Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms	none	(orig. case)	25 November 2018
Clarification request: Magioladitis	none	(orig. case)	17 November 2018
Amendment request: The Rambling Man	none	(orig. case)	23 November 2018
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88	none	(orig. case)	26 November 2018

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms

Appeal unsucessful--Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Case or decision affected Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [1] [2] [3] [4] Statement by Petrarchan47 I am appealing this action by Drmies: [5]​ Background: KingofAces43 opened an WP:AE​ case against me. ​[6]​ The majority of the community weighed in on my side​. [7] KingofAces43 contacted two administrators about this case: Seraphimblade ​[8]​ Drmies [9]​ who said, "Kingofaces, I am sure you want more, and I am sorry I have no more to offer at this time." ​[10]​ After ​Sandstein closed the case [11], Drmies reopened it. [12]​ Drmies had no authority to reopen the case according to policy​. violating WP:ADMINACCT Dismissing an enforcement request​​ In this 2015 case the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened". Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)​ Drmies was informed of the violation and said, "There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request". [13] (The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed ​​​[14]​, and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [15]) @Serial Number 54129: I have struck mention of WP:ADMINACCT as unnecessary. petrarchan47คุก 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @Worm That Turned: Yes I am appealing my topic ban, with a focus on the reopening of my AE case which violates this DS rule: Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee This procedure was not followed. I am not precluding other issues being considered, such as the severity of AGK's determination. Note: There has been considerable activity in my case over the last 24 hours. I would appreciate if you wait to close this case until I have responded further. petrarchan47คุก 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Drmies I managed to have completely missed the note on my talk page; my apologies. I really don't have much to say. This is an attempt to get something undone by way of a technicality, that some procedure was not followed or was broken--it seems to me that there is already broad agreement that this simply doesn't apply. For starters, there's Sandstein's "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted." More importantly, in my opinion, is the suggestion that everything is covered, or should be covered, by procedure. BTW, I think the community should be pleased that admins are willing to disagree and to consider and reconsider matters, and that more admins are willing to step up to the plate: all of us are making a small number of admins, including Sandstein, pull all the weight at AE. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC) @Petrarchan: it's funny, but years and years ago, before I was an admin myself, I'd watch these candidates get asked at RfA, "when would you invoke IAR"? And I literally had NO idea, thinking the rules captured most if not everything, and IAR was only used to keep stuff that was deleted at AfD or something. Silly, huh. Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that indeed this little bit of procedure, this complaint, is valid, and that that would vacate the topic ban, I'd think it would be a good candidate for IAR, but I also think that this entire matter will either be appealed or pop up again at AE, and that it will turn out that while you thought you were building something here, you were actually digging a hole. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by AGK First, linking to instants in the discussion gives an incomplete picture. Here is the full enforcement thread. Appellant argues that per this principle in a case decision, enforcement requests are carved in stone if an administrator {{hat}}s it. Such a rule would be finicky, even for Wikipedia arbitration. Mercifully, decision principles are not binding. The actual rule is that requests are dismissed with a consensus of uninvolved administrators. When the request was first closed, 1 administrator supported acting and 1 did not. Consensus: absent. Once a consensus emerged, 2 administrators favoured action and 1 was ambivalent. Consensus: existed. I think what happened between times is irrelevant. AGK ■ 20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein I agree with Winged Blades of Godric below that the grounds given for this appeal are invalid. But I certainly don't join Winged Blades of Godric's personal attacks on the appellant, which, having been made in an arbitration forum, should result in appropriate action from arbitrators or clerks. Sandstein 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43 I'm not really sure what's intended here. Petrachan47 was topic-banned from GMOs by AGK through discretionary sanctions. How the AE ended up being closed doesn't affect that topic ban or any sort of appeal. Topic-banned editors cannot bring up the subject material, admin board discussions, etc. of their ban unless it's directly relevant to an appeal, so I'm not sure why Petrarchan is trying to bring this up as opposed to someone else who isn't topic-banned if this is meant as a more meta-AE clarification rather than their own ban. I don't see any mention of a topic-ban appeal, and even if there was, none of what's posted here so far would address anything relevant towards an appeal, such as addressing the long-term behavior issues they were banned for in the first place we'd expect of an actual appeal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG He had raised the same point at Sandstein's t/p, a month back, where Sandstein pointed him to the same and he replied No worries, thanks for responding.∯WBGconverse 08:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) There would be some minimal merit, if he had chosen this venue to criticize AGK's final decision and/or the quantum of the sanction but here we have something about Drmies' actions as perceived violations of ADMINACCT and previous ArbCom decisions. FWIW, I pretty much concur with Tryptofish's comemnts at the original ARE-thread and think that the awarded sanction easily passes the rational basis review.∯WBGconverse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by SN54129 I'd disagree with User:Sandstein's analysis that fucking incompetent rises to the level of a personal attack; it merely recasts WP:CIR slightly more robustly (possibly, on refelection, slightly overly robustly, as although the question of competence is fundamental, it can also be an extremely sensitive one). @Petrarchan47: Wot's ADMINACCT got to do with it? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish I've been mentioned, and I've been involved in this since the original case, so I will briefly say that there are insufficient grounds for any action here. The claim that the majority of the community were on her side is a stretch, and the rest sounds to me like wikilawyering about how an AE thread was closed. The bottom line is that the enactment of AE sanctions was in conformance with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Atsme Doug Weller, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, Worm That Turned, Callanecc, PMC Herein the confusion lies, and I request that the arbs please explain how they or any other admin can overrule the following Arbitration decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) 6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened. In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return. Passed 9 to 0 at 8:25 pm, 23 August 2015, Sunday (3 years, 3 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−5) We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision. Are you now saying that Sandstein did not dismiss an enforcement request because what I read was that, technically, he did dismiss it when he specifically stated that he did not agree the evidence was convincing and closed the case which is an administrative action. He also stated that the "reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now." That action was technically an administrative action of closing the case. I am excluding the ping to Drmies because anything stated after the decision to close is in opposition to the ArbCom ruling. We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine​. That's as close to double indemnity as it gets and it's just plain wrong. When an admin has used their discretionary judgment based on the merits of a case and what other admins apparently​ have agreed to by their silence, and the finding of fact is that no action should be taken - well, that is the close; i.e. the dismissal of the case and as such no other admin can reopen it regardless of what the closing admin stated after his closing argument. Where does it say that an admin may close a case but allow others to take whatever action they deem appropriate when it involves DS?? Such an action is completely opposite of the ArbCom decision. I'm asking the arbs I've pinged to please show me the exact ruling that allows such a close to be overturned once it has been formally closed as no action. This case was not heard at AN/I or AN - it was heard at AE which to me means the decisions made by ArbCom should prevail. Atsme✍🏻📧 01:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC) PMK, please show me specifically where it states what you believe to be applicable in this case. I included the actual finding of fact decision by ArbCom and feel that if what you believe is true, it will be in writing somewhere. Atsme✍🏻📧 01:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Further clarifying - where does it say an admin can overrule a decision by ArbCom? ArbCom stated unequivocally that Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened. It's black and white - no ifs, ands or buts - there is nothing in that decision that even suggests a case can be reopened and overturned...not even a hint...the admin executed an enforcement action and dismissed it. Period, the end. Whatever he says after that is not applicable because it would be a violation of the ruling. Had Sandstein said something along the line of I disagree with the arguments, the evidence is unconvincing...yada yada...and I hereby concede to let others make the final decision and close the case. That is not what happened - he closed the case - and Drmies reopened it despite ArbCom's clear decision that once a case is closed it may not be reopened. I am not aware of any amendments or changes to that decision. If there are, please show me. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). I've removed some statements made by WBG at the direction of a member of the arbitration committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Sandstein's comment closing the thread stated that another administrator could take action if he or she thought it was warranted. Given that statement, the usual rule against reopening a closed AE request would not apply in this instance. If Petrarchan wishes to appeal from his topic-ban or seek to end it, he should focus on the substantive reasons the topic-ban was imposed rather than procedural issues. @Winged Blades of Godric: It is a bit contradictory to accuse an editor of trolling and of incompetence for the same post, since they imply very different mind-sets. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to respond to the post without alleging either of these things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC) There are several named parties to this ARCA that have yet to provide statement. I would like to hear from some of them before making a decision. Mkdw talk 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC) I've read this a few times now, and Petrarchan47, am I to understand that you're not appealing the GMO topic ban per se, but in fact appealing the "re-opening" of the thread? I assume, with the hope that if we confirm the thread should not have been re-opened, then the ban wouldn't have happened, and therefore can be dismissed. Well, no - I have no issue with the thread being re-opened, there had been little discussion and Sandstein closed as such, explicitly allowing for Drmies (or any other admin) to take action. If he'd closed as "clearly no violation", that might be different. WormTT(talk) 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with my colleagues, Sandstein closed the thread specifically allowing other admins to modify the outcome at their discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC) As do I. I don't see grounds for granting the appeal. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Same; Sandstein explicitly closed the thread to allow for later modification, so it's not invalid. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Atsme, I would argue that Sandstein used the discretion afforded to administrators in handling AE requests to specifically leave room for Drmies (or someone else) to reopen the thread. Just as we respect an admin's discretion in crafting situationally-specific sanctions, we should also respect an admin's decision to close with a situationally-specific caveat, as was done here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment - Sandstein exercised his judgment to dismiss the thread while explicitly carving out an opening for Drmies to exercise his judgment if he disagreed with Sandstein's. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC) That principle is obviously intended to prevent situations like the one that resulted in the case you're quoting, where one admin unilaterally (ie without the consent of the dismissing admin) overruled a dismissal and blocked someone for a month. It is clear in this case that Drmies did have the prior consent of the dismissing admin, so his action was hardly a unilateral reversal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Agree with my fellow admins. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Magioladitis

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Case or decision affected Magioladitis arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: Magioladitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Statement by Magioladitis Am I allowed to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Should_BAG_members_have_an_activity_requirement?? Am I allowed to do this task Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Change_coming_to_how_certain_templates_will_appear_on_the_mobile_web? The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy. The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC) In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC) So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC) PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC) RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC) RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Username Statement by {other-editor} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Magioladitis: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). I've done some formatting fixes.‎ Cameron11598 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Magioladitis: Arbitrator views and discussion As I understand it, Magioladitis, you would not be prohibited from participating in either discussion provided you do not discuss or participate in portions of the discussion that would violate your sanctions. For example in the BAG RFC, the principle discuss is clearly outside your sanctions, however, Headbomb has mentioned COSMETICBOT. You should not participate in that portion of the discussion. Mkdw talk 18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC) The RFC will need to be formally closed. The request by the WMF for assistance appears to be effective now and it does not appear the community has raised any concerns or desire for a specific process. I would caution that if any changes are met with resistance, to stop and seek community consensus on the issue before proceeding any further. Mkdw talk 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC) @Magioladitis: if the edits you want to make "only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit)", then you are prohibited from doing so. Neither of these discussions lift the sanction placed against you. I would err on the side of caution and consider edits like this one to be only a cosmetic change to how the maintenance notice displays. Mkdw talk 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Agree with Mkdw - as long as the comments themselves aren't about COSMETICBOT, there's no reason you couldn't participate in those discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Recuse. ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I agree that you are not restricted from participating in the BAG discussion, as long as you avoid COSMETICBOT. As for the VP discussion, Magioladitis, are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or actually make edits to make the visual changes when the discussion has finished? Everyone is responding to that one as though you are asking if you can participate in the discussion, but your actual wording is "Am I allowed to do this task". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Magioladitis, your response makes no sense. I need you to clarify: are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or if you can make the edits when the time comes? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC) For the second one, I would say you can discuss the situation, as long as you don't bring bots, AWB, or automated edits into it, which would (IMO) cross the line of your restrictions on COSMETICBOT discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with Mkdw. You can't comment on COSMETICBOT but you can comment on other material. Like PMC I'm confused by some of your questions - some of which don't seem ones we can answer. Are you asking us for permission to edit and if so to edit what? Doug Weller talk 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Mkdw summed it up best I think. You cannot comment on COSMETICBOT and should stay far away from that discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC) To add, I would say you can comment on the situation WITHOUT bringing up bots, or AWB ot any time of automated edit. Stay far away from those as you can. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Rambling Man

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

Case or decision affected

The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The Rambling Man prohibited

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Perhaps the many other participants to the WP:AE threads listed below could also be considered involved. I have not attempted to list them all here.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Rambling Man notified

Information about amendment request

• The Rambling Man prohibited

• Lift the restriction and replace it with another sanction if deemed necessary.

Statement by Sandstein

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

This restriction has given rise to many WP:AE requests, including (I may have missed some):

1. 14 December 2016: Warned by The Wordsmith
2. 22 January 2017: No action as closed by me, Sandstein
3. 5 March 2017: Blocked by me for a month; upheld on appeal with a reduced duration
4. 10 April 2017: No action as closed by Harrias
5. 8 July 2017: No action as closed by Dennis Brown
6. 5 January 2018: No action as closed by Ritchie333
7. 25 January 2018: No action as closed by GoldenRing
8. 2 March 2018: No action as closed by GoldenRing
9. 31 May 2018: No action as closed by NeilN
10. 20 June 2018: No action as closed by Stephen
11. 23 November 2018 (permalink): Referred to this forum by me with the agreement of other participating admins

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

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

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

@Worm That Turned, Callanecc, and Opabinia regalis: Because you have asked for specific proposals, here's mine: Please don't replace the sanction with another that depends on the judgment of administrators, such as another kind of civility restriction. Instead, either forego any sanction, or impose a block or ban.

I agree with BU Rob13 that the social dynamics of this case are such that regular enforcement by individual administrators is very difficult. We are faced with a longterm vested contributor surrounded by what looks to me like a group of sympathetic administrators and other users who seem to be intent on protecting the user at issue from enforcement measures. We are also faced with a type of problem – notorious incivility combined with valuable content work – for which the community at large has long been notoriously incapable of coming up with broadly accepted enforcement standards. This means that any individual administrator undertaking or proposing enforcement action will face intense opposition, such as I am facing here: calls for recusals and threats of community sanctions, merely for expressing the view that the conduct at issue did in fact violate an ArbCom decision.

I've had experiences like these before, and I'm no longer willing to be the only admin to stick my head out in such cases. They need to be handled, decisively, by the people elected to do so: the Committee itself. The evidence in the AE requests should be sufficient for ArbCom to determine that either The Rambling Man's conduct is not a problem and lift the sanction, or that it is and impose a block or ban. Sandstein 16:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

Double jeopardy time by the looks of it. The list above is confirmation that there's a consensus that no infringement of the sanctions per their current wording has taken place since Sandstein blocked me (twice), the last time being something like 12 months ago (which he neglected to note). Since then a litany of "no action" cases. But now that's not enough, let's go back over all the previous cases and find a different angle so we can re-word the sanction so we can definitely block me, even retrospectively! Bravo. I think (in fact, I know) that the way in which this has been opened already attempts to strongly bias this hearing, and so there seems little purpose in me contributing to it further at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde's example is a perfect exemplar of the absurdity of the sanction. That I could make a completely generic statement about the state of generic individuals attempting to run for offices in a generic grouping of individuals working generically for a generic group of users sums up the futility of trying to discover gold examples of sanction infractions. It would be like sanctioning me for saying "I don't think Arbcom is working too well". The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde's latest example (of "casting aspersions") is a poor choice as everything in it is terribly accurate. Harsh perhaps, but fair (tinkering with approved hooks against consensus, introducing errors heading to the main page etc). If we are now looking to level sanctions when someone dares to confront an admin's erroneous behaviour, I suspect we're heading down the wrong path altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, you get to choose the venue, of course. This is quite irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh and BU Rob13 makes a number of claims of communications from various "reluctant" admins, and a "groupies" list, this needs further investigation, with evidence presented here. As this list of "groupie" admins is fundamentally important to this case, we need to list them out and understand their involvement, as the Arb BU Rob13 has alluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, you've cast aspersions about the behaviour of a number of unnamed admins (you referred to them as "groupies"), you need to explain that further, are those individuals abusing their position? If so, we should investigate each of them per WP:ADMINACCT. If not, then why would you use such an abusive term which indicates some kind of nefarious behaviour from a group of long-standing editors? Or does this all boil down to the fact that a large number of individuals (some admins) happen to disagree with your position? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih says there was a consensus among Main Page admins that the "errors" or matters TRM raised at ERRORS were not always exactly "errors"? as if that's somehow relevant to any of this. But just a quick glance at WP:TRM will show that of the 879 reports I've raised there since mid-July, 815 of them have been resolved, i.e. a 90% hit rate. Now please show me any single other editor in the history of Wikipedia who has a better ratio. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Mkdw, you make an offer, but you don't suggest the alternative, i.e. "I'd be interested..." but what if I'm not? It's clear there's no consensus that I've breached the sanction on numerous occasions, as noted above I do offer to attempt to reduce my tone to satisfy those who dislike it, but I'm more interested in whether or not this sanction still exists in reality. And if not, are Arbcom now threatening to conjure up some immediate punishment? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw, so can I just clarify, for you it's either "pledge to do better" or "face the uncertain fate of Arbcom's decision making process which will potentially ignore the double jeopardy of more than a year's worth of consensus against the sanction" and impost a retrospective block/ban? Either/or? It's not clear what you are suggesting, nor the involved Sandstein (whose continual threats against consensus remain unaddressed here) nor the involved Arbitrator BU Rob13 (whose aspersions against "groupies" remain unaddressed here). What are you trying to suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Statement by Black Kite

I'll have more to say about this shortly (I'm away for a couple of days now), but I'd just like to point out that Sandstein has omitted that The Rambling Man was blocked for 2 weeks in November 2017 for a breach of this remedy [16]. I believe this was a unilateral act by the blocking admin, however, and did not make it to AE. Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ironic that on a thread about civility, @BU Rob13: thinks it's OK to say "...because doing so immediately results in them being harassed by the "groupies" that show up to every single thread related to TRM". The hypocrisy is startling, especially from an arbitrator. Do you really think it's OK to be saying that, Rob? Do you really think you can comment on someone else's civility if you can't do it yourself? Care to name these "groupies" (especially if they're admins)? Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID

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

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

Statement by Ritchie333

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

To follow up on OID's point, there is precedent for sanctioning admins over-eager to block users without thinking of the full circumstances. AFAIK, Mike V is still community banned from taking any administrative action against TRM. [17] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I closed the AE thread you started because it seemed that any administration action would cause more disruption that it solved (particularly as TRM had redacted the comment you were trying to sanction him for), and was specifically endorsing the emerging consensus of admins who had already expressed an opinion, particularly Vanamonde. Given the already publicised conflict between him and TRM, I take a "no action" request from him as more weight than from someone like me. When I spoke to you about it, I did mention that you had been accused of being a sockpuppet, though I also said I personally felt such claims were entirely without foundation and also said that you were helpful in other areas of the project. I was simply advising you on what a good course of action would be to sustain respect from the community and be able to do your job with the minimum of harassment. Given that it's fair comment to say that I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with NeilN on things, when I see he has also closed an AE report as "no action", it suggests a broad consensus across the administrative corps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

The wording of the amended prohibition is a failure. It's worth keeping in mind that the prohibition was a civility sanction, based on a finding on TRM being uncivil. It has also been noted that a lot of the incivility was about constantly being hostile and rude over a long period of time, but not going too much over the line with any individual comment (i.e. flying just under the radar). So obscuring the prohibition with the "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" wording made it unenforceable.

You can read all the recent DYK threads with such behauvior: 1, 2, 3 & 4 but I will also point out the exact diffs in the most recent AE thread.

• I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again [18]
• No thanks, better things to do to check "work in progress Phase I", and I'd suggest you leave them well alone with your recent track record!! [19]
• The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues. [20]

Yet many editors do not see these as being "reflections on general competence". What? Does he need to literally state "your general competence sucks" for the prohibition to kick in? Either improve it and start enforcing it or then just rid of it altogether. --Pudeo (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

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

Statement by BU Rob13

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

Given the failure of AE in this circumstance, the Committee should at least consider making enforcement actions related to this remedy appealable only to the Arbitration Committee at ARCA. That would greatly reduce the influence of the involved editors that make enforcing this remedy difficult. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No reasonable editor can look at the quotes Pudeo posted and say TRM isn't commenting on the general competence of editors or groups of editors. One of the quotes literally even uses the word "competence". Yet AE results in no action, despite the clear violations. Anything that involves punting this to the community to solve isn't going to work. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I have clarified above that the incident I was referring to was not the last time I took TRM to AE, apparently. It was a time before that. Stephen is not involved, as best as I can tell, though I haven't exactly looked. Every time I've crossed paths with him (admittedly, very few times), he's handled himself superbly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 331dot

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

Statement by AGK

The arbitration procedures are already clear:

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

— WP:AC/P § Dismissing an enforcement request

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

Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

Of late, though, we've had a somewhat different situation; the language TRM uses is again rather intemperate (links in the most recent AE filing). I am fine with people telling him to tone it down, instead of blocking him (indeed, that's likely to be more effective). Instead, most people in this discussion (with honorable exceptions) have refused to recognize that the comments like the following are indeed a problem:

"...anyone running this time would be doing it simply for hat collection purposes. But hey, let's see who "runs" (i.e. leaves it to the last minute to avoid scrutiny, then leap in with cabal backing!)." [21]

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

The principle of this restriction is a good one, because TRM has been unwilling to moderate his language of his own accord. If admins are unable or unwilling to enforce it (through blocks or conversation, it doesn't matter; the point is whether, when a violation occurs, admins take action to discourage further violations), then ARBCOM needs to revise it so it's enforceable, enforce it themselves, or to scrap it altogether and more or less make it official that once you've done enough content work, you can behave more or less the way you want. Vanamonde (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for the clarification. Could you refresh my memory as to where that comment was? @Euryalus: I agree with Alex's reply to you below: I want to add that I'm puzzled by your suggestion that we reach consensus at AE. AE does not require consensus; a single admin could, while acting within policy, implement a sanction that others disagreed with, but such a sanction would probably end up at ARCA. We're trying to shorten that process here. Also, I've been fairly active at AE, and no restriction that I know of has engendered as much disagreement about its enforcement as this one, hence the request that the restriction be made easier to interpret. Vanamonde (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That's not an accurate characterization of those discussions. First, Dweller is not "unambiguously unbiased", and has admitted as much himself. Second, several admins (including myself, before my involvement), have made it quite clear that the diffs brought to AE were not acceptable; sanctions were avoided in one case via a warning, in another case because TRM redacted his statement, and in a third by coming here; there was also one AE block and one block invoking this sanction that wasn't from AE. The reports have been from a number of users, too. So the notion that this is all Sandstein isn't going to fly; I have no issues with anyone examining his behavior, but there's more going on. Also, if you can look at the quote I posted above and say that that isn't speculating about others editors' motivations, that bothers me; is there anything TRM could do that you would consider a violation? Vanamonde (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Aside from which there's the fact that most of the threads linked above have had multiple admins saying TRM's behavior was sub-par, even disruptive, but despite that, there's little to no recognition that there's a behavioral issue here from a worryingly large number of people. Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Yes, I misunderstood the first part of what you wrote. I still disagree with the second part: TRM's restriction has nothing to say about whether the editors are individual editors or a group; in this case, the group isn't even a non-specific one; it referred to anyone running for ARBCOM this year. Vanamonde (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: how about a restriction on casting aspersions? Theoretically, that would require TRM to raise any personal issues with other editors in a civil manner, or to take them to the appropriate forum, or to drop the issues altogether; it would prevent this sort of thing, at least. A more practical but otherwise less attractive option might be a page-specific topic ban: or perhaps wording could be crafted preventing TRM from discussing general editor behavior except at user talk pages or dispute resolution fora. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The point, TRM, is not that you shouldn't challenge what I do, it's that you should do it (preferably politely) in an appropriate place; not at a completely unrelated discussion about a different nomination. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. Vanamonde (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Amakuru's proposal: I'd love it if this could be solved by a voluntary commitment. I'm skeptical, though, because at the moment TRM has not even recognized that his behavior has been sub-optimal (and that's putting it mildly); and it hasn't helped that several others have not recognized this either. @Dweller and Black Kite: if there's anybody here who could actually persuade TRM to dial it back a little, it's you; but setting aside the specific sanction for the moment, I don't see anything in your statements suggesting that TRM is anything other than a victim here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

On mobile now so I'll have to substantiate with diffs later, but just wanted to quickly address Vanamonde93's ping: my comment at AE should not be read as an endorsement of "no violation"; my position is quite clear I believe in a previous long post I made about The Rambling Man and their civility at ERRORS. The purpose of my comment is to point out how the current wording of the restriction can be interpreted freely both ways, which is why we have found ourselves back at AE repeatedly without any results. The purpose of the remedy was certainly violated on more than one occasion, but the reality we have here is that the situation has been worked to a point that no administrator in their sane mind would enforce such remedy. In this situation, ArbCom needs to either take more responsibility or just declare the remedy as unenforceable. Alex Shih (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: "the restriction is/was a mechanism to encourage The Rambling Man to be more civil in interaction with other editors" – Aren't ArbCom remedies meant to be binding, rather than serving the purpose of "to encourage" better editing behaviour? And this remedy is most certainly not about encouraging TRM to be more civil (because technically we should all be civil) when the wording is clearly written as "speculation about the motivations of editors". I also don't think it's true to say substantial portion of admins at AE "don't consider his comments over recent months to be uncivil"; there should be rough consensus that TRM has been uncivil in most of the instances, but no consensus on whether or not these incivility requires any action. And this no consensus mostly originates from the disagreement over the interpretation of the remedy as currently worded – what is the remedy trying to prevent? To ask AE to "get a consensus" over this basically proven unenforceable remedy is irresponsible on ArbCom's part. We can't get a consensus, and that's why we are here. If TRM can freely make insulting remarks, or make implications without making any direct reference, then this remedy is pointless and should be dropped so we don't find ourselves wasting time over this exercise in vain. Alex Shih (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: This is the diff that I was talking about, which should reflect my general stance toward the issue of "The Rambling Man and civility". And while I am here, I would like to address a related point brought up by Thryduulf: please take another look at this discussion as an example. It is not as simple as just fixing the errors brought up by TRM; in many instances the "errors" brought by TRM are merely cases where the blurb/content could have been better or less misleading. I could probably find many examples where if someone tries to "demonstrate that the matters TRM is highlighting are not errors" per se, it will lead to TRM personalising of discussions with extreme hostility; in my view, this is the editing behaviour that led to the original case, and this is the editing behaviour that the remedy in question should be preventing. I personally don't have a problem interacting with TRM dealing with their error reports as long as we know our content and focus only on the content (an example of my approach), but the unnecessary attacks of people needs to stop at one point.

While I applaud Opabinia regalis's creativity in "crafting" the amended wording, "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" has now essentially become a red herring where TRM can simply make generic motivations about generic editors and reflecting on generic competence which attacks other editors through implication but not direct reference (therefore not violating the restriction as worded). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ArbCom needs to be explicit on what the remedy is trying to prevent. If ArbCom is simply asking TRM to be more civil and play nice, this remedy accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time for all of us. So please don't avoid this issue like it do not exist or claim that it is no longer your scope; alternatively in AGK's words: Please provide for its enforcement or vacate it. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, BU Rob13 needs to be careful not to cast aspersions on Stephen over their close in this AE request as somehow "involved". In the same AE request they also claimed that Fish and karate was involved. So we have a ArbCom member openly accusing two admins of violating policy as written, so I would like to ask the opinion of other committee members to clarify on whether or not this is a valid accusation. And while we are at it, for the sake of transparency please clarify on whether or not private discussions in regards to this ARCA request are held in a separate mailing list from this ArbCom member that is heavily invested in this matter. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I will not defend David Eppstein's remarks in the example discussion I have provided because it was certainly far from ideal, but to characterise these remarks as "ad hominem" and "personal attacks" while ignoring the context is by all means unfair and false. Whether or not TRM approached the scope of his sanction is irrelevant; I have explicitly stated that TRM did not violate his sanction as worded in all of the instances that have been brought before us so far. The main point here should be that an arbitration case was brought against TRM about his incessant hostility, a remedy was drafted, an amendment was provided, but yet the same hostility persisted in different forms. Did you happen to miss the discussion that led to TRM exiling himself from WP:ERRORS, because there was a consensus among Main Page admins that the "errors" or matters TRM raised at ERRORS were not always exactly "errors"? Alex Shih (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Disturbing. @RickinBaltimore: with all due respect would you mind to spend a little more time looking at this request in depth if you are going to comment at all, rather than basically regurgitate the bureaucratic nonsense Mkdw just said? In what way would TRM moderate his tone and where would it be applied? What are you guys talking about? I really wish some of the ArbCom members can take note from civility notes like this one (credit RexxS; sorry for pinging). Newyorkbrad has this right: It should not be about the tone, but the "personally directed remarks" by TRM which does nothing but to stir bitterness for everyone. It doesn't have to be this way. And Mkdw, despite of this copyedit, you would still need to clarify what you meant by "severe option": are you trying to make an implicit threat here that if the enforcement request goes before ArbCom it would be a "severe option" which presumably means resulting in sanctions? Is this not a textbook example of prejudging without considering all of the discussions so far about the unsuitability of the wording of the remedy? Why do you think it is okay to ignore all of the discussions and arguments that have been presented so far, and may I ask why you are not recused from all matters involving The Rambling Man as your impartiality is in serious question here, when taken the past history into consideration? Alex Shih (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

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

Statement by Thryduulf

I may have more to add later, but for now I think is best to copy over a couple of comments I made in the most recent AE request, the first related to TRM's behaviour:

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

The second related to Sandstein's interaction with enforcement requests against TRM:

A (possibly partial) list and summary of previous occasions where Sandstein has commented on AE requests involving TRM

• March 2017 Sandstein blocked TRM for 1 month 40 minutes after a report from a user with a known long history of antagonistic interaction with TRM. The only outside comment was "I think you can probably cut him [TRM] some slack for that [diff]."
  • See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
• March 2017 Appeal of previous block, length reduced to 1 week.
• July 2017 Sandstein agrees with the unanimous consensus that the overly long request is not actionable]]
• May 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month, six other admins and at least 12 other commenters said "not a violation", several also asking Sandstein to recuse.
• June 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month. Six other admins (including me) and at least four others see no violation. 1 admin sees a posisble violation but no need for a sanction given the context. Myself and Dweller at least call for Sandstein to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Initial list compiled by Thryduulf. Others may expand it, but let's not go back too far.)

I posted this in a collapsed section at AE as it wasn't directly related to the filing. I'm posting it uncollapsed here as it is directly relevant. This was compiled based only on the first 1 (or possibly 2) pages of results when searching the AE archives for "The Rambling Man". They may be others as the results I did get were presented in a random order. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I also endorse OID's comments regarding Sandstein. Before an ARCA was mentioned I was considering starting an AN thread regarding the matter myself. It is a fundamental principle of adminship that you recuse when you are not able to act neutrally and objectively regarding a matter so that it is dealt with fairly. It is an equally fundamental principle that such matters must be seen to be handled neutrally, and if you are repeatedly told by many different people that you appear to be biased in a particular matter then you should recuse, whether you think you are biased or not.
Unfortunately my memory fails me regarding the name of the person concerned, but one (former, I think) arbitrator published a list of topics (and users?) in their userspace where they would always recuse. One of these was Armenia-Azerbaijan, where they perceived they had no bias but others perceived they did. This is a model Sandstein should look to emulate rather than doubling down when presented with repeated instances when they have been diametrically opposed to pretty much every other contributor to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: The issue with Sandstein is not how often he has commented on AE requests involving TRM (afaik nobody considers than a problem). The problem is how he comments: He presents himself as an unbiased administrator when literally dozens of other administrators in good standing tell him over and over again that this comments (including, but not exclusively, the calls to block TRM for a month when everyone else says there was no violation) demonstrate that he is really not. To me it has reached the stage of an admin competency issue: WP:ADMINACCT final bullet "Repeated or consistent poor judgment" and the general (but possibly unwritten) expectation that administrators will listen to an act on feedback given to them rather than doubling down. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Vanamonde93: The disagreement is pretty simple to characterise in almost every report I've seen - with very few exceptions Sandstein and those who are unambiguously biased or involved regarding TRM see a violation, Dweller and those who are unambiguously unbiased and uninvolved see no violation. Sandstein sees every report as warranting a month long block, pretty much everyone else who sees a violation thinks that the appropriate response is a chastisement or short block. This is not evidence that TRM is not being blocked enough. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: You've misunderstood nearly everything I've written. I said "Dweller and those who are unambiguously unbiased" not that Dweller is one of those who are unambiguously unbiased. Likewise regarding Sandstein I'm not saying he is the only one who sees violations, simply that (a) he is the only one who is neither unambiguously involved nor unambiguously biased who sees them as such (you for example are very clearly involved) and (b) he is the only one of those who do see these as violations who thinks the most appropriate response is to block for a month. As for me, when I see TRM speculating about the general motivations of individual editors (rather than commenting about a non-specific group of editors in general or expressing exasperation about the actions (or lack of actions) of individual editors in a very specific context) then I will absolutely call him out on his breach of a topic ban. I will not vote to sanction him for things that do not violate his restrictions no matter how much people want them to be violations. As I said the best thing for everybody here to do is to actually fix the errors, that way there wont be anything for TRM to complain about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih: Having reviewed that discussion I see that as a very good example, but not of your point. It shows TRM proposing a modification to a hook to (a) address an issue raised by someone else, and (b) correcting a simple factual error ("is" to "will become") this was then met with a string a ad hominem comments and personal attacks from other users against which TRM was defending himself, interspersed with comments about his opinion of the process - none of which is anything remotely approaching what his sanction covers. You apparently think that a "slightly misleading" blurb should not be regarded as an error, if so then that falls squarely under option 2 I proposed "get consensus that the matters TRM raises are not errors". Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Shrike: the problem is that while (almost) everyone can agree whether there have or have not been 3 or more reverts, the same is not true of civility. There is no objective definition of what is and is not uncivil that is independent of context - while (almost) everyone would agree that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not appropriate in almost all circumstances very occasional exceptions are possible (e.g. if the context is a clearly humorous reference to Arkell v. Pressdram and the exchange is occurring between editors who are not engaged in a dispute). Similarly if two editors are engaged in an acrimonious dispute and one responds the other with "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" that almost certainly would be uncivil but it is not something that could ever be codified. There also exist cases where cultural differences mean that one party sees something as entirely innocent while another takes great offence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: Civility is objective any comment on editor(ad hominem) is a breach No, it's much more complicated than that - "Shrike's editing history indicates they are biased against <controversial politician>" is a comment on an editor that is perfectly civil. "This so-called discussion is a fucking heap of stinking biased horseshit that makes Wikipedia look like the product of a three year old's tantrum." is an uncivil comment that is not an ad hominem. Even "Shrike is almost always right about this sort of thing" would be uncivil by your proposed definition. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• @New York Brad, Worm That Turned, Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, and Doug Weller: Just a reminder that the issues around Sandstein and BU Rob 13 are still being overlooked but really do need addressing. The former has clearly lost the trust of the community that is able to be impartial regarding TRM but refuses to listen to feedback about his judgement (as is required of all admins) and the latter is casting aspersions without evidence (and not for the first time either) - behaviour that arbcom has sanctioned many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

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

Statement by Dweller

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

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

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

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

Sounds like everyone wins that way. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Shrike

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

@Thryduulf: Civility is objective any comment on editor(ad hominem) is a breach.In your second example there were no comment on editor so the bright line was not crossed.--Shrike (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

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

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

Statement by Amakuru

As an admin who processes errors and main page updates, and sometimes opines at ITNC, I see TRM around quite a bit and agree that his commitment to the project and the value he provides are indisputable. I also think he is on the receiving end of some unfair treatment including the repeated efforts in some quarters to get WP:ERRORS2 shut down - really that page is a positive development because it removes TRM from some of the direct interaction which was occurring at WP:ERRORS which led to the sort of incivility we're talking about. That doesn't mean he has a carte blanche to be uncivil to other editors though, and like Ritchie333, I do cringe a little when I see TRM laying into people. Even if the complaint is justified, it doesn't seem useful for anyone concerned to turn it personal. So, to answer the question of what I think ArbCom should do here, I would say there must be a better way forward than the binary choice between just doing nothing vs ArbCom coming down on TRM like a ton of bricks. A renewal of the voluntary commitment that Newyorkbrad mentions to address the issues in future, rather than the person responsible for them, would be great if TRM would agree to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Desmay

BU Rob13 last tried in June 2018,[22][23] to get TRM blocked through WP:AE, not January 2018.[24] Though these repeated attempts by BU Rob13 to get TRM blocked are ironic because BU Rob13 himself topic bans an editor only for reporting a topic ban violation[25] and here he says that he dislikes when other admins avoid taking action against TRM when BU Rob13 sanctions people for reporting the violators. We should at least accept that unlike BU Rob13, these admins who acted on these TRM related AE reports were not sanctioning the reporting editor on spurious basis.

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Civility is one of the most difficult points of Wikipedia, I don't think anyone disagrees that instances of incivility are easy to point out and while I haven't yet reviewed the AE requests (which I'll do over the next few days) I am unsurprised that a "civility restriction" hasn't worked. They historically been unenforceable as incivility is a reaction to other frustrating behaviours. I'm not saying it's the right reaction, but it's hard to sanction someone for being rude, when the reason they were rude is apparent and often worse than the rudeness. I'll await statements from those involved and the rest of the community and reply further after the weekend. Worm^TT(talk) 15:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Noting that I'm happy for this request to remain longer than usual and thank TRM for agreeing to progress. Off wiki matters should always come first, this is just a website.
  Now, having looked at the remedy in question, especially the part about speculating regarding general competence, I can absolutely see why there have been so many AE requests. The diffs provided in those AE request include a fair amount of obvious (to me) speculation regarding general competence - though the word TRM uses liberally is "experience". Semantically different, yes, but the end result is the same. This begs the question - why hasn't the AE requests been acted upon. I don't agree with the idea of a small cadre of supporters, because there is a large variety of users who have pointed out that action need not been taken, including numerous ones I would not consider to just defend friends. I also don't buy the idea that people are scared to act - that's the point of AE and those who spend much time there act on very difficult cases all the time. Simply, I think it goes back to my post before the weekend, that when put in context, incivility often stems from frustration at behaviours which are worse than the incivility.
  That brings us back to what to do next. This current wording is clearly not working, so we should vacate that. That leaves us with a few options, a) put in nothing enforceable but get some agreement from TRM and hope for the best, b) throw our arms up and ban TRM (noting many of these issues are around the main page and therefore there is a possibility of a targetted ban - even with his 90% hit rate), or ... c) something else. As yet, I'm not seeing a lot of "something else" and I see benefits and down sides to both a) and b). I'll keep thinking and reading for the moment, but if anyone has a c), please do shout! Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Regarding the "casting aspersions", we do regularly let things slide on this and other arbcom pages because we know that by the time we get to here people are frustrated and have explanations. Whilst I don't agree with BU Rob13's explanation of why this has perpetuated (and have stated so above) I'm not seeing anything so egregious which needs to be dealt with here. Regarding Sandstein, I also don't see that he's lost faith of the community. He may be advocating for long blocks, but they do fall as an option within the scope of the remedy and like it or not, it would be a solution to the problem. Again, there are excellent editors on both sides of this issue, everyone is working towards improving the encyclopedia - our current remedy is failing and we're looking to move forward. Let's not call for heads, I don't think we have enough baskets. Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Recuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'll echo what Worm said, and I'd be especially interested in statements which suggest alternative options (different wordings, enforcement methods or otherwise). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Decline - the restriction is/was a mechanism to encourage The Rambling Man to be more civil in interaction with other editors. The history of its enforcement at AE indicates a substantial proportion of participating editors and admins don't consider his comments over recent months to be uncivil, at least not to the point of requiring any action. Playing around with the remedy wording isn't going to change that; and repealing the remedy simply pushes this conversation from AE back to Case Requests. The best course, if anyone feels The Rambling Man is uncivil in communicating with others, is to get a consensus for this point of view at AE and enforce the remedy already in place. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man says on their userpage that they're attending to a family bereavement. Suggest we pause discussion of this ARCA for a little bit until they return. World won't end if it's delayed a few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, as I recall I'm the author of the current wording, so you can all aim your torches and pitchforks in my direction (orderly line, please). Thinking out loud for a bit:
  • The idea that everyone is too scared to enforce the restriction leads straight down the same path that led to the AE2 case, and we already know that goes nowhere good, so let's not do that. AE admins are sort of by definition not wimps.
  • 331dot has a good point that the underlying premise to a lot of these comments is that obviously TRM should have been blocked more, therefore his lack of blocks is evidence that the restriction is failing. Of course, an alternative explanation is that people didn't think he needed to be blocked. Still, there is clearly a problem somewhere - that's an awful lot of AE requests, and from enough different filers that it's hard to make a "they're all out to get me" case.
  • Sandstein comments on a lot of AE requests, so the fact that he appears in a lot of the TRM-related requests doesn't seem particularly significant.
  • "Arbcom is unwilling to do anything about errors on the main page" - arbcom is unable to do anything about errors on the main page. If there's a user-conduct issue related to main-page errors (or DYK, or whatever) and it goes beyond TRM, well, I hate to be all bureaucratic pettifogging but you're in the wrong place; down the hall, to the right, please file Form 2b sections 5-12 in triplicate here.
  • I've written a lot of tediously long posts about problems in how we define and manage "incivility", especially in the context of expressions of frustration by people working on content. Despite the bullet point above, it's pretty clear that a lot of this is coming from frustration over highly visible poor content. On the other hand, if I had to make a list of the most unpleasant behavior patterns on Wikipedia, this kind of self-righteous, me-against-the-world, everything-would-fall-apart-without-me, Defender of the Wiki business would be right up there. Last time around I called it "really goddamn annoying", and on review I think I understated the case. I think if WP:CIVIL had somewhere along the line been replaced with WP:HUMBLE, a lot of problematic social dynamics might have been mitigated. (Yes, I appreciate the irony of advocating for more humility while writing seven billion bytes of text about my obviously very important opinion ;)
  • Regardless of what else happens, I think Johnuniq's suggestion about non-"escalating" blocks has merit. I never liked that provision and actually thought it didn't apply in this case (but now that I look I was thinking of another case). I think it's a perverse incentive that prevents blocks from being used effectively, and I said the same about AE2, and probably AE1 before that, so it's hardly a TRM-specific view. I don't have a good feeling about power~enwiki's suggestion, because that turns the problem back into generic "incivility", and the whole point of the current wording (and indeed, the original wording from the case) was to be more specific about the nature of the problem. Any other ideas? Having been on the other side of this dynamic a few times, with people I enjoyed collaborating with, who were prickly on-wiki but reasonable in private, I would've thought I'd have a better idea of what to do about it, but it turns out that it's harder than it looks. "TRM is required to remove all adjectives and adverbs from his posts"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Real life and family must come first. I would rather have a thorough discussion about the issues and review potential changes than sweep this under the rug, so I am willing to keep this open for a bit longer than normal. If TRM is willing to make a commitment to "reducing the harshness of [their] tone" under certain conditions, I would be at least interest to hear what those would be and if they are compatible with the community's expectations on civility and conflict resolution. Mkdw ^talk 19:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: In your offer to moderate your tone down, you also expressed there was "little purpose in doing" so under the current sanctions. I was responding to your point and asking you what might improve the situation. If you are willing to make a sustained commitment and proves to address the issue, then a civility sanction in any form may no longer be required. Mkdw ^talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Broadly, AE outcomes where there was a consensus are not the problem here; the problem is when there is no consensus at AE. A no consensus AE outcome for this sanction might not be suitable. In such a situation, it may need to go before ArbCom for a decision on whether the sanction was violated or not. I am not really seeing a lot of alternative wording that would definitively fix the core issue and if the community is having difficulty in deciding, then this is really a last resort option, but it does put the responsibility on ArbCom. Mkdw ^talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih: No. I am simply saying requiring our involvement should only be reserved as a measure of last resort. My first preference would always be to find a way for the community to be able to resolve these issues first. Not that any punishment would be severe. I have only interacted with TRM as an arbitrator with no prior interactions that I can recall. Mkdw ^talk 13:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• I'm also not in a rush. I like Newyorkbrad's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Echoing everyone else that I am not in a rush here - real life trumps the internet every time. That being said, the current situation appears untenable to me. We can't keep changing the wording of the sanction hoping to arrive at something that will produce consensus every time, because unless we draw some absolutely draconian bright lines, there will always be problems with subjectivity leading to a lack of consensus over what constitutes a violation. I think we need a different approach, although I admit I don't have any incredibly radical ideas.
  If The Rambling Man is willing to voluntarily agree to moderate his tone again, I would be willing to look into suspending or even vacating the sanction. As NYB pointed out, a voluntary change was reasonably successful in the past, so I don't see what we have to lose by trying it again. As a distant second option, we could consider turning over decision-making about enforcing this sanction directly to ArbCom as Mkdw suggests, but I honestly think a voluntary change would be far more effective. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification TH1980

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned

• <Stricken on appeal> or <Suspended for six months, after which it will lapse> (see below)

Statement by Hijiri88

The IBAN was agreed upon by ArbCom due to TH1980 having hounded me (permalink to FoF), following an agreement among the same that a one-way IBAN wouldn't work (permalink to failed proposed remedy). The problem was that at the same time ArbCom also TBANned me from virtually all the articles TH1980 had followed me to, but did not similarly TBAN him, so he was free to continue reverting my edits to the articles to which he had followed me in the first place (On 23 October 2015 I removed a particular piece of text from the article, the following day he re-added a modified version of it, to which I responded by amending his wording to more accurately reflect the text, and then on 27 May 2016 he restored text very similar to what I had originally removed: compare Many Japanese myths about the age of the gods are believed by scholars including Mikiso Hane and Joo-Young Yoo to have their origins in Korean stories. to Many Japanese myths about the age of the gods are believed by scholars including Mikiso Hane and Kim Yeol-kyu to have their origins in Korean stories. -- his edit summary misleadingly called this "add[ing] new material", the subtle manual revert of my edit from seven months earlier was hidden within a massive series of changes to the article; he made a lot of other edits like this, if I recall, during the months following the mutual IBAN and my TBAN, and even once explicitly mentioned me by name (permalink to AE entry), until he eventually got his own TBAN (diff of ANI close) from essentially the same topic area, to which topic area he had followed me in the first place.

Now I mostly edit articles on Japanese literature and the like, and he can't touch those anyway because of his TBAN, so there's not really a risk of continued hounding at this point; the only thing the mutual IBAN is doing is forcing me to add stuff like Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it to my questions to multiple candidates in the upcoming ArbCom elections, since my question refers to a statement of principle on hounding that was in my ArbCom case and that may be read as being linked to the FoF that TH1980 hounded me, and I don't want people telling me I'm skirting the boundaries of my two-way IBAN by mentioning hounding and the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case in the same breath. (The actual question, which is here obviously has no direct relation to TH1980 or my past interactions with him, and I've always interpreted the statement of principle as not being directly tied to the claim that TH1980 hounded me -- the wording appears to bear almost no relation -- so much as the claims made by several editors that I had hounded them.)

Obviously I have no desire or intention to actually go and interact with TH1980; I just don't want to be looking over my shoulder whenever I discuss any issues related to hounding. I'm not sure if one party unilaterally requesting a mutual sanction be lifted has any effect on the whole "6-month suspended restriction" thing, though, so I'll wait for Arbitrators' opinions rather than specifically requesting.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [Redacted for length]

@Worm That Turned: I'm not sure I understand your logic. I was subject to hounding in 2015, so ArbCom implemented an IBAN, and made it mutual for purely technical reasons. As an unforeseen consequence of one of the other remedies, the IBAN didn't work to protect me from hounding. The community later implemented a different remedy that did a better job. Now I as the original houndee am appealing to the Committee because I want to free myself of an unnecessary editing restriction, and the editor who hounded me is opposing it because ... I don't know, I guess he wants me to have at least one restriction forever. Is there nothing I can do to get this restriction (which, I can't stress this enough, was put in place for my own benefit) lifted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: So I'm to be subject to an editing restriction that paints a target on my head permanently, because three years ago I told ArbCom I was being hounded and now the editor who hounded me wants to keep the restriction on me? No one told me three years ago that mutual IBANs are essentially permanent as long as the hounding editor sees fit to keep the IBAN in place. I seriously don't know what to do here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, in addition to the reasons given above (which I assumed would be sufficient for a cut-and-dry case like this -- again, the community has never denied or even come close to denying me an IBAN appeal) and presented as bullet points here

• I want to be able to talk about hounding and reference the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case without being accused of skirting the boundaries of my IBAN
• The IBAN never served its intended purpose to begin with and a separate remedy is now in place that works much better.
• I would just like not to be subject to any unnecessary editing restrictions

I'll give the following reasons as well:

• I want to be able to edit the articles TH1980 followed me to, without having to worry about accidentally undoing one of his edits. I actually saw the above-quoted "myths" quote, tagged it as dubious, then remembered (it was well over two years ago) that the text might have been added by TH1980, and when I checked the history to confirm I had to email Nishidani to deal with it.
• I don't want to be associated, such as in an entry on WP:RESTRICT, with someone who made (or at least contributed to making) editing Wikipedia a miserable experience for me for the better part of a year. I'd rather not have to think of TH1980 every time a discussion of IBANs pops up on my watchlist. (Just two days ago on ANI, an old friend of mine was accused by a new friend of mine of hounding them, and after the discussion closed there was reference to a possible IBAN. I found myself explaining to said new friend that I knew quite a bit about hounding myself -- I didn't mention TH1980 because I didn't need to, as JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) is a good enough example whenever that comes up, but I still found myself having to think about him. This was actually my immediate impetus for appealing now rather than, say, six months from now. Being reminded of this stuff just makes me feel sick.) I'd rather just forget the whole thing.

If these reasons seem insufficient ... well, I apologize for wasting the Committee's time. Again, I assumed that this would be an open-and-shut case like when I appealed my IBAN with Tristan noir (or when I requested that his one-way restriction be removed for my benefit) and didn't think I needed "reasons" beyond a personal desire not to be subject to an editing restriction that was only put in place because I asked for it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TH1980

I'd prefer that my IBAN with Hijiri88 not be lifted. Just checking the diffs that were presented in the original Arbcom case, there are dozens of instances of Hijiri88 making false and harassing statements against me. (For example, [26]). There were also a lot of cases of Hijiri88 stalking me to articles that he had never edited before, just to revert reliably sourced and accurate information I had added. (For example, [27]). If Hijiri88 doesn't intend on continuing to engage in harassment or stalking, as he claims above, then there's really no reason to lift the IBAN.

Even in the text above, Hijiri88 is engaging in mischaracterization. As he points out, I did accidentally mention his name once, but I deleted that post within minutes, well before the AE case even opened. Hijiri88 left out the fact that in the same AE case, he was discovered to have mentioned me by name as well, in clear violation of the IBAN, and, in contrast, he did not delete these posts until after the AE case. He also claims that he amended a passage in the article about Korean influence on Japanese culture to better reflect the source, but that isn't true, since my passage was a direct, word-for-word quote from the original source. When I later expanded the article, I merely incidentally changed the direct quote to a paraphrase of the original, and that, of course, related to an edit Hijiri88 made long before the IBAN was imposed.

I suspect that lifting this IBAN could cause considerable disruption in the Wikipedia community. In the Arbcom case, Hijiri88 and Catflap08 received a mutual IBAN, which has now been lifted. However, if you look at Hijiri88's recent posts, he wastes an inordinate amount of Wikipedia community time calling Catflap08 "a NOTHERE troll, a tendentious POV-pusher, or too incompetent to read sources and accurately summarize what they say", posting a false claim on Catflap08's talk page that Catflap08 was blocked for harassing him (though a quick look at Catflap08's block record shows that that is clearly NOT the reason why he was blocked), ranting about Catflap08 at the administrator's noticeboard [28][29], and mentioning Catflap08 in other contexts.[30] In other words, lifting an IBAN between Hijiri88 and another user is something we can't do lightly, as Hijiri88 uses that as an excuse to engage in a really egregious level of grave dancing. It would save the Wikipedia community's time if he remained unable to make similar harassing statements against me.

In general, I don't think Arbcom's enforcement of its decision has been very good. For example, Arbcom imposed a one-revert rule restriction on Hijiri88 as part of its original decision, but Hijiri88 doesn't appear to have ever truly abided by it. He simply asked other users to make the extra reverts for him.[31][32][33]

I would like my IBAN to be preserved, and I hope that it will actually be enforced, unlike so much else of the original Arbcom case.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm generally unwilling to lift a 2-way IBAN when one party is against it and I'm not seeing a strong need for Hijiri88 to have it lifted, so I'm a decline Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not quite Hijiri88 - it was made to a two-way IBAN because 1-way IBANs do not work well. Simply, IBANs are useful when users don't get along for a long period, and that's what's happened here. As I say, if there is an IBAN in place, and one user wants it to stay - there needs to be a damn good reason for me to agree to its dismissal. There isn't one here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  The restriction you refer to is specifically leaving someone alone, someone who you believe has hounded you in the past. They are similarly restricted. This allows you to get on and edit, and him to get on and edit, and everyone else to... get on and edit. The rhetoric of having a "target painted on your head" doesn't help your cause - there's no target unless you can't leave the editor alone. Worm^TT(talk) 13:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

---