Revision as of 20:54, 28 September 2016

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages. The scope of this case is: 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. Evidence which does not meet these requirements will be removed by the clerks. The drafting arbitrators may add additional parties to this case as required (if you believe another editor should be added please make a request on the Evidence talk page and ping the drafting arbitrators). All participants are reminded that breaches of the biographies of living persons policy and the no personal attacks policy are prohibited. The clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. The Committee will be using the arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org email address for this case; private evidence should be submitted to that address. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Proposed remedies by Banedon

If Arbcom feels TRM's behavior was acceptable then the obvious thing to do is "nothing".

If Arbcom feels TRM's behavior was not acceptable then these are what I'd suggest, in descending order of preference:

1. Block & Warn: the most common first step based on my experience on other forums. A short block (say one month) accompanied with a warning that continued incivility will lead to heavier sanctions.
2. Indefinite block: extremely harsh, this acts on the assumption that editors with as much experience as TRM ought to be familiar with WP's rules and so warrant heavier sanctions immediately. This would send a strong message that Misplaced Pages's 4th pillar is not to be trifled with.
3. Topic ban from ITN, DYK and Ref Desks: since most of the incivility appears to be centered in these venues. This attempts to stop the incivility and keep TRM's positive contributions at the same time. Problem with this is, it doesn't really solve the underlying issue, and incivility may well continue in other venues. Also if I were TRM I'd feel somewhat insulted by this, since at some level it's saying "we don't want you, but we want your contributions, and we're willing to go through contortions to keep that". Sort of like getting banned from a store unless you spend more than $100 there, when they welcome you.
4. Interaction ban between me and him: there are a lot of people out there who find TRM's rudeness aggravating, so I hope it doesn't come to this. On the other hand, this is better than doing nothing (a mere "all parties are reminded that civility is to be upheld in the project" warning ala all the ANI cases in the past is similar to doing nothing in efficacy). Exact terms of the interaction ban to be set out.

As for desysopping TRM: on the one hand I would not say he's abused the tools; on the other hand several editors have also expressed how they feel TRM being an admin puts them under more pressure when dealing with him. I've felt that way as well, especially before I understood better what being an administrator means on Misplaced Pages. This edit is illustrative of what less-experienced editors intuitively feel about other editors who hold special privileges: . I would incline towards desysopping for that reason, but would not feel strongly if he's not desysopped.

Banedon (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by George Ho

2) Statements, including preliminary ones, that lack diff links and other links to evidence should be dismissed as nothing more than pleas and mere comments. They add nothing to help the case other than to complicate arbitrators' inner conflict of interests.

Also, as proposed by others, I don't want TRM near me or Banedon until a year or more. His interactions with Baseball Bugs, Newyorkbrad, Sca, Calidum, and The ed17 shall be dealt with also. Not to mention with others.

Also, Misplaced Pages should be a very welcoming place to everyone, including new editors. The Rambling Man makes Misplaced Pages less welcoming than it is or should be.

TRM should either lose his administrative privileges or be banned from Misplaced Pages. But I don't know whether others would agree on either option or none. George Ho (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, ArbCom process shall not be affected by TRM's boycott and lack of participation in this case. Also, conflict of interests among members of the committee shall be avoided and not influenced by pleas from those people who wanted the case dismissed. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Statement from The Rambling Man

3) I initially declined to participate in this case because I did not have faith in the process for two primary reasons.

1) Egregious canvassing at the outset, to which Arbcom made no response.

The case was filed by Banedon on 18 August. This user then went on to canvass no fewer than 14 editors with whom I have had conflicts ranging from IBANs to minor scuffles. Following this, George Ho made similar edits, inviting 10 editors with whom I have had conflicts (including one who I have only ever interacted with at Simple English; he has been indef banned from there). Ho then invited Dweller, an act of fair play I suppose, before going on to canvass two more "anti" users. I am astonished that a case with such a serious bias would be even considered, but that's history, as we now can see.

2) The narrow focus on me in this case, when a number of seasoned editors called for a wide exploration of issues around ERROS/ITN/DYK/Ref Desks

I now see editors with whom I have not interacted for years appearing at the case to provide their caseload of diffs. I offer no defence for any of the diffs provided in the case that can be explained by simply reading the diffs. The contexts of the diffs is where the real case lies and I strongly suspect that no attention will be given to those. At some point during the case, it was established that that scope be broadened to include the behaviour of other editors, in particular at DYK and ITN, but also should not preclude areas such as the Reference Desks. This, apparently, is not an ongoing concern of Arbcom, the case is still heavily biased in its title and nothing is being done to examine the other involved party (George Ho) nor the behavioural issues of many users at DYK, ITN or the Ref Desks. I now see that certain editors are now seeking for me to be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages, some seeking for me to be "punished". I am once again astonished by this turn of events, and feel like I have no reason to attempt to defend myself or my record in the face of such analysis and conclusion. While I accept that my tone and debating style is deemed unacceptable to some, I have worked relentlessly for something like 8 years as an admin to maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages and have never abused the tools to the detriment of the readers.

Summary

I have never held the "badge" of adminship as some kind of prize, it's a tool which should be used only to improve Misplaced Pages. I have only ever used the tool for that purpose, and will continue to do so until it is deemed I am not suitable to do so. I edit first, second, third and foremost as an editor. The admin thing is just an add-on that is helpful to upkeep Misplaced Pages. I am mystified by the masses of dialogue that appears to be directed towards my desire to keep the tool or regain it should it be removed. I have never made any such assertion anywhere, nor have I ever brought my admin tool into any kind of pure editing forum. I readily accept that I have had many scuffles with numerous editors, mainly because my eleven years on the project have been dedicated to maintaining high standards, ensuring the integrity of the mainpage by eliminating medicority and producing high quality mainspace content while reminding others that Misplaced Pages is not a social media website. I am abrupt, to the point, and cursory, but I can't recall ever directing a genuine "personal attack" to anyone, ever. To remind someone that competence is required is simply to remind them that we have an essay called WP:COMPETENCE. It may be hard to stomach, but I actually dislike upsetting others, and if nothing else, this "case" has reminded me that my approach and tone and correspondance style is not palatable to all. For what it's worth, I will address that. But it will not diminish my urgent requirement to keep Misplaced Pages alive and kicking and error-free, at least as far as our readers are concerned. If you wish to punish me for that, so be it.

There is nothing more for me to add. I know that I have had run-ins with many individuals, some Arbs, some 'crats, many admins, and thousands of editors, so I'm not surprised that over an 11-year career and 155k edits, the two users I noted at the top of this post could find a couple of dozen editors who were happy to see the back of me. I refrained from canvassing the couple of hundred editors who may be able to provide counter evidence, most of them are far too interested in improving Misplaced Pages and far too clever to get embroiled in this kind of thing.

I feel obliged to comment as to why I haven't responded to this case, in part because the protocol of being an admin requires me to explain my position, but mainly because I would like something at least on the record that needs further analysis, particularly the tacit acceptance by Arbcom of the overt negative canvassing.

Thank you to the many supporting voices throughout this ordeal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Mike V

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption

2) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit Warring

3) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts the project and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content, whether or not they surpass the three revert rule, are still edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor Conduct

4) Editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors. Inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This principle from 2015, mildly reworded, might be more appropriate, as it speaks directly to administrator conduct. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator standards

5) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. Those 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See my evidence comment, citing WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. The proposed statement should also cite TRM's refusal to participate in proceedings against him. Per WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think that's something which should be ignored. For Misplaced Pages, cooperation is an important underlying need and it is a dereliction of duty for admins be hostile to and completely ignore the various procedures underlying the community, such as explaining their actions in proceedings such as this. Of course, TRM hasn't participated in this case, and also see this diff, mentioned by Salvio when accepting the case (Dismissing those bringing the case as: "Yep. It's a lynch mob...I wonder how this is going to turn out in a month or two? In the meantime I'll be ignoring it and relying on those who can see through this mob mentality. I don't hold out much hope. Never mind, we should allow the project to be run by the social media rejects and admin wannabes, that really helps the reader after all.").

And while the subject of this case is only since January 2016, TRM's previous actions nonetheless need to be taken into account. Since the admin behavior guidelines I cite on the evidence page (and above) refer to recurring actions, not just actions once or twice, it should be noted that this dismissal of community proceedures has been made before (diff, in evidence from Banedon, beginning: "I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things.", after one comment, he doesn't respond to further comments). In another ANI case, also among evidence from Banedon, which I initiated, TRM never responded and his reaction to it is in the sub-section of that discussion titled "User's response when I raised issue on his talk page".AHeneen (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning TRM's participation in the case, the most relevant precedent probably is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel#Kafziel: Administrator accountability (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel#Administrator accountability). Back then, I voted against that FOF, but it passed nonetheless. Salvio 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The Rambling Man previously admonished

1) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) was admonished by the arbitration committee in January 2016 for uncivil and inflammatory language and personal attacks. The Rambling Man was advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The diff you provide doesn't show TRM been admonished but instead shows a different motion being enacted. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Amortias (T)(C) 12:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected. Amortias, the link you provided went to a motion that didn't pass. Nearly so, but did not. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is flat out untrue. An admonishment is a formal remedy in the course of a case; what is linked is a motion that amounts to a mini-FoF and advice. GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (edit warring)

2) The Rambling Man has engaged in edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Given the evidence presented by Hammersoft. Mike V • Talk 03:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that in 2009 ArbCom in a FoF had found TRM had "edit-warred extensively" and in the remedy from that case was "admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods" --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hammersoft's evidence here seems fairly doubtful. Of the two incidents cited, the second claims three reverts in 24 hours - not quite the breach of WP:3RR you might think. And the first claims, "Four hours, five reverts." To put it in context, this was in a dispute over another administrators use of the tools which, it seems to me, was clearly in breach of WP:INVOLVED, editing through protection to make a change the admin in question had !voted for (and which, it should have been blindingly obvious, was always going to be contentious). Here's the history:

• 17:13 The first diff given is clearly not a revert, but a request to pull the item from ITN. This was then reverted by an IP editor (which was in turn patched up by George Ho.
• 20:28 TRM then re-reverted to request pulling the item (this is Hammersoft's second diff). This was then reverted by Calidum with no explanation.
• 21:09 TRM re-reverted (Hammersoft's third diff). Calidum re-reverted, with the summary, "the blurb has been posted, not pulled" (no-one had suggested the blurb had been pulled).
• 21:11 TRM re-reverted this obvious misunderstanding (Hammersoft's fourth diff - I'm AGFing here; if it wasn't a misunderstanding then it was tendentiously inaccurate). Calidum reverted.
• 21:13 TRM re-reverted and Calidum followed suit with the charming summary, "learn not to be a dick because you didn't get your way on some soccer player months ago." This is Hammersoft's fifth diff.

So, four reverts and not five. Calidum also edit-warred against consensus, making four reverts, but this doesn't seem to matter to those proposing this remedy, nor does it seem to matter that Caldium's reverts were an attempt to shout down an argument that there was no consensus and TRM's reverts were at least within the spirit of the exemptions to 3RR, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." TRM's reverts were in the context of ten editors calling for the blurb to be pulled from the main page, either on merit or because of the inappropriate process. Sanctioning an admin for this conduct would be counter-productive. GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• First, from WP:3RR; "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". The first revert is indeed a revert, as it reverted the actions of administrator User:Patar knight who changed it from RD nom to posted with this edit. It needs to be noted that TRM reverted that editor while involved, as he had already voted on whether to post it or not. This is a clear revert. Sorry. Second, that Calidum edit warred is irrelevant. There's no special clause in 3RR that permits edit warring if someone else is edit warring too. It also doesn't matter if someone is being insulting while reverting; that doesn't grant special permissions to continue the edit war. Sanctioning ANY person, whether an administrator or not, for edit warring is entirely appropriate. TRM could have taken the opportunity to request assistance from an uninvolved admin. He chose not to, and instead continued the edit war. This is not the way it's supposed to happen. TRM knows better and was previously admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man’s conduct

2) Since January 2016, The Rambling Man has continued to engage in uncivil and inflammatory behavior and make personal attacks towards other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Given the evidence presented by myself, Hammersoft, and Banedon. Mike V • Talk 03:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Rambling Man desysopped

1) The Rambling Man’s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Doesn't any time imply that TRM would regain his privileges soon after he loses them? Would that make this punishment less effective than it really is? Why not six months or one year after losing his privileges? --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Would this be effective, considering how many users during the request phase didn't care about civility policies? Other than a lack of civility, TRM has done a lot of work as an admin. My concern with this proposal is that TRM would immediately request adminship and, given how many users don't really care about the civility policy, he would be an admin within a couple of weeks. In my opinion, "e may regain the tools at any time" is not effective and should include a time period. I am not familiar with Arbcom cases to know what an appropriate length of time would be, but I'll suggest 3 months? AHeneen (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is effectively arguing that the TRM has the support of the community and so the community must be stopped. Remember we operate by WP:CONSENSUS. GoldenRing (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I support this. I'll definitely concede that his conduct has been below the standards expected of administrators, and I actually think it'd be a good idea for him to take some time away from areas that have been causing him stress; however, his services at ITN and elsewhere have been virtually indispensible. If this were to pass, there should also be an additional ruling related to his former bureaucrat status, which he had resigned in good standing and can regain at any time via posting to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Kurtis 21:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The only problem is that this seems to be the only effective punishment to deter his uncivil behavior. An interaction ban with 1-2 editors doesn't really do much. Perhaps without admin status, it would force TRM into a cooling-off period. AHeneen (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• TRM remains uncivil and attacks other editors. Desysopping him won't stop that, regardless for how long. It's not a remedy; it won't fix the problem. The only problem it addresses is that having an administrator act in this way brings disrepute to the project. I'm not seeing a remedy that addresses the incivility/personal attacks. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@AHeneen: This is the typical desysop wording that has been used in the most recent cases. (1, 2) A while back the committee reserved the right to restore the rights upon appeal, however, that has fallen out of favor and the committee has almost always defers the decision to the community. With the current climate of RfA, I don't think a 2 week turn around for adminship is in the cards.

@Kurtis: Given that TRM has been admonished by the committee for uncivil behavior and you agree that it has continued, I'm curious to know what you think would be an appropriate alternative. As for the 'crat bit, if this were to pass the rights would be considered to have been removed under a cloud. Thus, I don't believe the 'crats would restore that right. If the committee feels there's an ambiguity, they can add a small blurb to the remedy. Mike V • Talk 22:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other remedies should be considered, short of a second admonishment. There's grounds for desysopping in this case, but the question is whether or not it would be in the best interests of all involved were TRM to be given a third and final chance, after which he can perhaps be subject to summary desysopping. Kurtis 23:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• TRM is probably the most prolific and efficient patroller at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK and WP:ITN. In all seriousness, who will do his work if you get rid of his tools? Ritchie333 11:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• The idea that one person is indispensable to the success of the project is contrary to what Misplaced Pages is. Plenty of people have come and gone on this project. Many more will come and go. In the end, so long as the Foundation doesn't royally mess up (as they seem wont to do), Misplaced Pages will go on. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Banedon submitted evidence that "ITN is more collaborative without TRM" and Gatoclass's evidence seems to confirm that TRM's hostile manner tends to repel admins and editors that might otherwise get more involved in such activities. Most recently at ITN, we see TRM opposing a mention of Arnold Palmer's death. Palmer was a legendary golfer for whom "tributes have flooded in" from people like President Obama. Is it actually productive to obstruct such items – perhaps TRM's work is a drag on the process? We can stand to find out. Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• It should be noted that everbody called for improvement to the Arnold Palmer article, not just TRM. Anyway, we can't possibly measure what impact TRM's absence from anything will have. Are there people who have felt turned away? Yes. Would those people hold the same high standards? Unknown, and we can never know. We have no way of objectively evaluating TRM's impact on the process. What I do know is that Misplaced Pages would go on just fine without any single given editor. If there is some reason why a process on the project would fail because of the absence of one person, that to me is an argument for diversifying the process. Single point failure systems aren't going to work here forever. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• His take on Palmer doesn't prove him as a good administrator. Rather his comments would influence the consensus, and nothing more. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with his opposition to the Arnold Palmer article since, as already pointed out, it was not of the quality appropriate for RD. AHeneen (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• ITN is indeed generally dysfunctional. Currently, instead of Arnold Palmer, ITN leads with a picture of Kieran Read, a rugby player who was in the news two weeks ago. That article is worse than Arnold Palmer's and what's really significant is its readership which yesterday was 2,833 while Arnold Palmer had 691,642 – much more than all of ITN put together. We see from this that ITN is an ivory tower which is quite disconnected from what's actually in the news and being read. It seems stale and moribund and so it's arguably time for a change. We shouldn't worry that TRM's absence will leave a big hole as it seems that fresh blood is needed. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Your point is misleading. Kieran Read isn't the ITN article but instead the ITN article is 2016 Rugby Championship which is a expansive and well referenced article. Palmer's article has a orange level tag on it due to poor referencing which, IMHO, is suitable at this point in time. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Rugby Championship doesn't have many readers either – only 5,864 yesterday. And look at the next one – Typhoon Meranti (2016) – which had only 4,497 readers and which has an orange {{update}} banner because it's so stale. ITN utterly misrepresents what is actually in the news and does not maintain good quality either. Andrew D. (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: it has been explained to you on many occasions by several different people that your view of how ITN, and especially the recent deaths section, should operate is different to how it does operate, which is based on long-standing and continuing consensus that the quality of an article is one of the most important factors to consider. In the case of recent deaths, there was a month-and-a-bit long RfC with wide participation that explicitly supported changing to the now-current criteria that place article quality as the main consideration. The consensus in the RfC was affirmed less than two months ago when there was explicit consensus against revisiting the discussion. There was another recent discussion about removing items if the quality degraded after posting, and the clear consensus was that what matters is the quality at the time of posting - anything else should be discussed individually at an appropriate location (normally the article talk page or WP:ITN/C). Complaining at every venue you can find that other people are wrong and you are right does not help, nor does it change the fact that your view is not supported by consensus. TRM's manner leaves much to be desired to say the least, but this does not mean he, or anyone else who shares his opinion is wrong. Anyway, this is all off-topic for this page and, if the discussion had not been had several times already, would be best discussed at WT:ITN - bring it up there if you have any new arguments to make, otherwise please just drop it. I strongly encourage the next passing clerk to hat this section. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I won't offer an opinion about the proposed remedy, since I haven't been following the case closely enough, but I want to back up TRM's opposition to the Arnold Palmer article at ITN. It's very unfortunate that Mr. Palmer's article may not reach ITN, since he's such a global sporting icon. However, we cannot simply ignore project standards in determining what to post. The article is visibly deficient and not in good enough shape to post at this time, regardless of how popular an addition it might be. And this is coming from someone who believes ITN often doesn't update quickly enough with new content. If Andrew really wants the article to appear on the Main Page, perhaps he could pitch in and add some references to help improve it to the level needed. Instead of commenting on how TRM is "obstructing" a particular article from appearing at a process, or serving as a "drag" (which isn't really true when you consider that a consensus against the article was forming before he even commented), I suggest maintaining focus on whatever overall issues exist, and determining whether they merit such a severe remedy. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man interaction ban

2) The Rambling Man is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, George Ho anywhere on Misplaced Pages. This is subject to the usual exceptions. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than twelve months have passed from the closing of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would agree on that, but this needs clarity. At which venues is TRM allowed and/or forbidden to interact with me? --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given the evidence presented by Hammersoft. Mike V • Talk 03:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: It would be a standard interaction ban. Essentially, there would be no interaction at all. The exceptions allow for discussing or appealing the ban in appropriate venues and reverting 100% clear vandalism/BLP violating edits. Mike V • Talk 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If this is adopted, it should be a two-way IBAN. Not because George Ho has done anything in particular to merit it (I take no position on that), but because one-way IBANs are inherently unworkable. A one-way IBAN which restricts A from all interaction with B effectively gives B an unanswerable right to remove A from any discussion, no matter how involved they already are, just by commenting on it. It is wide open to abuse. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wholeheartedly concur. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposals by Count Iblis

Proposed principles

Discussing content without discussing the involved editors

1) When discussing the content of Misplaced Pages pages, editors should refrain from invoking personal behavioral issues, unless this is seen to be a very relevant issue w.r.t. to the content discussions. It's best to only invoke behavioral issues if the problem is of such a nature that requires considering taking the matter to WP:AN/I or some other dispute resolution venue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

E.g. If an editor is consistently making mistakes, then there is nothing wrong with discussing these mistakes, but the moment such a discussion becomes personal (e.g. competence issues are raised), then that should be done in a way that seriously raises the option of going to AN/I (where one can e.g. ask for a topic ban). Count Iblis (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Rambling Man instructed to refrain from inappropriate discussions of editors

1) The Rambling Man is instructed to focus criticism of content to only the content in venues where content is discussed. He is reminded that when sticking to only the content, there is no problem whatsoever to call a spade a spade even if the editor who produced that content would not like that and may be insulted by such a negative review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks can paradoxically arise when we're actually trying to be nice. Suppose that someone has produced work that you think is well below the required standard. Then you can invoke personal issues instead of thrashing the work, our brains have evolved a tendency to do that to soften criticism and to steer people away from with collaborating with each other if that would lead to friction. This may have worked well in the Stone Age, but in today's society this yields bad results as usually you're not going to have your way with picking your collaborators. So, what one needs to do is to be as open as possible with discussing the content, if is seen to be thrash, then calling it thrash is justified (provided one can motivate why). If a person repeatedly is seen to be producing thrash, then going to AN/I to get a topic ban imposed should be the next step. Count Iblis (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see what this helps. TRM is well aware of the NPA and CIVIL policies. This remedy does nothing more than restate those policies. Yet, we're here. So how is this a remedy? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• This remedy makes enforcement possible. Note that the NPA and CIVIL policies are rather vague, they do allow comments on editors (provided it's not a personal attack, but where do you draw the line?). If we say to TRM that you should not discuss editors at all except at AN/I ArbCom or any other such venues where editor conduct is supposed to be discussed, then infractions are well defined. Count Iblis (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• This remedy does nothing that was not already present in the admonishment of January. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, TRM was not hauled to AE for violations, so the previous remedy was not formulated in a way that was enforceable. All that's needed is to write down a similar remedy that explicitly states that TRM is barred from making comments on editors. Then if TRM makes any comment on any other editor such that the editor itself is the subject and not the edits (outside AN/I and other such venues where editors are discussed), then it's straight to AE. What I've written down here may need to be modified to make it workable in this respect (peraps also with some time limit after which the strict limits may be relaxed), but that's the job of the Arbs. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• He's already barred from doing so, as are all of us. As an administrator, he's barred even further. As a target of a previous ArbCom admonishment for the very behavior, he's even barred yet further. So, what, we really mean it this time? This remedy does nothing that hasn't already been tried (and failed). I'm open to ideas as to how to remedy the civility/peronal attacks issue, but this isn't it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Hammersoft

Conundrum

Honestly, I'm at a loss. I haven't submitted any proposals because I do not know of any way forward. I see the problem as this;

1. We have an editor and administrator who has been uncivil and abusive towards others for many years. Ample evidence of this has been provided for his actions post January, 2016. Ample evidence could be provided for prior to January, 2016. Thankfully, ArbCom had the wisdom to place a scope on this case. We know the pattern, we know the history, we know it has happened and continues to happen without abatement, even when he claims to want to and will try to do better.
2. Juxtaposed with this, we have an editor who has done a considerable volume of very productive work over the years. I do not mean to say this volume of work excuses bad behavior. It most emphatically does not, and anyone suggesting we should tolerate his poor behavior because of this work is extremely in the wrong. The behavior is intolerable in all respects.

How do we retain (2), while removing (1)? Obviously we can not be Solomon; we can't ban (1) while not banning (2). You can't separate the editor into two halves. Is there a way to make (1) stop while retaining (2)? There needs to be, but I do not know what it is.

I wish TRM were part of this process. I believe we must have recognition on his part that he has been grossly uncivil and insulting towards his fellow editors and that this behavior is utterly intolerable. Without him as a party to this solution, any solution will not work. Every effort that has been made before has failed. TRM believes he's going to be shown the door. Yet, knowledge of this hasn't made him conciliatory in any respect with regards to his incivility and personal attacks. I think if TRM wants to stay, he needs to be part of this solution and actually want to do something to solve the issue. Insisting on being obstinate and disdainful does not inspire any confidence whatsoever that there is a pathway forward.

Without TRM as part of this process, there's really just two general options;

• (a) Ban him now until he agrees to abide by the civility and personal attack policies
• (b) Put in place a schema of increasing severity of blocks that can be applied by any administrator should that administrator detect incivility/personal attacks from him towards anyone, and such blocks can not be overturned unless agreed to by ArbCom.

Given TRM's obstinance towards the community and disdainfulness of this arbitration process, I see (b) as being just a slow form of (a). If (b) is the path, there likely is no pathway back to editing for TRM once we reach an indefinite block. If (a) is the path, we're likely going to be back here before ArbCom in the future.

The only way this turns out positively is for TRM to be involved in the solution. Any other pathway forward will fail. Ultimately, the only way to separate (1) from (2) does not involve sanctions of any kind. There is no remedy that can do that. The only way for that to happen is for TRM to do something about it, and the Sword of Damocles needs to be in place to ensure compliance. If TRM remains obstinate, there's no hope.

Regardless, TRM's administrator status needs to be stripped due to gross violations of conduct unbecoming an administrator. Though, again, the only way out of that is for TRM to be involved in this process.

Alternatively, if ArbCom fails to do anything here, they effectively void the civility/personal attack policies. The tacit acknowledgement would be that if you do good work here, you can be as rude and insulting as you like.

Ultimately, it is a great conundrum. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Pldx1

Proposed finding of fact

Just at closing time, most of this workshop is made of the enlightening contributions of User:Example 2 and User:Exemple 3. Pldx1 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed decision

Since the community has decided that nothing is to be said or done, Arbcom can only pass a motion to dismiss. Pldx1 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Thryduulf

I strongly endorse what Hammersoft has written here. It is an excellent summary of the problems with TRM and, generalised slightly, the problems with civility on Misplaced Pages in general:

• If you do good work and remain civil, there is no problem at all - please carry on.
• If you don't do good work and remain civil, then you will generally be given chances to improve, and people will try and work with you to help you improve - if you show willingness and effort to try.
• If you don't do good work and don't remain civil, you will be blocked or banned (hopefully sooner rather than later) with little regret - you cost too much for editors to invest time and energy in turning you into a productive member of the community.
• If you do good work and don't remain civil, we will invest tons of energy arguing with you and among ourselves trying to work out what to do and what relative weight should be given to your good work and bad attitude.

Ultimately though, I think there has to be a point where refusal to engage civilly with other editors has to lead to a separation from either the parts of the project where (most of) the problems occur or from the project as a whole. Thus the proposal below may seem draconian but it is a last attempt to avoid an indefinite block. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

The Rambling Man restricted

The Rambling Man may edit only in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies, specifically including the civility policy, and only the following pages:

1. Articles, set indexes, disambiguation pages and redirects.
2. Drafts of the pages listed in point 1
3. Talk pages of pages listed in point 1
4. His user and user talk page.
5. Deletion discussions related to a page in one of the categories above he was involved in editing before it was nominated for deletion.
6. Deletion discussions related to a page he created.
7. Dispute resolution pages for disputes he was directly involved with before the dispute resolution began
8. Any other page or pages explicitly allowed by Arbcom or Arbitration Enforcement
9. Arbitration Committee or Arbitration Enforcement pages for the purpose of appealing a sanction against him or requesting an exemption to edit a specific page or pages not covered above.
10. Other users' talk pages, but only as required to support the editing of pages listed above.
11. Any other page for sole purpose of succinctly noting that he is not permitted to answer a question or other request asked specifically of him on that page iff no other editor has done so already.

He explicitly not:

1. Contribute to any part of processes regarding main page content, specifically including the WP:ERRORS page.
2. Nominate any page for deletion that is not in his own user or user talk spaces.
3. Edit inciviily for any reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Maybe with a time period, say, a year? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• This is too difficult to follow. If something like this is to be attempted, it needs to be simplified. TRM is intelligent, and I'm sure would be able to untangle it and follow it. That's not the issue. Over the years I've seen several cases go right off the rails because of poorly worded motions/restrictions/etc. that the community struggles with interpreting and applying. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

If The Rambling Man edits incivilly or otherwise breaches a restriction placed upon him he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for the following duration:

• For a first, second or third block: between 1 week and 6 months.
• For a fourth or subsequent block: between 3 and 9 months. The blocking administrator should inform the arbitration committee by email of a fourth or subsequent block.

Any block may be reversed only by the blocking admin, the arbitration committee, or following an active consensus to unblock at Arbitration enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Any blocks under this remedy should be logged, not just from the fourth on. See example. This is common. Also, the fourth block could be 3 months and the third 6 months. If we're to specify duration, having an overlap seems odd. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposals by Gatoclass

Proposed remedies

I had no intention of participating further in this case other than by making my initial statement, but given some of the rather drastic proposals being put forward on this page, I have decided to add an alternative of my own.

It has long been a concern of mine that the community has found itself unable to deal effectively with the phenomenon of the type of user who makes a first-rate contribution to mainspace but who struggles to remain compliant with other policies such as WP:CIV. The standard model for dealing with chronically uncivil users is escalating blocks, which works reasonably effectively when applied to users who are clearly more trouble than they are worth, but in other circumstances can prove extremely problematic. Highly productive but uncivil users (let's call them HPUs), for example, often have a lot of support in the community, and since every block of the offender is seen as the next step toward an indefinite block or ban, even a token block will typically result in a firestorm of debate as supporters try to get the block overturned. The wikidrama generated by such debates typically wastes a great deal of time, exhausts and demoralizes all participants, and often worsens relationships between the various parties. Moreover, the community is invariably the loser regardless, because either the encyclopedia ultimately ends up losing the positive contributions of the user in question through an indefinite block or ban, or else they tend to escape any kind of effective sanction at all, leaving their critics/victims increasingly bitter and disillusioned and leading to further wikidrama down the road when a new case is almost invariably filed.

I submit that a new model is needed to deal with HPUs - one that allows them to continue making their positive contributions to the encyclopedia, while minimizing their potential for generating disruptive wikidrama and also giving the victims of their incivility a degree of both justice and protection. To that end, I am going to propose such a model here. I want to emphasize that I am proposing this, in this particular case, only as a possible alternative to escalating blocks or other potentially divisive or draconian sanctions that the Arbcom committee may be considering. If Arbcom is not currently considering such measures but only lesser sanctions, please feel free to ignore this proposal with regard to this case.

Remedy: limited civility blocks (LCBs)

For a user - known hereby as the respondent - who is highly productive but has a well-established record of failing to comply with WP:CIV, the following remedy may be applied at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee:

1. The respondent may be blocked for incivility by any administrator for a period of one week. This will be known as a limited civility block (LCB).
2. Blocks thus imposed may only be overturned by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The respondent will be unblocked while the appeal is resolved.
3. The appeal will be open only for a limited time, say, a maximum of 48 hours. The Committee will announce its decision within the alloted time.
4. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the block will immediately be reimposed and may not be overturned.
5. If the appeal is successful, the block will be vacated and the administrator who imposed the block may not impose another block on the respondent for a set period, say, a couple of months.
6. Administrators removing an LCB outside the appeals process will be immediately desysopped.
7. A record of previously imposed LCBs will not be used as a justification for imposing longer blocks. A respondent may incur any number of LCBs without prejudice to their ongoing participation on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee will always retain the discretion to impose longer blocks, or even an indefinite block or site ban, for truly egregious examples of inciviity or for other misconduct; however, such blocks or bans cannot be imposed through the LCB process and must be dealt with using other existing procedures.
8. Given that highly productive users often have the strong support of a part of the community, Arbcom may want to consider the possibility of deciding LCB appeals off-wiki in order to allow them to make a decision without fear of incurring the censure of those supporters.

I anticipate that the effects of the above process would be as follows:

1. The respondent is faced with a substantial, but not crippling, sanction for incivility. He knows that each time he offends, he is putting himself at the risk of a one-week block. The respondent himself, then, is given a clear choice - he may either indulge himself by being uncivil and thus lose a week of participation, or he may curb his propensity for incivility and continue contributing. I would expect that in a relatively short period of time, the respondent will learn to modify his behaviour so that he doesn't find himself continually in the sin bin.
2. While complainants do not get the satisfaction of seeing the subject of their complaints driven from the encyclopedia, they do see that a measure of justice is being imposed each time the respondent offends. They also get a respite of at least a week from any further attacks from the respondent.
3. Supporters of the respondent no longer have an incentive to fight tooth and nail to prevent a block, since the block is always for a limited period and does not threaten the continued participation on the project of the respondent. The result should be a lot less wikidrama.
4. The community benefits by the greatly reduced wikidrama and the fact that blocks are resolved one way or another within 48 hours.
5. Arbitrators can do their jobs quickly and effectively without the fear of backlash from one or other faction of the community dissatisfied either that the remedy is too harsh or too ineffective. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We tried this with Eric Corbett and ended up having two more Arbcom cases centred basically around nobody agreeing what "civility" actually is Ritchie333 13:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Really Ritchie333? Somebody made this specific proposal and it didn't work? I have my doubts about that. This proposal doesn't rely on "anybody" agreeing on what civility means, it relies on Arbcom alone deciding on whether a particular block imposed by an administrator is justified or not. Gatoclass (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

While I like many aspects of this proposal, it appears to have a flaw in that it virtually guarantees that an LCB will be quickly appealed anytime one is made. This is because the HPU and his supporters risk nothing by filing an appeal but have the potential of significant gain. Towards addressing this flaw I suggest the following points:

1. Wording needs to be clarified to ensure that time spent during the appeal process does not count against the block time. This is needed to prevent the appeal process from becoming an automatic means to turn a 7 day block into a 5 day block.
2. There should be an option for the Arbcom to rule an appeal as being frivolous. When such a finding is made, I would recommend the length of the block be extended. The risk of having a LCB extended, for example from one week to two weeks, should reduce the number of pointless appeals to a manageable level.
3. Consideration should be made for instances when an HPU re-offends during time he is unblocked during an appeal. At a minimum an LCB earned by an HPU who is unblocked due to an appeal should be served consecutively. The use of concurrent sentencing would come close to allowing an HPU to engage is incivility during the time for an appeal without the possibility of consequences.

--Allen3  13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed process getting a few tweaks to clarify certain aspects or improve overall effectiveness, but I thought it best to keep it simple to begin with. Besides, processes can always be tweaked a little later on to make them more effective with the benefit of experience. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I compliment you for attempting to be Solomon. As I noted above, it is a conundrum. Unfortunately, I see several problems with the proposal:

1. How do we establish that an editor qualifies as "Highly Productive"? Lack of any measure sets the table for people wanting such special treatment, and arguing in favor of it using their edit history, articles created, etc. as proof. This will generate debates that can't be resolved. I could even see editors preemptively wanting to be declared "Highly Productive". Stranger things have happened. Another scary thought; do we automatically declare administrators to be "Highly Productive"?
2. How do we establish that an editor qualifies as "Uncivil"? Even in this case in the original case request, we had people arguing vociferously that TRM hasn't really been uncivil, or that if he has, it's been justified (and therefore somehow excusable). If we can't agree to what counts as uncivil, we'll have unending debates about this leg of putting a person in the HPU category.
3. This establishes a new class of editors. In effect, if you're a highly productive editor (which, point 1, is undefined) then you're allowed to circumvent certain policies to a degree.
4. "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" is one of the five pillars of the project. Either we mean it or we don't. I've long held that the civility/npa policies are effectively void here. This remedy significantly undermines this pillar, effectively establishing exceptions to this pillar. We already have an extensive and seriously damaging middle ground that allows far too much incivility and personal attacks. This remedy dramatically expands that middle ground, ultimately making it far more difficult to enforce civility/npa policy. Imagine; "If you don't like how I'm saying something then take it to ArbCom and get an HPU applied".

It's a worthy attempt. I just think it's entirely untenable in practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How do we establish that an editor qualifies as "Highly Productive"? I am proposing this as an additional process for Arbcom's toolbox. Arbcom can decide for itself whether or not it wants to apply this particular tool to a given case. But as a rule of thumb, I would expect Arbcom to be considering employing this tool in cases where a user with a record of incivility also has significant support in the community for their mainspace contributions.

How do we establish that an editor qualifies as "Uncivil"? Again, "we" don't have to make the determination. An administrator decides in the first instance to block; if an appeal is made, Arbcom then decides whether or not the block was justified. Arbcom members may also disagree on whether the block was justified, but the issue will simply be decided by a majority vote, as with all Arbcom actions.

This establishes a new class of editors. I would argue that this "class" of editors already has de facto existence, by virtue of the fact that their cases already get treated differently. My proposed process is simply a method of acknowledging that reality and finding an effective method of dealing with the challenges it represents. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• The best way to deal with that class is to remove it entirely. Either civility is a pillar or it isn't. Nobody should be treated differently, LEAST of all people that are "highly productive" combined with being problematically uncivil. Such people should know better, and don't. If a new editor says "<****> YOU!" they likely get blocked. If a "highly productive" editor says "<****> YOU!" they should get blocked as well, and for just as long. No special cases. No special exemptions. No special board to determine if they are highly productive or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and in many respects, I sympathize with your POV. It's hard to argue with the assertion that nobody should get "special treatment". However, I think it's also possible to argue that all users are not equal, in that some are far more valuable to the project than others and have thus earned more consideration.

I think the bottom line though, is that this is not a court of law, and our prime directive isn't justice and equal treatment for all. Our prime directive is what's best for the encyclopedia. In cases of this type, the community has often spent enormous amounts of energy trying and usually failing to sanction the offender. The lack of an effective process for such cases is very harmful for the encyclopedia, not only for the time wasted but for the disillusion in the project these cases generate. What I am proposing here is a process that allows for a quick resolution of such incidents with a minimum of fuss, which provides benefits for both sides. The ultimate aim is to get the offender to start self-policing so that offences aren't committed in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• This might sound strange, but I don't believe anyone has significant value to the project. If a million geese fly south and one doesn't make it, is the flock harmed? We've had millions of people come and go to this project. Somehow, it keeps going. Some aspects of the project have seen their lights turned out for inactivity, lack of use, etc. The project keeps going on. Misplaced Pages is an amorphous blob. It is perpetually wrong, perpetually victimized by vandalism, perpetually missing people. Yet, in all its perfections it attains a level of beauty beyond that of any other encyclopedia project the world has ever seen. Any one person's role in that is infinitesimal. If every person involved in featured article work were to disappear, others would fill in. It would be different, to be sure, but others would fill in. Would it be perfect? No. FA isn't perfect now. Same goes with any area that TRM works in. I also reiterate that if we have any one person who is far too valuable to lose, we have a serious problem. Single point failure systems are bad, bad juju.
• What is good for the project is to have a fair approach to all good faith editors, whether they are making their first edit or edit one million. To treat anyone differently sets us on a path that is completely untenable, with arcane rules and all manner of social structures that are impossible to navigate. Such an environment works solidly against the aims of the project by preventing new users from being involved.
• There's a culture issue here. Incivility and personal attacks are generally accepted. What needs to be the culture is that personal attack and civility warning templates are applied and recorded somewhere. If we did that, this problem would have been nipped in the bud years ago. We would not be having this case. By the way, did you know that while {{Uw-civil-qa1}} exists, {{Uw-civil-qa4}} does not? There's the culture. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, nobody is indispensable, but that doesn't mean the project isn't harmed when a highly productive user ceases to contribute. IIRC some studies have shown that most of Misplaced Pages's content has been created by a core of about 3,000 users. The total number of users has also declined, though I'm not sure whether or not that figure has stabilized. Regardless, it's clear that the more productive users we have contributing, the healthier the project overall. Something that concerns me a lot as a long term issue, is that the number of contributors may eventually dwindle to the point that the project begins to atrophy and ends up as a sort of internet fossil. I have, quite frankly, been appalled over the years by Misplaced Pages's propensity for jettisoning fine contributors over incidents that often seem to me remarkably trivial. And I strongly believe that the sheer lumbering inefficiency of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes weigh heavily on user retention rates.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand. Just how serious an offence should incivility be considered in any case? Imagine a user who adds 20 new FA-quality articles in a twelve month period. In that same period, he also bumps into somebody he doesn't like a couple of times, and calls them a useless prick. Is that really such an egregious offence that it warrants excommunication? Wouldn't a more proportional response be to simply suspend the offender's editing privileges for a few days? I think that if I personally were the offended party in those circumstances, I'd be satisfied enough to see that person's editing privileges so suspended. I'd feel vindicated and supported by the community, the offender would be out of my hair for a few days, and I know he would be reluctant to repeat the offence a second time with the same result. Civility would still have been defended as a pillar, but without the immense amount of ill-will generated by the kind of high-stakes this-means-one-step-closer-to-indef process we have now. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to imposing restrictions one has to formulate these such that they are unambiguously defined. That's why ArbCom topic bans typically have a wider scope than just the area where the problem behavior occurred. Similarly, in this case we have a problem with civility, but merely restricting the editor to behave in a civil way won't work because the boundary between civil and uncivil behavior is not well defined. This is why I think the restriction has to be made a bit wider, it has to include making any sort of comments on editors that involve making judgments on editors. So, if editor X has written something that in his opinion is junk, he is allowed to say "editor X's text is junk". What he isn't allowed to say is e.g. "editor X is incompetent at producing a decent text, look at what he has done now." The first sentence sounds harsher than the second one, which is where the tendency to slip into personal attacks comes from, but what matters is that the text is the subject not the editor as in the second sentence. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that the user should not be permitted to comment on contributor, and I think that's probably a fair point. Gatoclass (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this then circumvents the problem about where to draw the "civility line", thereby preventing endless debates at Arbitration Enforcement in case of a (perceived) infraction. Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't like butting in, but I have to disagree on one point I saw above, namely that no one "has significant value to the project." To me, a lot of us add significant value with our work. This often gets twisted into a count of how many stars/GAs/DYKs one has, or how many articles one has created, but those measures are simplistic. Everybody from vandalism fighters to image reviewers to typo fixers is adding something, and I would define many different kinds of editors as having added significant value. At the same time, we're finding out that editors in some fields aren't a renewable resource. I remember seeing one FAC talk page thread about how almost all of the new FAs were coming from editors with FA experience, and that newcomers were finding it hard to write articles to FA standards. It's unfortunate, but we seem to be losing more highly skilled writers than we're adding. I wouldn't say any of the major processes depend on one person, but if five or 10 left at once some of them would be hurting. This is not to say that great content work should always be a "get out of jail free card", but take it as food for thought. I'll leave the rest of you to it. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't want this taken out of the context I intend. I do not mean to say people do not have valued contributions. Rather, no one person here has made significant contributions compared to the overall work. Each one of us is a single user in a panoply of editors numbering in excess of a million people who have made contributions of one kind or another here. To say that any of us are somehow significant when compared to that mass quantity of work is overstating the case. Misplaced Pages has gone on without "significant" people before. We used to have an editor who did almost everything having to do with the main page. Now, he barely edits at all. Yet, the project has gone on. 850 million edits have been committed to this project. Think about that. You have about 20k edits. Your total contributions comprise about .0024% of the total project. Even the most prolific edit in the history of Misplaced Pages has been responsible for only .23% of Misplaced Pages...not even a quarter of 1%. None of is irreplaceable. That's my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Fram

Proposed principles

Disruptive editing

1) Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From the introduction to Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The main page

2) The main page is by far the most viewed page of Misplaced Pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Multiyear ranking of most viewed pages and User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also ITN items are sometimes listed alongside prominent sources such as BBC, NYT, CNN etc. at Google News. Obviously we would not want a not so well written article getting listed there. Count Iblis (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Cwmhiraeth nominates, reviews and promotes errors to the main page

1) Too often, Cwmhiraeth nominates, reviews or promotes errors to the main page. When confronted with this, he often doesn't seem to understand the problem. No progress has been made. This week alone, a hook has been pulled from the main page on Monday (Template:Did you know nominations/CMLL 83rd Anniversary Show, which was reviewed by Cwmhiraeth) and on Wednesday (Template:Did you know nominations/Girolamo Maiorica, promoted by Cwmhiraeth). The archives of WT:DYK are filled with other hooks that had to be pulled (from the preps, queues or main page) where Cwmhiraeth was one of the people who accepted the hook. With only 8 hooks promoted per day, this means that this week (so far) 2 out of 24 hooks have had to be removed from the Main Page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This isn't a recent issue but goes back for years and years, as can be seen in many of the DYK archives, and in the 2014 Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth which analysed a number of his DYKs and GAs. Fram (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth uses personal attacks

2) Cwmhiraeth uses personal attacks to drive people (who try to keep the DYK section errorfree) away from DYK. This can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence#Evidence presented by Fram and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cwmhiraeth, and has been continued after the evidence phase closed at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Vanity. While I am the main target of these, he likes to include TRM as well, e.g. "The DYK project is undergoing a bit of a crisis, largely because of attacks by Fram, pulling hooks, naming and shaming editors, and generally trying to humiliate other editors that make mistakes, ably supported by TRM." (from his evidence section).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TRM tries to keep the Main Page up to standards

3) The Rambling Man is one of the few admins most active in keeping the main page error-free and up to basic standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cwmhiraeth topic banned from DYK

1) Cwmhiraeth is topic banned from DYK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As an alternative, allowing him to nominate his own articles, but banning him from promoting and reviewing, and from discussing all but his own articles at WT:DYK may also be workable. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: But then how could he possibly satisfy the QPQ requirement? Pppery 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone has a restriction that makes it impossible to do QPQs, we should drop the requirement for them. Fram (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth admonished

2) Cwmhiraeth is admonished for the use of personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Why should TRM's boycott affect the ArbCom process? Remedies should hurt him enough, making his boycott ineffective. Otherwise, ArbCom would be considered broken and useless. I put faith in ArbCom and hope that TRM learns his lesson about treating others horribly. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The point of any ArbCom proceeding is never to 'hurt' someone. We are never after a pound of flesh. What we are after is an equitable remedy that addresses the issue in such a way as to correct the issue. If that is demonstrably not possible, then protecting the project comes before the needs of any editor, no matter how seasoned. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy doesn't put protecting the En Wiki as the ArbCom's agendum (possible singular of agenda). WP:IAR neither helps nor applies. The ArbCom and its process are not preventing us from improving Misplaced Pages. I could see the value of keeping TRM as an editor, but that's no excuse to absolve his behavior. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

When I mentioned TRM's refusal to participate in the arbitration process in my evidence section, I did so to illustrate it is difficult to work with him. Since Misplaced Pages is voluntary, I think that nobody should be obliged to participate, including TRM in this arbitration request. But refusing to participate shows how hard it is to reason with him: he more or less adopts an "I'm right you're wrong and if you disagree you're an idiot - so much of an idiot that even if you attempt dispute resolution I'm not going to bother with you" attitude. Banedon (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote about this subject in a long comment towards the top of this page. To reiterate the main reason, per WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I think that it may also illustrate how difficult it is to work with him, but ADMINACCT is the main reason. AHeneen (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)