Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Appeal copied/pasted here per standard procedure. – — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

Sanction being appealed

1 month block (logged)

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

 Done per procedure

I'm not too worried about being immediately unblocked, it appears that this unfortunate event has cast something of a shadow of Sandstein's behaviour as an admin, along with those who enabled me to be told to "fuck off" and be called a "prick". But I am slightly perplexed that Sandstein could have taken the time to read each and every comment produced in The ed17's illustrious report, within the context of each of the discussions and to understand the background to each and every one of them. I'm also perplexed by this continual cry of "insult" or "belittling" when an admin is simply free to tell me to "fuck off" and call me a "prick", or other editors are allowed, nay enabled, to call me a Holocaust denier (don't worry TRM, it's so ridiculous we can just ignore it! etc etc). The block is punitive, not in keeping with the escalation suggested by Arbcom in the first place (remember, the first block, by departed Mike V was actually incorrect in every way, including his accusations of me being a liar), so in essence and in totality, this is a first-time offence, and taking time to go over these diffs (if the blocking admin had done so) would have revealed a richer picture. Now I don't want, and never did want, Floq to be sanctioned, admonished or whatever for telling me to fuck off or calling me a prick, but I did expect a more level playing field. Sandstein has clearly decided against that and is applying his letter of his interpretation of the law. That I wasn't even given a chance myself to respond to The ed17's initial report it somewhat staggering, but to then bring action against the admin who kindly allowed me to use my talk page again (after Sandstein had, once again, used one rule for his fellow admin, and another for me) is shocking. By responding here in this manner, I'm agreeing to abide by the bureaucracy that exists in these circumstances, but I 100% guarantee that we will, once again, see the hawks spiralling overhead, most of whom I've had precisely zero interaction with since the Arbcom case. The lynching will re-commence, but that's what Sandstein and Arbcom demands. I don't look forward to it, all I've been doing for the last few months is trying to preserve the integrity of the main page, and that's left me being called an anti-Semite and a prick. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's take one of these, shall we, e.g.:

• "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."

Right, let's be honest folks, does that sound like insulting or belittling language? It was a statement of fact. The opposition was illogical ("Your opposition is founded in ill-logic"). I shrugged it off ("But never mind"). The OP had actually made some unfounded accusations e.g. "Its moot to constantly bring up the time" and then some personal attacks e.g. "This is why no one cartes (sic) what you say, and why you have no ground to stand on with your position". I suppose that meant "no one cares what I say", a bit like "fuck you" and why "people think you're a prick". ✗ Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"

This is a sweet one. Brad came in, guns blazing, to the Sutter Brown ITNC discussion, after it had been posted. Now, ITNC ran a few very decent polls over how they select RDs, i.e. whether they need "super notability" (a cause for one of the hawks circling to focus on getting me banned) or whether even trees, animals etc could be listed. We observe community consensus, and the death of that dog simply fitted consensus. However, Brad came in saying he would take it to ANI (in my world, the equivalent of saying "it's my ball, and I'm leaving") to get it resolved in his favour. He was shot down by many, including admins. Anyway, the above comment came about when Granny (orca) was considered for ITN, and a number of editors, including admins, supported it. And some were sarcastic (humorously so) about the Sutter debacle. My full text, To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like Newyorkbrad making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart. shows a comprehensive and skilled approach to why Brad was wrong, and why his "headmasterly approach" should not only be unwelcome, but discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
_{Further statements in excess of the word limit can be found at User talk:The Rambling Man#Mid-session interval.}

I recommend that this block appeal is declined. I refer to my statement in the thread above for the reasons for which I imposed the block.

In general, the discombobulated appeal does not address The Rambling Man's behavior for which they were blocked, and whether or not that behavior violated the restrictions imposed on The Rambling Man by the Arbitration Committee. It therefore does not inspire confidence that The Rambling Man will comply with these restrictions if they are unblocked. But that is precisely what we expect blocked editors to address when requesting to be unblocked, see WP:GAB. For this reason alone, the appeal seems to me to be without merit.

As to the issues addressed in the appeal, insofar as I can make them out:

• Regarding accusations against Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and unspecified others of insulting The Rambling Man, and conducting "lynchings", etc: These problems, whether or not they exist, are not the reason for the block and are therefore immaterial to the appeal. They cannot be resolved by unblocking The Rambling Man. Appealing editors are expected to address their own behavior, not that of others, see WP:NOTTHEM. Indeed, these accusations being unsubstantiated, they violate the principles described at WP:ASPERSIONS.
• "That I wasn't even given a chance myself to respond to": The Rambling Man did have an opportunity to respond to the AE request, and chose not to do so. As to my interpretation of the remedy, they are able to respond to it now, in this appeal.
• Me allegedly not having taken the time to read "each and every comment": I'm quite capable of reading diffs. But what matters is not what I read, but what The Rambling Man wrote. The content of the comments as excerpted in the AE request are quite enough to establish multiple and serious violations of the arbitration sanction by themselves. Now, if that impression had been mistaken, or if the quotes had been incorrect, or somehow excusable, etc., The Rambling Man could have responded and said so - or told us what exactly the "richer picture" is that they supposedly reveal. That they chose not to do so is their right, but it confirmed my impression that the request was substantially accurate. Wikipedia does not have the fifth amendment.
• "The block is punitive": This assertion has no basis. If The Rambling Man were to give us credible assurances that they understand what the problem with their conduct is and how they will ensure it does not occur again, I'd unblock them right here and now. However, that is by far not what we see in this appeal.
• "not in keeping with the escalation ... this is a first-time offence": This disregards the reasons for which the arbitration sanction was imposed in the first place (i.e., for relatively serious misconduct of this kind), the previous AE case which resulted in another warning, and the number and extent of violations listed in the request, none of which The Rambling Man has actually contested. In view of this, as explained in the request, I think that a one-month block is proportionate and very likely the minimum to have any preventative or deterrent effect.

If the reviewing administrators wish me to comment further on some particular issue, please ask me to do so.  Sandstein  20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In my view, Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) should not be reviewing this case as an uninvolved administrator. They are apparently a relatively frequent content collaborator with The Rambling Man (see interactions) and have been making content edits on behalf of and by request of The Rambling Man during the present block (e.g., , ). I think that this conduct speaks to bias in favor of The Rambling Man on the part of Ritchie333, apart from concerns about proxy editing on behalf of blocked editors.  Sandstein  15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I disagree with shortening the block length. I have explained in my closing statement in the thread above why I think that a month is appropriate. Because blocks are preventative, not punitive, they should in principle be lifted only when they are no longer needed, rather than after a set time. As noted above, this is not yet established. On the contrary, the odd statements that as you point out are now being made by The Rambling Man on their talk page are, if anything, an indication that unblocking them now (or soon) would not be beneficial to everybody else. There is also not the required clear consensus of uninvolved administrators that would be needed to shorten the block over my objections. Instead, the reviewing administrators are roughly equally divided about whether or not to shorten the block. If you shorten the block nonetheless, you risk being sanctioned for undoing an AE action out of process.  Sandstein  14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposal by The Rambling Man is a good sign insofar as it is at least focused on The Rambling Man's own conduct, rather than that of others. But I am not convinced that it will ensure that the problems apparent in the AE request evidence above will not reoccur. These problems were not about the number of comments made by The Rambling Man, but about their content. And that content is not addressed in the proposal, or at least not to the extent that it is clear that The Rambling Man understands what they should do so as not to appear belittling or insulting, and will act accordingly. This lack of understanding is also apparent from the previous, often confused or bewildering edits made by The Rambling Man on their talk page. I would therefore decline to lift the block at this time, without prejudice to later reconsideration of a more convincing unblock request by The Rambling Man after the present appeal has been resolved.  Sandstein  17:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm copying my initial filing above to make sure people see what exactly we're talking about. If these aren't "insulting" or "belittling" comments, then I have no idea what is. Secondarily, The Rambling Man was given a chance to reply to the AE filing. He instead removed the notification while stating "this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid." It was clear that he had no intention to participate. Begin copy/paste:

The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."

1. 4 March "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"
2. 4 March "You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control." Also please note the edit summary: "what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change"
3. 4 March "hanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing"."
4. 4 March "We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place."
5. 3 March "You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer."
6. 2 March "You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?"
7. 24 February "... there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped ... The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better."
8. 12 February "Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users."
9. 31 January Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."
10. 29 January "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." – I fully admit some culpability in this, but the reply was rather over the top.
11. 29 January "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."
12. 25 January Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."
13. 4 January "No, I get it. You didn't even look at the article, I understand."
14. 3 January "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"
15. 21 December "Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found!"
16. 16 December "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally." Ed   19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: "eople need some tougher skin around here." I'm very disappointed to see these words come from you. That kind of attitude is why people retire from Wikipedia. Please, explain exactly how any of the diffs from, say, 4 March aren't insulting or belittling to other users. Ed   03:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: That's fair, we do seem to have differing interpretations. :-) But I do wonder if it's coming down to you looking for straight personal attacks, whereas I'm looking for insults and belittling—which in my eyes is a different beast. For example, the quote you give ("If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?") is not a personal attack, but it certainly belittles and bullies another editor. Ed   17:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: "What is a typical action a regular user would have to do in order to get a one month ban? That's a non sequitur. TRM is not your "regular editor"; he's one that's had an entire arbitration case devoted to his behavior. Not many can say that. Ed   03:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: Regarding this comment, please note that AE appeal procedures require a "clear and substantial consensus." Ed   18:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not actually involved - I was very tempted to warn User:Floquenbeam on his talkpage for this comment that attacked and insulted User:The Rambling Man - Fuck you , with the edit summary of - Fuck you asshole , coming from a very experienced editor it was combative and created additional tension. TRM is overly sensitive but other users should be embarrassed my their input.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In my view people need some tougher skin around here. I don't think that most of the cited comments are "belittling and insulting", and the few that arguably might have been did not warrant a month block-if one at all- when one considers context and the situation at the time. If one is going to block a user for most of those comments, we all likely would earn a month off at some point. Given the high profile areas in which TRM edits, he draws more conflict than the average editor, often with people who give as good as they get. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: I think it unlikely that I would change your mind regarding any of the cited statements, as we seem to have differing mindsets on this matter(which is completely fine and I don't mean that in a bad manner) so I don't think taking the time to analyze the cited statements blow by blow would help anyone(and TRM is already explaining them himself). I would say that generally most of them do not seem to be direct personal attacks(such as "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"). As I indicated, even if some of the statements arguably warranted a block, I feel that a month was excessive. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Perhaps. I would respectfully submit that the statement we are discussing is still somewhat mild in terms of belittling in my opinion. Certainly others can and do disagree, which I respect and I do not wish to take time and bytes attempting to change their minds. I am wondering if TRM is able to criticize another user's contribution without running afoul of the sanctions? Any criticism could be seen as belittling depending on the recipient. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Respectfully, stating that a comment is useless or unproductive is not a comment on a contributor, but on the comment itself. So TRM is not able to state that something could be unproductive without violating the sanctions? 331dot (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I guess we will just have to disagree. Given that, I can only hope that those who attack TRM's comments are treated in the same manner. Thank you for the discussion 331dot (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would just point out that TRM has now said "Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project!". 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had a long history of minor interactions with TRM however since coming back from a longer term Wikibreak and resuming helping out at DYK I've had occasion to interact with him much more frequently. I was at first surprised and disappointed to read the Arbitration case in which he was involved as my prior interactions had always been civil and cordial. However after working more closely with him, I soon saw what likely got him blocked and before ArbCom in the first place. However, I can say this with strong conviction, TRM cares deeply about this encyclopedia, its readers, and ensuring that we put the best product out the door, especially where the Main Page is concerned. He has caught numerous errors/mistakes that have slipped by other volunteers at DYK and a number that I missed myself. In that, his contributions have been exceptionally positive and without him I am certain DYK (and a number of our other main page projects) would have inadvertently put incorrect or misleading information on the Main Page multiple times over just the past month or so I've been working closer with him. Personally, I tend not to promote a set of hooks from the DYK preps to the queues for the Main Page until he has made his signature edits clearing things up (In many ways I find myself wishing he still had Sysop rights to help take care of the errors he finds in a more expedient fashion).

However, I have observed that TRM has a very short tolerance for those who make repeated mistakes or do not live up to his own standards. This comes through in sarcasm (some of it genuinely funny and good for injecting humor and levity, some not), comments that could be seen by some as belittling, and what also could sometimes be seen as the baiting of other editors. Speaking honestly, I knew it was only a matter of time until an action such as this would be taken. However, I believe it is crucial to note that other editors have not been faultless in their interactions with TRM. Without discussing specifics it is clear to me that some users have been thin-skinned when dealing with TRM and are "giving as good as they (perceive to) get" from him with comments that are attacking, uncivil, etc. I agree with the above commenters that this needs to stop on both sides though I do note that many of the Diffs are cherry picked to support a specific side out of thousands of edits. I do not know why TRM has become so bitter in some aspects and in informal conversations with other editors there is a general puzzlement about why he is acting in this way. However, I do not believe a one-month block is needed in this case as in my estimation it is merely punitive. I believe TRM wants the best for this encyclopedia and is pushing for all those he deals with to improve. I cannot always support his methods and there are times I have to ignore some of his comments and walk away for a minute (that is life in general though), but I can support his goals and appreciate the valuable work he provides to this encyclopedia. I believe it is beyond dispute he does need to better interact with other editors (I personally found this insightful) however we as a project also need to figure out how to address our own shortcomings, be thicker skinned, and forgive and move on in some circumstances rather than simply issuing blocks. We are a collaborative project, and it takes all types to get this right. TRM has a personality that clearly does not mesh well with everyone and he as well as the rest of us need to improve in that regard. However, I don't believe this block advances that important goal in a meaningful enough way to justify its length. Mifter (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After reading through much of this I now understand why people say so much time/energy is consumed with Arbcom and the like (if anyone wants to work with me to restart the WP:DRAMAOUT let me know.) In general, I find myself agreeing quite considerably with WJBscribe's comments and concerns about the potential for AE to be gamed through context, strategy, and differences in interpretation (especially when a sanction is grey like "no belittling", topic bans are easy and generally clear, this is pure interpretation and discretion.) I am also concerned that the current layout of this sanction makes it easy for other editors to bait TRM and as soon as he steps one foot out of line hit him with a block (though that inequity needs to be taken up with Arbcom.) Working with the Main Page, or anywhere that is not relatively obscure, generally involves occasional disagreements/criticism, and people take criticism differently. As I said above, TRM is hardly the easiest individual to work with however his contributions, motivation, and goals are good. Disagreements, even those that are perfectly civil, often contains criticism within them, and if people are consistently searching for reasons to find a violation of the sanction, short of vanishing I do not see how TRM can edit in a collaborative environment (where disagreements are inevitable) without someone being able to interpret/piece together an argument that he is violating this sanction. Our job is to assume the best of intentions and build an encyclopedia, not put an editor under a microscope and prod them until they break. I support shortening the block to 72 hours/time served and from reading the comments believe it may be prudent for an uninvolved admin/team of admins to begin determining how to close this appeal. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, thank you for the context. I've been away for a while so I would not have been able to see the shift in behavior that someone who was here during that time would have. Mifter (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To some of the points being raised by my colleagues below I must state that I strongly oppose moving towards a topic ban for TRM from Main Page related areas because: Arbcom rejected it unanimously, TRM's contributions are highly positive in the area overall, and I don't believe it would address the problem we are currently facing. Also, to those who are indicating that there is some consensus that the block should stand and not shortened to 1 week I would also note that there is nontrivial support for reducing it even further to 72 hours/time served. I personally support the 72 hours option but believe that 1 week is a fair compromise between all the positions being offered, especially with TRM's pledge to self-impose a 1 response limit to those with whom he disagrees. I agree with the concerns that a 1 response limit might not solve all our problems but to me it indicates a few things. One, it shows that TRM is committed to addressing this issue, two, that he is willing to reform his behavior to head off some issues before the they started or escalate, and three, that he is seeing that his prior conduct has caused friction between editors. Further, changing behavior takes time and is not a simple on/off switch. This to me shows a concrete pledge to improve and take steps to prevent, reduce, or eliminate future issues. In my estimation that addresses many of the concerns above and below of TRM "not recognizing" the error of his ways and I'm willing to believe that TRM is acting in good faith with this pledge and see it as further reason to shorten his block. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and I believe the message has gotten through loud and clear to TRM that the community is starting to lose patience with this issue. Mifter Public (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute, only so much as I filed the original arbitration request. I think the block is justified and I would have linked the diffs in the evidence section of the arbitration request if it were under consideration today. The diffs are clearly symptomatic of the problems with TRM's editing and his analyses are not convincing, e.g.

• "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind." - Whether or not the opposition is illogical or not is not as important as the fact that this is offensive (or easily interpreted as such even if the intention was not to offend). Illogical in this context clearly carries negative connotations, and explicitly saying this is asking for trouble. It's like if a store sends a sales representative to see you and you respond with "wow I can't believe that sales representatives can be this ugly. But never mind". You could argue that the first part is true, and you could argue that the second part is "I shrugged it off", but it doesn't change the fact that it is offensive, and will almost certainly be interpreted as such.

• "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes" - This is similar. Referring to anyone in a dispute by third person is asking for trouble (it gives the impression that the person is so irrelevant and inconsequential that addressing him / her is unnecessary). Even neglecting that, projecting a negative image ("take the role of headmaster") onto someone is not civil.

• The Floquenbeam diff - Floquenbeam clearly did not act in a justifiable manner here, he has been warned, and he acknowledged it was a mistake. However two wrongs do not make a right, and there's nothing in WP:CIVIL that says you can retaliate if the other side breaks WP:CIVIL first. In fact we even have essays saying not to do this (WP:FWF). A violation of WP:CIVIL is still a violation of WP:CIVIL, even if the other side did it first. One might wonder then, shouldn't Floquenbeam also be blocked? The difference is that Floquenbeam does not have a long history of uncivil behaviour. When it comes to civility I think most people are willing to look past the first (few) incidents. If Floquenbeam continues to act like this for several years, through multiple ANI cases, an Arbcom case, and then an AE block, then a block would be justified. But we are not there yet.

The only real question remaining is whether the block of one month is justified. I'll say that my first impression was that this is harsh. After all, my experience on other boards is that the first block is typically 24 hours, followed by one week. One month is significantly longer than this. However, TRM has had more than ample warning. Even neglecting the multiple ANI cases in the past, there was an arbitration case (if Arbcom cases don't qualify as "you should be really careful about what you are doing" warnings, I don't know what does), followed by an AE block in December (which was overturned, but still resulted in a formal warning). If the carrot does not work, one must wield the stick.

It's arguable that even after these warnings, a 1-month block is still too harsh. But the best set of eyes are those that are uninvolved, and if an uninvolved administrator - far as I can tell, Sandstein is one - feels one month is fair, then so be it. One month is not obnoxiously long, and the Arbcom remedy specifically mentioned this duration. Plus, unless one is to question Sandstein's integrity, we must assume that Sandstein acted in a manner (s)he thinks was fair.

Only other thing I'll say is that I'm very disappointed by this entire affair. In the evidence section of the Arbcom case, I wrote that TRM reforming is undoubtedly the best case scenario, but that I wasn't convinced it was possible. TRM then started to prove me wrong. His behaviour improved even while the case was in progress, and around November I remember thinking that if this keeps up, I'll happily nominate him for adminship myself. Then there was the TRM vs. Mike V incident, followed by the first of a series of troubling diffs (as linked by Ed). It feels like the entire case has been futile, all the drama and "I will address " has been for naught, and we're right back where we started. Sigh ... TRM, if you care about the encyclopedia and project, we are on your side. Please don't act like we're all vindictive hawks out to "get you". Banedon (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: - true. I've amended what I wrote. Floquenbeam still acknowledged it was a mistake, which is a hopeful sign and something TRM has not done. Banedon (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: a comment on point 2, "Many of the diffs were pretty much ancient". I view this negatively, not positively - it implies that the first time they were written, the editor they were directed at simply looked past them. However the behavior kept up until (s)he decided it was a problem. Which is the worse kind of behaviour to you, a one-off obviously-inappropriate moment of incivility, or a long-term pattern of rudeness none of which are individually actionable? Banedon (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Admins - it doesn't have to be "either 1 week or 1 month". You could have a block length of say 2 weeks, which neither side will be happy with but would also be fair if consensus is split down the middle. Banedon (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@TRM's proposal - I think it's a good start. While TRM's definitions of "belittling" and "bullying" may not be the same as most other peoples', informing the other party that he will not be continuing the dispute is unambiguous, and a great step towards defusing any dispute per WP:STICK. Any single comment, even if it is belittling or bullying, is easier to ignore if the dispute does not escalate. I still have doubts whether TRM is capable of doing this since being able to walk away from a dispute is emotionally difficult for anyone, but it's a start. If I were an admin (which I am not) I would take this as a sign I can safely reduce the block length to 2 weeks. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to strike what I wrote because after seeing this it's hard for me to believe the proposal was sincere. Seriously TRM, if you want people to forgive and forget and work with you, you do not start by alleging bad faith. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein's comment above makes it clear that he accepted Ed17's presentation of the matter on its face and did not look into the diffs provided beyond the quoted parts. That was regrettable and I think goes a long way towards explaining why the sanction imposed was manifestly disproportionate. I worry that such a practice allows WP:AE to be gamed by clever presentation of evidence, if it is not looked into carefully as a matter of routine. Context is important. In particular, I think care needs to be taken to discourage others from baiting sanctioned editors into breaching their sanctions. Where - as here - that has occurred, I think it is incumbent on an administrator actioning an WP:AE report to consider whether this mitigates the conduct of the sanctioned user and/or whether the conduct of others involved should be looked into. Had that happened in this case, I think it would have been obvious that a much shorter block should have been imposed (if any). I support reducing the length of the block to the longer of 72 hours or time served. WJBscribe (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on the suggested topic ban, I agree with Dweller that main page content - the most visible part of Wikipeida - will suffer. We would be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. We will also create a huge dilemma as to how to deal with errors pointed out by TRM, and inevitable accusations that those who address them are helping to evade the ban notwithstanding the obvious benefit to the project of correcting such errors. Finally, surely it lies outside the scope of WP:AE to enact a ban that was unanimously rejected by ArbCom in the relevant case, see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Proposed decision#The Rambling Man topic banned? WJBscribe (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Re: - only by the person whose AE action is under review. No one else has disputed your analysis that there is a clear consensus to reduce the block length, which I think is correct. WJBscribe (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if uninvolved folks get to make sectioned-off statements here, but Govinda (an inexperienced editor) did, so I am taking the liberty. I wanted to add my own two cents and also respond to two statements by users above, and also make a proposal.

Banedon wrote: "Floquenbeam clearly did not act in a justifiable manner here, he has been warned, and he apologized for it later." Technically, he did not apologize per se; what he has said (on his talk page) is " am occasionally imperfect", and " momentarily los my cool".

Mifter wrote: "y prior interactions had always been civil and cordial. However after working more closely with him , I soon saw what likely got him blocked and before ArbCom in the first place."

Although it's frustrating to be helping out at the main page without having the tools (a part of TRM's frustration I can understand), not having the tools is the condition of 99.99% of all Wikipedia editors. I'm going to recommend that TRM be strongly advised to (1) Stop bringing up the ArbCom case. (2) Stop referring to the fact that he is not an admin. (3) Stop sniping at admins, collectively or individually, directly or indirectly. I'd also recommend that if helping out at the main page is actually too frustrating for him without having the tools, that he stop helping out at the main page. Or that, after whatever period of exemplary behavior, he file for restoration of the bit (if that is allowed by the ArbCom ruling; I really don't remember). Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• My comment on the sanction itself: I am neutral about all three editors involved (TRM, Sandstein, Floq). That said, I feel that the block is too long and should be reduced to a week. I also feel the AE was closed too quickly and too unilaterally. I also feel that full protecting TRM's talk page within 15 minutes of the block, however justified by the ArbCom ruling, was inappropriate (especially considering the one-month length of the block) and appeared to be a move to preempt criticism. I recommend that Sandstein recuse himself from any further and future sanctions concerning TRM. Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic ..., rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing. No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. .

It's not rocket science. If someone's behavior or objections or opinions frustrate you, make that irrelevant and stick to content. If someone insults you, completely ignore it. It's that simple. If need be, just act like a robot. If someone resorts to insults or ad hominems when foiled, that generally means their own arguments lack substance and they have no real counter to what someone else has put forth. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Regarding "Respectfully, stating that a comment is useless or unproductive is not a comment on a contributor, but on the comment itself." If you can't see that that ("If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?") is a comment on the user rather than on content, then I can't help you. A comment on content would be "Here is my proposal: ____" or even "I disagree" or "I disagree; what do others think?", or "OK, I have Googled and found the source for the direct quote and added it". And so on. For instance, one good rule of thumb is never to use the word "you" or "your", and never to mention others at all. Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam (deliberate non-ping), irrespective of the accusation of baiting, except for the ping here you just responded to I do not see that Coffee has ever pinged you since this whole thing went down (I just checked all of his contribs). He made a post on your talk page, and pinged you just now here. I get that you are irritated at the accusation, but the only ping was here. I'm not saying this one ping was appropriate, but it's the only one he has made in reference to this case. (Also, maybe Coffee doesn't know about Template:Noping?) Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: That was three days ago, not a new development in the least, and as you are well aware (you do it often ), editors are absolutely free to remove any and all posts from their talk pages. Every single person on this thread already knows TRM cleaned out his talk page three days ago, and no one cares. Give the guy a break, stop gravedancing and provoking, and let the process proceed without instigating even more drama and fanning the flames of acrimony. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I think there is not a lot of empathy or compassion today because TRM keeps harping ad nauseum on "it's them not me" and "admins are 100% of the problem", despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care if Coffee repeats this "blatant baiting" meme everywhere; no one whose opinion I respect respects his opinion. But I would like someone to convince him to stop pinging me every time he feels the need to slander me again. I am not following this circus, it has nothing to do with me, and I do not need or want pings from him. Alternately I guess I can turn off notifications until he gets bored. So if Coffee refuses to stop, and a legitimate editor needs to contact me, please come to my talk page instead of pinging; I won't receive pings for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment moved here from Result section by The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

[Semi-involved only because of my long-term excellent on-wiki working relationship with TRM) This is a user we bash again and again, hitting him with sticks we refuse to hit others with. This block was bad because:

• The blocking admin clearly did not look in any depth whatsoever at the diffs
• Many of the diffs were pretty much ancient
• Ticking off an editor for incivility because they were provoked by the gross incivility of an admin is just injustice
• The block escalation here was crazy
• The block escalation was based on a first block that was itself such a terribly bad block that it brought about the departure of the blocking admin

TRM does priceless work maintaining our quality. Can we please unblock him and let him get back to work. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment To those suggesting TRM is topic banned from Main page content. TRM is one of perishingly few editors who bother to quality check the stuff some editors put forward for DYK/OTD etc on Main page. Topic ban him and watch our Main page fill up with incorrect assertions, assertions not referenced in our articles and articles with poor sourcing. Perhaps the quality of our Main page doesn't matter to you, but it is an embarrassment to the project when we post junk there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: you say consensus is necessary for this block to be reversed. Is consensus an important principle? Your quick close of the AE request suggests otherwise.

I reviewed a discussion you had with Thucydides411 after he was blocked at AE on questionable grounds: the DS rule he violated was so confusing it was misunderstood by half the editors and most admins

Your arguments in support of preserving his block were:

• Fixed/clear rules aren't important, or even desirable
• The more leeway an admin has to act the better
• Leeway is "mitigated somewhat by admins generally discussing enforcement actions with each other at AE"

In your discussion of The Rambling Man sanctions at ARCA, your arguments instead were:

• Whether Bishonen followed fixed/clear rules in removing talk page protection is the only relevant question
• Leeway in admin actions is undesirable
• Consensus and discussion of enforcement actions is unnecessary (the latter evidenced by your reluctance to discuss the enforcement without strict preconditions)

I can't reconcile these instances and arguments with any consistent view of policy and the role of admins. Can you elaborate? D.Creish (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Decline appeal, with Comment - I just got pinged, because TRM is operating a DYK critique and pinging from his talk page. It's as if the block is not even in place. I have deliberately stayed out of this, both in the original sanctions and now. But I have to say, when TRM got blocked, I breathed a sign of relief. It was a cease-fire, where the skies cleared and a calm overtook. And it isn't because he's gone after me in particular, but because he comes across as so negative and heavy handed. I've gotten in the habit of unwatching anything he normally posts on, because his style makes it so unpleasant to read in some cases. Make it stop. You want to shorten the block. He's operating right now as if there is no block. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that TRM remains blocked because on his talk page he is critiquing problems with DYKs? Seriously? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sarcasm. How clever. Let me not suggest anything. I think a month-long block is good as a "time out". No good intentions by an editor justifies that editor belittling, insulting, or otherwise antagonizing other editors. Let me be clear. I have nothing personal against TRM, but how he delivers his message is counter-productive. What he is doing on his talk page is running a mirror of part of the DYK talk page. Just as when he didn't get the answers he expected/liked/wanted at WT:DYK, he mirrored the conversation to WP:ERRORS, without bothering to ping the nominators or reviewers who could have answered the questions. 1, 2. It's the same thing. If being blocked means he can't post on DYK, his doing the same thing on his talk page is evading the block. I do not question his intelligence, and certainly he's way above-average. But as with what this latest discussion was opened with, he also operates by ignoring (or easily getting around) anything he wants. I have no doubt that he has a lot of old friends in all the right places at WP. But unless Arb wants to spin its wheels forever on this one editor, something that actually works needs to be in place. I don't like having to say anything negative about another admin or even being a part of this particular conversation. But I do a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole, and DYK in particular, if I say nothing.— Maile (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, there was absolutely no sarcasm in my questions. Bewilderment and astonishment, yes. Sarcasm, no. And you also misunderstand what he is doing on his talk page. He's not mirroring anything. He's blocked and still trying to improve Wikipedia in the only way left to him. And rather well, I'd say. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I am semi-involved in this because I am sometimes on the receiving end of TRM's acerbic comments, one of which is mentioned above under #13. I have never been much concerned by his criticisms of me and that particular exchange I thought rather amusing. I am currently one of the editors trying to maintain the integrity of the main page by making alterations to DYK hooks as suggested by TRM on his talk page. These largely refer to hooks that I have formed into prep sets at DYK. I do not regard this as block evasion, and I would not make any alteration at his behest that I did not think was in the interests of Wikipedia.

I make no comment on the imposition of the present block, but I think the period is excessive, being punitive rather than preventative. This being the first block for incivility since the ArbCom ruling five months ago should have been for a short period such as one week, so as to allow for escalation of block length if further blocks were to become necessary in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The one-reply limit should not be viewed as an unambiguous plus. So far, TRM has used it as a shield to avoid discussing and justifying some of his more controversial actions, such as requesting editors to pull hooks at DYK by proxy during his block and failing to ping authors to allow them to address perceived issues with DYK hooks. That is obviously not a good thing; all editors should be willing and able to justify their actions and respond to requests to change behavior. TRM should not be able to whip out such a restriction to avoid answering difficult questions about his actions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TRM. WJBscribe (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person", a statement similar to that one got me blocked for a bit. I think the appeal should be denied at this point. Civility is something that Wikipedia needs to work on and a constant abuse of civility should not be tolerated. Many of the people complaining about the block are using the timeline as an excuse, but AE has no timeline. While I think there should be some sort of minimum discussion period, there isn't. And TRM showed that he had no intention of participating in the discussion. Sandstein can oftentimes be a stickler for rules, but in a certain sense, with AE we need to stick to the rules. (I am not commenting on the talk page issue, since that is not the focus of this appeal.) I would be OK with a two week block though. We need to reinforce that civility is not something that we just put down on paper. I would also admonish Floq for his uncivil behavior as well. (In any event, I don't see a real appeal from TRM.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  That comment you quote was said in response to "I will see you banned if you can't learn to interact like a normal human being... your behavior helps poison the environment in which we all work" - even Ed17 admits culpability for that comment in his section above. Are we really going to allow people to bait TRM in this way and then punish him if he gives as good as he gets? WJBscribe (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  It was also six weeks ago. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  I was not basing my statement on that one statement. I was just reminiscing about my history, for that one sentence. (and the history that it was six weeks ago, might not mean much if the whole point is that TRM is still being uncivil.)Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - That Fuck comment from User:Floquenbeam was embarrassing also, attacking in its own way. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am revealing a bit too much about my life outside Wikipedia, but have we ever considered something akin to "suspended sentences"? I do believe civility should be taken seriously, but something here doesn't quite feel right. I have seen admins talk about "last chances" and the like many times, but I think it is useful both procedurally and substantively to be able to say, for instance "6 month block, suspended," and then if there's another violation, said sanction kicks in. Perhaps this has already been dispensed with, or tried -- but I think it has a bit more teeth than "this is the last straw." Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Dumuzid, it's been done occasionally in the past, particularly as part of unblock conditions ("if you upload a copyright violation again you'll be banned outright"), but experience has shown that it rarely works in civility cases. Because "civility" is such a nebulous and relative concept, it's trivially easy to engineer an argument with any given editor, and then say "well, I found this comment offensive" and persuade a friendly admin on IRC to pull the trigger; such cases almost inevitably end up in a big shouting match at ANI or a messy Arb case. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of TRM's acidic comments many, many times, to the point I am convinced he should change his username to the much more accurate "The Rambling Old Man". But I don't think silencing him and policing the language in general is an optimal solution. What is a typical action a regular user would have to do in order to get a one month ban? I think topic bans are fair, but what is the point of general bans for such long periods of time? Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The ed17: I am not arguing that TRM should get a typical punishment, but what I am asking is to put whatever punishment is deemed worthwhile in the perspective of a regular user. I am fine with whatever penalty a group of users decide to impose, but I think in a case like this, allowing a single user to decide on the punishment is an undesirable outcome. Nergaal (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• TRM has been heading down the path toward a lengthy block for some time now, although this specific block probably should not have exceeded a week. Either way, I'm disturbed by Sandstein's response to the concerns that have been expressed. It doesn't seem right for one admin to make such a significant decision unilaterally before discussion can take place. I seriously hope Sandstein will refrain from making such blocks in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• I do agree that some type of block was reasonable given the trends and prior warnings, but the one month far too long for as far little discussion as the opened AE allowed. TRM's behavior and prior Arbcom case was on civility which is nearly always a subjective call, compared to, say, topic bans even with their broad allowances. While Sandstein's quick action and closure appear within AE policies, it goes against common sense when we are not talking about fully disruptive actions that require immediate attention (particularly given the evidence spanned over 2 months). I don't believe that the closed AE case would have ended up without a block, but very much likely not a full one month block, so reducing to a week seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• The month-long block is quite reasonable, under the ongoing circumstances as explained by blocking admin Sandstein a few hours ago. He also notes that shortening his block is subject to sanctions. As an admin has subsequently stated an intent to shorten the block to one week, we seem to be heading into uncharted waters. Regardless of the length of his block, TRM's total inability to express any kind of contrition or recognition that his ongoing incivility will no longer be tolerated by the community here must be regarded as crucial. He has just now blanked his Talk page, but a review of his comments in just the past few days there is of interest, as Sandstein notes. I agree with George William Herbert as to a general solution... a topic ban for TRM from the Main Page sections. Jusdafax 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was pinged by The Wordsmith along with a group of admins, but as the section I was pinged in is for admins only, and I do not belong to that user group, I will respond here. Please note this edit, made within the last hour or so, to TRM's Talk page, which contains the following: "there's absolutely nothing at all which will currently see me being topic banned. Quite the opposite in fact." I'd say the entrenched inability to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever makes me ask for an indef block and revocation of Talk page privileges. TRM's unblock proposal is meaningless until he faces up to the fact that his downwards spiral is accelerating. Jusdafax 23:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Jusdafax, this section is for uninvolved editors. You are very involved, as you filed the previous AE against TRM, which was unanimously thrown out as without merit: . Please move your two comments to a separate, named section, like other involved editors. Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Jusdafax 00:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would be OK with the block being reduced and would be OK with a main page topic ban for a while. To answer Dweller that the main page will suffer, is it not possible that the reason why other editors don't hang out there so much is because of TRM's hostility? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am comfortable with both the existence and the length of this block. To say that this is a first time offense for TRM is laughable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
• I think the scope of the issue applies to groups of people in addition to individuals. The Rambling Man regularly insults and belittles everybody working on the DYK project. For example, someone reports a minor problem at Main Page/Errors, and The Rambling Man replies by saying that nobody at DYK cares about getting things correct. Instead of responding about the problem, he just spews his insulting lie. This is inappropriate and unconstructive. Considering this along with all of the other evidence (just look through the DYK talk page archives for copious examples), plus his constant whining that everyone else is to blame, without acknowledging or seeming to understand his own wrongdoing, a month is quite appropriate. Inglefoot (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Edit summary: "enough" (22:00, 7 March 2017)

Comment by (uninvolved) Francis Schonken (talk): TRM emptying their own talk page is definitely a new development afaics. I'd suggest to freeze TRM's user talk page in this empty state for the remainder of their block. I.e., apply the general page protection to that page as foreseen in the TRM arbcom case remedy. In general I'd commend Sandstein on their intuitions regarding the AE actions needed in this case:

• Length of the block: since TRM showed no intention to understand why they were blocked (even less to correct their behaviour), and thinks appealing to bad behaviour by others is the way to go in defence of their own insulting behaviour, I think Sandstein's intuition that only a maximum duration of the block might have any effect is correct. Also, a month may show beyond a shred of doubt that the Main Page can exist without TRM's direct or indirect edits.
• Freezing user talk page in a second step: after some largely useless discussion in multiple forums (including the present one) this seems to be what TRM has decided to for their user talk page ("enough"). Commending Sandstein for their intuition that with or without some intermediate meanderings and ramifications this was going to be the point where it all converged to. Not reverting that page protection would have saved us some time that could have been spent somewhere else more usefully.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule against blanking one's own talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

"Hello all. How's about this: I'll place a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement. That response will be neither "belittling" nor "bullying" but will inform the editor that I will not be continuing with the disagreement. I believe that wording and its interpretation is still highly subjective and any such commons need context, but that didn't seem necessarily the way the enforcement was conducted. However, a limitation on my interactions with editors with whom I may be in disagreement seems a good place to start. It's my pledge that a lot of the scenarios which were brought up will not occur again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)"

Posted here by request of TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that whether or not the block is reduced in length – it should be, as you don't need a month's block to make the point, and we need not pretend that it's preventative – TRM's proposal is a most encouraging idea to demonstrate that he really is the editor that I have always found so productive and pleasant to work with. To that end, I'd be happy to offer him the opportunity to email me whenever he feels a need to vent. Other editors who feel the same could make the same offer. Stepping away from a dispute is sometimes difficult and if TRM knows there are other editors who will listen without judging, it may go some way to relieving the frustrations we all feel sometimes. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• As it stands, I consider the block was good, and remains necessary because TRM hasn't demonstrated that they understand what they were blocked for, and have not stated that they will desist (per WP:GAB). That is what is expected for an unblock, and Sandstein has said that an unblock will occur if they are convinced on a credible basis that TRM understands what they were blocked for and states they won't do it anymore. So the ball is still firmly in TRM's court at this point. If TRM shifts their approach, I am open to reconsidering. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I first noticed this conflict when TRM complained about Floquenbeam calling him "prick" and saying "fuck you" to him. (Note: unlike "fuck off," which is merely uncivil, I consider "fuck you" as akin to "fuck yourself," a clear breach of NPA). I, therefore, issued a warning on his talk page. And that was that. I think in this case, a warning was also warranted. At most, if we sway to the harsher side, a short block. A one month block seems excessive. I looked at the evidence above and at the AE case, but I see nothing that goes beyond impatience and maybe some mild incivility. I think closing AE cases quickly, though it may be part of convention sometimes, does incur a more dramatic impetus when this is done in cases involving established users. And the proof is that, arguably, there's already been more discussion generated than had the AE been allowed to run its course more organically. In summary: I support lifting the block and supplanting it with a warning, or a short block, depending on consensus. *** Addendum: As I commented recently, I apply the some one-and-only warning for NPA violations (unless they're especially egregious) to admins and editors alike, without prejudice. El_C 09:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Heated tidings from TRM's talk page: after I cautioned him about illustrating colorful examples (in quotes), TRM, refusing to give up the stick and becoming tendentious (despite advise from Ritchie333 to the contrary), ended up spiraling himself into talk page blanking. I note all that only for the record. Things have not been easy for him over there, that much is clear. All that having been said... as to the matter at hand: although there is some opposition I think that, overall, we have consensus here to reduce the block from a month to a week. So, unless there are objections, I'll be reducing it thusly (including time served) soon. Let me know.< El_C 13:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fine, I'll wait. But I think Sandstein is wrong about consensus. And, I think we can permit some leeway to established users when they are blocked so harshly. El_C 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• WJBscribe, I'm still tempted to do it, but was hoping as more admins concur, Sandstien will see reason. The block was too harsh by at least a factor of four. El_C 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not a new development, Francis Schonken. And no need to be so dramatic toward, nor so excessively severe(!), about page blanking. It's entirely allowed. El_C 07:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• MLauba, it's understandable him being upset. Talk page also had some extremely productive and positive facets. Let's place everything in perspective. El_C 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Block was OK, but too long, especially given that some of the comments were themselves in response to attacks. Previous one had been 72h - a week would have been reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Block was overkill, a trout slap and "Stop this right now or there WILL be a block" would have done. I can see the point of view of having a 24 - 48 hour block to get everyone to cool down and do something else, but no more, and I think for fairness Floquenbeam should have also been blocked (that does not mean I want to block Floq - not at all - just that if you're going to block editors, do it fairly). A month is like cracking a sledgehammer with a nut. So drop the block to time served. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Are you suggesting the previous blocks (I don't wish to imply that TRM has received Arb remedy blocks) the Arb case, and this warning from December aren't sufficient for an experienced editor? Get real. --Laser brain (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because it led to a drama-fest and the retirement of Mike V. I want to see fairness, if somebody belittles you or uses unpleasant language, do not respond in kind. Ignore it, take the dog for a walk, anything .... but if admins take actions that are perceived as unfair, they get roasted on ANI for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Yes, I try and get on with "difficult" editors and work with them for the good of the project, and I think improving the quality of MS Herald of Free Enterprise, a tragic ferry accident that claimed 193 lives and I found incredibly harrowing while watching the television coverage live, in time for its 30th anniversary on the main page, is more important than moaning about fellow editors. Find something to cuddle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I find it regrettable that for the initial block, it wasn't called out that some of the submitted evidence diffs don't meet the criteria of the remedy. In The ed17's complaint, at the very least diffs 5, 7, 11, 12 and 15 are reaching quite a bit. The context for 10 clearly should mitigate how it is being weighed in the sanction decision. Further, most of these are isolated incidents going back weeks and months. That being said, it is clear that during the most recent period, from March 2nd onwards, TRM's frustrations are mounting, and as an user under sanctions, he does not benefit from the same level of leeway afforded other long term contributors. While baiting is an issue, the purpose of the remedy, I trust, is exactly to stop TRM's annoyance at others get the best of him. I would therefore decline the appeal but support shortening the block length to a more proportionate level, one which serves the core purpose to stop the spiral that started at the beginning of this month. I believe Black Kite's proposed week strikes the right balance. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As a necessary complement, though, I'd like to draw attention to The Rambling Man's talk page before getting cleared. I'd like the closing statement to reflect that while the duration will most likely be shortened, the merits of the block hasn't been in question. In my opinion, the mindset depicted in TRM's defense of his statements is leading down the all too familiar road of entrenchment rather than reform. It would be far better if this appeal could simply be declined on the merits, rather than leading to amended sanctions. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• In my view this block should stand. This case is a poster child for why some editors become known as "unblockable" and why Wikipedia is so bad at dealing with prolonged and serious behavior problems when the editor isn't a blatant troll. TRM has gotten ample, long-term feedback from the community that his behavior isn't acceptable. He still doesn't accept that its problematic, doesn't accept his role in conflicts, and doesn't recognize why it's bitten him. I don't believe it's helpful for him or for the project to take the stance that he should get a final final final warning and be put on double probation. I don't see anything changing. --Laser brain (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• @The Wordsmith: I disagree that there is any kind of consensus here for a reduction in block length. For the purposes of an appeal of an AE action, I think a strong, near-unanimous consensus is needed that the action was incorrect. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• @El C: TRM has not given any indication that he understands where and how his behavior is poor, and has given every indication that he intends to return to what he was doing before the block. In this case, the block is quite literally preventing him from returning to the behavior. I'm curious what your definition of preventative is, if not this. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• (I commented on the block at AN, but I do not think that makes me involved.) Having ruminated on it for a day, my opinion remains similar to what I wrote at AN. The block was handled hastily and is disproportionate, considering the mitigating circumstances of many of the diffs that were provided (see MLauba's comment slightly above) and that this should really be considered the first AE block, considering the only previous one was quickly overturned. Personally, I would have felt that even a 72 hour block might be stretching it considering the recent diffs were in response to some pretty blatant personal attacks. However, I suppose MLauba makes a good point that user's under sanctions should expect to be dealt with more harshly, whether that is fair or not. I support lessening the block to anywhere from 72 hrs to one week at the maximum. Jenks24 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• A block is necessary here. We have a clear pattern of insulting, degrading or belittling conduct by someone who has already been sanctioned by Arbcom for it. This isn't a "first-time offence", as claimed in the appeal, but rather the exact opposite. We have already had the final "do that again and you will be blocked" warning back in December and it seems to have done nothing, so I don't see any point in doing it again this time. We don't have any indication in this appeal of anything that will stop the problematic behaviour from continuing. Sure, some of these comments took place in discussions where other people behaved inappropriately as well, but that's not much of an excuse. The only real leeway here is the block length. While it doesn't have to be a month, and that is the high limit of what is permissible, I would suggest it does have to be at least a week and arguably longer. Hut 8.5 21:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• So, TRM seems to be claiming to have been baited. While I think it's despicable to bait a sanctioned or topic banned user, and would happily have imposed blocks or sanctions (even just under regular administrator discretion) against anyone attempting to do so, it still doesn't make it alright for the user in question to rise to the bait and attack someone. TRM was clearly engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that led to the sanctions again and again. If it had only happened one time, or two times, or what have you, I would absolutely oppose imposing the maximum block in the first instance. But this isn't a few times, it's still a clear pattern of unchanged behavior. A certain minimum standard of decorum is expected for participation on this project, and from the evidence presented, TRM has repeatedly breached that standard even after a clear warning that sanctions would result from that. Given that, I can't see fit to overturn the sanction imposed for it. TRM is welcome to call attention to errors and problems, but he's not welcome to be uncivil when he does so. It's entirely possible to say "This is wrong" without being nasty about it, and TRM will need to learn to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm heartened to see that TRM is making an effort to resolve this. I certainly don't want to see this block actually need to last for a month, and I'm very much in favor of finding a solution that will allow for it to be lifted while solving the problem. I think both the proposals by TRM and TheWordsmith are reasonable toward that and would not object to either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know that a month was the usual block progression, but at least some of the complaint items are clear enough to support someone having acted. TRM doing good does not excuse ignoring and repudiating multiple admin and Arbcom feedback to stop the behavior. If he can't adapt on the pages that he's repeatedly causing problems on, Arbcom topic banned another editor from Mainpage in the TRM case; perhaps that would be appropriate here as well. Less stressful articles and removal from the locus of disputes might ameliorate the problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• The block may have been hasty, but it was warranted. I've formally admonished Floquenbeam for his wholly innappropriate actions to bait The Rambling Man, but even such brazen manipulative actions from a long-term administrator do not excuse TRM to breach his restriction. If TRM had handled this properly, and notified another administrator of the baiting, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing TRM here at all. Sadly, that's not the case. Instead, TRM fell into his previous pattern of needing to get the last word in... even if that word would do nothing but increase the incivility of the given discussion. That is the same type of behavior that ArbCom specifically sanctioned TRM for, and as such the block is warranted. The length, however, is not. At most we should be looking at a 1 week block (considering one of the previous blocks on the account was invalid), and it appears that the rough consensus forming here is to reduce the block to exactly that length. Therefore, I would decline this appeal, endorse the enforcement action made by Sandstein, and contest that the block be reduced to 72 hours – 1 week (per standard progression, and to match the severity of the editor's actions). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: You are correct. No contact has been made with that administrator, with the exception of the linked admonishment. He was notified of his name being used here, by myself and other administrators, as per standard notification procedure (which Floquenbeam is well aware of). Any claim to the contrary should be taken as a red herring, and should be disregarded without evidence. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• It seems that there is near-unanimous consensus that the block itself is valid and ought to be upheld. I agree with this. However, it appears that consensus (both numbers and strength of argument) also indicates that one month is too long. I support reducing it to one week, as do most of the other uninvolved admins here. I also see significant support for 72 hours to one week from the involved and uninvolved editors above, plus those members of the pitchfork brigade who commented on ANI. Unless something shifts drastically, I intend to close this tonight or tomorrow with a commutation to one week including time served. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was told that I "risk being sanctioned for undoing an AE action out of process," when I said the exact same thing earlier today. El_C 23:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• That is not a credible threat. The administrator imposing a sanction doesn't get a supervote or even a veto in appeals. And I'm seriously concerned about any admins who insist they are right and dare not be questioned, even in the face of a strong consensus of their peers against them. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Consensus is indeed clear, I challenge. Still, no one wants to spend hours of their time defending themselves before Committee, even if nothing comes of it. El_C 10:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that consensus is clear at all when it comes to the length of the block. I would request that you do not close this without some further movement towards agreement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

• You are mistaken. It is clear among admins. A week with time served seems to be the ballpark. El_C 12:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from myself, I also see clear support from admins User:Seraphimblade, User:Laser brain, User:Peacemaker67 and User:Hut 8.5 for maintaining the block as-is. In addition User:Georgewilliamherbert didn't seem to feel that the block length was excessive (please correct me if I am wrong). There is support but hardly consensus. Please leave it open a little longer so more people can chime in. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

• I think support is strong enough to count as tentative consensus. But will do. I can wait. El_C 13:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - I think the block length was excessive, sorry if I wasn't clear enough earlier. The AC finding was for approximately "first four blocks in normal block progression" which vaguely is somewhere in the "24H-3D-1W-2W-1MO-6MO" common escalation spectrum. Starting with 1W is not unusual for an extensive well documented case for a problem user; going straight to 1MO with three more escalation steps from there is pretty catastrophic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - Given TRM's history, I think the 1M block length is fine, unless TRM shows they understand why they were blocked in the first place and won't continue with the behaviour, which I don't think has occurred. In those circumstances, the block is preventative, not punitive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would be fine with reducing the block time if TRM was showing any indication that he understood why he got blocked in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that. Given that he's not showing any indication of grasping why his behavior was a problem, I'm worried that shortening his block will just lead him to believe that his behavior was appropriate and we'll all be back here sooner or later. I would prefer that we not lose TRM as an editor, but enabling his behavior by "rewarding" him when he is still not showing that he understands why he got blocked.... just seems to me to be leading to an inevitable banning, which would be a shame. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• A question though. Part of the problem, which is apparent in TRM's attempt to debate the merit of each diff part of the initial AE request, is that what we see as belittling others, TRM sees as mere statements of fact. With that in mind, what does a month block teach that a week or two don't? MLauba ^(Talk) 13:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing. A full month is wholly punitive. El_C 13:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Right now, all I see is TRM acting as if he can ignore the feedback he's getting about his style of interaction. He may very well feel that he's just stating facts. I can tell you that his behavior at WP:ERRORS does indeed come across as heavy-handed, unpleasant, and negative. I stopped even thinking about doing much at ERRORS when I posted a comment and TRMs reply came across to me as ordering me to immediately fix something. (It was January or February - I'd have to look up the exact situation, but there are no archives for ERRORS, which is really annoying.) I felt like I was being treated as his servant, quite honestly. I suspect a LOT of people just ... stop trying to help out because of that sort of style. If there was the slightest bit of clue being shown, I'd be quite happy to see the block reduced - perhaps even to time served. I'm not seeing that TRM has taken on board the feedback he's getting. I don't LIKE long blocks. I'm not a fan of most civility enforcement - but at some point, when the community AND ArbCom have said your style of communication is incivil, you need to take it on board. (And, for a while, things were better... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't expect groveling. I don't expect apologies. I don't expect "mea culpas". I am encouraged by TRMs agreement to only reply once. But that doesn't solve the problem that he still hasn't taken on board that other people see his "stating facts" as belittling. While I'm all for robust debate and don't want to censor things - I also expect that if you've been the subject of an ArbCom restriction on your communication style, that you might try to understand that other people see your style differently than you yourself do. As of now, I'm fine with reducing to 2 weeks. I'd be happy to see it reduced to time served if TRM would come out with some statement that he understands that others see his plain talking as problematical and that he'll try to cut back on so much plain talking. Doesn't have to say he's wrong, doesn't have to grovel, just acknowledge that others see his communication differently than he himself does and that in the interests of collaboration, he'll try to remember that others see things differently. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Decline. The block is sound, and the one-month length is within discretion if on the high end. Like Lankiveil, I also do not perceive a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" necessary to overturn the enforcement action at this point. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not a lot of empathy today. Yesterday was a better day for compassion. El_C 13:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In the last day or so, the consensus (8 to 3 when I commented) seems to have evaporated. Therefore I won't be closing it yet, but I think some additional discussion is necessary. TRM above has proposed a compromise, and I'd like some feedback on that. I would also like to note that a topic ban is not a valid option here, since neither TRM nor the Main Page are actually under Discretionary Sanctions. The remedies we have available are the ones in the Arbitration case. If a few admins want to topic ban him, it will have to be community-imposed through the usual channels with consensus required. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• My apologies, the topic ban was more thinking out loud on my part below than a serious proposal. Sorry for not making that clear. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• As much as I dislike the duration of the current block, and would welcome alternative solutions, I don't believe this would help in the present situation. TRM, before blanking your page, your long analysis of the diffs posted by The Ed17 in the initial complaint show to me that you don't understand when a comment of yours is belittling or insulting your readers. That's the heart of the problem, probably due to mounting exasperation at times. An 1 reply limit will not help when the reply meets the community's bar for belittling or insulting, even if it doesn't reach your standard for the term. I therefore must oppose this alternative. I would be much more comfortable considering a topic ban like some have suggested, to remove you from areas causing you recurring stress. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Just a friendly note that a number of the users/admins who have been commenting in sectioned off areas have raised points either in response to, compliment of, or in counterproposal to a number of the points being raised in this discussion which may be prudent to consider or weigh when discussing potential outcomes (not to imply that anyone is ignoring or not reading those comments, rather that it is easy to skip to this section and not notice or forget to notice the comments being made above). Best, Mifter Public (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• I made a counter proposal on Sandstein's talk. While he doesn't seem willing to agree to it unless this appeal is first declined, that may not be necessary. TRM does seem inclined to agree to it. The proposal would be to clarify the "insulting or belittling" part of the restriction, which has caused TRM to fail to understand what is and is not allowed, in addition to the vagueness opening it up to abuse by opposing editors. My proposal would clarify it to "discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors". This would remove most of the ambiguity that opens it up to abuse by both sides. It would have to start out as voluntary by TRM, but if it is successful in preventing the undesirable behavior then I'm sure ARCA would consider formalizing it. Pinging the uninvolved admins who have commented in the above section: @Peacemaker67, Laser brain, Seraphimblade, Jusdafax, Ealdgyth, Timotheus Canens, El C, Black Kite, Ritchie333, MLauba, Jenks24, Hut 8.5, Coffee, Sir Joseph, and Georgewilliamherbert: Can we get a consensus to unblock or reduce the block with this condition? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the root cause of this issue is the remedy being ambiguous or unclear, and if TRM feels it is unclear then he has every right to ask ArbCom to clarify it. If you do want a suggestion for a way forward then I would suggest some kind of commitment by TRM to abide by the terms of the restriction. Hut 8.5 21:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • TRM's responded to this comment on his talk page. It looks like he's keen on the idea of clarifying the restriction because he thinks it's being abused rather than because he doesn't understand it. Hut 8.5 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It HAS been abused due to vagueness, as can be seen from previous cases filed with no action. However, that's not really the question here. He has agreed to abide by it, and both he and I have made proposals for a way forward. Would you consider either of those an acceptable result, and if not, what would you consider to be an acceptable outcome? I'm starting to get the feeling that some admins don't actually want to solve this issue with anything other than a siteban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I believe a self-imposed discipline by The Rambling Man to refrain from "discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors", with a renewed commitment to focus on edits instead of editors, is pretty much the blueprint he can follow to avoid running afoul of the remedy as presently worded. TRM, as you're aware, you have huge target painted on your back. I'm afraid you'll have to either start suffering fools or ignore them. If you can do that, you will be one of the very few surviving a civility parole remedy (regardless of how it's worded). Otherwise, quite frankly, the best thing to spare you another year of increased disenchantment and pile-ons is to scramble your password and walk away. This is either your last AE, or the beginning of the end.
  • With all that said, I don't believe a month block will teach anything more than 1 week and the several hundred KBs worth of lecturing, mistrust and patronizing you just got will tell. Good luck to you. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd like to believe this is possible, but my observation is that TRM made similar commitments at the conclusion of his arb case last year, and was indeed on his best behaviour for a couple of months, before backsliding into the same patterns that had originally created the problem. If we could have some sort of assurance or guarantee that this time the change would be permanent I'd be happy to have an immediate unblock; but I'm not getting that from his recent comments. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

• I'm not seeing progress. I, for one, am starting to lose faith in this process. The block length was overlong. If we have to take this before the Committee to confirm that, so be it. El_C 08:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently, this is before the Committee after all and I just missed it. I have added my own brief comment that I think summarizes the issues I take with the sanction. El_C 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I support a reduction in block length (1 week). My impression is that we have a weak but valid consensus for that now, and Arbcom on the clarifications page has hinted that the length is properly discussed here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• @The Wordsmith: As I said above, I fully support a reduction in block length, especially so given your proposal. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• This should include time served. As a aside, maybe I missed the window in which the Committee members were evaluating this, as I notice it has been a few days since any of them commented. Hopefully, they will resume in earnest soon. Or someone here will do something. We are in a bit of a limbo with the ARCA still open. El_C 05:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, I'd be open to unblocking right away, but if and only if there is some development that convinces me that we won't be back here in a couple of months debating the same thing. TRM at present seems to be of the view that the problem is with everyone but himself and that he is the victim. I think we need to see some understanding from TRM of their role in creating this mess before we can consider actions such as unblocking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

• That's a long way to say no. TRM had already said the following: Each individual seems to have their unique version of magic passwords that I need to utter in order to gain their forgiveness, I did what I thought was the right thing, to pledge a self-imposed discussion criterion to prevent the supposed disputes, but that wasn't enough. El_C 07:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for much, just for TRM to treat people with respect, even when he disagrees with them or isn't happy with their work. If they can do that, I don't see why they shouldn't participate anywhere in the project that they please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

• For examples of him disagreeing respectfully without insulting or belittling (since the block was imposed), see . There are many more, but at a certain point I stopped pasting all of his recent non-DYK-related contribs because if this doesn't convince you that he's capable of disagreeing respectfully then no number of diffs will. TRM has also agreed to abide by his restriction and acknowledged that if they don't, then he expects to be blocked indefinitely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• One more for good measure, if you want to see a sincere attempt to improve his communication. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @The Wordsmith: Exactly. We both know he's capable of it. I want to see more of this and less of this. I AGF that TRM is not deliberately going around trying to offend people, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he is and it needs to stop. I'd really like him to be able to get back to the important work of ensuring quality control on the main page, unfortunately his current approach means that everyone is focused on him rather than rubbish getting through DYK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

• @Lankiveil: By your own diffs, the insulting one you used was before his block and the polite one was after. In fact, a whole bunch of disagreements he's had in the last few days, he's been able to handle with civility. Does that not then demonstrate exactly what you want to see, that the block is no longer necessary? To keep it in place despite the fact that he's making a serious, credible effort to do better crosses the line into punitive. If not, what else would it take to convince you that the block is no longer necessary? And I mean specific criteria. I believe in good faith that you would rather see him working productively than sitebanned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to insult TRM's intelligence by prescribing "magic words" that he must say. You're right that he's been on his best behaviour civility wise since being blocked, but there needs to be something to show that that'll continue after he's unblocked. What I'd like to see is not just a temporary increase in politeness, but some awareness of why people get upset with his more "blunt" comments, and taking a bit more responsibility for the situation he's found himself in rather than blaming ArbCom, other admins, etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

• This appeal should be closed as denied, because I believe that there is a pretty clear consensus above that it was fair of Sandstein to block TRM for their behaviour. At that point I'd be open to reducing the block length on the basis that TRM agrees to not "discuss the motives or competence of other editors" AND agrees to abide by the one reply limit outlined above. I'd want to see that in a single unambiguous comment on TRM's talk page without any prevarication about how ArbCom/admins are against them, it's all subjective etc etc etc. Then I'd be happy with an unblock. I'll also say I've spent a fair amount of my time trawling through the ArbCom decision and TRM's comments to other editors, and that if this behaviour recurs, I'll be supporting a significantly longer block, and will do it myself if I see further examples. No-one is indispensable, if you get hit by a bus tomorrow the Main Page will continue on. Learn to play nicely with others or do something else with your spare time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• TRM has issued a statement. I say we reduce the block to one week with time served. I don't think the Committee will be much help here, so we're on our adminown. El_C 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is beginning to look like TRM is coming within sight of exhaustion of admins' and community patience. We're not there yet, and AE is not the right place to impose anything like that, but I hope TRM can take the input that this is the wrong direction to heart and change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

ARBPIA, "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 3/13/17 I remove an entry about a neighbor dispute, the article mentions noise complaints
2. 3/13/17 Nishidani reverts and claims that it is about the IP conflict.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

He has been sanctioned in the past and most recently warned to be more civil towards users

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

User has participated in AE, and user talk page has a discussion where he recently violated DS but I didn't take him to AE.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am trying to make this simple, so I'm only including one diff. Nishidani has basically taken ownership of this page and routinely adds any interaction between an Arab and a Jew. This incident takes place in Petach Tikvah a city in Israel and it's not clear at all from the article that this has anything to do with the IP conflict. From the article it appears to be a criminal event and a neighbor dispute. Not every interaction between an Arab and a Jew is automatically part of the IP conflict. To do so, is SYNTH and OR. His claim in the edit summary is that Palestinian stone throwers are included doesn't make sense, since Palestinians throwing stones at soldiers is 100% about the conflict. (Incidentally, this shows Nishidani's bias, since the article doesn't mention Palestinian, they refer to Jews and Arabs). Regardless, the revert went against DS.

• Also, regardless of this AE action, if someone would be kind to reiterate that calling people who disagree with you as nationalistic POV pushers is not conducive to collaborative editing? Disagreeing with Nishidani should not warrant that, he needs to be reminded that people can have differing opinions without one being a POV pusher, or does he believe that only those against his opinions are POV pushers?
• Drmies it's here because Nishidani restored a reverted edit without consensus, which is a DS violation. It's as simple as that. I'm not sure of the rest of your post, I never said it's not involving a Jew and an Arab, but the artcile doesn't say anywhere that it has anything to do with the IP conflict. It is a dispute around noise and neighbors. Nishidani is trying to POV push any dispute as being part of the IP conflict. But again, this can be discussed on the talk page. The issue here is simply a DS violation and perhaps civility. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Just to add, Nishidani has previously stated that ANY dispute between a Jew and an Arab is an IP conflict edit. For example, if I was driving in Israel and backed my car into an Arab car, Nishidani would include that in this list. That is the POV pushing we're dealing with here. But again, since Drmies asked, whether to include or not, is ultimately up for discussion. What we have here is just a simple DS violation. I reverted, he restored and violated DS. QED. Drmies, your most recent edit is why I brought it here. I reverted, he restored, that is a DS violation. Regardless if it's part of the conflict or not, Nishidani violated DS. (And I'm not sure how saying it's part of the conflict isn't a OR violation.)Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Drmies, no. Nishidani restored something I removed. That is a violation of DS. (I did not do a full revert because there was a valid edit in there that I didn't want to remove. Would you have me remove valid data just to be a technical revert?) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Black_Kite, again it's irrelevant if the edit is IP conflict or not. The issue is that restoring it was a DS violation. I removed, he restored, that's a violation. Whether it belongs in there or not is up for discussion, but not here. Here is just to discuss the DS violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Black_Kite, no DS is not just 1RR, on these pages the sanction applies to "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." (FYI, one reason why the article mentions Jew and Arab is to identify the people, same as how in the US they might identify people. It's a lot easier to read than man 1 and man 2) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• El_C, who mentioned 1RR? It's as if admins don't know what discretionary sanctions are. Again, he reinserted something I removed. That is a violation of DS. It has nothing to do with 1RR or 0RR, those are two separate violations possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=770141594&oldid=770140470

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

See this. The gravamen of the dispute is that several pages I edit have a standing POV majority, that edits, and reverts, in lockstep. Any one revert by one of them, if challenged, is immediately endorsed by several of the others, and I am told to get consensus. If anyone has a history of writing extensively and exhaustively on IP talk pages to explain the rationale behind her edits, it's me, and it's mainly to no avail. The edit summaries justifying most of these reverts are incomprehensible, fluid, changing from editor to editor, and farcical. The only point is, revert Nishidani on whatever basis you feel like. I challenged a particularly egregious example of false edit summaries at the RSN board here. The neutral editors confirmed my argument, yet once I registered the verdict at the Al-Dawayima massacre, on the talk page, SJ still held out, insisting I had to get consensus from him and several others editors who consistently revert me. This leads to an impossible working situation where I editor consistently finds himself in a minority. For functionally, 'get consensus' means 'rope in' friendly editors who can outnumber us, otherwise stiff cheddar. This has occurred on a dozen occasions over the past few months. The rules are being subtly gamed. As the evidence on the stub grenade episode shows, it is obviously on a par with Palestinians throwing stones. I always add reports of Palestinian stone throwing where danger or damage occurs, but I am being forbidden, by an irrational ad hoc POV majority, from adding an incident where Israelis threw a stub grenade into a Palestinian's apartment. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wordsmith. I have no objections to my being blocked. But I would appreciate a close examination of what some of these editors are doing with clockwork regularity, using utterly silly edit summaries to revert me ( on a page where their sole activity has been to revert, with zero constructive contributions). SJ has been angling several times to get me blocked, and as I see it, he participates in mechanical challenges to that end, provocatively. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have complained in the past regarding Nishidanis uncivil comments, asking him many times to stop try to put me down with his denigrating comments. I posted at WP:AE regarding him before, nl at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Request_concerning_Nishidani, which was closed with a (surprisingly mild) warning that "If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down." and a closing statement that said "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case."

Recently he did it again: for fuck's sake, and If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment.

Since Debresser mentioned civility issues, I did want to mention it, but not in the top complaint. You can see here, User_talk:Nishidani#Warning_on_Personal_Attacks where I warned him for calling me foggy brained, and other names. It is a constant issue with Nishidani where he routinely issues personal attacks or violates civility issues. It is one of the many reasons why I have unwatched several pages.

RolandR, what is your point? This AE action is for Nishidani reinserting without consensus. Why is nobody getting that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WJBScribe, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=756797149#Motion:_ARBPIA Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I would agree with you regarding first time offenders, but Nishidani is not. I have warned him several times about this, and he warns others about it. He clearly knows the rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe, he is very aware of sanctions. I have warned him about it in the past and he has also warned people about it. It is also clearly on the talk page which he has seen and is on edit notices in many IP conflict areas. (See here: where the DS sanction is discussed.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also want to add, that being racist (which may be the reason for the article) isn't necessarily part of the IP conflict. When two neighbors get into a scuffle in Petach Tikvah, that could be a race issue, not about the IP conflict. So it's perfectly valid to have a discussion on whether or not to include this incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• El_C, see his talk page where we were discussing his prior DS violation. He is aware of DS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Black_Kite, Nishidani routinely cries "numbers" when things don't go his way, but if you look at the majority of the IP conflict pages it is not how Nishidani claims. Again, all he had to do was discuss the issue. He also continues to call the subjects of the article "Palestinians" when the article doesn't state that, the article uses Jews and Arabs. I also find his latest statement to be a little bit on the not AGF side. He is casting aspersions and that is what also needs to stop. Civil people can disagree with each other without anyone being bad people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Nishidani's entry just shows the POV pushing that he deals. He can't understand that there is a difference between a Palestinian throwing stones at soldiers and a dispute of neighbors. It is a valid item up for discussion. He also continues to editorialize and claim Palestinian when the article in question uses the term Arab. The rest of his entry is just his typical deflection. He does not edit well with others. See Sippenhaft where he had run-ins with an entirely new set of editors who dared disagree with Nishidani. All he does is claim that if you disagree with Nishidani, you are part of a cabal. It's insulting and wrong, especially considering that I can claim the same thing for him and his side of the POV. And since he brings in a content dispute angle, it is not 100% clear how an incident involving neighbors is part of the IP Conflict. That is why it's to be discussed, something Nishidani doesn't like to do. I also take umbrage that I am trying to get him blocked. Were I to want him blocked, I would have brought him to AE a while ago for his prior DS violation, which he notes on his talk page. See here: where I prepared an AE action but didn't bring it. His entire entry is all about how evil the other editors are and that is the behavior that I and Debresser and many others have asked him repeatedly to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of jumping in on AE cases, but this is just ridiculous. Of course this is related to the conflict, as other news reports make clear. For instance, Haaretz: "The Israel Police arrested four people on Sunday on suspicions they threatened an Arab woman and her daughter with racist motives, in order to force them to move out of Petah Tikva." Jerusalem Online: "Yesterday, the police arrested 4 suspects from Petah Tikva, 2 men and 2 women, who are suspected of threatening an Arab woman and her daughter in recent days due to their Arab origin. The goal of threatening them was to prompt them to leave their apartment in the city." In Hebrew, the identification with the conflict is even closer. For instance, Reshet TV reports "איומים על רקע לאומני: 4 תושבי פתח תקווה חשודים באיומים על אם ובתה בשל מוצאן הערבי" ("Threats on a nationalist basis: 4 residents of Petah Tikva are suspected of threatening a mother and daughter because of their Arab origin") In other words, this is a content dispute in an area covered by discretionary sanctions, and the original edit was entirely appropriate for the article. 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing that can help create a better environment for editing in the I/P conflict area, is for Sir Joseph (SJ) to stop hounding Nishidani. Over the last several years, Nishidani has repeatedly asked SJ to stop hounding him, but to no avail. Typically, SJ denies hounding and claims that . Well, the reason the articles are on SJ's watchlist is because SJ hounds Nishidani, and then SJ adds the article to his watchlist. I am not (yet) seeking sanctions against SJ. But I think it would be a good idea for SJ to understand that experienced editors can see that he is hounding Nishidani, and it may also be a good idea for SJ to consider removing from his watchlist most, if not all, of the articles that Nishidani edits in the I-P conflict area. IIRC there are something like 5 million articles in the English WP, many of which need significant work. I see that SJ has been making some contributions to areas outside the I-P conflict. In my view SJ should seriously consider shifting away from wasting his time, and the community's patience, on his apparent obsession with Nishidani's work in the I-P conflict, and instead invest even more of his (SJ's) efforts to contribute to WP areas that do not involve the I-P conflict. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• The article suggests that this is not "just" a noise complaint--Arab woman, complaints about Arab music during Shabbat, etc. This seems like a regular editorial conflict to me and I don't see what it's doing here. (Since we're now making such articles, "list of incidents", one shouldn't be surprised that there are conflicts over what counts and what doesn't count as "in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", or whatever the conflict may be.) Drmies (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Sir Joseph, I see you remove something and Nishidani restoring it. That's what I see. And I see an article talking about an Arab woman being terrorized by some criminals who I presume are not Arab, or the article would have pointed that out. Whether this is part of the broader conflict or not is up for discussion, but there is no reason to prima facie suppose it is not associated with the conflict. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• No, you edited, Nishidani reverted. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Debresser, seriously--"for fuck's sake", on their own talk page, that's not uncivil, and it's certainly not a DS violation. And your next diff makes it no better: I'm sure that Nishidani knows they have "no additional rights". If you make patronizing comments on someone else's talk page, you should not be surprised if they respond in some exasperation. All of y'all can show your good will, and your ability of editing outside of this area without fighting, by addressing this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Drmies all the way down. If something is obviously not related to the conflict that's a different matter, but the source suggests that it is (the fact they felt the need to point out that the woman and her daughter were Arab makes that clear). This is mildly uncivil but is on their own talkpage and prompted by what looks very much like an unjustified comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sir_Joseph DS is 1RR, isn't it? Nishidani has only reverted once AFAICS. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1RR is not 0RR. You are allowed one revert. El_C 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} includes a further prohibition beyond 1RR that "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit". This was added on the basis of a motion by ArbCom, but I can't find the motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Does anyone have a link to the motion? WJBscribe (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like it's here. I'm guessing this is based on WP:BRD, but it sits awkwardly with 1RR for all editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oh, that provision, again. Let's just call it the provision-that-keeps-on-giving! Yes, I suppose it does count as a violation. But it is counterintuitive enough that I would go with a warning over a block for first time offenders. That has been my discretion with it, at least. I don't see it as being at par with 1RR (that rhymes!), in clarity and, therefore, severity. El_C 19:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Was Nishidani aware of the sanction? If so, this is a clear breach - reverted content was re-added with no attempt at discussion whatsoever. WJBscribe (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• If he knows about it and even warns others of it (evidence?), then a block ranging from 24 hours to a week is due. El_C 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd have to agree there. I think 24 hours would be reasonable, as he hasn't been blocked for four years. I do note this, however, which shows the problem with this DS. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• (ec) Agreed, but I would like to hear from Nishidani here regarding the circumstances before deciding on the extent of any sanction. That said, this doesn't appear to suggest that the infringement was accidental, nor contain any undertaking that will not be repeated. WJBscribe (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think a short block would be in order here, though before closing I'd like to hear Nishidani's side of the story. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, Reshet, indeed, refers to there being nationalist/ethnic motives behind the attack. But that's something that could have been raised on the talk page. El_C 21:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• For those interested I have just finished translating the Reshet article here. El_C 21:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is an open and shut case; Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles. It's not our place to question the Committee's decisions here, we're here to enforce them. As such I'll be moving forward with the 24 hour block. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Appealing user

Capriaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

48 hour block for violation of 1RR/consensus required on United States presidential election, 2020

Administrator imposing the sanction

Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I am notified. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism. I was making a genuine edit and I was taking into consideration the sources that were recommended by the people who reverted my edits. They removed it and blocked me for 48 hours.

Copied from their talk page per email request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Original edit, revert one, DS notification, revert two. I am open to reconsidering the block if others think that it should be lifted due to the edit being improved with each re-addition and being subsequently accepted after the second revert; however, I think at face value it was a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction and that they should have taken to the talk page to discuss improvements to the edit, rather than re-instating the material and litigating over the sourcing via reverts. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• "1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism" is totally untrue; the sanctions are to prevent precisely the situation which appears to have arisen here. Capriaf was notified of the "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" sanction, blanked them thus confirming they were aware of the notification, and immediately restored the disputed content; meanwhile, I'm noting a complete absence of Capriaf's name from Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. This is the system working exactly as intended, although iff Capriaf undertakes not to restore the disputed content without a consensus on the talkpage I wouldn't be averse to unblocking early. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Decline - Block looks consistent with the relevant DS to me, and isn't over the top in length. I believe it should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ach, this is one of those edge cases. The user was clearly trying to improve the edit with the subsequent revert; yes, technically they were in violation but it appears they understand what the problem is - agree with Iridescent, if they agree not to restore the material then an unblock is fine and it appears that the blocking admin agrees. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Would decline. The block for 1RR was technically justified even if the editor might have had good intentions. Since the 48-hour block has expired, the appeal has no further urgency. I would close this as declined without waiting for any further negotiation either with the user or the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• If there are no more comments, I am planning to close this as declined. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Decline. This was a valid block. It perhaps was on the severe side, but well within Ks0stm's discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing as declined. No admin believes that the block was in error, though at least one considers it severe. The two votes for conditional unblock are now moot since the block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 21 March 2017 Restoring of reverted edit without a consensus on talk page.
2. 19 Martch 2017 WP:CANVASS another user similar to his POV in middle of disagreement.

@Zero He has pinged me only becouse I reverted him.Its not like I was unaware of Oncenawhile edits--Shrike (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zero In two cases the map was removed.Hence it considered restoring a reverted edit.--Shrike (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Onceawhile I was reacted about your complain regarding Jordan/Saudia border.And I invited to change this on long-standing map.You still welcome to revert yourself and restore the original map.You had a plenty of time to self-revert.--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:,@WJBscribe:,@El C: Huldra Has continued to edit war on the article .--Shrike (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. As far as I read the talk page at the moment of the revert there was no consensus to remove the map once again after I restored it
2. The user pinged another user with similar POV When we started discuss the proper name of the article.Though he pinged it in another thread it was obvious that he will support Onceawhile POV and that what he did

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Until now I was not aware of this new "no rereverting without consensus" rule, which appears to have come in to force about three months ago. Noone ever notified me of it, and I didn't notice the amendment to the template (which I have myself been responsible for maintaining in the past), as I can't be expected to reread it every time I log in. There was also no update to the summary at WP:IPCOLL#ARBPIA or any other place which would have shown up on my watchlist. I haven't edited much since December (less than 200 edits in three months), and that time has been focused almost exclusively on (a) a silly argument with Drsmoo, and (b) an article which I am trying to bring to FA status. So I'm sorry I missed this new rule, but if I had my time again I don't know how I would have reasonably found out about it.

But even with that rule now in mind, I don't understand the merit of Shrike's complaint. I explained here why I pinged Makeandtoss, and I stand by it. When Shrike reverted my new map, I engaged in thoughtful discussion with Shrike, and other editors joined in. Even when I thought I had passed the normal 1RR time horizon, I continued to discuss, as I have no interest in conflict here. At no point did I add back my map, as it did not have consensus. But when I pointed out that the existing map was incorrect, Shrike said "you are welcome to change it". So I don't understand why we are here.

As relates to Drsmoo, I would like his comments to be investigated. They are wholly misrepresentative, have nothing to do with Shrike's AE, and are part of a long term campaign he is waging. In this thread I don't want to distract from Shrike's AE, but suffice to say that Drsmoo been attacking me for 18 months, following me round the encylopedia with filibustering and a string of ANI requests. This thread is a good example, and sets out some of my perspective on the matter. If any admin is willing to take on an assessment of the problems between me and Drsmoo, it would help me greatly as his behavior over a long period of time has been a constant source of problems for me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt to self-revert, which I have done. I have been reflecting on this new rule, which will take a bit of getting used to. The previous 1RR protocol has been in place for nine years(!) - this is quite a momentous shift. This new rule puts more focus than ever on the age-old question of "do I have consensus". If I had known, I probably would have asked Shrike explicitly "since you are now happy for me to change the map, do I have your agreement to remove the incorrect one until we agree on a replacement?".

On a related point, could I make a small suggestion on these ARBPIA rules. We could make a "cordiality amendment" which requires people to be given a reasonable chance to self revert before they are hauled to AE in cases of possible misunderstandings. I struggle to see how that would have anything but a positive impact on the editing environment. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim of CANVASSing is ridiculous. Oncenawhile asked a resourceful editor a reasonable question about maps and sources before there was any discussion of maps or any edits involving maps to the article. The discussion which was actually in progress started with Oncenawhile pinging the complainant! Zero^talk 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the other charge, note that Once didn't actually restore a reverted edit. Once's original edit replaced one map A in the infobox by another map B. Shrike reverted the edit, putting map A back, then Once removed the map (leaving no maps). The result of Once's second edit is different from the result of the first. It is an important difference because (as you can see by reading Shrike's talk page comments) Shrike doesn't believe map B satisfies NPOV. If Once restored map B that would be a violation, but Once did not restore map B. So this does not match the letter of the rule. Admins can consider whether it matches the spirit; I'm dubious. Zero^talk 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor El C: This new rule is creating more problems than it is solving. One big problem with it is that there is no time limit. Is it a violation to redo an edit that was reverted a year ago by an editor no longer around? Apparently it is, which is absurd. And who decides when consensus has been achieved? It is just begging people to bring cases here on the off-chance that admins agree with them on which way the consensus was. It's a cost-free way to get rid of editing opponents. Zero^talk 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike thinks that everyone editing the article except Shrike is "edit-warring". Zero^talk 08:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To start with, I'm not involved with this current dispute, but I am currently involved in a different dispute here involving both Oncenawhile and Shrike in which Oncenawhile continues to disregard consensus. This includes referring to my contributions as "bullshit", referring to another editor as "close minded" while calling Shrike "a fraud" who "should be ashamed." (Note that Oncenawhile struck this comment over a month later after he falsely claimed that Shrike was somehow on his side of the dispute). Despite consensus having been established months ago, including on the reliable sources noticeboard, and despite multiple editors excoriating him for his uncivil edits, Oncenawhile has continued to revert against consensus, waiting weeks between edits before popping up and reverting, in a way that appears to be designed to be as disruptive as possible. He stated in response to the clear consensus that "wikipedia is not about votes" and that he has no intention to abide by it. Even coming onto my talk page last night to state that he will continue until he gets an answer to his "challenge". Not to mention him coming onto my talk page to try to troll me by childishly comparing my edits to Milli Vanilli. He is a disruptive, uncivil editor who has no respect for Wikipedia or consensus-based editing. He tries to bully other users through personal attacks and disruptive editing and his behavior should not be tolerated. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to Kingsindian's statement, these are diffs from months ago, but the dispute is ongoing as Oncenawhile has still refused to accept consensus (which was established in January). When Kingsindian says "a mostly civil and reasoned discussion" I'm assuming he means civil from most editors, except for Oncenawhile, who has literally personally attacked and/or cursed out everyone who's disagreed with him. Examples:

"In case English is not your first language"

"Since your comment contains no explanation, I will ignore it."

"If you answer with more general bullshit I will have no choice but to remove your sources."

"Shrike, you have exposed yourself as a fraud" "You should be ashamed."

"On your last question, perhaps you don't understand how scholarship works?"

"It is this closed-minded and defensive attitude which scholars like ] have been working hard to stamp out."

No other editor is responding uncivilly, it's simply Oncenawhile attacking everyone who disagrees with him.

With regard to the other claim, it was another editor involved in the Tel Dan Stele "dispute", No More Mr Nice Guy, who suggested that it be brought to AE here. "This is his regular MO. He will come back every few weeks threatening to make an edit he knows he has no consensus for. If by chance nobody pays attention and objects, he goes ahead and makes the edit, hoping again nobody will notice. Ping me if he does it here and I will provide you with several past examples for an AE report." I asked on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard "Is this a reliable source for the text?" and Itsmejudith responded "Yes this is a good source for the article". Oncenawhile then proceeded to blatantly lie on the DRN claiming that "the RSN thread only established the answer to a straw man question as to whether the citations were reliable or appropriate for the wider article" even though I clearly, directly, asked if the source was reliable "for the text" and received an affirmative answer. He also claimed that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was "invalid" because he hadn't been notified, which makes no sense. Shrike wrote "I agree with other users on that matter Drsmoo provided reliable sources discussing the matter of article." Oncenawhile dismissed this writing "Shrike and Itsmejudith both referred only to the wider article in their comments" No More Mr Nice Guy wrote "I agree with Drsmoo that these sources are not only appropriate, but required per NPOV." Oncenawhile dismissed this by writing "NMMNG did not provide any specifics regarding what he was supporting." Despite Shrike, No More Mr Nice Guy, ItsmeJudith, and myself all being involved in the discussion and the consensus, when Oncenawhile went to Dispute Resolution, he only notified me. Afterwards, he made a second DRN post, this time, not notifying anyone. Obviously, both of those are in violation of the rules of DRN. The admin at the DRN suggested that Oncenawhile open an RFC, I suggested he reach out to the other editors for clarification, he has refused to do both. Consensus was established months ago and Oncenawhile has blatantly lied and refused to abide by it, coming on to my talk page and stating he will continue to revert "for as long as it takes to get a sensible answer to my challenge" without making any attempts to engage with other editors or to build a consensus. He literally counts votes, and then once the consensus goes against him just over a week later says "Wikipedia is not about votes". Oncenawhile acts like a bull in a china shop, completely disregarding consensus and putting his foot down regardless. Admins haven't done anything so he has continued with this behavior. This has been going on for years. Drsmoo (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a very borderline violation, even if there is a violation. Secondly, nobody forces anyone to block anyone; discretionary sanctions are discretionary for a reason. Thirdly, it is very easy to break rules in this area; 1RR is very easy to violate and this rule is even more easier to violate. At a minimum, the person who made the edit should be given the chance to self-revert. Why are admins getting involved at all here? Is there some massive disruption going on that needs to be addressed?

As for the rest of the comments, is one allowed to bring up diffs from months ago in an unrelated AE report? This is ridiculous. If you see the discussion at Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele#Only_four, you'll see a mostly civil and reasoned discussion, on which people disagree. I challenge anyone who has edited in any area on Wikipedia to find a long back-and-forth discussion without people displaying irritation and snide personal comments. I'll gladly give you examples of Arbs and admins behaving in this way or worse. You have to look at the whole discussion and see if people are trying to discuss the issues in a reasonable way, and in my opinion, they are doing so.

Most of these reports are really content disputes in disguise, where people try to get each other blocked for technical violations. If you want to look at the totality of evidence, then do so, but don't act like naive bureaucrats. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a separate question. Was the rule actually violated? How was it violated? I see El_C's commment here, which seems extraordinary to me. A revert is usually considered to be reverting to some previous version of the article. In this case, the reversion was to a different version altogether. The map was added to the article 6 years ago!. Are we supposed to keep track of versions that far back?

Looks like we need to be proficient in something akin to Talmudic exegesis to not fall afoul of the rules here. Keep in mind that there was plenty of discussion on the talkpage during these edits. Why do admins need to get involved at all here? This sort of absurdity can be avoided if (a) people give others a chance to self-revert before bringing them here and (b) admins not be eager to block people for trivial violations which don't cause any disruption. Indeed, Shrike has warned me in the past for inadvertent 1RR violations which I was happy to self-revert. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on? I don't understand why admins are being trigger-happy. This is not a game. Please spare a thought for the content, and not just Wikipedia's labyrinthine rules about conduct.

The map which was present in the article was WP:OR and has no source at all, some editor had made it up six years ago according to their own interpretation. As far as I know, nobody is defending the map, not even Shrike; the discussion is over which map to include. Almost anything is better than a map somebody just made up. May I remind everyone that WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's core policies?

What was the need for WJBscribe to block Huldra in a hurry, without giving them the chance to even reply here? Even if one tries to apply the "rules", one can very well argue that there was a "consensus" that the original map is wrong, so there's arguably no violation at all. The whole matter is ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The point raised by Oncernawhile about this new rule is worth examining. It effectively means the only rule in the I/P area is to have a majority of two editors, so that any third editor's work can be indefinitely blocked, unless she goes to some forum to get external neutral advice. I have done this several times recently, and was vindicated, despite the refusal of reverters to adopt any intellible form of consensual negotiation. The rule risks tranforming editing into a numbers game, nothing more, and is being applied increasingly recently.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. El_C 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Zero, what was restored without consensus as a result of the edit was, in effect, an infobox with no map. Subtle, I know. El_C 13:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I am the admin who created Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordanian occupation of the West Bank—on March 19. El_C 17:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, ignorantia legis neminem excusat—that said, I wouldn't object to a warning in this case. El_C 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I am generally not a fan. But I have seen it result in a lot more discussion and a lot less edit warring, to be fair. El_C 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, the map was removed twice, so not so extraordinary. Just not immediately intuitive. El_C 16:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would block for 48 hours. This is a clear breach. Oncenawhile removed an image from the infobox that has been used in the article for a number of years, and replaced it with another image from the article. That action was reverted. The onus was on Oncenawhile to then engage in discussion. Instead he repeated the removal of the image from the infobox. Although he did not restore his preferred image, he still repeated a reverted action (removal of the longstanding image from the infobox) without consensus. Waiting for Oncenawhile to respond, but this looks like a clear breach. Edit warring over longstanding content of an article seems to me like exactly the sort of thing ArbCom had in mind these sanctions preventing. WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  Mmm, having considered Oncenawhile's response, it does seem plausible that the editor was aware that sanctions were in force but not about this particular sanction. That makes me hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule. That said, Oncenawhile was aware that sanctions applied and that they might be updated. I don't think it's unreasonable to require editors to check whether sanctions have been modifed before they edit war - and I am disappointed to see that there still hasn't been a self-revert. WJBscribe (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  Noting the self-revert, I would now be minded to close this without action. I don't like the idea of blocking editors for breaching sanctions they didn't know were in place. WJBscribe (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  I have blocked Huldra (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for restoring the reverted content without consensus after Oncenawhile's self-revert. Huldra was definitely aware of the restriction, see User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles. WJBscribe (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with a block of 48 hours, and I'll make the block if no-one objects in the next 24 hours or so. I would also be inclined to warn the editor that he's rapidly heading toward a topic ban based on the diffs Drsmoo provided. In particular, calling another editor a "fraud" and "close minded" is unacceptable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, no block needed, just a warning. As for the second half of what I said, Drsmoo's diffs speak for themselves. There are zero instances in which calling another editor a "fraud" or "close minded" is acceptable, and behavior continuing along those lines would likely lead to discretionary sanctions (up to a topic ban). Oncenawhile, you should take this under advisement. If you have evidence that Drsmoo has acted inappropriately, feel free to present that in another AE, but that doesn't excuse your own behavior. His reporting of diffs is not harassment or otherwise improper if he's reporting actual incivility in an appropriate venue, which he is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)