I'm filing this case request against The Rambling Man (TRM) for long-term civility issues. TRM's abrasive and incivil editing style has antagonized countless users [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]—note how every single one of these examples involved a different editor. There's no shortage of diffs [12] [13] [14] [15].

TRM has been the subject of several ANI cases [16][17] [18] [19] going back to 2014, all of which were also filed by different editors. He has also been admonished by the Committee for incivility in January. [20]

TRM is a longtime editor with a productive track record, and he has not abused his admin tools. But he's also defied multiple good faith attempts by different editors to work with him, and—contrary to policy—has handed out no shortage of demeaning insults. His edits are of the kind where he comes as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it, while trying to goad the other side to break the rules first. It is arguable that none of his edits individually deserve a sanction, but there are a lot of them.

If the Committee has repeatedly admonished and sanctioned those who act poorly when confronted with provocation and coordinated harassment, including TRM, then it surely must respond to a pattern of the same behavior in the face of repeated attempts by numerous long-standing editors to work with him in a productive and civil manner.

Clarifying that for this case request I'm not linking the incivility directly, rather evidence that multiple different editors have expressed disapproval of TRM's editing. Hence, I'm changing the diff that Iridescent is referring to. If this case is accepted, I can provide diffs that explicitly illustrate the incivility. Banedon (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining why I filed this to Arbcom instead of starting another ANI thread. There are several reasons. One, TRM suggested several times to different people to do so. [21] [22] [23]. Two, he has already been the subject of multiple ANI cases, but his behavior has not improved. I don't see why yet another ANI case will help. Finally, TRM has stated that he doesn't think highly of Arbcom [24] [25]. If this is his attitude towards the highest court in Wikipedia, then it's unlikely he thinks highly of ANI discussions, and a case there is probably futile. Banedon (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

Statement by Lingzhi

I've never done the arb page thing before and don't know if this is the correct place to make a small comment, but the diff above to Ankylosing spondylitis calling it "Bechterew's disease" seems to refer to a genuine alternative (former) name. I am not sure how this shows antagonism. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by George Ho

TRM's arrogance is over the top already. Worst of all, certain people tolerate TRM's behavior and follow along and make vicious antics on me. Also, TRM is using ITN as his tool to put down on people. AHeneen, WaltCip might explain their own perspectives about him. --07:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent called me "problematic". Sure, I'm unpopular at ITN. However, ITN always has problematic ranting editors in the past long before my involvement on ITN. Unfortunately, ITN admins don't see the problems on so-called "minor" problems that annoy editors in the first place. Instead, two of them just see me as irrelevant and unnecessary. I'm trying my best to adjust my behavior until I realize that, until Wikipedians turn themselves around and be very warm and generous to all editors and help them, I don't need Wikipedia anymore. See my contributions? I have become less frequent than I used to be. I had enough of being put down and scolded until I decided to let others take TRM's side and then to do important stuff in real life. 08:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Pinging Iridescent 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for TRM and some gang making fun of me just because I had concerns about ITN and its editors and just because my ideas are poor quality. Also, an administrator, while not taking sides, found unpleasantness from TRM. I might provide more if any of claims are rebutted. --17:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WaltCip says it's a witch hunt. Can anyone rebut this evidence about TRM's antics? --17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Davey and Masem: ANI complaints have not made TRM change his behavior. He threatens people, including me, if he is reported again. I had to wait until someone else requests ArbCom against him. 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Found this discussion, hzh. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Callanecc, one of arbitrators, is involved directly with TRM per this discussion. Same for DGG, who voted for his bureaucratship. Hammersoft, how uninvolved were you? I saw your dialogue with him. Does it make you involved? While I was searching, I found another discussion, where he was in conflict with editors working on Aviation-related articles. He was also reported in 2012 discussion, though I don't know what else happened between them other than the other user being blocked in 2015. 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I don't know why you spoke against expanding/broadening the scope. This is about this guy throughout his entire years making snarky remarks about everybody here and pressuring everybody into making tenuous amount of work. Look at the FFD discussion, the ITN talk about fair use, and the Sally Brampton RD nomination. He and ITN admins could not commemorate the woman's name in the Main Page just because a non-free image is used (and considered replaceable) until weeks later the free-to-share image replaced the image. Also, he berated people for not thoroughly searching for a free image of a deceased person... or finding ways to make an image free, especially in the time of mourning of recently deceased. The case is not a farce; it highlights everything he has done to others. Maybe his participation at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal counts? 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Opabinia, the case request was about Sunrise, TRM and trolls(?). It wasn't about TRM primarily. 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

I'm not getting involved in this request and urge the committee to decline it—Arbcom is a venue of last resort, not ANI 2.0, and we have well-established mechanisms for judging the merits of "someone was rude to me" cases that don't involve month-long timesinks—but just to point out that the section on my talkpage cited as "evidence" above is being taken hugely out of context. TRM's comments there were very mild comments directed towards a long-term problematic editor, and not "abrasive and incivil [sic]" by any reasonable measure. ‑ Iridescent 08:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks, my posting a single comment here does not mean I want you either listing me as a party, or flooding my talkpage with notifications.

Note also that this has only been open a couple of hours and the canvassing has already started. ‑ Iridescent 09:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, will you please put a sock in your "ITN admin" conspiracy theory, which got tiresome long ago? As I'm sure you know perfectly well (given that it's explained to you explicitly in the thread you link and acknowledged by yourself here) I have no links to ITN (every edit I have ever made to WT:ITN) and have spent many years arguing for it to be deprecated altogether. That TRM is watching my talkpage is owing to the Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) and Norwich City F.C. articles ending up on our mutual watchlists a decade ago, not that we're involved in some kind of conspiracy to deny you your Special Snowflake status. (As a tip; if you're going to make unfounded and easily-refuted attacks, RFAR is probably not the most sensible place to be doing it.) ‑ Iridescent 09:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexTiefling

I have a comparatively low tolerance for timewasting bullshit in WP discussions. I find myself contributing less and less as time passes. Brushes with extreme incivility in the past - including someone impersonating and someone (possibly another person) doxxing me - have left me extremely weary of interactions here. I came to terms with medeis and Baseball Bugs because while I may dislike their styles of interaction, I can't pretend that they're not putting more in than me.

Why do I say this? Because TRM is an admin. An admin is supposed to be above all this. An admin is supposed to be an exemplar of how to contribute to WP. But here [26] we see him actively advocating dumbing-down a fairly routine bit of copy because he thinks our readers are intellectually 'limited'. And the numerous examples cited above and in the many other complaints brought against TRM show that he is perpetually spoiling for a fight, and holds both readers and editors in contempt. I have largely withdrawn from RD editing because between the peanut gallery and the trolls, it's hard to find any useful content or purpose there. TRM almost single-handedly brings that same atmosphere - and its consequences - to ITN/C and other places where he engages in discussion.

I believe TRM is unfit to be an admin, and should also be topic-banned from the whole of RD and ITN; this should enable him to focus on aspects of WP that he's better at, and let the rest of us who can still stand to stay get on with salvaging the parts of the site which are currently smothered by unsupported opinions and vitriol. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I have no particular viewpoint here, but when the best a canvassed editor (AlexTiefling, above) can come up with is an extremely civil, extremely polite and reasonable comment (not even a !vote) in a survey [27], we are in time-wasting territory. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment: I've been reading through the statements here, and I found AHeneen's suggestion to be useful, since some Arbs have requested scope: "A starting point for appropriate sanctioning is probably to ban TRM from making any comments (including edit summaries!) about other editors and, to prevent circumvention of that, judgmental remarks about content added by other editors. A possible ban from ITN & DYK (other than making a nomination) should also be considered." If this case is accepted, that might be something to bear in mind. I think the last sentence would be a last resort, and hopefully only be temporary if actually resorted to. However the first sentence sounds as though it would satisfy the needs of many people who have expressed concerns and upset (both here and on various other places on the project). And I don't believe the case would need more parties -- there have been quite a number of ArbCom cases without more than one party, and if it is confined to the specific parameters of ADMINCOND and ADMINACCT that AHeneen specified, I don't think it would be a witchhunt if civility among commenters is enforced. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KevinMcE

I spend very little time here now, partly because I noticed that I could become more angry than I needed to be about stuff that really didn't matter, and partly because I grew increasingly fed up of people telling me how I should spend the voluntary effort that I contributed here. TRM seems to have been long susceptible to the former, and long guilty of the latter. When editors are thus treated by those raised to admin status, they (I at least, but I cannot imagine that my response is unusual) lose confidence in the project. TRM obviously has made very valuable contributions, but really needs to recognise when his own disposition is such that he needs to step away from the keyboard for a while, for the sake of both his own reputation and regard here and the sense of respectful co-operation that the project depends on. Kevin McE (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I scanned the diffs provided and see some evidence (e.g. [28]) of a long-term grudge against TRM by the filing party. I defy you to find any active admin who has not been dragged to the drama boards, so the mere existence of ANI threads is not evidence of anything, and threads linked in the diffs closed with the equivalent of a mild WP:TROUT at most.

A lot of the drama seems to centre on ITN/RD, where there is a community of people who tend to feel rather proprietorial and become emotionally invested in getting certain things on the front page. Given the length of time the OP has been on TRM's case, and the underwhelming nature of the diffs provided (really? is that the best you have?), I don't see there's anything actionable here. At worst it's a job for AN. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: DYK hyas precisely the same problems as ITN/RD. In fact anywhere people start collecting badges, you get this issue. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrew Davidson

I was surprised that Arbcom accepted the case against Michael Hardy but The Rambling Man (TRM) is routinely worse and, for a fresh example, see DYK where TRM has a slanging match with admin Gatoclass who opines that there's a "temperamental unfitness for the extra bit". That incident reminds me of the previous arbcom case of Kww vs TRM. If this case is accepted, I will be able to provide more evidence of numerous other incidents including violations of WP:EDITWAR, WP:HOUND, WP:INVOLVED and WP:WHEEL. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allen3

This is not a problem that is confined to ITN and RD. At DYK, The Rambling Man's antagonistic style has been called out on multiple occasions.[29][30][31][32] To date he has been either unwilling or unable to modify his approach to dealing with those with whom he disagrres. This is sad because while there is usually a core of truth in The Rambling Man's position, his inability to deal with others in a civil manner usually creates opposition to his position that would have been unlikely to exist if he could just behave appropriately. --Allen3 ^talk 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sca

TRM has a rather long history of unpleasant, contentious encounters with me. Rather than attempt to cite chapter & verse, I would like to re-post (most of) a comment I made last Jan. 24 in response to another arbcom complaint against him:

Since I've had a number of less than congenial encounters with TRM over that last couple years, a few observations:

TRM at times seemingly couldn't resist the urge to employ vituperative, spiteful, belittling language. While such repartee may pass as humor among old friends – and some of us are tempted to indulge in it – among others it inevitably engenders resentment, personal animosity and angry responses in kind.
~~TRM sometimes has employed POV language that strikes some U.S. users as gratuitously anti-American.~~

On the other hand, TRM often has shown solid judgment in managing ITN matters, particularly by putting passing issues in perspective. In my view, if TRM could acquire genuine respect for the opinions of others, and eschew vitriolic language, his renewed presence could be an asset.

Those observations remain relevant. However, coincidentally or not, in the last week or so TRM has seemed surprisingly civil, even polite. On Aug. 15 he even thanked me for hiding a spiteful exchange he had with another editor at MP/E. Sca (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Upon reflection, I withdraw the bit about anti-American comments as outdated. I don't recall such in recent months.

But I do wish TRM was more amenable to suggested refinements in blurbs at MP/E. Sca (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Baseball Bugs

TRM and I were once under a mutual interaction ban, which was ended at his initiative. I am unaware of him abusing admin tools. And regarding incivility, I've seen a lot worse. I would oppose any action against TRM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

Mistaken clerk actions and uninvolved

@Amortias: --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My header here was forcibly changed by clerk Amortias, supposedly to conform to some sort of formatting requirement that is "agreed" [33]. This isn't true. There is no requirement to format headers in this way, and in fact adding a statement from a non-party includes in the template "non-party", which is equivalent to "uninvolved", yet this was removed. I note that the four most recent requests all had "uninvolved" in various sections [34][35][36][37], and that this practice has been going on for years (5 years)(7 years, which is as early as this page goes). There's a reason "uninvolved" is included, in part to avoid mistakes like this clerk did. I invite Amortias to undo his actions and recognize the long accepted standard that has existed here.

I wish to state, for the record, I am not involved in this current dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I note that you changed the procedures in April of this year [38]. ~~Was there related discussion on this?~~ The practice of using "uninvolved" has been, as I noted, going on for years, ever since the inception of this page. To change it now? What possible purpose does this serve? ~~Where was the discussion about making this change?~~ I see now that it was at clerks-l. Why? This isn't a huge deal, but it's a pain in the tookus because it causes confusion, errors, and has been common practice all along to do the headers this way if you're not involved. I say again; why? Change it back, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the case itself

This is a case that without scope restrictions would be a lynching. As has been repeated many times by ArbCom, and continues to this day with but one exception that I know of, ArbCom does not layout the scope of a case. The scope of this case is critically important. If the scope is not defined, then it's a free for all against TRM. The scope must be defined, if the case is accepted.

In regards to accepting the case, I would like to highlight the following, to layout a pattern of sorts, in regards to TRM:

Twice claimed he would try to do better [39][40]. To the latter claim, just two months later he was violating his own assertions of trying to improve and avoid noting pro-American bias [41].
January 2014, three way interaction ban placed between TRM, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis (AN/I thread). This was removed in July of 2015 by consensus (AN/I thread), with TRM saying "I can only offer a guarantee that from my perspective things will never get as heated or as counter-productive as they did prior to the restriction." Yet, all of the incivility diffs provided by Banedon postdate this 'guarantee'. Further, in July of 2016 TRM accuses Baseball Bugs of not understanding how Wikipedia works [42].
January 2016, TRM is called out by ArbCom in a motion for incivility and personal attacks [43] and warned "future similar conduct may result in sanctions". Several of the diffs provided postdate this motion. Further, we have things like
- "have you considered being less obnoxious and time-wasting?" [44] Granted, this was done in response to someone, but WP:CIVIL doesn't have a clause that allows you to be uncivil because someone else is. In fact, it states the opposite (2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence).
- "Stop acting like you own the place" [45], edit summary
- "jolly old Brad acting like the schoolmaster (a position he feels determined to occupy despite having no such credentials)" [46]

There is likely more evidence, but I think these serve to highlight that while TRM is aware of his civility/NPA issues, and he claims to intend to improve, he doesn't improve. The cycle keeps repeating.

I recommend ArbCom accept this case as the various WP:AN/I threads have failed to resolve the issue, and the prior motion by ArbCom [47] regarding his behavior failed to achieve any change. However, that recommendation comes with an extremely strong warning to strictly identify the scope of this case. I would recommend limiting civility/NPA evidence to only actions taken by TRM since the motion, which would serve to show contempt for the motion/warning, supporting further sanctions. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: This is why limiting the scope of the case is critically important. The thread you are noting comes from 2013, a little over three years ago. It was dealt with via an interaction ban that was placed about 7 months later, and vacated a year and a half later after that. The matter there is closed. There are plenty of matters like this over the years in regards to TRM, and yes this case could easily become a witch hunt if we do not limit the scope of the case. That is why I proposed limiting the scope to actions by TRM since the January 2016 motion against his incivility and NPA violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: And again you've shown, if unintentionally, why limiting the scope of the case is critically important. You ask if I'm really uninvolved, and as basis you reference a thread from more than FOUR years ago. To my knowledge, I've not interacted with TRM in more than a year. So, yeah, I'm uninvolved with this current dispute. If we don't limit the scope to only what TRM has done since the motion, this case will be a farce. Thanks to severely broken structural issues with ArbCom and its methods, TRM will never be able to defend himself against 11 years worth of time and >150k edits investigation by the tons of people already commenting on this case. TRM is right; this is a lynch mob. I do feel ArbCom needs to take this case to resolve this long standing issue, but doing so via dragging up threads from four years ago is hardly helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: If you want this case to proceed, I strongly suggest you take the advice offered by sitting ArbCom member Opabinia regalis here. If you want to discuss my thoughts further, you're welcome to my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

This is a witch hunt.--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winkelvi

Agree with WaltCip and Softlavender. As such, is it possible to initiate a boomerang for the filer of an inappropriate and frivolous ArbCom case? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Purplebackpack89

There's no doubt about it; there's a problem here. There's an ANI about TRM's incivility seemingly every few weeks, and it's usually with a different editor every time. I also believe the Rambling Man has abused the power granted to him in reviewing good and featured article candidates. He makes his support contigent on often very pedantic points (one time he told me I should format a basketball FAC like a favorite boating FA of his; even though there were other existing basketball GAs that I had borrowed the format from). Also, there are times a GA/FA where he does very dickish things, such as demanding that GA/FA nominators make minor edits that would take him only a few seconds to do himself. GA and FA has increasingly "jump through unnecessary hoops set up by TRM"; TRM often uses his GA and FA comments to "teach lessons" and/or tailor FAs/GAs to his own personal whims rather than actually improve articles. It sounds like similar things are going on at ITN. People have tried to talk him down from his frequent incivility, his response is one or more of a) ignoring the comments (such as here), b) blaming the people who criticize him, and/or c) engaging in more incivility. I encourage ArbCom to investigate TRM with a scope of his interactions with other editors, especially on User talk pages, ANI, ITN, FA and GA. I urge them to consider sanctions against this clearly disruptive editor. In general, I agree with the actions proposed by User:AlexTiefling above: removal of admin rights, and pulling him from ITN, GA and FA. p b p 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I will note that, in so far as my primarily interaction being at WP:ITN and its work pages, TRM has a "holier-than-thou" elitist attitude that is infectiously bad that others pick on (mostly in to counter TRM's behavior) and that has made it at times difficult to hold reasonable discussions but not to the point of disruption. But importantly, TRM has not shown any abuse of the admin bit or anything in terms of edit warring or the like. This is 100% an issue related to civility. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a case that ArbCom should take unless it can be shown that we've exhausted all possible attempts to help quell this attitude. Yes, TRM is frequently brought to ANI, but ANI itself is also the wrong place to address this (I lament the loss of RFC/U which would have been the best point for this type of discussion). --MASEM (t) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

You can understand why TRM tends to be uncivil when those working at ITN/DYK etc try & push their stuff to the front page especially when it's utter crap, Admittingly I think TRM does need to tone it down a notch but other than that I don't see any problematic behaviour and as noted above this isn't ANI 2.0 - All of this could've been resolved at ANI, No admin tools have been used nor abused so this shouldn't be accepted, At most perhaps a reminder to TRM to tone it down abit. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hzh

I had just one argument with TRM (that I know of), that is when he decided to deflect a discussion by turning the discussion onto me instead using something completely unrelated to the discussion. I thought it unwarranted that he should present himself as more qualified than me to edit when he is flouting the guidelines. However, it was something quickly forgotten (I had to go back and check what the argument was about), just the usual uncivil behaviour that I see quite often on WP, not serious enough to raise a stink about. But I am surprised to find out that he is an admin, and therefore should know better than to act in such a manner. Hzh (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sunshineisles2

I've had more than a few encounters with TRM, mainly on the ITN page. Initially, I thought he was just a regular editor who tended to be more assertive than the rest. Later, upon reading more of his contributions, I discovered he was not only an admin, but regularly found it appropriate to insult and belittle users he disagreed with, often questioning their general intelligence while placing himself forward as infallible, unless proven wrong by someone he liked. Eventually, I found his comments so disheartening and unprofessional that I decided to leave ITN before ever really getting involved with any discussions. He is a prolific editor, to be sure, but he should know better. His default mindset seems to be defensiveness, which is hardly how you approach an editorial discussion. A close look at his behavior proves that he demonstrates limited respect for a cordial process, especially for someone who wields both administrative power and the responsibilities that come with it. Look at his response to this on his talk page -- he outright dismisses the case as a "lynch mob" run by "social media rejects and admin wannabes". --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I can't really defend TRM's übersnarkiness, and would have been tempted to take a pass on commenting on this case, except I can't help but note that editors with a reputation for rudeness/brusqueness (I can think of at least a half dozen, I'm sure you can too) sure do seem to attract more than their share of people who ~~can't help~~ seem to enjoy throwing small pebbles at them all the time to see if they can provoke another outburst. It's not 100% applicable, but I am reminded of User:Geogre/Comic. Not all of the people complaining above are such people - Kevin McE, in particular, always struck me as someone getting snarked at for no real reason - but several of them are. I don't think ArbCom is set up well to efficiently remove timesinks from the project - I certainly have no idea how to - but if any Arbs figure out how to do that, that would be helpful.

And geez, TRM, just learn to let shit go sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AHeneen

I haven't participated in arbitration discussions before, but will give this a shot. First and foremost, Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Administrators are not above civility policies! See WP:ADMINCOND: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. ... [s]ustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. And from the following section (WP:ADMINACCT): Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

My experience with RTM was about 2 years ago, after which I stopped participating in ITN and haven't really interacted with RTM since. The opening statement by Banedon provides substantial evidence of TRM's continued, habitual uncivil behavior. The by others above and a quick browse through RTM's recent contributions) show that: 1) RTM's uncivil behavior is current and persistent & 2) very disruptive. Several editors support RTM for his many contributions, but that doesn't excuse persistent incivility that violates a core policy and creates a hostile editing environment! During my interaction, I noticed that RTM frequently made snarky comments (taunting/baiting fellow editors), belittled other editors, and made frequent, unreasonable use of profanity. For examples, see the post I made on RTM's talk page (second to last discussion). Compare that with the uncivil behaviors. I started a discussion at ANI (first ANI link at top of this thread), but it didn't go anywhere. Several users remarked that without abuse of admin tools, there's nothing to be done at ANI. TRM is a lot like Donald Trump: brash, perpetually flinging insults at others and then when confronted, using belittling remarks towards the other editor(s) and refusing to let grudges go.

A starting point for appropriate sanctioning is probably to ban TRM from making any comments (including edit summaries!) about other editors and, to prevent circumvention of that, judgmental remarks about content added by other editors. A possible ban from ITN & DYK (other than making a nomination) should also be considered.

Statement by Mandruss

We all lie somewhere on a spectrum of competence. It's a mathematical requirement that 1% of us are in the top 1% of competence, and they are in fact superior to 99% of the community. I submit that a very significant part of that competence is the ability to work cooperatively with other editors, this being fundamentally a collaborative project, and that that is something the community generally fails to recognize. Over all, then, TRM and some others are not nearly as high on the spectrum as they believe, nor nearly as valuable to the project as they believe.

If admins should exemplify Wikipedia principles, and I believe they should, TRM has demonstrated his lack of qualification for that role. Of course there are other admins who shouldn't be admins for the same reason, but to use that as an excuse is a recipe for failure. This has to be addressed one case at a time, and Other Stuff Exists.

This case is anything but "frivolous", and hyperbole like "witch hunt" and "lynching" is never helpful in these matters. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

This is a case that ArbCom should snow decline. The reality is simple: "TRM is a longtime editor with a productive track record, and he has not abused his admin tools." Full stop. End of story. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this editor over the years, even when we have disagreed. Be civil to him and he's civil to you. Be a snotrag toward him and, well, you're on your own. Yes, TRM has been a little more snarky than usual lately, but I think that it's just a bit of wiki-burnout and it will pass (except perhaps for those who insist on lobbing pebbles).

Further ArbCom isn't, as another editor stated, ANI2. People need to focus on content, and, to be frank, listen to experienced editors. Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

I look forward to the opening of this case so I can present evidence of continuous, lengthy ongoing errors, mistakes and other assorted misdeeds by a selection of regulars at ITN/DYK that require continuous policing by vigilant watchers like TRM. I am not sure some of the DYK people really want that however.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Notified TRM. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple unrequired notifications removed and please would everyone remember no canvassing. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement names formatted to the agreed useage - if you wish to state your non-involvement please do so in the body of your statement. Amortias (T)(C) 21:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: Thanks for voicing your concerns. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement_and_evidence_management; Amortias's action was completely correct under procedure. To clarify, the "Statement by {Non-party}" could be clarified to be "Statement by {Username}"; I suspect the original authors of the template knew parties' statements would be listed above everyone else's. That being said, sometimes enforcement of procedure isn't the best thing to do, such as when it causes more drama than it's worth. That was what happened the last four requests, as you pointed out. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hammersoft: No. Editors have bickered over it in the past, and to quote an arb via email, it can get out of hand when it becomes "Statement by kind of uninvolved except the one time last year...". Absolute waste of time for something that can be clarified with two words in a statement, "I'm uninvolved". It has always been procedure, if not codified, that clerks may standardize the headers; that procedural subsection doesn't mandate us to standardize, it only describes our discretion to and outlines guidelines we may consider ("when the deviation is disruptive, disputed, egregious, or break links"). Not only am I personally not inclined to change it back, I couldn't if I wanted to. That was not a unilateral policy change, it was debated on clerks-l with arbs in favor. If you have further remarks on this, they should not be submitted in this case request. WT:AC/C would be a more permissible venue. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I should probably recuse on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on the substance as yet, but Banedon, your second diff after "antagonized countless users" appears to be the wrong link, or you've cut off the oldid - it currently links to a 2006 IP edit to ankylosing spondylitis (which is indeed a pain in the neck, but nothing like arbitration... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Few comments:
  - To echo Amortias' post above, please let's stop with the user talk notifications, everyone. Canvassing has a different dynamic here, where the final decision is made by a predetermined, fixed group, but we still need to hear from a balanced cross-section of the community.
  - Please leave the clerking - adding links, formatting, etc. - to the clerks. That's why they get paid the big bucks ;)
  - Don't take this as a statement of scope for a case should one be accepted - we haven't discussed it - but it would be helpful to decide whether a case is needed if those commenting would highlight recent matters, especially those that arose after the January 2016 declined case request involving TRM. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment waiting for statements, but any acceptance comes with the caveat of expanding the number of parties beyond TRM. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
-== Ban appeal ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) '''at''' 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Antidiskriminator}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Drmies}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&type=revision&diff=733892459&oldid=733886783 diff of notification to Drmies]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Antidiskriminator_2 Link to ban discussion] ammended after Softlavander pointed on the wrong link ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=733991343&oldid=733989165 diff])
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive269#Appeal_of_topic_ban Link to first ban appeal]
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal_of_topic_ban_2 Link to second ban appeal]
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive282#Ban_appeal Link to last ban appeal, remain unclosed]
-=== Statement by Antidiskriminator ===
-I was topic banned more than two years ago. The editor who decided to ban me ({{u|Drmies}}) can not unban me because the ban was based on the (limited) community consensus, so the community consensus is necessary for unban. On the other hand, my ban appeals do not attract the attention of enough uninvolved editors so they are either rejected by the (the same limited) community or remain unclosed (like my last ban appeal) even after I proposed lenghty probation period with heavy restrictions. I never violated the ban and had no serious issue with my edits, so I believe that the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad and hereby I appeal to ARBCOM to lift it.
-=== Statement by Drmies ===
-Ha! It wasn't editor Drmies but admin Drmies who placed the ban, pursuant to a community discussion. AD, you've spun that record before, and it was not a club hit. As I've said at least three times already, I have no objection to the ban being lifted. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Mz7 ===
-As a procedural matter, this Committee stated when it [[Special:PermanentLink/690747247#Motion: BASC disbanded|disbanded BASC]] that it would directly hear ban appeals only from {{tq|(i) from editors who are subject to an {{tl|OversightBlock}} or a {{tl|Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions.}} As far as I am aware, you guys haven't modified this yet, and this request doesn't seem to fall into the three categories. (There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals of topic bans|2011 procedure]] on topic ban appeals, but that's for ArbCom topic bans only.) The Committee is, [[WP:IAR|of course]], not absolutely bound to follow its own procedures, but in this case, I think it does have the option of procedurally declining this request without comment on its merits. If you do decide to hear it, it might be worth revisiting those procedures sometime soon. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
-:Per Jehochman's statement, it appears that this request is now '''moot'''. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 19:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== {{anchor|Statement by uninvolved Softlavender}} Statement by Softlavender ===
-As far as I can tell, the OP has never acknowledged that they understood why the topic ban was imposed. Nor have they linked to the original topic-ban discussion [''Edited to add'': this has now been remedied: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=734008205&oldid=733998392]]. Nor, per Mz7's notes, does this seem to fall under ArbCom's current purview. If the OP wants the current ANI topic-ban appeal discussion (bot-archived 2.5 weeks ago) to be officially closed, all they have to do is bring the discussion from its auto-archived state back onto ANI, and request that it receive an official administrative close (the request for closure can be made there on ANI or at AN). [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 12:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC): edited 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
-{{Re|Jehochman}} While I appreciate your [[WP:BOLD]]ness in cutting through the red tape and lifting AD's TBan, at the same time I personally have some concerns about it. (1) You made no mention of AD's proposed self-restrictions which he enumerated in his OP. (2) You made no post on AD's talk page of the TBan-lift, and therefore there is no record for TP-watchers to see, or information about the parameters of the lift or whether AD's self-proposed restrictions are part of it. (3) You stated that "The 'opposes' aren't convincing" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=734756960], when in fact the oppose !voters gave several clear rationales and links, and two of the oppose !voters (the breakdown was 5 Support, 4 Oppose) were administrators. For all of those reasons, I believe the participants in the discussion should at least be pinged so that they are aware of the result. I'm also concerned that instead of graciously accepting his TBan lift, AD is now re-litigating a two-year-old comment by an admin (one of the admins in the original ban discussion) on Drmies' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&type=revision&diff=734956322&oldid=734951590#.22a_person_who_is_quite_incapable_of_....22], which does not to my mind bode well. In my mind, everyone who has participated in the various ban and unban discussions (all four discussions) should be pinged or TP-notified of the unban and what exactly it entails, but I'm not going to do that myself. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 20:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Euryalus ===
-This appeal should be remitted to AN, per [[WP:UNBAN]]. The topic-banned editor attesting that they have not violated the ban since it was imposed is not evidence that the ban was excessive. Nor is a relative lack of community interest in commenting on an appeal - that simply means there is not presently consensus to change the status quo.
-It's understandably disheartening when a ban appeal gets archived without result, so suggest it gets tried again; the OP could either unarchive the previous bot-archived appeal or raise a fresh one now more eyes have been drawn to the issue. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 20:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Statement by OID ===
-Going to quote myself from the latest ban appeal here "A topic ban imposed after a total of 5 votes, at least 3 of which were people either (at the time) currently or previously in content disputes with AD". It has been two years and in the latest appeal AD has offered up voluntary restrictions which are quite severe compared to those usually offered to editors coming off a ban. AD is right that his appeals are generally being rejected by the same limited group of people who caused it to be applied in the first place. The demand by said editors for North Korean-like levels of self-shaming is obviously not going to happen by AD. If Arbcom are unwilling to deal with the stalemate as a body, perhaps you could go vote at the open request to break the deadlock. (It already has as many people voting to support lifting the restrictions as voted to impose them in the first place). [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Jehochman ===
-I've reopened the latest discussion that never had a proper close, read, investigated, and closed it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=734756960&oldid=734756343]  The topic ban is lifted. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
-: [[WP:NOTBURO]], Softlavender.  When you see an issue, deal with the substance and move on. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. NOPES, I didn't. * -->
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*I want to note that although I can't name a case right now, historically, the Committee has held itself not to have the power to modify community-imposed sanctions beyond finding WP:INVOLVED closes or other procedural irregularities (except as incidental to other action, such as strengthening a sanction). This does not bind the current Committee, of course. '''[[User:L235|Kevin]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[User talk:L235#top|t]]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 23:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
-*Amended section headers to agreed format. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-=== Ban appeal: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/1> ===
-{{anchor|1=Ban appeal: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*I recuse, happily! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. I'm not really sure we have jurisdiction in this case... <br> On the one hand, per policy, the Arbitration Committee can technically be seized with '''appeals''' against community sanctions (per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities]] #2) {{Endash}} ''appeals'' being the operative word. <br> In the ''Shakespeare authorship question'' case, the following standard was adopted: A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. (cf. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Review of community sanctions]]). <br>However, we recently passed {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=690747247#Motion:_BASC_disbanded|name=this motion}}, disbandind BASC and limiting the number of grounds on which we would hear an appeal.<br> The way I propose to reconcile these principles is as follows: ArbCom may hear '''appeals''' against community sanctions (grounds ## 1, 2, and 4), but not '''requests for "parole"''' (ground #3). Assuming my colleagues agree, this would mean that this case request should be declined. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 16:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-**'''Decline''' (and archive, please).<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 18:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' OK, my performance so far today in General Life Business indicates that someone may be secretly replacing my coffee with decaf. And I wasn't on the committee during the BASC era, so maybe I'm missing something. But I don't think it ever handled ''topic'' bans, did it? I'm not convinced the BASC decision applies. And I believe AD's argument is that his appeal is on ground #2 (excessive sanctions), so by {{u|Salvio giuliano}}'s analysis this ''would'' be our job, no? (I'm not sure this belongs as a case request in any event - when I first saw this I assumed it was intended for ARCA.) [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-**'''Decline''' as moot following Jehochman's closure of the appeal. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 21:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' --[[User:Guerillero|<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero</font>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">Parlez Moi</font>]] 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 05:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as moot. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as moot. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] ([[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|talk]]) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 == The Rambling Man ==