one who sees the problems with TRM picking up errors through his ERRORS page so late in the process, please consider the situation from the DYK project's perspective.  DYK has a problem with inadequate reviews and TRM can help in establishing what is the norm for an adequate review.  TRM is picking up issues that should be caught earlier and I believe it is to our benefit to seek a way for his skills to be used earlier.  I agree that micromanaging from ArbCom should not be necessary and is not desirable from the Committee's perspective, but I suggest that it is sometimes desirable for the sake of encyclopaedic content.  I won't defend everything TRM says or has done, some of it is indefensible and warranted sanctions, but he does have skills that we need and can do a lot of good.  Can ArbCom find a way to harness his willingness to contribute reviews – reviews that are near-universally recognised as being of high quality and accuracy – to the benefit of the DYK project, main page content, and the encyclopaedia, while also addressing his problematic (at times) behaviours?  Strong restrictions have been effective in reducing the problems on the behavioural side, at least in my opinion, so I ask that some modification be trialled to see if we can increase the benefits afforded by his skills and given his willingness to participate.   EdChem (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , when I mentioned either camp gaming the system, I was thinking both of the way some editors choose to push boundaries in an attempt to reduce the area in which the sanctions apply and to those who try to weaponise sanctions by expanding their area of application. I do not think that you would try the former, though such things have happened with other editors, so I recognise that it may be a concern for some members of ArbCom.  In your case, I fear the latter is more likely to occur and want to prevent it to the greatest extent possible.  I am glad that WTT has described a more expansive view of what constitutes a review than the one I thought was being suggested, because WTT's view is much more aligned with what I see as reasonable.  I did not mean to cast aspersions in your direction (or in anyone's direction, for that matter) but I'm sure that you would agree that there are a vast array of shades of grey between white and black.  I view you as at the whiter end of that spectrum but also feel confident that our Arbitrators each probably see you as a different shade, and some of those will be significantly darker than my view.  Consequently, I consider tailoring to avoid gaming from your end as more about ArbCom feeling comfortable about the modification than it is necessity, though there can be benefit to you in codified boundaries, both as a reminder of what is not allowed and as a clear line to protect you when doing what is permitted.  You note that you are being carefully watched, which I don't doubt is true, so you have incentive to be cautious, and I believe that frivolous complaints about you should also be sanctionable as inconsistent with a respectful and civil editing environment.  Given that such is unlikely to happen, the best protection that ArbCom is likely to be willing to afford is clear boundaries so that you can be undisturbed inside them.  EdChem (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision 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

 * Comment I don't like the idea of a loophole where someone can ask for comment on the DYKs that they are not invested in, so the only people who should be eligible for such a request should be the DYK nominator... but other than that, I don't object. I'd like to hear other opinions before I support though. <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>) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed the way this has degraded and I'm very sympathetic to Sandstein's first point here. The request was not made by The Rambling Man, meaning he is not invested in it - and that's led to a whole lot of disagreement that doesn't help any matters. I was optimistic about the request initially, I am no longer. Allowing The Rambling Man to "help people who ask nicely" is only going to create problems going forward. If The Rambling Man wants to work towards removal of his sanctions, let him come up with a plan that achieves that - one that he is actually invested in. This one, however, I would decline to change anything. <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>) 07:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that you support this, and that it could work. If you had brought it here yourself, I believe (or perhaps just hope) that you may have taken a different tone in responding to comments. That different tone would have meant that there would have been less of a pile on, and this snowball effect would not have created a mess of an ARCA. That's not what happened though. I see no reason to believe that any reviews that you make will be "incorrect", but what happens if there is disagreement over your decision? From your tone in this ARCA, I see no reason to believe that you would be able to manage the interactions without falling into past behaviours. You argue "community consensus", but the editors here are self selected, and we have to take the past case into account - this isn't a simple "see who turns up and what views they have" situation. But of course, you already know that. You argue "my reviews are good", no argument from me, but it's also beside the point - because however good your reviews are, disputes will come up - and that's where the issue lies. <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>) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I find it interesting that you feel the need to suggest that people do not know about the DYK process. A few years ago, I was a regular there. Now, I am not - largely due to atmosphere that has been brought about there. I have written 2 articles this month that would be eligible, and would make fine additions to the front page, but made a conscious decision that I didn't want to get involved in that process. I don't know how you would behave if you were added to the process, but given that a) I see the DYK process as an area where disputes are common, b) I do not see a commitment from you to improve how you handle yourself in disputes and c) your tone throughout this ARCA, I do not see the benefits of allowing you to review specific DYKs outweigh the risks of doing so.
 * I hope the above answers your questions regarding my thinking too. I often wouldn't be concerned by the process issues that Sandstein raised, however, my point was that this wasn't part of a plan to return to full "good standing" by TRM, this was an editor who thought they could see a good faith way forward to help. Generally, I have personally found that when an individual requests something themselves, they are more likely to be aware of what they could stick to. <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>) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Having slept on it and subsequently had a chat with TRM at my talk page, I'm again on board with this. I'll propose a motion when I get a few minutes. <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>) 09:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I see the issue. Once a review is marked done, it's very rare that it needs more discussion. If it's not marked done, it's still part of the review. <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>) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would argue that the definition of review has to be a whole process - I would not expect TRM to complete a review in one edit, that would lead to a poor review. In addition, many of the reviews I have done at DYK have required further edits to the article, or questions to be answered or better sourced, I would expect TRM to finish the review after those have been answered. At the same time, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, so at the end of his review seems a good place. If someone wants to re-open the review, then they would need to take responsibility as I do not see the benefit of TRM being dragged back when he has already done his part. If it is wrong after re-opening, he's got his ERRORS page to point that out. I would not expect him to discuss the hook at WT:DYK in the situation you describe, that is for the nominator to manage, I would also not expect him commenting further at the review. Basically, once he's signed off on a hook, he's done with it. As for when he can be requested, I would suggest that he should be requested at the start - i.e. before anyone else has begun reviewing. If someone has already started a review, then I see no need for TRM to be requested. <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>) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be comfortable with "or to discussions on his own talkpage when his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited." SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can't people who specifically want TRM's input on an article ask either on his user subpage or on the article talk page? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks - I originally took the OP's wording about "input" to be more general than that. It would be hard to track 'official' DYK reviews and approvals anywhere but the usual subpages. The subpages for DYK reviews are transcluded onto the nomination page, though - so on the one hand this would allow TRM to participate only by invitation, but on the other hand it would result in others who had not invited him having to work in the same vicinity. Would there be a problem with downstream processes (whoever is picking the hooks, etc)? I haven't done anything with DYK in a long time, but IIRC it often happened that the person doing the choosing would end up making small edits to the hook text, which would then end up getting re-discussed by the nominator or reviewed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm going to disappoint some people here. Tl;dr: I thought it over and I don't think this is a good idea. I'm usually in favor of proposals that prioritize reader-facing content over back-office interactions, and I understand the argument that these review subpages are isolated enough places that TRM could participate in the DYK process there without causing much wider disruption. TRM, I'd be more persuaded by that argument if your comments and behavior on this page during this process had given a little more evidence to support that view. It's never a good sign when you start thinking that anyone who disagrees with you must be espousing hate and grudge. (For the record, the answer to why TRM can review GAs or FLs or whatever but not DYKs is simple: DYK is where he's been disruptive.) Since it's really all about giving readers accurate information - as TRM is fond of (correctly!) reminding us - then it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not. If editors nominating articles for DYK want his opinion on their articles, they're welcome to ask for it. If he's as thorough and reliable a reviewer as he says - and there's no reason to think he isn't - then the articles should be fully prepared and the extra work of a "formal" DYK approval by someone else should be minimal. (Though I have to say, I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself sets my overconfidence detector abuzz.) If we see some successful examples of that process in action - and by that I mean constructive feedback without the sideswipes at DYK or its participants that we've been seeing on this page - then I'd be open to reconsidering this suggestion in a couple of months. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gerda: Yes, I know, and yes, it's complicated. But we need some evidence that TRM's input in this specific context will be constructive, and since we don't have it on this page, it'll have to be gathered the complicated way.
 * @AGK: Not to put too fine a point on it: while I won't stand in the way if others want to support this, I think granting this request would increase rather than decrease the probability of the future you predict. (Note: that is not a warning, a threat, or encouragement to third parties. It's a prediction that I hope doesn't come to pass.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely see no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions, especially when he can already provide this input at his ERRORS page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to use the page for DYK feedback that's your prerogative, TRM, I'm certainly not going to force you to. But I don't see adding a caveat that you may be summoned to DYK pages by anyone for any reason as productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do not support TRM performing the formal "review" step in DYK; he is banned from that, and as I already stated in my first comment, I see "no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions". As I also explicitly said, if he wants to provide input, which does not have to happen within a DYK template, he can do so within the bounds of the restrictions. TRM: I am familiar with DYK, having participated in the process some myself, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am not paying attention to the comments here, which I have read in their entirety. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. I am not sure how I can be clearer that I do not support you being allowed to perform the formal review step anywhere, and I have not suggested you try to do so in userspace. As for "community consensus", decisions at ARCA are not made by just tallying up the !votes of the people who show up to comment, and you know this. I'm confident that I have been clear enough for my colleagues to comprehend my stance here; hopefully you do as well now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not really get why we have a problem with this request, and accordingly I would grant it. I think that TRM's attitude during this request has been appalling, but that is not immediately the issue, and I suspect we will be dealing properly and separately with that matter in due course.   AGK  &#9632;  21:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I not? The behaviour of The Rambling Man in this request does not affect whether it is appropriate to amend the sanction.  Prostration is not a prerequisite of being granted an amendment by this committee.  AGK  &#9632;  11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I not? The behaviour of The Rambling Man in this request does not affect whether it is appropriate to amend the sanction.  Prostration is not a prerequisite of being granted an amendment by this committee.  AGK  &#9632;  11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Motion to amend


Proposed:

Enacted - GoldenRing (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * I accept that I have flip-flopped on this topic, but when it comes down to it, I believe there is more here to be gained than damage that could be done. I have mitigated my concerns, that arguments might break out over at DYK or that individuals may bait him there, and per discussion at my talk page, I'm satisfied that TRM will attempt to not do allow that to happen. Also, by only allowing the nominator to request, we should stop any loophole that might encourage bringing TRM into disputes. With those concerns mitigated, we get an editor who is able to review DYK nominations, and therefore improve the encyclopedia. It also allows TRM to prove he is able to work in the DYK area without upset. If he can't, well, that will prove something else. <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>) 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just in case it comes up - I consider a review to be all parts of work up to a tick or a cross. When requesting more information or changes, TRM can carry on the review up until a tick or a cross - after those changes are done. <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>) 07:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as harmless enough. Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As in my earlier comments: AGK  &#9632;  11:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WTT puts forward a rationale argument for the limited amendment. SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat reluctant support, per WTT. I agree with much of Mkdw's point about micro-management and personal responsibility. But on balance, I think this modification is a reasonable way to explore whether or not TRM can in fact return to DYK editing in full. If he can contain himself, great. If he causes problems even with people who have intentionally sought his input, then I think that's telling in itself. But I'll opt to hope for the first scenario. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hesitant support. I just caught up with the conversation on WTT's talk. I'm not really convinced, but I'm willing to give it a trial and see how it goes. I take Mkdw's point about micromanagement - and honestly, I've backed off on the view I held when I first joined the committee, in favor of very narrow sanctions where possible to remove people from precisely the area of trouble, because the evidence has been that there is boundary-pushing when that kind of sanction is implemented. But I think it's worth a try. (I guess I should note that if there is a problem with this very limited change, I'm very unlikely to support any further reductions in restrictions, regardless of anyone's views on anyone's utility or content value or personal endorsement or anything else.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ArbCom should not have to intervene in such a detailed way in how someone edits a particular topic area. It indicates a much more problematic issue if someone must be so carefully restricted and micro-managed in such a way. Editors for the most part should be treated as adults. If TRM wants to return to DYK editing and will conduct themselves appropriately, then it could be explored evaluating whether TRM is capable of doing so or not. <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 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Mkdw. Either TRM can be trusted to engage in DYK without causing disruption, or they can't. These highly personalised sanctions shift the burden of preventing disruption from the user to the community (especially AE admins), and no single user is so indispensable to the project that that is justified. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Recuse


 * Discussion

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (January 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sandstein at 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * The Rambling Man


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
 * Change this restriction to a site ban or another appropriate sanction, or remove it.

Statement by Sandstein
Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man provides: "If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. 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." This is such a request.

In the abovementioned decision, twice amended since 2016, The Rambling Man was "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." He has been blocked four times by four different admins for violating this restriction (see his block log). A few days ago, requested enforcement of the restrictions for recent comments made by The Rambling Man such as:
 * "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?" (, edit summary)
 * "Not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place"

In my view, as expressed at AE, the comments at issue are "reflections on the competence" of others, and therefore violate the restriction. Other admins in the AE thread have disagreed.

If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man. If an explicit ArbCom restriction and four blocks (among many other blocks) are not effective in changing the conduct of an editor, nothing will be. Editors should not have to put up with intractably rude people. We would not accept such people among our friends or at our workplaces. We should not have to accept them in this collaborative, academic project. The merits of their contributions cannot make up for the disruption and bad will (and enforcement overhead) they cause.

If the Committee is of the view that the comments at issue are not a violation of the restriction, or are not worth sanctioning, it should lift the restriction, because this would show that the restriction is too vague to be consistently and fairly enforced.  Sandstein  19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that, even as this request is pending, The Rambling Man continues to violate his restriction, as he himself recognizes below. For example, he removed my notification about this request with the edit summary "the harassment ends tonight". In addition to sounding like a threat, this is a speculation about my motive in making this request, namely, that it is intended as harassment instead of (as is in fact the case) a normal part of the arbitration enforcement process. This, too, violates the restriction.
 * I also take exception to and 's statements below, who are, as in previous cases involving The Rambling Man, casting unfounded aspersions on my supposed motives. I cannot interpret these interventions by Thryduulf and Iridescent other than as repeated attempts to protect The Rambling Man against legitimate and valid enforcement requests by multiple users who feel harassed by The Rambling Man's disruptive conduct. This is conduct unbecoming of administrators, and should be looked into by the Committee. Administrators should attempt to implement ArbCom's decisions, as I try to do, rather than trying to frustrate arbitration enforcement by making unfounded attacks against those who are engaged in the enforcement process.   Sandstein   10:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your valuable feedback, which I will take into consideration, together with the feedback other arbitrators may want to offer. As to recusal from matters pertaining to The Rambling Man, so far I've taken the view - perhaps also colored by my experience in real-world administrative law - that an administrator should not recuse themselves just because they have repeatedly "interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role", as WP:INVOLVED tells us. In my view, this also applies if these interactions (as mine have been) have been strongly criticized by the subject of the interactions and by others. If I was wrong in these interactions, the place for the community or ArbCom to determine this would be an appeal of any sanctions I imposed. But I don't see how the fact that – probably more so than many other admins – I am generally in favor of relatively strict sanctions against regularly incivil and disruptive contributors (not only The Rambling Man) would make me appear biased. Overly strict, unemphatetic, obstinate, perhaps – but not, in my view, biased against a particular person. But, of course, if ArbCom as a body makes it clear that they prefer that I don't deal with The Rambling Man any more, I'd be happy to do so. You may want to consider, though, that this might incentivize others to attempt to pressure other AE admins into recusal if these admins are perceived as insufficiently lenient towards certain editors.  Sandstein   15:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Since my proposal to ban The Rambling Man has generated so much opposition, let me briefly explain why I think it is appropriate. It is to do with the binding nature of ArbCom decisions, and basic fairness. Of course, the comments at issue here, taken alone, do not really merit a sanction, let alone a ban. But they cannot be looked at in isolation. Our supreme decision-making body, ArbCom, has already gone to the considerable trouble to go through a whole case dedicated to the conduct of one single editor, found that there was misconduct by him (whether or not we agree), and imposed binding sanctions (whether or not we agree with them). And now we find that this editor has basically been ignoring these sanctions on multiple occasions over several years, generating more acrimony, disputes and enforcement overhead. For ArbCom decisions to be binding, they must mean something. That is, there must be real consequences for disregarding them. And if the editor at issue, as here, does not indicate that they intend to obey the decision in the future, there is in my view only one option: a ban, (which need not be indefinite) or a lengthy block. Otherwise we might as well give up on the idea of binding arbitration altogether, or even worse, accept that it applies only to the weak, but not to well-connected editors with many friends. That would be unjust, and I would not want to be a part of such a project. There must be one set of rules, equally followed by and enforced against all. I hold these views irrespective of who they apply to. I would make the same argument if any other editor were in The Rambling Man's position. This is why I have problems understanding why some think I am biased against The Rambling Man in particular, and should recuse myself from cases against him in particular. I can well understand that many people might not agree with this approach to arbitration enforcement – and of course ArbCom is free to not follow my proposal – but I try to apply it consistently. Call me misguided, then, or inconsiderate, but don't call me biased.   Sandstein   22:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy for your inclination to do nothing, because it is clear from this thread that doing anything would be very controversial. But solving intractable disputes and being shouted at for it is your job. Sorry.
 * I suggest to you that, if you think ArbCom can't come to an agreement about what to do, you lift the sanction. Keeping it around, even though it is in practice unenforceable (as the drama generated by this request and the previous AE threads indicate) is doing a disservice to all concerned: to The Rambling Man, who will in all likelihood be the subject of more fruitless enforcement requests; to the users subject to his misconduct, to whom the existence of the sanction gives false hope that they have an effective remedy against it; and to AE admins, who will not be able to make any sanction stick and be vilified for even attempting to impose one.
 * Speaking only for myself, I do not intend to undertake any enforcement actions, against any user, as long as I am not confident that ArbCom means its sanctions to be effectively enforced and supports admins in doing so even against community backlash. Based on what I've read from you, I don't currently have this confidence.  Sandstein   16:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
I literally give up. Sandstein has used every chance to see the back of me and I can't take it any longer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This ARCA demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the wording of the sanction. I made substantiated claims at WP:AN about a number of edits by a certain admin who refused to do anything but bait me, and make false accusations about my motivations. If now, as it seems, I am to be banned because I objected and stated said objections to an admins inserting false information, incorrect sources, badly formatted citations, making false edit summaries and leaving articles in a worse state, half-removing contentious material but leaving the rest, in a meatbot fashion, then I guess that sums the place up now. Absolutely everything I said was factually accurate. There was no discussion over "motivation", just statements of fact about the ever-increasing mess this admin was leaving throughout the vast numbers of edits they were making. Of course, given the wording of the sanction, just about every sentence I've typed here now means I should be banned too. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know exactly where you stand, but for "baiting" perhaps you could read "making unsubstantiated attacks about me, lying about my motivations, and continually invoking WP:ICANTHEARYOU". Of course, if I can't raise these issues at AN, I suppose there's no hope at all.  Banned for telling the truth.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "threat" there. How could it possibly, conceivably be a "threat"?  What on earth are you talking about?  I think it's clear from the various fora where you are always seeking the harshest possible punishment on me that I personally feel completely harassed by you.  That is not a statement about your motivations, it is a clear, unambiguous description of how your actions make me feel.  If you learn nothing else from this debacle, please at least know that.   Are you actually suggesting that I cannot let others know that I feel you are harassing me?  Are you seriously suggesting that is prohibited under these sanctions?   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * so telling an admin that he has introduced factual errors and incorrect sources to an article is reflections on their competence? Or is it direct advice that anyone should be able to offer when problematic edits have been made by an admin and continue to be made by an admin despite being asked to stop?   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments. The "harassment ends" comment I left certainly couldn't be interpreted as anything other than me expressing my final thoughts on Wikipedia having felt so harassed by Sandstein time and again, and I was about to leave for good.  But according to Sandstein, even feeling harassed by him is a violation of this sanction, so perhaps I need to contact T&S if that's the case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made no "reflections" or "speculations" about the behaviour of two admins in this case. I gave clear and concise reasons as to why they should desist their behaviour.  I am now beginning to understand that specific information about erroneous edits is now considered, by some, as "reflections on competence".  I wholeheartedly refute that.  There's no doubting that the two admins are competent but also that both have actually made mistakes in the context (and that's important) of this dispute. I even offered to completely retract and apologise for everything I'd asserted should their behaviour be backed up in policy and guideline.  And that, in the face of multiple lies about my motivations, multiple personal attacks, etc, from these admins.  I suppose if the sanction was designed to allow anyone and everyone to have a one-sided swing at me, it's succeeded in that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your input and note to me earlier. Somewhat like WP:BANEX, I had expected that I was able to note the multiple shortcomings of admins' behaviour in an "appropriate location" (e.g. WP:AN) and it would not constitute an infraction of the sanction even if it had even got close to violating the wording (which it did not).  The alternative interpretation being promoted by others is to assume that I am banned from notifying anyone of any mistake they have made anywhere on Wikipedia, for fear of that now being classified as commenting on their competence, that I am banned from questioning the behaviour of admins who have actively introduced errors into the encyclopedia etc.  Is that really what this sanction is about?  And did either of the admins who variously attacked me personally or simply fallaciously speculated on my motives ever deem that the discussion needed this?  Or was it another example of the sanction being a one-way street for people to watch and wait for their interpretation of it to be fulfilled and throw the book at me?  I suppose if I'm going to be banned for telling these admins the truth about what they were doing, in the face of their attacks on me, that'll be interesting for Wikipedia going forward. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A general question: does this constitute a "reflection" on this user's "competence"? I corrected them a couple of times, gave reasons for doing so, but yet no-one sought to sanction me for it. Where is the line between correcting mistakes, telling people I'm correcting their mistakes, asking people to stop continually making mistakes I'm having to correct, and accepting personal attacks and aspersions about my motivations, while still asking them to desist from their introductions of errors into the encyclopedia? Is this really what this sanction is about? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And now it's just fine for the admin to accuse me of wiki-stalking?  As noted clearly and unambiguously at WP:HOUND, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. which is precisely what  I did, and where it  became obvious to  me that the meatbot purge was being done with errors and leaving articles in mess.  And despite suggesting the admin should stop, several times, I asked them if they were open to recall which they ignored, numerous times.  But under the current sanction, I'm prevented from doing this? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's problematic that this admin is enabled to level such unverifiable and untrue personal attacks, continue to edit for a further thirty minutes and leave. All editors should know better than to do something like that.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you David Gerard for eventually getting back and providing those diffs. It's no secret that Mandarax grave-danced on my previous retirement, it's no secret that I have in excess of 10,000 pages including his talk page on my watchlist.  It's no secret that Vanamonde and I haven't gotten on at all for years, and it's certainly no secret that PBP has been claiming some kind of "agenda" on my behalf to have him "banned" from this Wikipedia after he was banned from Simple English Wikipedia.  As for following your edits, given the nature of them that is in no way stalking, as I already provided the Wikipedia-based definition above - the problems you were introducing and the misleading edit summaries needed to be fixed.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re TRM)
It's worth being explicit here that of the administrators to comment at ARCA AE: This matches very closely with the situation detailed in The December 2018 amendment request (see summary in my section there).
 * I saw suboptimal conduct from TRM (and others) that was not a breach of this restriction.
 * Seraphimblade and Lord Roem both indicated that they saw it similarly.
 * El_C was less explicit, but my reading of their comments is that they believe it was not a violation of the restriction as worded.
 * Sandstein saw it as a clear-cut violation that should be met with the harshest permissible sanction.

The underlying disagreement on this occasion is a content dispute between two groups of editors who each feel, apparently in good faith, that their actions are improving the encyclopaedia and the actions of the other group are harming it. I have not looked into it enough to have a view on whether one or other group is right or whether it is more complicated that that. Both sides however have got very annoyed with each other and instead of working out their differences calmly and amicably, heated walls of text are being lobbed from behind barricades. While this conduct is very clearly not what anybody wants to see from editors, I do not believe that it is what the committee intended the sanction to cover as TRM has not speculated about motives, and has not reflected on other editors' general competence but has detailed specific concerns he has and why he has those concerns (albeit phrased very poorly).

I would like the Committee to:
 * 1) clarify their intent with the restriction
 * 2) do so independently of the merits or otherwise of underlying content dispute (I don't think it has reached the level that requires committee involvement, but if it has it should be a separate case request), and actively discourage discussion of it here.
 * 3) examine Sandstein's impartiality with regards to TRM as nothing has changed in 11 months. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on his comment above and this edit summary it is clear that TRM is feeling harassed by Sandstein (and given the history I can fully understand why). At the very least I think the committee should take note of this and actively consider an interaction ban or other restriction to help with this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM is prohibited from commenting on the general competence of an editor. That word is important and does allow for him to question the competence of editors' specific actions and in the context that is exactly what he was doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrm, that change does make a difference but I still do not think that the situation we have here is what the sanction was intended to deal with. Certainly it was not intended to sanction only one party in a multi-sided dispute where nearly everyone is engaging in the same behaviour and I don't see that it would help in resolving the underlying dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not protecting, or attempting to protect, TRM from valid enforcement requests. When I see evidence that TRM has violated both the letter and spirit of a restriction then I will either impose or endorse a proportionate sanction on him. What I will not do is impose or endorse a sanction where nearly everyone who is either (a) uninvolved or (b) you agrees TRMs action did not violate the letter and spirit of his restriction. This is not special treatment: this is exactly the same standard that I hold every editor to. In the current dispute, as in previous ones, multiple administrators have explained to you, in detail, why there was not a violation yet on every occasion you attempt to impose not just any sanction but the harshest one available. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue with that is that any administrator imposing such a block would be doing so contrary to the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (when the discussion was closed there was either no consensus either way or a consensus against, depending how you read it). This sanction would then be appealed and we'd be back where we are now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

so how should TRM indicate that he believes an editor has made a series of bad judgements over a sustained period of time without violating this restriction? How can he heed this restriction if not even arbitrators can agree what is and is not a violation of it? I agree that TRM's conduct in this dispute is not good (but the conduct of several other parties is equally bad), but I do not understand how, in context, it violates this restriction.

Whatever the answers to the above, it is clearly not serving its intended purpose (and is probably actually hindering the resolution of this content dispute) and should be rescinded and replaced with something that clearly states its intent so that everyone (most importantly including TRM himself) can understand what is and what is not appropriate. Ideally with a provision that allows an identical sanction to be placed on any other party in a dispute with TRM that engages in behaviour that is prohibited of TRM and/or baits TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not questioning Sandstein's involvedness in the sense of being a party to a dispute, I am questioning his objectivity with regards to The Rambling Man. It's not just coming to a slightly different conclusion about a single borderline issue, it's coming to a diametrically opposite conclusion to nearly every other uninvolved administrator on very nearly every occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That was I think the intent of this sanction. The problem is that TRM has (in the opinion of a consensus of uninvolved administrators almost every time it has come to AE) stopped engaging in the specific behaviours listed, but it hasn't stopped the disruption. Yes, TRM is disruptive and yes, his behaviour is not good enough (and equally so the behaviour of others in this dispute), but it is not a violation of the sanction he was given. I'm not sure what clearer evidence is needed that the current sanction is not working. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I very much do disagree that asking whether an admin is open to recall is questioning their competence. As discussed (here or at AE, possibly both) it wasn't necessary to ask, and it did nothing to de-escalate the situation (especially asking it twice), but as there is no standard recall procedure and not every published set of criteria relate exclusive to competence it cannot be said to be questioning whether they are competent. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * those are all specific grievances about the admin in question's actions in the specific dispute that TRM has presented specific diffs about in the specific discussion being had. The purpose of the restriction was surely not to prevent TRM from engaging in legitimate dispute resolution and while the phrasing might not be optimal I don't see how else he could go about it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You're slightly missing the point that the reason we are where we are is that the current restriction, which prohibits TRM commenting on other editor's competence, has not worked because it has not, in practice, been possible to agree on what is a comment on an editor's competence and what is a criticism of another editor's action(s) (which is not prohibited under the current remedy), so it needs either removing or replacing with something different. Replacing it can only work if what replaces it is better defined than the current remedy. While prohibiting TRM from commenting about other editors seems easy at first glance it wouldn't work in practice, because a statement like "User:Example has repeatedly introduced factual errors to the Grenoble article." will be seen as a comment about edits (and thus allowed) by some admins and a comment about an editor (and thus not allowed) by others and we'll just end up back here. A straight civility restriction (something like "TRM may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for any uncivil comment") will just end up with TRM permanently blocked because there are people who will go out of their way to take offence at something TRM says (see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217 for example), even when it really isn't offensive at all. Katie's proposal is not to throw our collective hands in the air and give up, it is to say that TRM should be held to the same standards of civility as any other editor with those standards to be enforced in the same way as they are for any other editor. I don't know whether that will work, but it is the only thing suggested here so far that could. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There are three issues raised here (1) that TRM's behaviour is simultaneously appalling and not a violation of the restriction; (2) Sandstein's blindness to his being consistently at odds with the consensus regarding TRM; (3) Sandstein's conduct at AE more generally. Personally I don't think this is the place to discuss (3) as it is nothing to do with TRM. The problem with many comments here (and at many of the AE filings) is that they see either TRM's bad behaviour and therefore extrapolate that to mean it must be a breach of his sanction; or that TRM hasn't breached his sanction and extrapolate that to mean he must be behaving civilly. Unless and until people understand that the two aspects exist simultaneously the problem will never be solved though because they try to fix something other than the actual problem. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * fix the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think one thing that you could do that would be helpful, if nothing else, is to make it explicit that civility matters involving TRM which fall outside the scope of his restriction may (or may not) be dealt with at ANI as for any other editor. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole reason we are here is that there is no consensus that TRM has violated the sanction. Yes he has made some comments that leave a lot to be desired civility wise, but in the judgement of multiple uninvolved administrators those comments did not violate the very specific sanction the arbitration committee passed (and on at least one occasion where nearly unanimously agreed not be problematic at all). Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus does determine what is and is not a violation and there was no consensus that TRM's comments were. As this very request shows it is not "beyond arguable" that TRM's comments were violations and multiple admins have, in good faith, argued why they are not. That, on multiple occasions, AE has not been able to come to a consensus about whether there was a violation and, separately, that the sanction has not prevented the disruption surrounding TRM, are evidence that this sanction is not working. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
I've not read the original thread that led to the AE filing, but looking at the four diffs linked in the AE itself, I think that if we interpret the restrictions as written then the first and fourth diffs should violate the "... prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence" restriction. The first diff clearly questions the competence, while the fourth clearly questions the motivation.

Problem with that is, in my (completely subjective) opinion none of the four diffs look like actionable, let alone bannable, offenses. In fact I completely don't see any issue with the 2nd and 3rd diffs. I suspect this is at the heart of the difference in opinion between Sandstein and the other AE admins.

Banedon (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Dweller, it's not that simple unfortunately. Although I don't think the four diffs linked in the AE are actionable, the diffs linked by David Gerard are significantly more troubling. They never got to AE, but that's not reassuring - threads like the one Mandarax had on his/her talk page indicate they're suffering in silence because pursuing enforcement isn't worth it. That the victim hasn't complained isn't a sign that the objectionable behavior isn't there. Further, to say that "truly uninvolved admins did not support action" is in danger of committing the No true Scotsman fallacy. There have been admins other than Sandstein who've indicated the behavior is undesirable (including two arbitrators).


 * Two ARCAs ago, I wrote that Arbcom were undying optimists by trying to tweak the wording, and here we are. It genuinely makes me sad (not angry, just sad). I don't have a good suggestion for what to do. One ARCA ago, I floated the idea that perhaps Arbcom could implement a guarantor system. E.g., lift all sanctions, but require someone to act as a guarantor of good behavior. The next time someone complains about TRM's behavior, it comes directly to Arbcom (by skipping AE, this removes all possibility of AE admins being perceived as "involved" or "uninvolved"). If there's a majority of Arbcom that concludes the behavior is objectionable, then both TRM and the guarantor are blocked for some time. Repeat as long as someone is willing to act as a guarantor. I intuitively dislike this solution since it can punish someone who didn't act poorly, but if tweaking the wording doesn't work and wielding the banhammer is undesirable, this might make the best of a bad situation. Banedon (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I ping Mandarax, Vanamonde93 & Purplebackpack89? I imagine they would be interested (their diffs are linked by David Gerard) but am not certain if doing so qualifies as canvassing. Banedon (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Vanamonde, Sandstein and Levivich. Doing nothing is not a result - it just kicks the can down the road, practically guaranteeing another ARCA in the coming months, and hardly seems like what the arbitration process is supposed to achieve (i.e. break the back of the dispute). A bad decision is better than no decision. If there is no amendment, there should at least be clarification. Banedon (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did something change between 2017 (when you said you would recuse in any proceeding involving TRM) and now? I'm not calling for you to recuse, I'm just curious what made you decide to participate. Banedon (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43 (AE filer)
As Sandstein mentioned, I filed the most recent AE, mostly as an uninvolved editor, so I don't have any history with TRM, which seems to have been a confounding factor in some previous requests on TRM and comments I see here already.

For my background, I first came across TRM at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=928391950#Correct_action_when_someone_persistently_adds_back_a_deprecated_source? this post] at RSN noticing a content dispute was being exacerbated by TRM's behavior. I tried to give some guidance there, but their tone and response to that didn't allay concerns about battleground behavior or ignoring WP:ONUS policy: Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. .. I saw them later when behavior problems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=928410602#UK_newspaper_sources_and_how_to_handle_deprecated_sources? bled over to AN] where I was made aware TRM had specific restrictions towards commenting on editor motivation, competency, etc.

When I filed the AE, TRM saying David Gerard lacked competency as an admin and should be recalled when they said are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc? as well as other diffs at the AE looked to be a plain as day violation from an outside perspective and pervasive throughout discussion rather than a one-off unactionable instance. Addressing one's capability is the same thing as competency even if the word itself is avoided. Just becoming aware of TRM in the last few days and doing a blind read of the remedy/case (and the most recent amendment), I thought the prohibition was clear and that TRM was also supposed to disengage. On that latter one, they've been badgering editors instead at the RSN and AN posts to the point it seems to be in WP:ASPERSIONS territory, so the remedy seemed redundantly clear at that point even without broadly construed in the remedy language.

I don't have a horse in this dispute aside from noticing behavior problems exacerbated by TRM at the noticeboards that nearly had me ignore the postings instead as an uninvolved editor. That disruption by TRM just needs to stop. I thought the prohibition was clear, but since it's being tested by TRM, I agree something stricter might be needed since lack of enforcement has apparently been a perennial problem brought up here before. Arbs probably know more history than I do only getting up to speed on this over the last few days, but this seems to be a case where a sort of "topic" ban improvement could cover any inkling of WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOC given the WP:ROPE issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your comment indicating this edit summary questioning Gerard's competency/capability as a admin wasn't a violation of the competency prohibition. Could you clarify how that meshes, especially considering Joe Roe's comments? I'm not sure what would be considered a violation otherwise. That's probably a core need of this clarification, especially since I filed that AE seeing it as a straightforward violation as the remedy was written while being practically uninvolved with TRM or other background interactions you're bringing up.
 * If I were subject to such a ban and discussing purely content where someone was "wrong", I would expect that I could only say an edit was incorrect on the talk page (and how to fix the underlying issues) and not escalate to things beyond content (i.e, the disengage portion of the remedy). No going to ANI, etc. to say the person is messing everything up or using noticeboards to pursue someone rather than specifically address content only.
 * A parallel example would be if someone was topic-banned from edits on say competency of BLPs (with specific guidance to let other editors handle legitimate problems), and that editor made an edit to that page about the BLP getting fired from a job due to capability issues with job performance. I would expect, as an uninvolved editor just reading the topic ban, that undoing the edit as a ban violation or requesting admin intervention if other associated behavior problems came up would be relatively uncontroversial. This is a behavior "ban", but scope consideration would pretty much be the same, so I'm legitimately surprised so many are saying it's not a violation. That expectation was also why I didn't dig into slightly older diffs at the AE.
 * If discussing editor competency in any form like that diff, especially as a bludgeon within a content dispute, isn't a violation of the competency prohibition, then the wording definitely needs to be changed to not include competency. To be clear, I think that wording is justified from what I've seen.
 * The only other suggestion I have for a possible amendment (could be an improvement or another can of worms) would be to add the option of interaction bans (one or two-way depending on need) in addition to that 48 hour block language. I don't want to get into sanctions much since I originally just wanted to hand this off to admins and move on to other things, but that seems like a much more reasonable option than longer/more blocks.
 * I try not to turn my sections into walls of text, but that about sums up my views and questions to the point I don't think I need to add much more since I'll be away for awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * both of you have commented on ideas or lack thereof of what we should do. One thing I haven't seen brought up yet besides more blocks or a ban are interaction bans. Since TRM's problems are mostly behavior-based, that seems to be the best fitting sanction to prevent disruption. Basically, some sort of "hair-trigger" considering the history of problems. Maybe in addition to the 48 hour block language, In any case where The Rambling Man personalizes disputes, shows battleground behavior, or does not disengage, one-way interaction bans are authorized against The Rambling Man. for a rough draft.
 * It might be possible to add in a sort of "no-fault" two-way ban language as well, but I'm not sure what I think of that on the other party since the remedy only applies to TRM. That language also might help with the "it's a violation, but not bad enough for a sanction" comments without ArbCom overstepping admin discretion. It doesn't require an interaction ban, but it sets a threshold saying they can be considered even in individual cases (based in reading previous cases and obvious WP:ROPE at play). Basically, TRM gets to edit, but they lose the privilege to interact with editor X if they even test the boundary of their prohibition. That's at least the intent I'm trying to get across as a possible option while balancing what GorrilaWarfare mentioned. I don't now how well it would work, but it would seem more effective than other options. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this, I do want to echo My very best wishes's about the other "Judge Dredd" comments out there about Sandstein. If anything in the areas I edit, Sandstein has been one of the slower or more cautious admins in the GMO/pesticide area in AE requests, sometimes to the point that I've voiced concern that reluctance to act was detrimental to the topic. At least for this discussion though, that seems to be a positive of Sandstein's, so it does seem like the overzealousness comments at AE are an exaggeration themselves. That's all beside the point of this request though, so I'll say no more on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
To the best of my recollection, I have had very few if any direct interactions with The Rambling Man. This is because I try to avoid interacting with combative established editors unless absolutely necessary, and I have read an awful lot about TRM over the years. If my memory is correct, then I am uninvolved. I am a logical kind of guy, so here is what I see: TRM is "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." That seems clear. TRM recently wrote "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?" That also seems clear to me even though throwing "etc." at the end of it looks like mediocre writing to me. But mediocre writing is not actionable in this context. What is actionable is that TRM's comment looks to me like a clearcut violation of their editing restriction. TRM is reflecting on the competence and motivations of another editor. TRM's defense (defence) seems to be that their speculations and reflections are correct. This is not a valid defense. If, for the sake of discussion, I had an editing restriction regarding elephants, and I added some truly brilliant, well-referenced, neutral and completely correct content about elephants, I would still be in violation of my editing restriction. (This is hypothetical because, unlike TRM, I have conducted myself in such a way that no restrictions have ever been imposed on my editing.) What we have here is what looks to me to be a clearcut violation of an editing restriction. The only open question, in my view, is what type of sanction should be imposed for the violation. That is up to those at a higher pay grade, who should make that decision now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
I agree more or less word-for-word with everything Thryduulf says above, and (unusually) disagree with Cullen. It's obvious that the intention behind TRM's restriction was to prevent him from escalating disputes unnecessarily, not to prevent him from ever challenging an edit he deems inappropriate or raising concerns about the conduct of another editor. It's also clear that the "Admin A says there's nothing actionable, Admin B says there's nothing actionable, Admin C says there's nothing actionable, Sandstein not only says this is actionable but demands the harshest sanction allowed" cycle is repeating far too often, to the extent that it's becoming actively disruptive. (I presume none of the current committee needs it explained that Sandstein's "ignore the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, and always throw the book" approach damages Wikipedia's credibility; it not only leads to bad feeling among those who receive unduly harsh treatment, but it increases the number of successful appeals and thus perpetuates the "arbitrary process" and "unblockable editors" memes.) It also seems to be becoming obvious that Sandstein has a particular fixation on TRM, as no matter what the concern raised about TRM—even if it's on a matter with which Sandstein has never shown any previous interest—Sandstein seems inevitably to be among the first people to pop up, and invariably demanding the harshest possible sanctions.

I'm not sure if this is something that would (or should) be appropriate for resolution by motion at ARCA or whether it would need a full case so evidence can be presented and examined in a more formal setting over a longer timescale, but I think we're now reaching the point where Sandstein's interactions with TRM, and Sandstein's activity at AE in general, ought to be formally examined. I've been hearing variations on "Sandstein disregards other AE admins and imposes supervote closures", "Sandstein makes AE decisions based on his personal like or dislike of the parties rather than on the evidence presented" and "Sandstein cherry-picks evidence to suit his preferred result" quite literally for years now. Some of that may just be because Sandstein's obsession with AE means he's by far the most active editor there so he receives blame for decisions that would have been made regardless of who made them, but the nature of the complaints against him seem remarkably specific and consistent over time, with the current spat with TRM just the latest manifestation. An admin consistently accused over a long period of time by multiple editors of the misuse of advanced permissions to pursue personal grudges——is ultimately going to become a trust and safety issue (both with lowercase and uppercase T & S), and we only just finished sacrificing millions of innocent pixels to establish the principle that these situations are for Arbcom to clean up.

To avoid the timesink of what would likely be a lengthy and acrimonious case, I also think it would be healthy both for Sandstein and for Wikipedia were he to disengage from closing AE discussions or taking enforcement actions, either voluntarily or at the barrel of an Arbcom motion. That way he could still say his piece on any given issue about why he feels "the maximum sentence" or "no action at all" are the only acceptable courses; if his decisions perverse and against consensus then whoever else closes the discussion and takes the enforcement action will reach the same conclusion so nothing will be lost or disrupted in any way. &#8209; Iridescent 09:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: Yeah, I'm only protecting TRM because of our undying admiration for each other. If you're going to start lashing out and making up conspiracy theories when people call your competence into question, at least make up conspiracy theories that are plausible. This isn't some kind of organized campaign against you because you're The Only One Brave Enough To Tell The Truth™, it's multiple people pointing out that in their opinion you've been consistently misunderstanding policy, demonstrating competence issues, and giving the strong impression that you believe so strongly in your own infallibility that you literally can't see any explanation for the fact that other people disagree with you than that they're part of some kind of plot which the rest of Wikipedia has hatched against you for some unspecified reason. (What were the previous cases involving The Rambling Man in which I cast unfounded aspersions on [your] supposed motives, incidentally? This is Wikipedia and we run on sources; if you're going to make claims you're expected to provide diffs rather than just making shit up and hoping some of it sticks. To help jog your memory, here's the diffs for every single comment I've ever made at AE regarding TRM.) You may well be attempting to implement Arbcom's decisions, but the issue is that you've in my opinion demonstrated systematic incompetence both in interpreting the intent of those decisions, and in researching and interpreting the background to disputes, and instead just take on face value the claims of anyone who happens to be bringing someone to AE whom you happen to have taken a dislike to. That complaints of this nature have been made about you for years isn't in dispute, and is why if you're not willing to commit to following Wikipedia's customs, practices and policies, rather than constantly insisting that your personal opinions of the participants in a dispute overrule consensus, you're sooner or later going to end as the subject either of an Arbcom case or of one of Jan Eissfeldt's dossiers. It doesn't if the allegations are true or not, the fact that they keep being made means that someone will ultimately have a duty of care to investigate them. (If Framageddon has changed one thing on Wikipedia, it's that the good ol' boy days are over and we're no longer willing to dismiss repeated complaints about an editor or admin because "he's been around a long time so the complaints probably aren't worth investigating".) Your refusal to listen to other admins who aren't in total agreement with you on whatever the topic in question happens to be will mean that Arbcom or T&S—the only two bodies with the authority to compel you to participate—are the only people who will be able to conduct that investigation, and whichever of the two it turns out to be the process will be unpleasant and time-consuming for all involved. &#8209; Iridescent 11:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I (unsurprisingly) disagree entirely that Sandstein's conduct and motivations are out of scope here. He opened this ARCA with the explicit aim of getting Arbcom to approve a hugely disproportionate response against an editor against whom it's documented that he's taken a dislike (If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man); it's entirely relevant whether this is a legitimate request or an attempt to weaponize the committee as a tool to intimidate a wiki-political opponent. Obviously if Sandstein isn't willing to moderate his behavior both at AE and more generally (I'm still waiting for either the evidence for his claims about me above or a retraction…) then this is going to end up as a full case eventually as it's not viable in the long term to have an admin abusing process to try to intimidate those who don't share his opinions—it does nobody any good to disregard the fact that Sandstein's actions aren't isolated incidents but are taking place within a broader context. &#8209; Iridescent 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM can be annoying and disruptive and his "I'm right, you're wrong" approach is generally counterproductive, but his restriction is the very specific prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence, not "TRM is prohibited from doing anything which Sandstein thinks is disruptive". We have a consistent pattern here of people complaining about TRM, uninvolved admins concluding that the action being complained about doesn't meet the terms of his Arbcom restriction and consequently isn't appropriate for AE and needs instead to be reported via the usual channels for dealing with user conduct, and Sandstein then parachuting in to the discussion demanding the harshest possible sanctions against TRM despite there being consensus that he hadn't actually violated the (fairly specific) terms that would make the complaint a matter for AE. We also seem to be developing a troubling pattern in which Sandstein accuses all those questioning his actions of being part of a conspiracy to protect TRM, despite a near-total lack of evidence—looking at the names here the only person to comment here whom I would consider any kind of friend of TRM is Dweller yet Sandstein is still not just insinuating but directly and repeatedly claiming above that the only reason people are opposing a total site ban for TRM here is that TRM is a well-connected editor with many friends. (On that topic, I am still waiting either for some evidence for Sandstein's fabricated direct allegation about me above, or a retraction and appropriate apology.) Sandstein may be the most active admin at AE but he's certainly not the only one; if his attitudes towards how TRM should be dealt with reflect consensus than it will make no difference whether he or someone else is the one to take action. If the action he would have taken is one that no other admin would take, then that's prima facie evidence that his judgement is impaired when dealing with editors against whom he has a personal grudge. &#8209; Iridescent 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I (unsurprisingly) disagree entirely that Sandstein's conduct and motivations are out of scope here. He opened this ARCA with the explicit aim of getting Arbcom to approve a hugely disproportionate response against an editor against whom it's documented that he's taken a dislike (If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man); it's entirely relevant whether this is a legitimate request or an attempt to weaponize the committee as a tool to intimidate a wiki-political opponent. Obviously if Sandstein isn't willing to moderate his behavior both at AE and more generally (I'm still waiting for either the evidence for his claims about me above or a retraction…) then this is going to end up as a full case eventually as it's not viable in the long term to have an admin abusing process to try to intimidate those who don't share his opinions—it does nobody any good to disregard the fact that Sandstein's actions aren't isolated incidents but are taking place within a broader context. &#8209; Iridescent 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM can be annoying and disruptive and his "I'm right, you're wrong" approach is generally counterproductive, but his restriction is the very specific prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence, not "TRM is prohibited from doing anything which Sandstein thinks is disruptive". We have a consistent pattern here of people complaining about TRM, uninvolved admins concluding that the action being complained about doesn't meet the terms of his Arbcom restriction and consequently isn't appropriate for AE and needs instead to be reported via the usual channels for dealing with user conduct, and Sandstein then parachuting in to the discussion demanding the harshest possible sanctions against TRM despite there being consensus that he hadn't actually violated the (fairly specific) terms that would make the complaint a matter for AE. We also seem to be developing a troubling pattern in which Sandstein accuses all those questioning his actions of being part of a conspiracy to protect TRM, despite a near-total lack of evidence—looking at the names here the only person to comment here whom I would consider any kind of friend of TRM is Dweller yet Sandstein is still not just insinuating but directly and repeatedly claiming above that the only reason people are opposing a total site ban for TRM here is that TRM is a well-connected editor with many friends. (On that topic, I am still waiting either for some evidence for Sandstein's fabricated direct allegation about me above, or a retraction and appropriate apology.) Sandstein may be the most active admin at AE but he's certainly not the only one; if his attitudes towards how TRM should be dealt with reflect consensus than it will make no difference whether he or someone else is the one to take action. If the action he would have taken is one that no other admin would take, then that's prima facie evidence that his judgement is impaired when dealing with editors against whom he has a personal grudge. &#8209; Iridescent 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM can be annoying and disruptive and his "I'm right, you're wrong" approach is generally counterproductive, but his restriction is the very specific prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence, not "TRM is prohibited from doing anything which Sandstein thinks is disruptive". We have a consistent pattern here of people complaining about TRM, uninvolved admins concluding that the action being complained about doesn't meet the terms of his Arbcom restriction and consequently isn't appropriate for AE and needs instead to be reported via the usual channels for dealing with user conduct, and Sandstein then parachuting in to the discussion demanding the harshest possible sanctions against TRM despite there being consensus that he hadn't actually violated the (fairly specific) terms that would make the complaint a matter for AE. We also seem to be developing a troubling pattern in which Sandstein accuses all those questioning his actions of being part of a conspiracy to protect TRM, despite a near-total lack of evidence—looking at the names here the only person to comment here whom I would consider any kind of friend of TRM is Dweller yet Sandstein is still not just insinuating but directly and repeatedly claiming above that the only reason people are opposing a total site ban for TRM here is that TRM is a well-connected editor with many friends. (On that topic, I am still waiting either for some evidence for Sandstein's fabricated direct allegation about me above, or a retraction and appropriate apology.) Sandstein may be the most active admin at AE but he's certainly not the only one; if his attitudes towards how TRM should be dealt with reflect consensus than it will make no difference whether he or someone else is the one to take action. If the action he would have taken is one that no other admin would take, then that's prima facie evidence that his judgement is impaired when dealing with editors against whom he has a personal grudge. &#8209; Iridescent 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Why all the drama? It appears the 48-hour block rule was imposed in December 2018 and there has only been one block (for 48 hours) since then. Any admin who believes a sanction is warranted should impose a 48-hour block and stop talking about it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SN54129
By I cannot interpret these interventions by Thryduulf and Iridescent..., are you speculating on their motives? If you are, then you will understand how innocently one may speculate; if you're not, you will understand how (such) commentary can be misunderstood. —— SN  54129  11:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I don't think it's "casting aspersions" on Sandstein to suggest that he has previously been vociferous in seeking sanctions on TRM at AE when there is actual empirical data on the situation. Here, for example, he calls for a block of a month, but the case is eventually closed as "No Violation". Here, exactly the same thing happens again. Previously, Sandstein had actually blocked TRM for a month, which was then reduced to a week on appeal. Even 18 months ago, Sandstein's neutrality was being questioned - from the second link above "Generally I would expect an admin to recognize when their judgement may be compromised regardless of whether they meet the letter of WP:INVOLVED. Failing that I would expect that they would step aside once several editors repeatedly bring the matter up; If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety."' Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree - Sandstein believes an actual site ban (or similar - Change this restriction to a site ban or another appropriate sanction...) for a veteran editor is a possible outcome here, so I'd suggest that looking at the motives behind that wish are not out of scope. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by OID
If Arbcom do not address Sandstein's behaviour towards TRM here, then the next step will be opening an AN discussion with intent to ban him from any interactions with TRM. At which point all of Sandsteins contributions at AE, his habit of ignoring and/or dismissing other admins concerns, the over-eagerness to (not just with TRM) impose the maximum possible penalty, the various instances where he frankly has a basic lack of competence/understanding in certain subjects makes him unsuitable for enforcing restrictions on that subject - I can line up a long list of editors if you want and pages of evidence. The likely outcome of said discussion (for reasons iridescent and others above go into) would either be A)Sandstein gets prevented from interacting with TRM in any editorial or administrative function, or b)it gets punted back to Arbcom as too complicated and too many problems. So feel free to save everyone a lot of time and effort here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
Okay, so a contributor with 230,000 edits has received 4 AE civility blocks in 3 years, and the latest violation is borderline enough that admins disagree whether it should be enforced. So the solution is to either siteban the editor or remove the sanction entirely? And what is the metric for measuring success here? Is TRM being blocked too often, or not often enough? Since this is at ARCA, I think there are a few ways in which this custom sanction *cough* could be improved. For one thing, I think it could provide alternate pathways towards resolution besides time-consuming trips to arbitration enforcement and blocks. Obviously it would be ideal if the uncivil personal comments stopped altogether, but the next best thing is if the comments are stricken/withdrawn voluntarily like this (diff of TRM striking one of their comments) Second, I think the scope could be narrowed to omit administrative noticeboards and TRM's user talk page. Unlike normal talk pages, noticeboards are designed to handle complaints about user behavior, and sometimes discussing things like competence and motivation is appropriate and necessary. And the user's own talk page is a low-disruption venue where users can traditionally blow off steam without too much fear of reprisal. ~Awilley (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A note about Sandstein's "involvement": this civility thing is obviously something where reasonable people can look at the same thing and come to very different conclusions. For this reason I object to painting Sandstein as "involved" because he reached a different conclusion from other AE admins looking at the diffs. In fact, while Sandstein usually comes down with harsher positions than I personally would prefer at AE, I have never seen anything that seemed WP:INVOLVED. Quite the opposite. Detractors could paint him as a robot meting out the will of Arbcom, but he's still an uninvolved robot as far as I can see. ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Taking into account that this is not an actual Arbitration request but one seeking clarification —and I would hope the distinction between the two would not become overly blurred— I think both parties here could benefit from advise that encompasses both criticism and praise. TRM for being (still) overly combative in their conduct, but notwithstanding their otherwise potent contributions. Sandstien for being overly strict —and, at times, supervotey— on AE, but who otherwise often does good work on that board.

There is also the matter of the restriction itself, which as mentioned in AE, I find confusing. That, indeed, should be clarified by motion. Uninvolved admins should be able to make immediate sense of it. Also, I would be opposed to any sanctions being applied at this juncture, even though I did find TRM's conduct in this latest dispute to have been subpar.

Finally, I'm a big believer in not needing to formalize everything. But I also don't know enough about the TRM arbitration case or about the TRM-Sandstien dynamic to offer more definitive input. Still, an awareness of (truly taking to heart) and a willingness by both parties to act upon their perceived strengths (more of) and weaknesses (less of) would be a good thing. It might be enough to turn the tide. Or we may be past that point. I don't really know which it is. But would lean toward giving the former informal approach a chance, if at all possible. El_C 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
If nothing else, I think this illustrates the need for clarification. (I do not think the only two possible resolutions are "site ban" or "lift the restriction"; far from it.) In my view, while I think the phrasing in which TRM expressed his views was in some cases excessive, I did not see him to be questioning the overall competence of any editors or admins, but rather disagreeing with particular actions. In one sense, I suppose disagreeing with someone's edit or action could be considered a question on their competence, but, as I said at the request, if the requirement is that TRM isn't allowed to disagree with people or object to their edits, it should (and presumably would) say that. So far as Sandstein, well, Sandstein is often willing to make a decision in the tough cases (which AE sees plenty of), and when you do that, someone is going to be unhappy no matter what call you make. However, I would encourage Sandstein to consider some of the concerns brought up here by other admins with regard to TRM in specific, and handling in general. I absolutely do not want Sandstein pushed out of AE; we need people who are willing to make the tough call and take the inevitable flak for it. (I don't know enough about any particular history between Sandstein and TRM to comment on that). I'm around AE a fair bit myself, and in general, when I see Sandstein handle something, it is a reasonable and defensible decision. Sandstein does lean toward the tough side, but well, matters under discretionary sanctions are cases where decisive action is necessary to curb areas already subject to substantial disruption, so that in itself does not indicate a problem. I wish I knew the best way forward. I'm afraid I don't. But the current framework isn't working. The filer of the AE request made their filing in good faith; their belief that it was a violation is a defensible one, as is the assertion that it was not. It does no favors to either TRM or to the community for us to be uncertain of what is permitted and what is not, and it is certainly not a good situation when the answer to "Was that a violation?" primarily depends on who answers that question. At this point, even the two arbitrators who have commented as of this writing don't agree on whether it was sanctionable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard
I'm the admin TRM's comments were focused on (though the actions were purely editorial actions, not admin actions). FWIW, speaking as the target, I'm not too worried about them - non-admins' freedom to complain about admins, even in non-admin matters, is important, and I have a reasonably thick skin. I think he's dead-wrong and he thinks I'm dead-wrong - and the actual issue at hand will hopefully be resolved in an orderly manner with a resolution that all parties can live with in the current discussion at VPR.

But the effects of this behaviour on the editing environment need to be considered. I think it's important to note here that TRM's frankly amazing combativeness and junkyard-dog attitude is frankly wearying, and makes for a deeply unpleasant and repelling environment for other editors. This sanction isn't the precise appropriate one, but his behaviour is a serious problem - looking, for example, at the way he went off at Kingofaces43 as literally his first interaction, per above - and could do with some sort of action, because editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking, as TRM does, are fundamentally bad for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it's 1:30am here, I'll add tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The following is not presented with the intention of being some sort of a slam-dunk case for immediate action against TRM - but just as an answer to 's request for edits demonstrating "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking".

Just picking a few examples from the last six months (and keeping in mind that this is not the issue this ARCA is about - but I've made a claim and should indeed back up what I said):


 * - TRM wikistalking after a conflict
 * Frustration with TRM - "He ominously said he's watching everything, which looks like a thinly veiled threat of stalking, and he demonstrated that he's watching by using the Thank feature on my edits. Such behavior could be viewed as a form of intimidation."
 * Edit in which TRM said this: "Nope. Just in hiding, but watching, everything." Mandarax asks TRM not to post to their talk again
 * This is an otherwise-civil editor who was provoked into snapping by TRM.


 * this knock-down drag-out interaction on Vanamonde93's talk page
 * started by these edits in which Maile66 is reluctant to risk proxying for TRM, Vanamonde93 concurs, and Amakuru concedes the point
 * TRM goes to Vanamonde93's talk to protest, Vanamonde93 explains their reluctance to proxy
 * TRM asks when the arbcom restricted proxying
 * Vanamonde93 points out that WP:PROXY is policy
 * TRM makes vociferous claims about Vanamonde93's claims
 * Vanamonde93 says that's not what they wrote
 * TRM escalates to CAPS LOCK with swearing
 * Vanamonde93 clarifies once more
 * TRM claims that Vanamonde93 has threatened them and this is unfit behaviour for an admin
 * Vanamonde93 points out they made no threats (as is visible in the discussion)
 * TRM claims an accusation of PROXY
 * Vanamonde93 asks for diffs to back up TRM's claims
 * TRM claims Vanamonde93 was accusing Amakuru of proxying
 * Vanamonde93 asks again for diffs and points out Amakuru was apparently fine with it
 * TRM disparages Vanamonde93 again and thanks them for having "retracted all accusations of proxying, that was just stupid"
 * Vanamonde93 says fine whatever
 * TRM ends with an intimidatory "Not at all. My satisfaction is yet to come."
 * TRM ends with an intimidatory "Not at all. My satisfaction is yet to come."


 * Discussion in which Purplebackpack89 (pbp89) says at the start that TRM "has had a history of following me around to cause trouble, and is using VA as an attempt to goad me into doing something he can take me to ANI or another noticeboard for. He is repeatedly making inaccurate or uninformed statements about the Vital Articles project, and he's collecting diffs of mine, which is something nobody who was acting in good faith would do."
 * Later, to TRM: "you've only made a few edits to VA ever, with all of them coming within a day or two of me making edits, usually a string of them."
 * Note that in this case, I personally thought TRM had the right of the substantive issue and pbp89 didn't - but TRM's interaction style, and his tendency to collect diffs of other editors in public view - where they can see a page being prepared about them from a glance at his contributions - clearly came across to php89 as intimidatory stalking.
 * Note that in this case, I personally thought TRM had the right of the substantive issue and pbp89 didn't - but TRM's interaction style, and his tendency to collect diffs of other editors in public view - where they can see a page being prepared about them from a glance at his contributions - clearly came across to php89 as intimidatory stalking.


 * - as I noted, I'm not particularly concerned for myself, but TRM's behaviour is problematic to be happening at all, and intimidatory to third parties:
 * I removed The Scottish Sun (a deprecated source) as the sole source of controversial biographical claims on a BLP, John Wark - absolutely not something a deprecated source should ever be used for.
 * TRM added the deprecated source back.
 * I reverted the addition of the deprecated source.
 * TRM re-adds, pleading status quo and claiming a "false edit summary".
 * I added a note to TRM's talk page, asking him not to do that.
 * comments on my talk in the opinion that the disputed content constitutes sports reporting (which some editors consider The Sun fine for).
 * I note the BLP issues with the content (note, I mistook Dweller for TRM in this edit, as TRM was the one putting the ill-cited content back in repeatedly, and apologise to both for having snapped at them there).
 * TRM replies accusing me of "fake edit summaries". This is the start of a knock-down drag-out on my talk page, my first encounter with TRM's style in this regard, in which I'm left wondering who on earth this communcation style is meant to convince.
 * I point out the BLP issues with the content again.
 * TRM claims that "deprecated" does not mean "should never be used for anything" and asserts that this makes it a "false edit summary". I'm baffled by this understanding of words.
 * Dweller says the content I deleted was clearly sports reporting and a minor claim, with the implication that it's not controversial statements about a living person that had no other sourcing than a deprecated source (and IMO clearly not a minor claim).
 * TRM claims a false edit summary and says "You should know better already, and have just recently been warned about this" - though the "warning" is TRM claiming it repeatedly.
 * I point out to TRM that I can't fit an entire page into an edit summary, and stand by my summary that deprecated sources "should not be used for anything" - that "should" is not absolute, but it is strong.
 * TRM repeats his claim. A few edits later, I'm a "purported admin" having a "meltdown". TRM's edit summary is "borrowed time".
 * A few edits later, TRM threatens to take this further as an WP:ADMINACCT issue (on what grounds is entirely unclear).
 * I repeat my previous answers to TRM's repetitions of the same questions.
 * TRM claims that removing the deprecated source instead of first finding a reliable source for the controversial BLP claims constitutes "deep failings of your position as an admin" - rather than, e.g., literally what WP:BLP says to do.
 * I note that I've answered TRM's questions, despite his apparent case of WP:IDHT.
 * TRM concludes with "Okay, I have all I need here I think" - presumably meant to sound deniably intimidatory.
 * The John Wark discussion continues at WP:RSN - I won't go through every edit, but TRM continues in the same combative style, again claiming "False scare edit summaries". Some notable edits:
 * TRM literally calls removing deprecated sources "censorship". I point out he's adding a deprecated source back that I removed form an article on a music video, and he insists it's "restoring the status quo". The article, Skibidi, was in an area I'm pretty sure TRM had never edited previously - he gratuitously added a deprecated source that was inappropriate only because he'd been following my edits and was trying to provoke. He admits following me, speaking of "a team of editors following your edits", though actually it's just him.
 * This interaction was a good example of TRM's unfortunate argument style - I say that TRM was "edit-warring controversial information back into a BLP, that's sourced solely to The Sun, on the excuse that the guy played sports - and calling its removal "censorship" - TRM responds, not by addressing any of my claims, but by instead making fresh accusations. I ask him to respond to what I said, instead of going off on an aggressive tangent.
 * The discussion then started again at WP:AN. I won't go through all the edits step by step - this has taken nearly five hours to put together properly as it is - but if you read through, TRM's style is apparent here as well. Note the difference in style in this section from - who substantially agrees with TRM and thinks I'm dead-wrong, but is for the most part able to say so civilly.
 * The substantive issue is now being discussed at WP:VPR, with a much better tone and good discussion, and I'm hopeful of an outcome everyone can live with.

Interaction with TRM is unpleasant at best, and requires sifting through what he's saying for the substance amongst the gratuitous aggression - and a substantive response is often answered with an aggressive diversion.

I don't doubt his sincerity, or his considerable good work at Wikipedia - I do doubt his outbursts and intimidatory behaviour are appropriate, and he really needs to recognise and stop doing this sort of thing, at all.

I hope this answers 's question sufficiently - keeping in mind that this is not concerning what this ARCA is about, but about other behaviour. I do think this is at least some demonstration of an interaction style that is seriously problematic and intimidatory to third party editors, and that this needs attention. It would be good if TRM could just stop interacting with others in this manner, even when he's sure he's right - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I should also note that, given Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, it's unclear how much store I should set upon repeated advice on how to comport myself as an administrator from someone literally de-adminned for cause by the Arbitration Committee. It is possible I should not do that - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * my uses of the u would have pinged them, I think. But just to be sure, since we don't want to talk behind anyone's back:   - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin
David Gerard, please provide diffs showing that TRM belongs to "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking" ("as TRM does"). Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem
As much as actual neutrality is important, so too is the perception that the enforcement process is fair and consistent in the severity of sanctions issued. I'd urge Sandstein to consider AGK's suggestion of voluntarily recusing from TRM-related matters. We're obviously in a very unique use case, so I don't think there's a strong risk of this being used to pressure other admins out of AE going forward. The tendency to always pull the trigger for an exorbitantly harsh sanction will naturally make an editor feel singled out. I hardly think the other admins who monitor the AE board will be unequipped to handle a future potential incident should the need arise.

At this point, any block issued would be punitive as we're now far removed from the diffs that started this all. For the Committee, I'd request rethinking the sanction itself. I know it's been through the ringer several times already, but my sense is that's evidence it's been unworkable from the get-go and that no perfect wording will make these issues easier for TRM or the admins at AE. I don't have a strong position on what that replacement should be, but clearly what we have is, at bottom, difficult and highly subjective to parse. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
I never understand why some editors find these situations difficult, nuanced, or unique.

The collapsed section of shows a significant number of recent uncivil comments and personal attacks. This is not complicated; this is simple. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to throw out a crazy idea for a solution: What I like about this proposed solution is that it's simple, it's easy to enforce, it's effective, and it treats everybody as if they were adults working in a voluntary collegial environment, as opposed to as if we were in a court, or a school, or a prison, or at therapy. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Identify the chronic and ongoing disruptive behavior(s) TRM engages in, if any
 * 2) Ask TRM to stop the behavior(s)
 * 3) If he refuses, block him until he agrees

Re If Sandstein believes there's an issue with TRM, they should bring it to the attention of some other admin.: isn't that what Sandstein did here, by taking it to ARCA instead of issuing a sanction? I'm surprised by the number of comments in this ARCA about involvement, bias, or overenforcement (made by many admin I respect), given that he didn't impose a sanction and instead raised the issue for discussion and voiced an opinion. What else do we want from him? Don't voice the opinion? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not enforcing it, not clarifying it, and not lifting it, is not a good idea. Arbcom should do one of those three, or just wait another 12 days for the new arbs to chime in. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) TRM is "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence."
 * 2) TRM's post said an editor "consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc"
 * 3) It is beyond dispute that "deliberately introduced false claims" is "speculation about the motivations of editors". It is beyond dispute that the statement is a reflection on competence.
 * 4) You can say, "But we came to consensus that it isn't!" and you just sound silly. Sure, admin at AE can also come to consensus that up is down and black is white, but you all just look silly.
 * 5) That this happens–that admin at AE come to consensus that the obvious is not obvious, that the truth is not true–is evidence that the prohibition as written isn't working. (In fact, it's evidence that the entire AE system doesn't work and needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because this happens not just with this sanction, but with many others as well.) Admin at AE are literally, publicly, arguing that up is down and black is white in order to avoid enforcing Arbcom's prohibition. That's a good reason to change the prohibition, but please don't argue with a straight face that TRM didn't violate it, just because a handful of people said so.
 * 6) Consensus does not determine reality. Not even on Wikipedia. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "deliberately" means "with intent", and the word "motivations" is a synonym for "intent". So, "deliberately introduced false claims" is, by definition, a "speculation about the motivations of editors". Consensus cannot redefine words any more than it can redefine reality. You just can't come to consensus that "deliberately introduced false claims" is not a "speculation about the motivations of editors". Because those words have meanings that are not subject to multiple interpretations. There is only one interpretation for those words in that order: TRM was making a statement about the intent of another editor; specifically, that their intent was to introduce false claims. That's what "deliberately" means. You can't come to consensus otherwise any more than you can come to consensus that the sun rises in the west. Because it doesn't. Similarly, you can label an argument "good faith", but that doesn't make it so. You can even assume it, but that still doesn't make it so. Sure, I can argue that my wheel of swiss cheese is round and has holes, and the moon is also round and has holes, and therefore, the moon is made of cheese. I could argue that. And you could describe it as a good-faith argument. But it's not. Simple as that. Anyone who says that "deliberately introduced false claims" does not constitute "speculation about the motivations of editors" is being disingenuous or is incompetent (i.e., not fluent in English). There is simply no other interpretation of those words. That multiple admin feel the need to argue that up is down, because to admit the truth would be to trigger sanctions that they do not want triggered, is a sad state of affairs that should be rectified by Arbcom. It's the one thing we and everyone else agrees on: the current sanction doesn't work. But I think everyone should drop this fiction that TRM didn't violate the current sanction. Of course he did. The only question is what to do about it. Enforcing the sanction doesn't have consensus, but the fact that a violation occurred is a fact that is not subject to consensus. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
I wasn't going to comment here, but I was pinged by. I think AGK absolutely nailed this. Arbcom's badly-worded restrictions on TRM are intended to prevent disruption, not to permit admins to run roughshod over him. He's complained with justification about an admin's actions at that admin's talk page and at AN. AGK correctly points out that of all the diffs complained, one might technically breach the restriction and even that's not at the level where it's reasonable to take action. Even, in the past an intractable opponent of TRM can see this (to Banedon's enormous credit - hats off to you).

Every time Arbcom looks at this, I point out to them that this sanction is backfiring and making future cases more likely not less, and each time I suggest they relax (or actually drop) it they strengthen it. I'm sick of telling them this and will wait for the next committee which may be less entrenched in its own position. You're all good people, but you've been getting this wrong - more and more wrong every time, to the extent that now you're even upbraiding him for despair because he was on the point of quitting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. This case is not about Sandstein's interactions with TRM or vice-versa.
 * None of the diffs under scrutiny feature "profanity". Further, this is not about hostility or vindictiveness, but whether he has materially breached his restriction. Which is a shame, because I think that he has been the subject of hostility and vindictiveness more than the aggressor in this case.
 * Irrelevant as the case has already come here and the AE showed clearly that the truly uninvolved admins did not support action.
 * Irrelevant as the case has already come here and the AE showed clearly that the truly uninvolved admins did not support action.


 * This case should be closed without further action.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

and many others contributing here. No, this is not about civility, hostility or the like. TRM is subject to WP:CIVIL the same as anyone else and ArbCom is not the referee for anything and everything people are upset about regarding TRM (which actually is what often happens at AE). The case is specifically about Arbcom's restriction that he is "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." The uninvolved admins at the AE case found that he hadn't breached that. Sandstein said he had and urged the strongest sanctions, so the admins referred it here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I echo those calling for Arbcom to lift the sanction.

If they're not going to lift it, doing nothing further is merely to concur with the consensus of the admins at the AE case that prompted this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You cite Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man That log shows a ton of activity in 2016/17 and in over two years since then...? What? Yet we have still have periodic AE cases due to this dreadful sanction. And every time I tell you to ditch it, the committee has either ignored me or made it worse. Can't you see you've just made a stick to poke the bear with? Yes, TRM needs to be less bear-like - actually, I think he's already a lot less bearlike as the record shows, but the stick is still offered to every passing bearpoker. Can't you be less sticklike?

And guys, this has been open for a heck of a long time. It really is time to wrap it up one way or another. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
The troublesome aspects of this case are:

1. The Rambling Man (TRM) and Sandstein dislike each other.

2. The Rambling Man apparently has a crabbed interpretation of the requirement of civility, in that he apparently thinks that he honors it by avoiding profanity while otherwise being hostile and unpleasant to the number of editors whom he dislikes. This interpretation of civility games the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.

3. Sandstein is justified in disliking The Rambling Man because of his gaming of civility. However, that dislike does not justify vindictiveness, and the request to ban The Rambling Man is vindictive.

ArbCom should impose some sanction on The Rambling Man that is more severe than a 48-hour block but less severe than a ban. ArbCom should consider a full two-way interaction ban between Sandstein and The Rambling Man. Sandstein should be considered to be involved in any dispute with The Rambling Man, through no fault of either party, simply because the dislike is too strong to permit him to act objectively in an administrative capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification
Evidently point 2 was not clear to User:Dweller. I never suggested that profanity had anything to do with this case. I meant that The Rambling Man never uses profanity, and may think that that is civility, but he is nonetheless profoundly uncivil without using profanity. There is a crabbed interpretation of the fourth pillar of Wikipedia that it is sufficient to avoid profanity. It is necessary but not sufficient to avoid profanity. This case is about The Rambling Man being hostile and unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip
The fact that stands alone in wanting to impose the maximum possible punishment of a siteban on TRM for a debatable violation of his sanction is prima facie proof, given his prior history, that he cannot dispassionately act as a finder-of-fact for this individual. At minimum, he should recuse himself from this case, and more preferably, any future ones regarding TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in response to Sandstein's latest comment, I do believe that he is, in fact, misguided and inconsiderate. I think 's reasoning is the most valid of all. TRM is being held to a deliberately unfair standard - speculation on one's competence occurs here on Wikipedia all the time. The last few attempts to bring him to WP:AE have amounted mostly to "Aha! Gotcha!" claims for usually minor offenses (which Sandstein usually attempts to double down on with calling for a full-blown ban). Because of this seemingly draconian standard, TRM has a fleet of defenders who protest the attempts at sanctioning, which usually results in attempts at enforcement falling short, which is how we ended up here. I believe the sanction itself is the issue. TRM should be held to the same standard of civility as everyone else here, because really what this comes down to in the end is civility, and how others perceive him to be incivil. If he doesn't abide by the civility policy everyone is required to follow, he should be blocked appropriately. He's not inextricably intertwined with highly controversial areas of Wikipedia like portals, infoboxes, or American politics, or any other spaces which would normally be under the purview of arbitration sanctions.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that there is an impasse here, but is any purpose being served by keeping this amendment case open any longer?--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (TRM)
Is it just me, or is that restriction an attempt to legislate Clue? TRM used to be a top bloke, but has become an obnoxious grump. I don't fully understand what happened. Regardless, if this restriction stands then he clearly violated it so the question is probably: do we care? I don't know either way. Guy (help!) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
Regardless of the merits of TRM's conduct, I agree with those who have contended that Sandstein needs to recuse himself from taking administrative action with regards to TRM. I believe that admins should avoid even the appearance of taking involved actions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fish and karate
I have described Sandstein as someone who Judge Dredds his way around arbitration enforcement before, and would suggest that not only should he be kept away from any kind of administrative decision-making involving TRM, he should probably be kept away from closing arbitration enforcement discussions entirely, irrespective of the user under discussion. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To add, I don't think anyone can say TRM hasn't breached the restrictions around questioning the competency of others - this is clearly a breach, and should be dealt with accordingly, but not by Sandstein. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t the question that was a breach of the restriction, it was the accompanying edit summary. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don’t think “are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements” is not questioning competency then I cheerfully withdraw my opinion that “I don’t think anyone can say TRM didn’t breach his restriction“, and replace it with a “blimey”. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 21:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
I think the comment by TRM "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries..." was an obvious violation. If something stronger is needed (I have no judgement about it), that could be only a blanket ban to comment anything about any other contributors, with standard exceptions. Some people complain about actions by Sandstein, but I do not think anyone can make a convincing case here. This is because most actions by Sandstein on WP:AE have been either supported or at least not explicitly objected by other admins. Only a couple of his decisions were overturned on WP:AE, as far as I remember. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking about the Judge Dredd (comment above), yes, individual admins could act just like Judge Dredds in DS areas because Arbcom allows it (no reporting and discussions on WP:AE is required for any sanctions). Fortunately, none of the admins actually acts in this manner, even Sandstein. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ched (TRM & Sanderstein)
I've tried to follow this back to some sort of "source" of disagreement, and my conclusion isn't a pleasant one. While I do agree with some of the others in their assessments (Iridescent, Black Kite, and AGK to name a few), I'm not sure this can be resolved here. I think that even if you outright find someone to hang the albatross on HERE, you'll simply be kicking the can further down the road to THERE. The concept of deprecating sources that were once considered perfectly reliable is proving to be a 'tough row to hoe' (that is to say "it will be difficult to reach agreement"). While the committee is already under a heavy workload with the Portals case, I'd venture to guess that the "Deprecated Sources" case isn't far behind. From here back to AE, back to AN, and back to VPPRO, discussion has been tried. — Ched (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee
I’ve become convinced TRM doesn’t realize what his words feel like from the other side. He excuses making noncollegial comments ‘because it’s the truth.’ I think he sincerely doesn’t comprehend that the fact what he's saying is true doesn’t make the way he says it acceptable. I don't think he realizes there are ways to say this stuff that aren't counterproductive to collegial work. I don’t know what to think, here. The guy is hugely useful. His insights are great, he works incredibly fast, he has a huge capacity for work, he catches 90% of issues that cross his screen. I’d seriously hate to lose that sharp eye. But he really doesn’t seem to understand why (or even that) the way he says something is important. He just doesn’t get it. It’s like this giant blind spot in his perception of reality. I certainly don’t want to see him banned, but I don't want to give him the message that this stuff is okay to say, either. I just wish we could teach him how humans interact collegially online.

Sandstein should stop being the TRM police. It's counterproductive. If Sandstein believes there's an issue with TRM, they should bring it to the attention of some other admin.


 * Levivich, what I'd suggest is that Sandstein say to (some uninvolved admin), "Hey, this diff looks to me like TRM is violating his sanction, what do you think?" rather than opening a case. If the other admin thinks it's worth a case, they can open it just as well. Opening a case is a huge frickin' deal, as we can see from the amount of time and energy we've expended here. If Sandstein had gone to someone else and said, "Hey, whaddaya think?" And that person had said, "Yeah, I'll just go (do X) to get his attention" we might have avoided this. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * asked how should TRM indicate that he believes an editor has made a series of bad judgements over a sustained period of time without violating this restriction? It sucks that TRM is competent to notice such things but not competent to comment on them, but there you have it: he clearly isn't good at figuring where the rest of the world draws the line. In fact, it appears he is incompetent in that area. It's no different from an editor who simply cannot seem to learn any other policy, no matter how often multiple people explain it to them, no matter how often people point it out to them when they're doing it again. Eventually they just need to decide they'll contribute in other ways. --valereee (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm with Vanamonde. We can't just throw up our hands and say, "Clearly he can't learn how to do this competently and won't stop doing it anyway, so let's stop trying to get him to do it competently and just let him keep doing it incompetently." If an editor cannot contribute competently in an area, they need to stop contributing in that area. TRM isn't competent to comment on other editors' competence. He's terrible at it, and no matter how often it's explained to him, this is something he can't learn. It's really too bad, but there it is. --valereee (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly moot, but I agree with that one thing that could help would be to make it explicit that civility matters involving TRM which fall outside the scope of his restriction may (or may not) be dealt with at ANI as for any other editor. --valereee (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th
I am totally uninvolved with the principals in this case. My only knowledge is what I have read here and the links provided. Arb definitely needs to clarify the sanction because, as written, it seems like a clear cut violation, but this type of behavior has been interpreted in the past to not be a violation.

Further, Sandstein and TRM obviously have problems with each other. TRM thinks Sandstein lacks judgment in his administrator actions; Sandstein would be happy to see TRM site banned. Both of their opinions about each other may be overblown. I think a two way interaction ban would be appropriate, along with a clarification of the sanction.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (TRM)
I entirely endorse what has written above. I feel like a broken record at this point, but; TRM's content contributions are extremely valuable; but in interacting with other editors he has tended to make discussions unnecessarily and inappropriately hostile and personal whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with him. The possibility that he could occasionally be wrong, or even that there are matters over which reasonable people could disagree, does not seem to occur to him. As far as I can see, the intent behind the various restrictions TRM has been subjected to about the manner in which he may discuss other users has been to buffer this tendency as far as possible while allowing TRM to work in areas that he can be productive in. If that's the intent, then wrangling over whether a specific comment was a breech of the sanctions is almost irrelevant; the fact is that TRM's behavior in that discussion wasn't acceptable, and we're not doing much about it. , I agree with most of your analysis below, but I'm baffled by your conclusion; if we can't give TRM a short sharp reminder for skirting the edge of this sanction, how on earth do you expect him to be sanctioned for his routine violation of WP:CIVIL? When was the last time you saw an experienced editor actually serve out a civility block? Mind you, this isn't the only sanction he has skirted; just off the top of my head I there's these examples  Where TRM is violating the letter or spirit of his competence/motivation restriction and/or his DYK TBAN. Nobody chose to report those, but with TRM no good deed goes unpunished, I guess. ARBCOM's choices here are fairly clear; you could block him in this instance, and leave the restriction as is; you could take the position, implicit in several statements here over the years, that a certain level of content work entitles you to be bloody rude all the time, and lift the restriction (I don't say "bloody rude" lightly. Language used at my workplace is extremely casual, and even so I would have been subject to pretty severe sanction for treating my colleagues the way TRM treats his fellow editors). Or, if restrictions on language aren't working, formulate a broader restriction that can be written as a topic ban instead. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose behind the case that placed behavioral restrictions on TRM was to examine his behavior; and the case found that he had been uncivil, and had needlessly personalized disputes. The restriction we are arguing about here was framed to try to address that problem; it's only a means to an end. Arguing that this case is about the restriction, rather than how to address TRM's behavior, is...bizarre. If you genuinely don't see a problem with how he treats other editors, fine; but please recognize, at the very least, that this isn't a view shared by most other folks. I looked through the AE and ARCA archives related to this case the last time, and found nearly three dozen admins, plus the ARBs, telling TRM that his behavior was not okay; but you continue to imply that it's just a bunch of thin-skinned editors who have a problem with him. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your outline of the three issues is fairly accurate. I agree that 3 is out of scope here, and would require a separate case (I do not think there's been any misbehavior which rises to the level of a case). With respect to issue 2, I've asked, on multiple previous occasions, to recuse from conduct related to TRM; not because he is INVOLVED (he isn't) or biased (his bias is civility related, rather than TRM related) but because his involvement will engender more drama than it will solve; and as such his involvement is permitted, but unwise. Sandstein has elected not to do this, and I can't really blame him, because he isn't the only constant fixture in discussions about TRM; there's others who regularly show up to make the "no violation" argument (I think it would be quite an interesting experiment to see what would happen if every admin who had previously participated in AE discussions about TRM stepped away from them; but that's never going to happen). About TRM's own behavior; yes, we have to acknowledge that those aspects exist simultaneously. As I see it, AE exists to examine whether a violation of a specific remedy has occurred, and ARCA exists, in general, to determine if the remedy is fit for purpose. This case is unusual in that a lack of consensus at AE is supposed to be referred here; but we've got bogged down again in a) general discussions about Sandstein, and b) whether TRM violated this specific remedy, whereas we ought to be talking about "how do we ensure TRM can be productive without letting him vitiate the atmosphere". I've offered several suggestions, here and at previous ARCAs, in that regard; so to be honest I'm not sure why you aimed your comment at me, but I do agree with the thrust of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * this request was opened by Sandstein explicitly to address whether or not the diffs brought to AE constituted a violation of TRM's sanction. To close this without answering that in either direction seems very odd to me, when a previous clarification suggested bringing these disputes here in the absence of consensus at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat to you my question to Katie and AGK. ARBCOM asked admins to bring AE discussions about TRM here if no clear consensus was reached. And now you're saying "no comment". I'm not even disagreeing with your decision here; you're just refusing to make a decision, and I'm baffled, to say the least. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
To echo V93:- this request was opened by Sandstein explicitly to address whether or not the diffs brought to AE constituted a violation of TRM's sanction. To close this without answering that in either direction seems very odd to me, when a previous clarification suggested bringing these disputes here in the absence of consensus at AE. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru
Supporting the motion to close. It's clear that there's no action going to be taken, and we already have three votes to that effect. Meanwhile TRM has been absent since the end of November thanks to this, which is a great loss to the project. Can't believe the case is still open after all this time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit
I just had reason to drop by TRM's talk page, and wondered why he seemed to have disappeared - a bit lf digging led me here, so I'm late to this party. I empathise with Valereee's sentiments above, and support the motion to close. As a relative newcomer to content creation, I've found TRM's guidance and support tremendously helpful over the course of this past year - that's not to say his behaviour is perfect at all times, especially perhaps when it comes to interactions with long-standing editors with whom he has had a rocky history, but as a mentor for new editors hoping to produce DYKs and GAs he's amongst the best, and his absence is being felt already. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 15:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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


 * With two recusals, a majority of the committee is 4. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  00:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the voting has ended, there are now no recusals, so a majority is 5 In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 19:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed acmajority for the first motion as all new arbs are actively seated now. CodeLyoko  talk  23:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I cannot see how an admin who has consistently made bad judgements in particular is not a reflection on competence. There are no exceptions in TRM's current sanction for reflections on competence that are specific, or substantiated, or in response to "baiting" (an embarrassing concept to apply to the conduct of adults in a collegial environment). He is banned from making them, full stop. It was worth a try, but I think at this point it's obvious that this sanction has not been effective in reducing disruption. If anything it's increased it, given the burden placed on AE admins who could otherwise be working on improving the encyclopaedia. So yes, let's either remove the sanction if we think TRM's conduct is acceptable, or replace it with a clearer and more easily enforceable one if it's not. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording of the sanction was amended last December specifically to remove the word "general". It now reads ...prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence. I did get the impression that perhaps some participants in the AE discussion had missed that change (another reason why these highly 'bespoke' sanctions can be difficult to enforce). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think commenting on 's conduct here is helpful, because a) this isn't a forum where anything can be done about it and b) what Sandstein has or hasn't done has no bearing on whether TRM has breached his sanctions or what we should do about it. If there is a problem with Sandstein's AE actions, I'd suggest raising it at AN or failing that in a new case request. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the requested outcome could effect the Arbcom Elections, and I am a sitting candidate in that election, I'll keep out of this while the elections are ongoing. <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>) 09:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the voting period is over, I think I'm safe to comment on the issues regarding other Arbcom candidates again. I would like to echo the thoughts of AGK, that Sandstein is one of the most active AE admins and does a very good job on the whole, but I do not believe that his judgement with regards to TRM is up to his usual standards. Comments about scalpels and sledgehammers come to mind. Whilst I would really struggle with supporting a motion to enforce a required recusal from TRM enforcement, I would strongly recommend that he steps away too, focussing on other AE cases. Noting, I don't consider him WP:INVOLVED, just that his approach is not helping in this particular set of circumstances. <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>) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all administrators are willing to volunteer at the AE noticeboard; many avoid it. Sandstein is one of the most active volunteers and obviously does a lot of good, no matter what else is written here.  However, the result of this week's enforcement request was incorrect.  Four diffs were presented in the request; only a single one (the other messes you've left all over the place) was remotely a sanction breach.  Prior to Sandstein, the enforcement request was running an appropriate course and I would not have us amending the remedy.  Instead, I would have Sandstein committing to recusal from enforcement of the TRM sanction.  Having this commitment expire after 2 years would seem like selecting an appropriate amount of time.I am sidestepping a number of the other points and issues raised in this request because I do not view them as pertinent.  However, I will offer three additional comments.  First,  you very well may have said the harassment ends tonight out of distress and not rage.  Yet still the sentence is sinister and you have previously said things like that to other people on Wikipedia.  When you are confronted by an interpersonal issue on Wikipedia, you need to start thinking upfront about the result you want to get to – rather than seeing red.  Users in your position can erode and then lose community support if this sort of conduct goes on long enough, even if you are not actually "getting worse".  Second,  if you will not commit to recusal, I may bring a motion compelling you.  Although this appears like no choice at all, the motion cannot carry without a majority of the committee.  Lastly,  I reiterate that I think your contributions to AE are valuable as a whole.  You have received criticism about style and severity, from within this committee and by observers, that you need to take on board.  However, peer review is a process that improves us and I encourage you not to resist its effects.   AGK  &#9632;  13:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Recuse during the election. Katietalk 15:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Voting period has ended and so has my recusal. I'm inclined to lift the restriction. It places TRM under a special rule that largely keeps admins from dealing with his bad behavior on sight. The special rule is rarely enforced. And when it is enforced, there's huge dramah and gnashing of teeth and the block is lifted. Why are we going through this all the time? Katietalk 14:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time I was still a little salty after TRM told me to go do something that's not anatomically possible for me to do. I'm over it now, and the guy deserves a fair hearing. That's all. Katietalk 18:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Joe: the comments violate the restriction, and the restriction clearly is not being heeded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM's initial comment at the AN discussion was reasonable, within his restriction, and in my opinion exactly what he should have done in that scenario. He noticed what he viewed as an issue with another editor's work, and raised it politely at a relevant noticeboard so that other users/admins could investigate the issue. He could have left it at that, and stepped away from the conversation—instead he continued to argue in the AN thread and eventually breached the restriction. Even if he had decided to remain involved with the AN thread, I am certain it's possible to do so without making comments like you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable, not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place, and others he made in that conversation. Honestly, I'm not highly inclined to reword the sanction for a third time as you suggest—TRM has not been willing to adjust his behavior, and so we are just saddling AE with enforcement of a highly custom sanction (already difficult) against an editor who can make enforcement of sanctions against him quite unpleasant. That said, I'm not sure exactly what I think we should do—for one, the timing of this is really unfortunate: we have only six arbitrators who can give input on this, and TRM himself is a candidate in the current election. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the fact that the Rambling Man has been sanctioned for violating this restriction several times: Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolution: The Rambling Man
Proposed:




 * Support. Proposing we close this request now.  Some weeks after it was filed, plenty of users have weighed in.  Arbitrators have provided lots of views and advice.  Some colleagues have other ideas (eg vacating the restriction or rewriting its text) but they do not seem to have support of a committee majority. It seems best that we proceed now in this way.   AGK  &#9632;  12:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Absent opening a new case, I really don't know what else to do. Katietalk 13:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think we need a formal resolution here - but this isn't going anywhere. <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>) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I think we need to postpone this motion so that the incoming committee members have a chance to weigh in and vote. <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 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Recuse. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot shake the feeling that time and again, the attempts to enforce a highly bepsoke restriction have tended to cause more trouble than they ever prevented or solved. With so much room for interpretation, it leaves the door open to gaming from both the subject of the restriction and from someone who, to put it delicately, is not a fan of the subject. At this point, I think that vacating the restriction, while not ideal, is the least bad option; keeping it seems to make matter worse. (And for completeness, I don't see the need to ban Sandstein from AE or to ban TRM from the project.)  Maxim (talk)  19:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a motion to lift the restriction entirely. The fact that AN, AE, and this thread at ARCA have all failed to agree on an action here is evidence that it isn't working. – bradv  🍁  20:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: motion to lift prohibition
Proposed:


 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  05:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  05:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. The existing remedy is having a chilling effect on administrators enforcing the civility policy, and appears to have outlived its usefulness. Continued personal attacks, aspersions cast without evidence, or other forms of incivility can be dealt with at the usual venues, including by means of new request for arbitration. – bradv  🍁  20:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Modified to also vacate the special enforcement provisions adopted in Dec 2018. – bradv  🍁  21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm ready to turn this back over to the community to handle, without fear of reprisal at AE. Katietalk 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Ultimately the germane question to me is whether or not this enforcement provision is helping more than it's hurting. It seems clear that the specific wording of the restriction is causing a lot of problems and creating more issues than it seems to solve, because rather than focusing on conduct it's focusing on wording to determine infractions, with enforcement that is unclear and causing extra issues, especially as enforcement often comes down to just a few individuals who are then scrutinized heavily for the unenviable task of implementing ArbCom's handiwork. The fact that there's disagreement between arbitrators on this suggests it's just not a good restriction, and I'm open to letting the community take a wack at it. Right now, I think we're standing in the way of that. If it's still a problem the community can't deal with, then it's best examined in a new case.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)   Maxim (talk)  21:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Stressing that this isn't an endorsement of TRM's conduct—it is obviously still causing disruption—just an admission that this sanction isn't working and we haven't been able to come up with something better. I'd encourage a new case request if the problems continue. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) In this case, I agree that a bespoke sanction is not the right solution. This is absolutely kicking the can down the road, as the removal of this sanction should be on the understanding that we will consider a case request in the future. <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>) 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Weakly, per Joe's reasoning. Regards So  Why  20:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removing a sanction that TRM repeatedly violated, without including some sort of replacement. I would suggest letting the new arbitrators take a crack at this, but since TRM has apparently taken a hiatus, perhaps we should pause this request until he returns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  AGK  &#9632;  16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) If a report to AE results in being declined, then it probably means the sanction is either working (and it was a bad report) or it was a good report but AE cannot handle it. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that it should be lifted unless it has been proven to no longer be necessary and that has clearly not been demonstrated here. If the sanction is not working, then other alternatives should be pursued which many have been proposed in the past including reporting violations to the Arbitration Committee. <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  08:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (December 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The Rambling Man at 10:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Link to remedy


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Link to remedy
 * Removal of TBAN

Statement by The Rambling Man
Two years ago I was topic-banned from commenting on DYK (other than on my now defunct errors page) as a result of a number of issues with my approach and generally poor manner of expressing disappointment over my perception of the quality (or lack) of many hooks appearing on the main page. A year later that TBAN was adjusted such that I could review hooks if explicitly invited to do so. Another year has passed, during which I focused almost exclusively on content creation. Indeed, a third place in the WikiCup was accompanied by 13 new featured articles and 44 new good articles. So I'm honestly thrilled that I've found my mojo once again, why I started here 15 years ago: article creation/improvement and taking them all the way to the best I can achieve. Enabling me to nominate these articles for DYK would be really good, not for WikiCup points per se, but just to allow the improved articles the exposure I think the hard work I put into them deserves.

I won the April/May GAN review drive with 105 reviews in two months. and I would challenge anyone to see if they can find a review which is sub-par. I believe strongly that the main page content should be as good as it can be, and removing this TBAN would enable me to ensure that (a) I can nominate my own newly improved content (b) review others with my usual standards (in line with DYK rules of course) (c) more easily highlight issues that are on the main page in DYK which I have not been easily able to do for two years. I realise that my tone and approach two years or so ago which led to the TBAN were unnecessarily harsh and scathing, and sometimes even hurtful, and I will promise to keep that dialled to zero. I would even be delighted to be put onto some kind of probationary period, say six months, where any behaviour deemed unsuitable would result in immediate TBAN reinstatement.
 * just regarding your note about the "last year" thing, the TBAN was enacted two years ago, and was ameliorated last year to allow me to review DYKs if expressly permitted by nominators.   It was a nice thought but it didn't really work out as most nominators weren't aware of it and I couldn't approach them as that would have been a violation of the TBAN!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * unfortunately the table layouts you adopted at that list produced undesirable effects and my comments there were specifically to address them. I have worked with dozens of editors on ensuring technical aspects of MOS:DTT are upheld for readers who have challenges such as poor eyesight or a need for screen readers.  I also take the standards of FLC seriously, including 5a about "visual appeal" which I felt could be significantly improved in that case. It was unfortunate that you did not want to continue working on the list in question, but you withdrew before the discussion at the Village Pump had even concluded. And after all, I was merely one review expressing my opinion, which I believe I am entitled to do. (PS it was a criterion of FLC and I did fix it just now). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * that's why we're all advocating a probationary period. Like a "one chance and I'm dead" kind of thing.  It's risk-free from that perspective.  And to the "going off" on a tangent or different trajectory, that was all part of a singular FLC review, for which I had made a number of other comments.  That appeared to be the only contentious one and you requested closure of the nomination before it could be suitably resolved.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * there is no evidence anywhere to suggest I have had such altercations with new users.  Don't forget, this is has evolved into a probationary request. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the whole "subpage" or "express permission" thing just didn't work because no-one knew about it. Someone here claimed that DYK is all about new users so they're hardly likely to be into the nuances of such an approach.  As I mentioned a couple of times, and as the motion below now says, there is a six-month probationary period attached to this, so trying to create an unworkable sideshow isn't really the way ahead.   Did anyone suggest that approach? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot recall my reviews at FAC being in any way problematic. If you and I have disagreed on something, that is something different.  And I'd rather stay on-topic here.  If you're seeking to add a TBAN here for FAC discussions and then a probationary period for it, that's a new discussion.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete away, thanks for reminding me it was still there, I had completely forgotten. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you're right, that was an unpleasant exchange between me and and admin, culminating in that admin swearing at me without sanction or even warning of any kind. We're grown-ups and disagreed, but it's water under the bridge.  I'm sure if Floq had an issue with this then he'd have taken it further.  I'm sure if I had an issue with being told "fuck off" by an admin, I'm have taken it further.  But neither of us did because we're grown-ups and have moved on.  Indeed, the overt slur on my sexuality would, if I had issued it, resulted no doubt in a long-term block. However, this specific DYK request has a "probationary period" added to it with a "one chance" clause so it's risk-free.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't consider an error report which makes purely factual statements and then a factual request for someone to look at it after it sitting there for 48 hours to be poor behaviour. I think it speaks for itself.  Of course you haven't linked the literally thousands of error reports I have made over the last two years which have been addressed. Or even just the other four that I added for today which were resolved?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * actually this was never about being able to report errors in DYK, more about being to participate actively and fully in the DYK process. Standards at DYK have improved significantly in the last three or four years.  And as I noted in my opening statement, the vast majority of 2020 was spent creating good and featured content, and ensuring OTD was up to snuff.  That won't change, it's just about being able to submit my content to DYK and help review other's work.  Feel free  to  continue to work on DYK errors, I wouldn't want to tread on your toes there.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee
I wasn't going to make a statement because I wasn't working regularly at ERRORS two years ago and can't know how that felt to those who were. But TRM's final two sentences convince me to support a six-month probationary lifting of the TBAN with a reassessment at the end of the six months. I realize that's an addition to what TRM is proposing. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd truly hate to have that be the result. FWIW, if I don't see a kinder, gentler TRM at DYK I am quite ready to reimpose. Like seriously it should be the one place in all of Wikipedia where he never posts anything even slightly snarky. I can't offer zero tolerance -- more a "strike that now" approach -- but as someone who values very much the relatively peaceful and collaborative working atmosphere of DYK, I have no interest in putting up with anything that's going to make people reluctant to contribute there. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I'm in support of this - TRM has markedly cut back the snark, etc that he used to display. He's certainly not perfect, but what I see of him is vastly improved. Just don't backslide! Ealdgyth (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by L293D
During my time here at DYK, The Rambling Man has struck me as an editor that would always make sure the DYK criteria were met - especially when it comes to the "Is it interesting?" rule. Although I think TRM has sometimes displayed an overly negative sense of humor, I think he would be a great addition the to the DYK reviewer team. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Echoing all of my colleagues above. While I don't have much Main page experience aside for some ITN work, I, too, have noticed improvement. Therefore, I encourage the Committee to grant TRM's amendment. I think the benefit in adopting it far outweighs the risk. TRM's work has always inspired exceptional confidence for its high-quality. Looks like a no-brainer win-win. Good stuff. El_C 21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SL93
I like his work and I would only want him back in DYK if he isn't uncivil to other editors. It seems like he can likely do that. SL93 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Narutolovehinata5
I've had multiple disagreements with TRM in the past, but based on his comments above and his promise to change and behave from now on, I'm willing to agree to him being given another chance, provided that he keep his promise to keep civil. A six-month probation also seems like a decent compromise and would allow TRM to prove himself while also understanding that if he reverts to his previous behavior, the topic-ban will be reinstated. Admittedly I haven't interacted with him much ever since he was initially banned from DYK, but if his comments above truly prove that he has changed for the better, then why not give him another shot? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like to suggest that, given that many of the previous issues were linked to comments made at WP:ERRORS, that the topic ban initially be lifted only for comments at DYK nominations, meaning that he is now free to comment on any DYK nomination without the nominator's invitation; the topic ban from commenting on DYK-related matters at WP:ERRORS should remain for at least one month into TRM's probation, with the WP:ERRORS ban being lifted only if it is determined that he has managed to maintain good behavior and that the attitudes that lead to the previous issues do not reappear. In addition, he should also be encouraged to raise any issues he finds on nomination pages themselves, rather than waiting until the relevant hooks are approved and promoted to Queues so that the comments are instead made at WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After seeing Andrew Davidson's comment below, I would like to suggest TRM be "adopted" by another editor to guide them on civility matters, perhaps to train them on avoiding uncivil moments. The incident given, while a one-off, does give me pause on my continued support of this proposal. As such, I would also like to propose that, should a similar incident happen again, not only should the TBAN be reinstated, but TRM be given a temporary block. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Cwmhiraeth
I would support the lifting of the TBAN. The Rambling Man has demonstrated, in his attention to detail in the "ITN" and "On this day" discussions in connection with the main page, that he is perfectly able to avoid the type of behaviour that led to the ban. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsif
Interacting with TRM at GAN and ITN over the last few years, the snark in general has certainly become at least more friendly, and the overt disapproval towards others' views has all but disappeared - where it appears in ITN comments I take for humor. TRM is a good reviewer with a good understanding of policy and, politeness lessons seemingly learned, can only be a benefit at DYK. If restrictions are still needed, a topic ban from bringing up DYK at ERRORS should suffice. I support the amendment, and would also support a probationary period as a sign of good faith. Kingsif (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66
No. I try to avoid him in any situation, just because he has been such a difficult editor to deal with, going off a different direction at times. My only recent interaction with him recently was at FLC in October 2020. I finally withdrew my nomination, because he effectively sidetracked it by insisting I find a way to make the nomination's table look a specific way on his own browser. It even went to WP:VPT, where he was told this was about his browser, and not a Wikipedia solvable issue. It certainly wasn't an FLC criteria. I finally threw in the towel and withdrew my nomination, just to end the nonsense. That dialog is Jean Harlow FLC. Here is the VP discussion Visual differences between browsers on tables. He's too unpredictable. Just because he's not like that on DYK now ... is because he is not on DYK.— Maile (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of being even-handed on this. My statement above stands - TRM can be unpredictable, and that worries me. Above, he mentions "readers who have challenges such as poor eyesight or a need for screen readers", which was not my issue on withdrawing that FLC. But in fairness to TRM, his comment above is possibly more about his review comment, "Why is the row scope the year, not the work, after all the principle piece of information in each line in this filmography is the film, not the coincidental year of release."  I never replied to that on the nomination, because the nom was withdrawn by me.  But in answer to that issue, I happen to think TRM was correct.  Neither FLC, nor other places, have ever been consistent on that.  When it comes to screan reader accessibility, I think the majority of Wikipedia editors are unsure. But I think TRM called it correctly on that one, and he changed the way I format tables.  My issues with him are more about his tendency to get a bit harsh with individual editors, or otherwise go off a different direction other than staying on an original point . — Maile  (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Based on TRM's response to me above, I would be willing to go along with a probationary period situation. He's a smart guy, and a good editor. - there's never been an issue on his abilities. — Maile  (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, now I'm not so sure, after reading the below post by Andrew Davidson . Maybe I'll make a final decision after all have been heard, whoever "all" turns out to be.  I would like to think that was an isolated incident, but this type of behavior is why TRM got TBan in the first place.  And this latest happened just last month. Of all places on Wikipedia, DYK is the one most likely to deal with first-time nominators and editors.  Wiki Ed instructors encourage their students to post first-time nominations, many of which are imperfect. We want them to feel welcome, and what I see in the AD post is just more of the same-old same-old that. — Maile  (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make an observation here, which might be disagreeable to some (or not), but here goes. Whatever ArbCom agrees to now, or ever in the future, I don't think it would be productive to return to a situation where TRM is Tbanned from DYK, with the exception that he could set up his own DYK comment user subpage. I'm guessing that TRM didn't want that to be necessary for his input on what he perceived to be DYK errors. For lack of a better description, it gave the perception of a "review process in exile". And that's not good. It drew a handful of observers who felt his opinion had validity and needed to be considered, even acted upon. Unfortunately, it also made those (some of whom were admins) act on his suggestions without availability of full input from the DYK community. And it also made users look like they couldn't figure out errors themselves until they got sort-of "directives" from his page.  I have no issue with users/admins who value his opinion. But giving TRM the option of having a DYK comment page of his own, does seem to be a way of going around any Tban.  It didn't look good that way.   Please don't return to that situation. — Maile  (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, no one has suggested it here on this. But if I don't speak up now, and that situation is rein-stated for one reason or another, I will regret not having said anything. If they are going to give you what you request here, you should have the exact same access and input as all other non-admins for the duration of the time agreed upon. I had commented somewhere along the line at DYK when I realized the subpage was active, and the knee-jerk reaction was (I'm paraphrasing) something along the lines of "Are you saying we shouldn't know about errors?"  I just felt then, as now, that it was neither good for you nor the DYK community. — Maile  (talk)
 * I see no reason to doubt your explanation of why this situation existed. Can you name any other situations where Arbcom took away editor privileges because of "issues were with his tone and civility", but then provided the editor with an avenue around that so they continue what they were doing, but doing it on a non-project page like their user page? If not, why the special arrangement? It's like winking over the official action. If TRM has value to DYK, and Arbcom wants to give him an avenue, then it should be right on the DYK pages. DYK will survive.  He's asking for a trial chance.  I say that if we give it to him, he should be able to directly do that on the DYK pages.  As it should be with any sanctioned editor who wants a second chance. — Maile  (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Eddie891
(First time commenting here, so hope I'm getting the formatting right) In my experience, first doing some work at TRM/Errors and since following his work across GA reviewing and quite a lot of content work, I've had no bad experiences with this editor&mdash; though I understand that people have. I've also noticed a general improvement in their behaviour. I get the impression that they know what the issues with their approach were and have worked to adopt a more civil &c demeanor. I see no reason, at this point, why the TBAN should not be lifted, either in a probationary manner or completely. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
This statement is very encouraging and bodes well, but I would feel better if it went further. The "harsh and scathing" tone was not confined to DYK, and extended over a period considerably longer than two years ago. I wonder if you would be willing to make the same promise about participation at FAC, and extend the probationary period to cover FAC discussions as well? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew D.
Here's some fresh evidence of continuing incivility. TRM's user page is currently just a diff in which he is told to "fuck off princess". This is not explained and seems to be a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. If a new editor should come across this while trying to communicate with or learn more about TRM, they seem likely to find it confusing, stressful and unpleasant.

I traced this to understand the issue. The immediate cause was an incident at WP:ERRORS. Here's the timeline:


 * 1) On 4 Nov 2020, the admin Floquenbeam was handling an error report by Jmchutchinson about an item at WP:OTD to do with the history of chloroform
 * 2) TRM inserts some gratuitous snark.  This seems to be an unhelpful dig at Floquenbeam.
 * 3) Floquenbeam reverts this.
 * 4) TRM then posts a complaint at Floquenbeam's talk page explaining that he was reminding Floquenbeam "how to read" and accusing Floquenbeam of covert pretence.
 * 5) Floquenbeam forcefully tells TRM to go away.
 * 6) TRM responds with some more snark.
 * 7) Floquenbeam repeats his comment.
 * 8) More snark from TRM
 * 9) The same clear message from Floquenbeam
 * 10) A bystander remonstrates
 * 11) Floquenbeam closes the discussion, explaining their exasperation and apologising to the bystander for the unseemly incident
 * 12) TRM then posts one of the diffs on his user page.

My take on this is that there's some bad blood between TRM and Floquenbeam. TRM seizes on a minor issue and uses it as an excuse to start haranguing Floquenbeam. Floquenbeam reverts and then, when TRM follows him, tells him repeatedly to go away. Having baited Floquenbeam into responding with incivility, TRM then flaunts his trophy on his user page for all to see.

This is consistent with the previous pattern of TRM being so difficult and unpleasant that most admins refuse to deal with him at WP:ERRORS. This got so bad that TRM had to set up his own independent errors page for a while. Now that he has returned to the official page, relations have degenerated again. Arbcom should please consider tightening sanctions, rather than relaxing them.


 * For clarity, note that TRM has now reverted their user page. Meanwhile, at WP:ERRORS, they complain that, "This report has been here nearly 48 hours without response."  This is the main problem – people will walk away rather than spend their time dealing with a constant stream of complaints and negativity.  Overall participation then declines.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt
My interactions with The Rambling Man have all been pleasant, over many years, and I'd like to have him back at DYK. I am busy with celebrations, but could find as evidence more DYK reviews and GA reviews that I liked, here are two samples: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Martin Kränzle and Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine/GA1. I also found interactions pleasant when I reviewed "his" articles at FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru
TRM and I have worked on a few article projects together, and we interact quite a bit at ERRORS and elsewhere. On the few occasions when he's directed his annoyance at main-page issues in my direction, I've taken it in my stride - speaking personally it's water off a duck's back, and I know that any "abuse" I may have received in the past is only because he cares deeply about the content we show to our readers.

That said, I know others find this more stressful to deal with, and I did used to cringe sometimes at the remarks directed towards other editors in DYK and elsewhere. So I think that when the TBAN was implemented two years ago, it was the right remedy. It was clear at that time, that the bad blood between TRM and some of the DYK regulars had hit breaking point, and TRM himself reluctantly accepted that remedy. I genuinely do think the situation has improved since then though, per what's written in the nomination statement above. Other than the odd general complaint such as "I thought people checked these things", when an OTD error creeps through, his comments generally seem to be neutral in tone these days and focused on the issues rather than the editors.

So yes, definitely consider me a "support" for the proposed remedy. The built-in circuit-breaker means that people don't need to be too fearful that the old situation revives. And honestly, without getting into the saga that Andrew links above, I find it a bit laughable that TRM is being held to account for a breach of talk page and edit summary etiquette, followed by a piece of clear incivility towards him by an admin. Like I say, I get that some people are needled by TRM, and probably his initially comment was unnecessary, but ultimately he's a human being too and nobody would like being spoken to like that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to 's most recent comment regarding TRM's now-defunct WP:ERRORS2 page, I disagree that this was a bad thing. It was acknowledged by virtually everyone at the 2018 ArbCom discussion that TRM's issues were with his tone and civility, not with the quality of his error reports. Allowing him to continue reporting DYK issues at ERRORS2 was a neat solution to go alongside the TBAN, which ensured that users who didn't get on with TRM could avoid him, while the errors he found could still be fixed by those of us who were happy to frequent that page. There were a few borderline subjective cases where wording changes in DYKs were subsequently disputed, but the vast majority of the things reported there were straightforward uncontroversial error fixes and the project would have been considerably worse off had TRM not been tracking those errors. Obviously that situation was inferior to the fully-collaborative approach proposed of allowing TRM access to all the normal channels, but I wouldn't object to returning to it under similar conditions to before if full project access doesn't work. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree
As a frequent contributor to ITN and ERRORS, I would say that TRM has markedly improved his behaviour. There has much more focus from him on content creation (where he excels) and I can't recall much in the way of any incivility or arguments. I support allowing him to contribute at DYK and a probationary period will ensure if there are any problems that the sanction can be easily re-imposed. But I don't anticipate that happening. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin
Ealdgyth puts it quite succinctly. "markedly cut back the snark" ... "certainly not perfect, but [...] vastly improved" ... "Just don't backslide".

I do not find Andrew Davidson's objections fair. He characterizes most of TRM's posts in the reported exchange negatively (usually by calling them 'snark'), while "fuck off" (accompanied by the edit summary "fuck off princess") is characterized as 'forcefully telling TRM to go away'. Similarly with the complaint on WP:ERRORS: "This report has been here nearly 48 hours without response. The article in question has been on the main page nine hours....". I'm not even sure it's a complaint, more of a reminder, maybe both. Regardless, especially in light of what else TRM has posted there recently, what those two sentences certainly are not is "a constant stream of complaints and negativity".

I hope the arbirtrators take a closer look at that page as well as TRM's recent contributions there and elsewhere, and then make a decision as to whether lifting the topic ban is a good idea for the encyclopedia, but I hope they don't rely on cherry-picked incidents, summarized and characterized with hyperbole, but without balance. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As I not only appreciate but also admire what both TRM and Floq have contributed to make this a better encyclopaedia, I ask both of them to attempt not to think of past grievances in the future. Neither DYK nor any other place here ain't big enough for both of you. Quintessential truth, Ruth. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
TRM cares very much about the reliability of the project, and whilst some of the comments that led to his topic ban were clearly unduly harsh, at the time there was a somewhat cavalier attitude amongst some editors at DYK, leading to really unsuitable material, including BLP violations, being proposed for - and in some cases making it as far as - the Main Page. This does not seem to be the case now, and therefore I think the possible flashpoints may be drastically reduced. I think the motion is perfectly fine. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I'm mentioned here by Andrew D. above, but have no opinion on TRM returning to DYK. Being occasionally harassed by him is my penance for not standing up for the people he harassed before me. If he returns to DYK, I'll avoid the DYK section of ERRORS, so problem solved I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit
I've benefited considerably from all of my interactions with TRM - he's reviewed a number of my articles for GA and FA, and given me lots of useful advice and guidance which has helped me enormously. He has always been rigorous, but has been unfailingly civil and friendly in his dealings with me. All of my interactions have been in the last two years, when I first interacted with him I was a relative newb, and I've always been very receptive to his advice. I can't comment on whether he takes a different tone in interactions with editors who are less willing to listen to his advice, or with whom has has had disputes in the past, but based on my own experiences I would support lifting the ban and giving him another chance to apply his talents to this part of the project. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 10:12, 29 December 2020 (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

 * Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I'm amenable to this request. TRM approached me several months back to look into something similar, while I was ona break and while I started looking, I never did get back to him, so I'm glad he's taken it upon himself to come here. I did find a significant improvement in attitude and no deterioration in workload when I looked, so I think some sort of probation would be worth trying. That said, I'd like to hear from the community of concerns, especially those from the last year. <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>) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear more from the community and I am open to the suggestion of lifting the topic-ban under the proposed conditions. Over the past year, ArbCom has not had to address any serious issues relating to TRM which is a very positive sign and much to TRM's credit. I have been aware that some editors have expressed concerns about TRM using User:The Rambling Man/sandbox and its edit history for WP:POLEMIC. <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 20:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted


Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. I'm satisfied that although there have been incidents over the past year, we are in a place where we should be considering lifting this ban. I've suggested a standard probation, but I welcome any wordsmithing of the motion or alternatives. <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>) 14:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) This topic ban doesn't appear to be necessary any longer. –  bradv  🍁  17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I think we have to try. The probationary period empowers the community over the trial period to address any issues. At the same time, this lays forward a clear path for TRM to return to productive and collaborative editing in an area they are clearly passionate about. Broadly, if an editor can prove capable of doing so, then they should not have to live with a cloud over their head forever. The community or the next committee could always quickly reimpose the restriction, given the history, should this prove unsuccessful which I believe strikes an important balance. Best of luck to TRM on this endeavour and I hope this goes just as well for the community. <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  18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) As a probationary measure. I have never been confident of the ability of anyone here, on or off arb com, myself included, to judge the likely success of this sort of measure, so the only fair thing to do is to give it a chance.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments by arbitrators