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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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:

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 Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think that's something which should be ignored. For Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel#Kafziel: Administrator accountability (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel#Administrator accountability). Back then, I voted against that FOF, but it passed nonetheless. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 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)

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" [1] and in the remedy from that case was "admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods" [2] --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 24 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:

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, "[h]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)

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 23:37, 24 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 Wikipedia. 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:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by Count Iblis

Proposed principles

Discussing content without discussing the involved editors

1) When discussing the content of Wikipedia 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 User:Example 3

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:

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:

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)