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

.

Canvassing
This is all I have to add to this, why isn't User:Banedon being cited for canvassing too? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to have been addressed. Could Arbcom please respond to this?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry about the delay. I've explained in the comment I just left on the PD for the sake of answering two questions at once (although since you cannot comment on the PD directly feel free to put any follow-up questions/comments here and I will still respond). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Banedon notified me of the start of this process, on August 18. I don't know if that qualifies as canvassing... but how else would I have known about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OR that findings of fact as background are a Good Thing, even if they don't lead to sanctions, for the reasons they gave on the PD. If you feel you must have some follow-up note that he has already been admonished or whatever and no further action is needed at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

FoF 3.2.9
Could you reword this proposal? It appears the drafting arbs were copyediting it and accidentally forgot to delete some of the words. Mike V • Talk 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that fixes it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike V • Talk 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out Mike V, and kelapstick for fixing! So much for my triple-checks... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Background II
If the explicit scope of the case was behaviour after January 2016, why is prior activity from seven years ago listed? Stephen 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Past interactions with the Committee are generally included for context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by AHeneen

 * Administrator conduct: Should include links to WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT plus a mention about this from WP:ADMINACCT: "[a]dministrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." See Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
 * Proposed findings of fact: The scope of this was post-January 2016. If you're going to mention the 2009 arbitration case, then you should also mention all the ANI discussions about his behavior since 2014 (which themselves contain much evidence of uncivil behavior). See Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
 * George Ho canvassed users to this case: Regarding canvassing, I wrote the following on the workshop page (end of this section), which should be addressed/considered in the decision:


 * [T]here is a fine line between improper canvassing and notifying users who have something to add to the discussion. The message that I received was:
 * "I just filed an arbitration request against, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here: . Thanks, (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)"
 * The scope of the requested case in the preliminary statement by Banedon was "I'm filing this case request against The Rambling Man (TRM) for long-term civility issues." Among the appropriate notifications listed at WP:APPNOTE is (emphasis added): An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:...On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). The notification that I received was appropriate and did not fall into any of the categories at Canvassing. I should point out that not every user is active at every community page; in my case, I haven't participated in any ARBCOM proceedings before, so the page isn't on my watchlist, nor are the talk pages of any of the parties on my watchlist, so without a notice I would not have been aware of the case request, despite being the person that brought one of the ANI discussions mentioned by a party's preliminary statements (link 17 here). In fact, I was not aware of the January case and may have commented then if I had been aware of it! This is not insignificant because, as happened in this case, actions before the previous case are not considered due to double jeopardy. For me, I can't present evidence of pre-January uncivil interactions because of the admonishment of which I was never informed! Isn't it only fair that people who have something to say in a case be informed about it? The Arbitrators shouldn't take the notifications into account, given these reasons. If there is any concern, the Arbitrators should clarify the difference&mdash;vis-à-vis (i) the WP:APPNOTE criteria mentioned above and (ii) notification of people with something to say in a case when their remarks can't be used in later cases/discussions due to double jeopardy&mdash;between inappropriate canvassing and appropriate notification of relevant parties to a case concerning a user's behavior.

AHeneen (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * George Ho may engage in some disruptive editing, but I don't think it is quite as detrimental (or at least as detrimental) to the project as TRM's behavior. It seems like quite an extreme measure in comparison to TRM's punishment considering that George Ho's actions aren't within the scope of this case (or at least didn't receive significant coverage in the evidence).
 * Regarding the coverage of evidence against George Ho, most, if not all, of it was presented by George himself on the evidence page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal on me banned from contributing to the Main Page
I'm confused about the "George Ho topic banned" proposal. Besides DYK and ITN, will I be banned from also TFA, OTD, TFP, and TFL? And also Errors? What about editing articles featured on the Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes it includes TFA, OTD, TFP, TFL, and Errors (as errors is part of the talk page of the main page). It would not prevent you from fixing something linked from the main page (such as TFA or an article listed on DYK). --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is based on my involvement on ITN, isn't it? I have not submitted any evidence on my involvements in any other areas than ITN, though I was involved in DYK. Also, the scope of my involvement in the Main Page has not been widened in the case. As Calanecc said, the remedy proposal is too broad. Why not t-ban me on just ITN instead? George Ho (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about "Selected anniversaries/"? I added some candidates in some month pages. George Ho (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope seems to be that you are prohibited from editing:
 * Any content that is on, or transcluded onto, the main page.
 * Talk:Main Page and subpages of that talk page, including WP:ERRORS; the talk page of any content transcluded onto the main page
 * Any pages directly for nominating or proposing content to be placed on or transcluded onto the main page, and talk pages of those pages.
 * Any pages that form part of the process for nominating or proposing content to be placed on or transcluded onto the main page.
 * Any pages or talk pages whose purpose is discussing the process for nominating or proposing content to be placed on or transcluded onto the main page, and/or the pages used for that purpose.
 * It does not appear to prohibit you from editing content pages that are currently are or are scheduled to be featured on the main page, nor from editing their talk pages.
 * If you are unsure whether a given page is covered by your ban, then the best course of action is to assume that it is and not to edit it. If you and another editor disagree on whether a page is covered or not, then in the first instance seek input from more people. If there is no consensus then and only then you file a request for clarification. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We are still hammering out how exactly to word this proposal, but can hopefully provide more clarification once we do if you still need it. Regardless of the actual scope of the restriction, the advice Thryduulf gives in his last paragraph is good advice if a remedy like this passes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification is needed, and I see arbs working on the wording. I'll hold my patience. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird. The consensus passed the "topic ban" thing, but a lot of clarification in the alternative proposal leads to opposition on grounds of FA procedures. I am confused. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking to the case
How can I mention this case without mentioning... you-know-who? --George Ho (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WP:COMMONSENSE needs to apply here. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah you can mention the case per WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by SMcCandlish
Some of these remedies seem excessively heavyhanded and punitive, as well as wide of the mark. Why would TRM be desysopped over civility matters that don't involve use of admin tools? Why would GH be topic-banned from everything to do with the main page if he's only been problematic in one or possibly two processes that intersect the main page? This seems rather like desysopping someone for being too politically argumentative, or topic banning someone from all religion and spirituality articles because they were disruptive in edits about the finer points of Jainism. In both cases it seems like a failure to focus on the problems and tailor remedies to address them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is one of the wisest comments I've seen in this whole mess. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * regarding the desysop remedy, I agree. If we were doing a root cause analysis of this whole thing, we would find that the cause of this is not TRM being an administrator. This is why I don't see desysoping as the way to fix the issue. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that was the whole point of such a case, to identify the "root cause". If that's not what Arbcom are here to do, perhaps that should be clarified right from the start.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the point, at least for a "should we desysop?" determination, is two-fold: a) is the root cause connected with adminship, and b) is the effect connected with adminship? The answer to both of these questions seems to be "no".  Further, the nature of this request isn't really "should TRM be desysopped" it's "something has gone awry at one of the main-page-related processes and what can ArbCom do about it?" more broadly.  I don't think "TRM is a big meanie" is the root cause of that more general issue, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with SMcCandlish as well. I have yet to see an instance where TRM has abused the tools either directly (by actually pushing the buttons) or indirectly (by threatening to use them, by throwing in his weight qua 'admin' etc.).
 * If the Committee truly believes TRM's way of communicating at WP:ITN/C is the problem, then ban him from WP:ITN/C. Removing the tools won't stop what has been described as discourteuous, but it will prevent him from swiftly posting items that have been consensually deemed ready for the main page, adjusting blurbs, and so forth.
 * If the Committee truly believes TRM's way of communicating on Wikipedia in general is intolerable, then ban him from the project. Removing the tools won't stop what has been described as uncivil, but it will prevent him from using his admin tools for the benefit of the project.
 * How would desysopping him serve the project? The only thing I can think of is that it's meant as a punitive sanction in order to encourage him to change his behavior. If that is the reason, I don't expect it to work, but the part that will work for sure, is that by removing the tools we'd be preventing him from doing good work in areas where few admins tread, and where I've yet to see him having somehow abused his admin function. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur, and I say that as someone who has had a beef with TRM's occasional civility lapses (which also didn't involve admin tools or position, either). Removing his adminship doesn't seem to relate, and probably wouldn't serve the project's interests; a simple admonition to be more civil is probably sufficient.  By way of TV police drama analogy, don't treat Andy Sipowicz like he's Vic Mackey; a cantankerous cop and a psycho criminal one are not the same thing. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Judging by some of the comments above, I think some of the contributors to this thread need to read, or re-read, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * SMC is bang on - Desysopping TRM over incivilty is extremely heavy handed here (I'm not saying we should roll over however there must be a better way than this), I personally have no issue with TRM however lets be honest he isn't going to change and desysopping him won't benefit him, us or the project!, I don't agree with GH being topic banned either as it just going to be confusing as hell to enforce and it's not like he's been disruptive on everything to do with the Main Page either...... Anyway just thought I'd throw my perhaps unhelpful 2cents in. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Desysopping over incivility is extreme, but I fully understand why some of my colleagues support it. I fully understand why some of the editors involved in this case support it. This is the most challenging vote I've cast since I joined the committee, and my vote can easily be read as weaseling out. I do not enjoy posting this in the same thread in which and  have posted and I find it difficult to look them in the eye (metaphorically speaking). I do think that a significant number of TRM's awful comments were...what's the word...I used the word "provoked", but now I'm not even sure if that's the right word. He does not suffer fools gladly, that is obvious. Some of the things he has said about Ed (not a fool), for instance, are just awful and there is no excuse for them. (Don't ask me to cite: I think I looked at every single diff in the entire ArbCom proceedings and at a lot of the diffs in the diffs--I looked at hundreds over the last two days.) And he should have been blocked for them, and hopefully with #3 passing he will be, if he makes those kinds of comments again. I'm sorry, Ed, and I wish I could say in any convincing manner why I abstained, except to see I don't feel like I'm letting him get away with it. I always tell my students "don't feel--argue!" and yet I can't do that very well here. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never been one for the "admins are role models" argument, but there is a case for saying that they are put in a position of trust regarding their behaviour when the community gives them the tools. Repeatedly abusing other editors is surely an abuse of this trust. As someone who has interacted with TRM and seen his incivility first-hand, I recall my first reaction to learning that he was an admin was one of surprise and dismay as I couldn't imagine how he had passed his RFAr. For sure, if he was seeking to pass an RFAr now, with everything that is on record about his conduct, I'm sure he wouldn't be given the tools no matter how good his editing has been. He either hid his tendency for incivility at the time or developed it afterwards - who knows. Either way, something has changed for the worse since his RFAr and he is clearly not operating at the same level as he was when he first became an administrator. Is desysopping the answer to that? I don't know, but I think it's necessary to acknowledge that he's not living up to the standards that were expected of him at the time of his RFAr. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: RFAr = request for arbitration. RFA = Request for Adminship. Clearly you mean the latter. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Some additional observations:


 * 1) I object to "The Rambling Man: Background II". Going back to 2009 and an issue as ancient-history as date delinking (and TRM was on the consensus not anti-consensus side of that dispute, I might add) is "right out".  Every single time I have attempted to use evidence more than a year or two old in any ArbCom or AE proceeding, I have been castigated for it and had it thrown out, and was even boomerang-sanctioned for doing so in one case.  It is completely inappropriate for ArbCom itself to be going that far back in old news to try to "dig up dirt".  For another thing, it also flies in the face of the general principle that we trust that editors learn from their mistakes and that we apply critical thinking not knee-jerk reactions.  There's not even a surface similarity between temperamental responses to other editors in main-page-related disputes today and 2009 editwarring to remove over-linking dates.  It's like trying to draw a parallel between someone driving too fast and liking spicy food.
 * 2) To get to the real heart of the overall matter, which is about civility and other behaviors surrounding main page "things" in general, not TRM in particular: I agree with JzG's earlier observation that issues like the excessively proprietary demands, hostile dismissiveness, etc., that are surrounding DYK, ITN, etc., also arise anywhere that "badge collecting" is in the mix.  While JzG did not comment specifically on another similar molehill-cum-mountain, I will: cf. all the drama surrounding anti-MoS, anti-infobox, and anti-WP:CITEVAR "activism" at WP:FAC, WT:FAC, and similar pages (WP:GAN, WP:PR, FAs' and GAs' individual talk pages, spilling over onto WT:MOS, etc.).  It's the same "screw any rules and any editors that get in the way of me collecting another badge I want" behavior problem, and yes, it does raise the frustration level and lower the patience threshold of various people. These badge-collecting exercises exist for one reason only: to help cajole editors into constructive contributions.  When, and to the extent that, they do the opposite then they are wandering into WP:NOTHERE territory and need to be rethought or even closed (cf. WP:Esperanza and various other things WP has closed the curtains on after they proved more trouble than they were worth).  ITN in particular is of dubious merit, per WP:NOT policy and because it is extremely frustrating for readers. (It appears to be a listing of news stories, but is instead just links to keywords in news-style headlines, keywords that lead to WP article that may not elucidate the news item in any way. It's a bait-and-switch.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the 2009 finding being too old, but objecting is about all that can be done. On badge-collecting, that tends to refer more to attaining rights and positions (administrator, arbitrator, bureaucrat, etc.). The phenomenon of collecting article-related credits is a different phenomenon, and often the motivation there is simply a pure desire to improve the content of the encyclopedia. That can be done to excess (and sometimes incompetently) at DYK and ITN and GA, but many of those those working at FAC are (genuinely) among the best writers we have (and the reviews tend to be better). It is grossly unfair to cast those active in featured article writing as badge collectors. The Esperanza example you keep using is still very wide of the mark (that was something completely different). Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that meant by "badge collecting" exactly what I meant here (though I'm less certain he'd agree with GA/FA being among those processes, for some editors). He was talking about the badge-collecting nature of the front page processes and such-like, unless I somehow misread him very badly.  This is distinct from "hat collecting", the attempt to collect as many WP:USERRIGHTs as possible on the way to (or in lieu of) adminship, especially in rapid succession, by new-ish editors, without doing anything project-useful with them. Regardless of definitions, I stand by my own point that it's the visible-reward-collecting nature of these processes (closely akin to editcountitis – there's not much difference between "I'm better than you because I have 20 GAs and 5 FAs but you you only 4 GAs" and "I'm better than you because I've been here 8 years with 75,000 edits while you've only been here 2, with 15,000 edits") that leads to these front-page processes being roiling pots of strife.  I get that you don't agree GA/FA are among them and are leaping to the defense of everyone involved in them categorically; I'm simply taking note of problematic behaviors at them that you're not, and the same positive spin you put on most (!= all) GA/FA participants also applies to ITN, etc., participants. It's about the process and the "carrot" that it offers, not every single individual in the process, for many of whom the carrots are not an enticement.  The problems arise, in all these processes, from those for whom they are big deal. Esperanza is perfectly fine as an example of what I said it's an example of: Something accepted initially by consensus as harmless or even useful, but eventually shut down because it proved more trouble than it was worth. I suggested no further analogy between them, and can easily provide other examples (or you can yourself; just look at what transcludes Historical, rule out those that simply petered out, and you'll quickly find some stuff that was actively shut down; same if you go through MfD history in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but the Historical trick is faster).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In the evidence, I brought up the 2009 FoF on edit warring and the resulting admonishment. I did so directly tying it to new evidence from post-January of this year showing edit warring. Frankly, when I first read the PD and saw ArbCom bringing up the 2009 admonishment, I was expecting a FoF further down concluding that TRM had edit warred since January of this year. I do not understand why ArbCom is including a reference to the 2009 finding here if they aren't pursuing the edit warring. It does not seem relevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"The Rambling Man topic-banned" proposal
Predictably, the proposal as a whole wouldn't pass. However, why not separate the areas that he was working at? --George Ho (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When I draft arbitration cases I don't tend to include remedies I don't intend to support unless I know other arbitrators wish to support them. I'm not aware of arbitrators who wish to include a more granular version of this motion, though if there are any, they should feel free to add it (or ask me to do so). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I-Ban and request for adminship
I will be fine with me and TRM banned from interacting with and mentioning each other. However, what if TRM is desysopped and then requests to get his adminship back? What if I want to comment on his past adminship at the request page? --George Ho (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to. Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  11:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"... is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."
Can an objective definition of "insulting" and/or "belittling" be provided please. Of course, anything I may say or do in the future may be taken, out of context, as "insulting" or "belittling". Who is responsible for determining whether or not my future posts are "insulting"? E.g. if I said that "You seem to lack the competence to edit here, read the instructions.", would that be "insulting", or "belittling" or simply using Wikipedia's essays, guidelines, and direct information? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not avoid that problem by focusing on the text produced by the editor, rather than the editor him/herself? You can e.g. say that a text that lacks the required quality is below the expected standards. You can then point to the instructions without having to invoke competence. But if you need to say that an editor is incompetent based on the editing history, and that the refusal to read the instructions is dragging down things, then why not go to AN/I and argue for a topic ban based on competence issues there? Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that misses the point. TRM could say something he thinks is civil albeit blunt (eg: "this hook is awful, the prose is unreadable, I count four BLP violations where content is unsourced, and the Daily Star should not be used. Honestly, who thought this rubbish could be put up on the main page?") that does not name any editor, yet could still be dragged to this board for punishment enforcement. Repeat for a few iterations and suddenly the redlink Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 3 will turn blue. What a dramah-fest. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Iblis – but somewhat also with Ritchie, to the extent that occasionally blunt (but still civil) language may be appropriate, in some situations.
 * There's nothing mysterious about "insulting and/or belittling." Those are straightforward verbs readily understood by any literate person. As I said in August (in a repeat of a comment last January):
 * TRM at times seemingly couldn't resist the urge to employ vituperative, spiteful, belittling language. While such repartee may pass as humor among old friends ... among others it inevitably engenders resentment, personal animosity and angry responses in kind.
 * My suggestion is, TRM should be enjoined from any and all pejorative remarks or insinuations about the motives, character and good faith of other editors, and direct his comments solely to the editorial issue/s at hand in a polite manner. In other words, don't get personal. Sca (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess it's a little late to comment on this now, but I'm inclined to agree that a simple remedy prohibiting the respondent from commenting on contributor would probably be less prone to interpretation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Recovered comments from Medeis
I was able to recover Medeis' comments that were removed from the project page: --Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC) --Medeis (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC) There you go. --George Ho (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you George. I am sure you understand why these comments were removed by Jehochman. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Processes related to determining main page content
Several of the proposed remedies use the phrase "processes related to determining main page content". How will this work in regards to sections dealing with featured content? Will the prohibition be limited to the portions of the featured content processes that select and display information on the Main page (e.g. WP:TFA, WP:TFL, and WP:POTD) or will this extend to the portions of the processes that determine what content is qualified to be recognized as featured content? Another way to ask this is "does the phrase cover pages such as WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:FPC, and their related subpages?" --Allen3 talk 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See also my reply to George Ho further up this page, but my interpretation is that he is prohibited from editing and commenting on both the WP:TFA and WP:FAC, but not from editing the articles featured nor from commenting on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This will set a precedent, and some policies will need to be changed accordingly.
The first line of WP:ADMINACCT reads "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." What a joke. Looking at the voting now, that line should be removed, WP:ADMINCOND should have the line "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)" removed and the line in WP:CIVILITY "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia" should have a little note added saying "Doesn't apply to admins or great content creators". jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That'll be the voting where The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors … [if] The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked is currently passing 6–0? &#8209; Iridescent 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jcc, why do you want administrators to be exceptions to Civility policy? --George Ho (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect is looking at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Proposed decision. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

331dot

 * If you don't like how the committee votes or how they interpret policies, remember that when the next elections come around. (#3 has unanimous support; him being banned from insults by the committee) 331dot (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't, they are being sarcastic. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about notifications
Generally no comment on the proposed decision - after all I can't be more involved and everything I see is through a pair of very biased eyes. I trust Arbcom to do something appropriate.

One question: I'd like to notify Flyer22 Reborn and Jimbo Wales about the case now: Flyer22 because she's cited in my initial statement, and Jimbo because people regularly complain about civility on his talk page. Can I do so? Banedon (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The opinion of Jimbo Wales is of no more value than that of anyone else here, and his problems with civility are well-known. For every person who still values his opinion, you can probably find another who will by default consider the oppostie position of Jimbo Wales's as the place where you can probably find truth and wisdom. While he, like everyone else, is free to comment here, I don't see why you would single him out unless you believe that a) he will agree with you and b) his opinion will still have influence with some within the arbcom. This seems like obvious canvassing. Fram (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jimbo "utter fucking bullshit" Wales eh ;) <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Fram - neither, I want to notify him because I think he will be interested. If this counts as canvassing, I'm happy to wait until the proposed decision is posted and then only notify him (and Flyer22 Reborn too). Banedon (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed decision is already posted :-) Did you mean "wait until the case is closed"? Fram (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Was thinking in terms of ITN terminology there - when a blurb is "posted" it means it's put into the template box and the nomination is effectively closed. There is no more canvassing after the case is closed and I can notify whoever I think may be interested, right? Banedon (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, yes absolutely. Fram (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Fram here that notifying users that a PD has been posted does not bear the same canvassing concerns as notifying them about case requests, evidence, or workshop phases. Feel free to do so if you wish. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Clerks: Page instructions
The notice at the top of this page demands that anyone not of ArbCom/clerks post only in their section. That's routinely ignored, both in this case and many other cases. Every case this year has seen this instruction ignored in one or more sections of PD talk pages. I fail to see the necessity for the instruction, and frankly it makes discussion extremely broken and haphazard. Of course, the instructions on this page say its not for discussion, but statements. Why? That's rather pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. The requirement has not been enforced consistently, and this somewhere we could really improve. I hope you appreciate the email to clerks-l I'm CC-ing you on. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (awaiting e-mail) Honestly though, I think "enforcing" it is the wrong, wrong way to go. We need discussion, not statements. What is the point of statements? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen the e-mail. Thanks for that. It's a well reasoned e-mail, and sounds like a good plan. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT / WP:ADMINCOND
To preface; I'm not suggesting we need a pound of flesh from anyone. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite of that. The following has nothing directly to do with TRM, and everything to do with WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:5P4 juxtaposed with WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND.

An administrator could (and has) openly declare(d) to be a dick, goon, ignoramus, dictator, pathetic, joke, lazy, incompetent, liar, less of a man, and coward.

Certain members of ArbCom are opposed to a desysopping because there's been no abuse of tools. Further, apparently, if one's conduct won't improve if you are desysopped, then you won't be desysopped. If the the only basis on which an administrator can be desysopped is (really) abuse of tools, then I agree; WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND need to be changed to reflect that an administrator's conduct has no bearing on their position as an administrator. With this 'remedy' ArbCom is acknowledging that administrators are not expected to lead by example when it comes to civility, and just let them be uncivil and insulting since desysopping won't improve their behavior.

ArbCom can't write policy. They can ignore it (and often do), but they can't write it. It is up to us, the community, to rewrite WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND to reflect the reality of the status quo; administrators are not to be held accountable for their conduct any more so than a non-administrator, and in fact have greater leeway in conduct than non-administrators. This of course won't happen. The result being the status quo will be maintained; If you're not an administrator, don't dare call anyone a dick or you will be blocked. If you are an administrator, it's ok.

I don't care if TRM's desysopped. I really don't. It has no direct bearing on me (I banned TRM from my talk page over a year ago, and we haven't interacted since), and I couldn't care less. What I do care about is the very serious civility problems we have on this project, and ArbCom's unwillingness to do anything about it when presented with gross misconduct both here and in other cases.

I wonder how long it would take for me to be blocked if I called a member of ArbCom a dick, goon, or dictator? Since I'm not an administrator, probably not long at all. The delicious hypocrisy here of course would be if someone warned me of WP:POINT disruption. ArbCom itself is disrupting this project by refusing to uphold one of our fundamental principles. They are tangibly creating an environment where administrators can do as they please with open impunity. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can call me a dick all you like; I don't really care. I do not know yet how my particular vote is going to go, and I don't know because desysopping is just about the most serious thing we can do. But I object to the suggestion that if someone does not vote to desysop, that means they think admins are untouchable. My colleague Kelapstick says the offenses don't rise to desysop level--I may disagree, but that doesn't mean I think K-stick has sold his Canadian soul to the devil. The way you phrase it, you are presenting a pretty clear but false dichotomy: if we desysop TRM we are doing something according to policy, and if we don't we don't give a toss about policy, community, civility. That's false. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the beginning of my post here, this isn't about TRM. It is about ArbCom's approach (or rather, lack thereof) to civility on this project. I don't mean to call out any particular arbitrator, which is why I avoided stating any names. I do find the point that we shouldn't desysop someone for being uncivil because desysopping them wouldn't cause them to stop being uncivil to be, frankly, absurd. It doesn't matter if it would improve their behavior or not. Remedies can, have, and should cover more than just the impact on a particular editor's behavior. We take actions against people all the time without giving a toss whether it will improve their behavior, but instead whether such actions will improve the project. If an administrator goes off the rails and, despite many attempts to correct their behavior, they continue to go off the rails, the needs of the project outweigh any notion that we might be able to get one editor to improve their behavior.
 * I wasn't attempting to raise any dichotomy regarding TRM, much less a false one. As I said, I don't care what happens to him. I have my own extremely negative opinions about him which I will not voice here. My opinions inform me of how to behave with regards to him; I've banned him permanently from my talk page. I'm far from the only one that has done that. I try to avoid areas such as DYK, as I know he dominates the discussions in such areas. If I do post in such places, I takes pains to ensure I am not responding to him or in any way referencing him. As a result of these measures on my part, TRM and I haven't interacted for 15 months. So, what happens to him is irrelevant to me. I simply don't care.
 * My point was to note the disparate treatment non-administrators receive compared to administrators, and that disparate treatment is not echoed in WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND. Worse, that treatment is directly opposite to what that policy says it should be. I also find it highly unsettling that while 11 arbitrators (so far unanimous) would vote in support of the Administrator Conduct principle, some would immediately turn around and vote to do nothing about serious, egregious, previously warned, long term violations of that same conduct principle. I've seen more than one arbitrator and several administrators discount desysopping as a possible action here because no abuse of tools were involved. So then why even raise administrator conduct? To uphold it and then ignore it? That's senseless. The only sense that we, the community, could reasonably draw from it is "do as we say, not as we do." Wonderful principle there. Yet, that's precisely the message you are sending to the community.
 * ArbCom would be far better off, and far less hypocritical, by removing the Administrator Conduct principle and removing the desysopping remedy entirely. Keeping both, while voting unanimously for the former, and voting down the latter sends a giant middle finger to the community.
 * It's as if you have one person in priestly robes upholding the great policy book of Wikipedia, declaring how insightful, uplifting, and wise it is. Meanwhile, you have another person telling the first person "Learn to read, you ignorant dick! Take your lazy, incompetent goon squad elsewhere, and leave Wikipedia to the adults! You are a coward and a liar, and are less of a man than I!"...and then upholding the latter person. If you think I'm creating a hypothetical scenario, I'm not. I'm only slightly paraphrasing. But again, this isn't about TRM, but rather that you are allowing this situation to exist. That's not on TRM. That's squarely on ArbCom. That ArbCom allows it is directly disruptive to the community.
 * I'm sorry ArbCom has such a tough job. I wish it were simpler. I do. I know you come under a lot of criticism for your decisions, deserved and undeserved. But one easy way to make your jobs simpler is just simply follow and uphold the policies we have here. Either WP:5P4 means something or it doesn't. Right now, you're unequivocally stating that WP:5P4 is meaningless in so far as administrators are concerned. And with that, you make your jobs a hell of a lot more complicated, and you very strongly affect the community in a very negative way. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, this "you" slippage is all too easy--slippage between singular and plural. I am not saying anything about 5P4. One of us made one comment in one specific case; you cannot make that apply to all of us in all cases. Ask OR about it (I think it was her, no?); please don't generalize. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am generalizing and will continue to do so because I have seen similar behavior from ArbCom before and will very likely see it in the future. If you don't like it, change ArbCom to stop it. *I* am not the problem here; ArbCom is. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you are generalizing and so I guess I should stop responding, since I can only speak for myself. Speaking for myself, I disagree with almost everything but your grammar, which is mostly impeccable. One more thing: you may have said you don't want a pound of flesh, but I find that your section of evidence is most beautifully laid out and quite well selected. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, if you disagree with me in particular, you should just say that... ;) That said, I don't think this one is really so hard to unpack. TRM is a grouch. His mopping is fine. So to make him be less grouchy, we should publicly take his mop away? That doesn't sound very practical. Also, you should check out the ACN archives; you'll see we get called dictators all the time. Nobody this year has been blocked for mocking arbs about arb stuff. (Don't listen to Drmies about the souls, though - we all gave them away when we got here, assuming we had them to start with. I sold mine off years ago....) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that you've completely missed 's argument. ;-) Civility is part of the expectations of being an administrator, and you'll note that motion one is worded "For conduct unbecoming an administrator ..."—that TRM hasn't misused the actual literal tools of blocking etc. doesn't factor. TRM being uncivil, which you seem to endorse as per motion three, would still be "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" as defined by policy at WP:ADMINCOND. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand his argument, I just don't agree. For one thing, "this person is doing good work but is impolite, how should we fix that?" is not usefully answered with "stop him from doing good work in an area where he's not impolite". It's like trying to stop someone from driving like a jerk by sending him a citation for trash in his yard. It's not a logical consequence and does nothing to solve the underlying issue - for some reason a lot of this discussion is focusing on "an admin is being rude" but overlooking the fact that he's been rude mostly in specific contexts and in reaction to specific problem behaviors on the part of other editors. (Speaking for myself, I don't care that much about the main page itself - to a first approximation, nobody clicks anything there except the search box and sometimes the TFA - but I do care about people failing to do reasonable research or match sources to article text accurately, and processes encouraging those bad habits. That seems like at least as big a problem as someone being rude, in a project whose goal is producing accurate content.) In addition, "incivility" is far too squishy a concept, and has far too many competing definitions, to be "unbecoming" behavior on its own. Harassment, outing, chronic copyvio, abusive socking - those are serious misbehaviors that plausibly warrant a desysopping in the absence of tool misuse. The best response to ordinary assholery is a) ignore it, b) tell the asshole to knock it off, and if necessary c) block the asshole for a while. That's true regardless of what user rights someone's account holds. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To Opabinia regalis; It is extremely rare that I would call out a particular member of ArbCom over any issue. I think the last time I did was 4 years ago. In that case, the behavior exhibited was not one that I had seen exhibited by other members of ArbCom. When I see behaviors exhibited by multiple members of ArbCom (whether currently sitting or no), calling out a particular member of ArbCom that exhibits that behavior is wrong from a number of points. Most topically, it isn't the ArbCom member's fault per se, but rather that our community has developed in such a way that multiple members of ArbCom behave in that way. I do not disagree with you in particular. If I did, it is very likely I would contact you directly, rather than on-wiki. I hope that clarifies this. If not, please let me know and I will take another swipe at it.
 * To Drmies; Thank you for the compliments on my grammar. I do try. I'm not always perfect, but I do try. To the pound of flesh; as I said at the outset of this subsection that I had already made a statement against that. I find it curious that you would accuse me of being after a pound of flesh for laying out evidence in a case where you, ArbCom, said the scope of the case was "Disputes involving The Rambling Man after the motion enacted January 26. The Committee will also hear evidence setting those disputes in context, particularly on matters related to ITN and DYK." Since I don't edit at ITN and rarely edit at DYK, it's hardly surprising my evidence would be focused where it was. You asked us to do this and now criticize those who present evidence to that scope as after a pound of flesh? Rather bizarre.
 * More abstractly, I want to make it clear why I came to this case and submitted a statement, and later, evidence for it.
 * First, it was never to go after TRM. I was the one who gave an "extremely strong warning to strictly identify the scope of this case" in my statement, and was also the one who begged for this case to not be named "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man". If I'd wanted a pound of flesh from TRM, a wide open scope would be preferable. While the scope was restricted (thank you) the case name request was ignored. As a result, we have a badly tilted case against TRM. This is a point raised by TRM as well. If I'd wanted to go after TRM, I would want the case named for him, as I know from my own research that doing so would guarantee sanctions against him. Yet, I argued against that. If I'd wanted a pound of flesh from TRM, I could have and would have gone after TRM via WP:DR a long, long time ago. I had ample basis on which to do so. I have said here repeatedly that I do not care what happens to TRM. You can either WP:AGF that that is what I meant, or believe I am lying, and have some secret ulterior motive.
 * Second, I wasn't canvassed to come to this case. I have Arbitration/Requests/Case watchlisted.
 * Third, my greater interest in this case was regarding civility issues on this project. I have long stated, in multiple venues, my concern that the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies are void. More than five years ago, at another ArbCom case, I said in regards to the WP:CIVIL policy "However, the reality is that policy is empty. It rarely gets enforced with respect to experienced editors, even in seriously egregious cases. I seriously doubt ARBCOM has the fortitude to put some teeth back into WP:CIVIL and cause a culture change." This remains a long standing problem on this project. Even in this case, though it appears sanctions will be made regarding civility, quite a few members of ArbCom have been equivocal in their stance. I hear words of provocation, out of context, so much good work, so many edits, so few mistakes, etc. I routinely see newer editors getting banned from the project for insulting someone just once. Yet, administrators...who by POLICY...have even less allowance to be insulting can be so essentially forever and almost never face any sanctions for it. Should blocks happen in these cases? Absolutely, as one member of ArbCom noted on the main PD page. Will such blocks ever happen, or if they do, be allowed to stand? In practice, absolutely not. That's a cultural problem, one that I sought to aid, even if by nudging the pebble forward one centimeter. That's why I came here.
 * Now, once the workshop phase evolved, I saw an opportunity to further use this case to demonstrate the need for reforming our case naming system. So, I posted a FoF in the workshop regarding this, and a remedy as well. One arbitrator showed interest, but I would not be surprised if this is generally ignored.
 * If anyone wants to believe I have some other motive, so be it. I've been completely honest here. Anyone who instead wishes to ascribe maleficent intent to me has only a mirror to accuse. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is extremely rare that I would call out a particular member of ArbCom over any issue. OK, I've made this dumb joke so many times now that whoever currently owns the Star Trek franchise should be charging me licensing fees, but: We're not the Borg. Arbcom is made of (at the moment) 14 "particular members" with (at least) 14 different opinions on things. Drmies is right to object to the over-generalization; I'm not speaking for anyone but me, and if you disagree with something I said in the course of entering my own vote, then "arbcom as an institution" is hardly the right place to aim your criticism. As for your other comments: you say arbcom should "cause a culture change" in relation to civility. I disagree. Arbcom's remit does not extend to "culture changes". I especially dislike the idea that specific individuals should be sanctioned in pour encourager les autres fashion, as avatars of some vaguely defined but undesirable "culture". Also, on the case naming thing: I do kind of like the idea of numbered rather than named cases (but then, I'm a numbers person). However, I don't think you've made your case. If someone files a case request about Joe Bloggs, and arbcom accepts it and calls it "Joe Bloggs", that indicates a very high prior probability that Joe Bloggs is a problem. In order to demonstrate your "anchoring" hypothesis, you'd need to show that title parties are sanctioned in excess of that prior probability, not simply show that title parties are sanctioned more often than non-title parties. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's blatantly apparent that I've not been able to be clear despite a wall of text. So, saying anything else to clarify my position will not work. None of what has been attributed to me here is correct. Oh well. I guess it'll have to be. I do want to say just a few more things; I never asked for nor wanted someone to be made an example of. I find it ridiculously absurd that if I generalize, nothing can be done because ArbCom isn't the Borg and therefore ArbCom isn't wrong. If I don't generalize, then ArbCom's not at fault, just one arb, and therefore ArbCom isn't wrong. Whatever. I don't care. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hammersoft, I guess I don't get it, because I don't think I said anything about whether or not arbcom is wrong. I'm in the minority on the desysopping vote, so kind of by definition I think arbcom is (about to be) wrong on at least one thing here... Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment! ArbCom can't be wrong, because it's not monolithic! ;) (sorry, couldn't resist) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Drmies - Desysopping isn't nearly the most serious thing Arbcom can do imo. Indef'ing is the most serious thing Arbcom can do, and it's arguable that a year-long block is more serious as well. I think the proposed decision right now is pretty light, but I trust Arbcom to do what is appropriate. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , you are incorrect--imo. You can ask to be unblocked; you can't ask to be resysopped--not in the same way. And if adminship is a big deal, and a token of trust, then having that yanked is painful. Ask anyone who was desysopped. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comes down to personal opinion I guess. If adminship isn't a big deal (or so Jimbo, several participants at RfA, and some admins say), then not being an admin is also not a big deal. One can file an RfA at any time, but indefinite blocks typically come with some variant of "you cannot appeal this for 12 months". Further, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone" can edit (itself a token of trust), getting indefinitely blocked would give one fewer editing privileges on Wikipedia compared to most of the world population of 7 billion. I view an indefinite block as more serious, but it is personal opinion. Banedon (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The corollary to your comments regarding deysopping is the Super Mario Problem. If an administrator misbehaves in a manner that is unrelated to the use of their tools (as is the case here) they should receive the same sanction that someone who was not an administrator who behaved in the same manner would get. If their conduct is such that they are no longer suited to being an administrator then they should be desysopped for that reason, independently of and as well as receiving a sanction for their misbehaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Instead it is the opposite. If someone behaves in this way who is not an administrator, they would likely be blocked. If someone behaves this way who is an administrator, they cannot be de-sysoped because they have not abused their administrator tools, and other action will not be taken against them because they are an administrator and therefore they can only be blocked or have other serious sanctions taken against them after they lose their administrator rights. MPS1992 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Enforcement is important, this means that the community when writing policy pages like ADMINCOND should take enforcement issues into account. E.g. you can think of a noticeboard where people can complain about problematic behavior. ArbCom should (and usually does) draft its remedy with enforcement issues in mind, but it seems that the previous time TRM was restricted to behaving nicely they dropped the ball on this issue. This time the relevant remedy (Remedy 3) is formulated better, TRM will be hauled to AE if he crosses the line. Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The wording of the remedy does not suggest that Arbitration Enforcement may be invoked by any passing editor. It says that only other administrators should make the decision to take any action. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So this time ArbCom double-pinky swears they mean it? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Has TRM retired?
I notice this afternoon The Rambling Man has deleted his user page per WP:CSD and blanked his user talk page. This suggests he's pretty much on the verge on quitting Wikipedia. I hope not, as we've lost too many prolific editors recently, not least who never showed any signs of incivility at all. This has got to stop. I want all the arbs to take a long hard look at what in particular has said and wonder if all this editor attrition is really necessary? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No one likes to see an editor retire,, but the idea that we should throw our civility policies out the window for anyone who threatens to retire is ludicrous. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it's unfortunate to see an editor depart, I think it's more likely that TRM is taking his time to collect his thoughts. At the time of the previous arbitration case involving TRM, he deleted his user pages and announced his retirement. About a week later, he was back in action. I fully recognize that arbitration is a difficult process for anyone to go through, especially one who has contributed a fair amount of time to the project. Thus, it's entirely reasonable for him to take some time away from Wikipedia. (I know I would probably do the same if I were in his shoes.) Once things have settled, I hope TRM does decide to come back and continue his work on the article development process. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not TRM has retired is not relevant to this case. (please Ritchie, I'm not calling you out with the following) I think we should be stringently avoiding using what might be (or might not be) retirement as the basis for a call to action anymore than anyone should be delighting in what might be his departure. We don't know what TRM is doing, and even if we could rightfully conclude what he is doing, we don't know why in particular. Myself, TRM and I think at least one other have noted there were serious problems in the naming of this case and how it was constructed, in that it badly tilted the table against TRM. There's little doubt TRM was victimized by this case. THAT is a call to action, one to which ArbCom had better start paying attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever TRM might be, a victim he is not. Incivility is a choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And TRM has an absolute right to choose whether or not he wants to contribute to the project. If he's decided he no longer wants to, that's his prerogative. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It's a volunteer project. But we can't discern if someone is actually retiring unless they disappear for a substantial length of time. (To say it Yogi Berra style, we don't know if they've retired until they don't come back.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Ed said. If there ever comes a time when an editor can hold the rest of us hostage by threatening to retire, we can close down the project. In this particular case as well, we have several editors saying they are less inclined to participate because of TRM's behavior. If TRM really does retire, we can hope they (and other new editors) will pick up the slack. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if those editors are lining up to stand at WP:RFA. Good job there's been plenty of recent appointments to offset the exodus at WP:FORMER. Oh, wait.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Either civility is a pillar or it is not. One cannot demand that other users refrain from incivility and at the same time excuse it in administrators. TRM had plenty of opportunity to reform - indeed, I myself would not even have participated here had he not persisted in abusive commentary even as the case continued. That rang very loud alarm bells for me, as it strongly indicated that he lacked either the means or the will to moderate - and certainly, there hasn't been a word of contrition from TRM that I've seen during this case, or even an acknowledgement of a problem. If TRM feels so bad about losing the extra bit that he has to quit Wikipedia, maybe he should have given some more thought to his position before the arbs started voting. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the closing of this thread, but I do wish to register my objection to the reference to "grave dancing" made in the closing statement, which in my opinion is completely inappropriate and a clear breach of WP:AGF. Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote on my talk page, it was over-stated and apologies if anyone was offended. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice job
Nice job you guys. Today, a stellar admin has been desysopped and a prolific editor seems to have quit. He won't bother you anymore. But hey, at least we still got George Ho, even if two of you wanted him indeffed. Isa (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll summarize here what I said on your page a little while ago: De-sysopping TRM just doesn't seem right, ethically speaking. For me, he's been very difficult to deal with as an editor, but I've not had any problems with him as an admin that I can recall; in fact I think he has helped from time to time. I'm saddened if it comes to de-sysopping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll second what Baseball Bugs has said. Very disappointed that an admonishment to be more civil (which I agree with) was not given a chance to work. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Could one of you arbs who voted desysop change you mind? Not because then I could vote for you, but for sense? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare my evidence: TRM criticized a few of my DYK nominations, but always respectfully so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He was given an admonishment (for all intents and purposes) in January of this year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you- but to me that seems more like a warning than an official sanction/admonishment, as this case is{"The committee notes", not an official prohibition/admonishment). 331dot (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the characterization, this sentence is key: "" :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho topic banned
The proposal that George Ho be topic banned from the main page states "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." What this means in practice is that, if the remedy was enacted on 10 October 2016, he could request the ban be lifted on 10 October 2017, 10 April 2018 and 10 October 2018, but not 11 October 2017 or any other intermediate day. Is this really your objective? Would it not be better to replace the sentence with "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, or any time thereafter." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that just perhaps they mean ""He may request reconsideration of this ban at the earliest twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and at the earliest six months after each unsuccesful appeal" but that they thought that would be clear to most people without the need to spell it out... Fram (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Fram has it right. It's standard wording that was in use long before my stint on ArbCom and this is the first time I'm aware anyone has not understood it to indicate the minimum times before appeals, not limiting to exact dates. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fram's wording is better than the present wording. I was previously unfamiliar with ArbCom proceedings but the fact that this is standard wording does not preclude its improvement to remove ambiguity. I found it unclear after all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot more comments by George Ho
Yes, I made a huge deal over a minor issue about commas. However, so did someone else, which started two days after I reported the same. But is that not relevant? Is this inadmissible? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor issue (Comma thing) I made a huge deal with per Clause #4 of "George Ho is disruptive"

I do not blame you for your decisions on me, Arbs. However, I requested another case about an unrelated editor. Would this conflict proposals about me in relations to this case? --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another unrelated crisis

Question to Arbcom
Just wondering: why did you direct that George Ho (and George Ho only) be added as a party in this case? Banedon (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

And at the 11th hour, the active arbitrator counts change
This case has been accepted and active for 33 days. Now, with probably no more than a day or two left on the case, the active arbitrator count for this case has changed. In this case it has caused no substantial change in that it doesn't change the number of votes to pass any element of the case; it went from 12 to 13, thus 7 is still a majority as it was before. However, if it had gone the other direction instead, from 12 to 11, it would change what is a majority vote.

I remember a case some time back where the counts kept going up and down and up and down. What was considered a majority kept changing. Follow the bouncing ball. Once a case is active, the active arbitrators should remain active, barring some incapability, and the inactive should remain so unless they are replacing an arbitrator who was previously active. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The change is this one, with Keilana going active (I think). I objected strongly to this sort of thing when on the committee, and think I did object relatively recently in another case, but can't remember when. One of the differences here is that 6-6 ties (absent abstentions) are no longer possible. Also, 7-6 is 'closer' than 7-5 (in the former an abstention can change the result, whereas it wouldn't in the latter). Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the change, yes, but again (referencing earlier conversation above on an unrelated point) I am not trying to single out any particular arbitrator. This is just one example of many that have happened. I don't find this particular arbitrator at 'fault' but rather ArbCom for allowing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In general terms and not speaking about this situation in particular, I tend to agree that previously inactive arbitrators should not join a case after the workshop phase has closed, perhaps not even after the evidence phase has ended as it is too hard to catch up on all the reading without missing something. The other way is less clear, as parties should not be held up waiting around for an arbitrator whose real life has unexpectedly intervened. I also can't imagine anyone requiring an arbitrator who has resigned (for whatever reason) to continue to be counted as active on a case after that point. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Desysop request
TRM has just requested the removal of his admin access at the bureaucrat noticeboard. I think the desysop remedy will need an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And the request has been just granted by Dweller. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a shame he was maneuvered into making that decision- which seems to be written in a very civil manner. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

the revised motion now reads mostly like a finding of fact (which is what it now mostly is). I think for total clarity it would be better to move/copy all but the final sentence to a finding of fact (maybe adding a permalink to the BN request) and make a new remedy along the lines of "The Rambling Man's resignation of his adminship is to be regarded as being 'under a cloud'. Consequently, he may regain the tools only following a successful RFA.". Yes, this is a bit bureaucratic, but I think it will make it absolutely clear to anyone reading this down the line who wasn't following the case as it progressed, exactly what has happened and what the consequences of that are. As it stands, without the context those who are reading this page while the case is open have, it is pretty confusing to see a finding of fact masquerade as a remedy without an associated paragraph in the fining of fact section. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're discussing a clearer way of doing it. I was hoping to avoid wrangling the arbs to come back and vote on additions that are largely observational, but that may have to be how we do it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While you're reviewing the items that have been voted on already, how about adding a link to WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND to the "Administrator conduct" principle. I mentioned this issue in my section near the top of this page (on 2 October). A quick browse through the evidence page shows these links mentioned by several users (myself included) and given how relevant those linked sections were to this case, it seems odd to omit any link in the "Administrator conduct" principle. (By the way, the message at the top says that users must "comment only in their own section". It seems like that hasn't been followed and I'm only ignoring that because my comments above were ignored. I was thinking about pinging all arbitrators that voted for the principle, but decided commenting here would be less disruptive.) AHeneen (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also a boilerplate principle for this kind of situations. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)