Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others

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

Case clerks: Kostas20142 (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk)

Case opened on 16:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Case closed on 16:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

• MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

• January 18, 2018
• October 7, 2017
• July 1, 2017
• June 7, 2017
• January 30, 2014
• December 30, 2013
• November 26, 2013
• August 7, 2013

Preliminary statements

Statement by MrX

I respectfully request that the Arbitration Committee examine evidence that Joefromrandb has exhibited an ongoing pattern of overtly-hostile editing characterized by repeated personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. There is compelling evidence that Joefromrandb views editors who disagree with his edits as enemies, and that he treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. His interaction with other editors are largely in opposition to the principle of the fourth pillar.

Joefromrandb's conduct was first brought to the committee's attention when a request for arbitration filed on October 20, 2017 by TomStar81. On November 8, 2017, the committee decline to intercede by seven to three, with two members recusing.

The day after the RFAR was declined, Joefromrandb resumed edit warring at talk:Kim Davis[1][2][3][4]. This was followed by bellicose talk page comments [5][6][7] in the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Two months later, he reverted an edit restoring the removal of a large amount of content. His response to my request to discuss the matter on the talk page was to delete my request with the edit summary "No-troll zone" it was only after admins El C and Floquenbeam intervened that Joefromrandb nominally joined the talk page discussion. There, he continued making personal attacks [8][9], including one directed at an admin.[10]

After the matter was brought to ANI, he continued to maintain that Prhartcom and I put lies in the article.[11][12][13] When asked to provide evidence to substantiate his accusation, by two admins and another editor, he said that he should be able to the next morning.[14] That was more than three days ago.

There has been at least one other recent incident involving edit warring in which he exhibited hostility toward another editor.

Evidence will show that this editor is unable or unwilling to follow our WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:EDITING policies, even after numerous warnings and blocks. It will also show that, in many case, if his edits are reverted, he becomes belligerent and uncooperative.

With the hope of preempting objections about swear words or subjective civility standards, this comment from the last request for arbitration sums it up nicely:

"No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase "fuck off" is inherently upsetting."
— Euryalus

Thank you for your consideration.- MrX 🖋 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: Kim Davis is a county clerk. If I recall, there was discussion at some point about whether the article fit into the realm of post-1932 American politics and the general feeling was that it does not. Joefromrandb's recent behavior also extends into diverse areas like Bernie Leadon, Mum (disambiguation), David Duke, WP:AFD, WP:MOS, The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi, and Australian rules football. Most of these are documented in the 'other steps in dispute resolution' section above, or on his own talk page.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Joefromrandb

The party did not provide a statement

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

• @Opabinia regalis: No. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (14/0/1)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting statements, especially from Joefromrandb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • With some regret, joining the consensus to accept. With regard to scope, I agree in principle that we would look into any alleged improper conduct toward Joefromrandb as well as alleged conduct by him, but it's difficult to address things in those terms without a response from him, which I still hope he will provide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• This case request feels premature, but I will wait for more statements also. I would like to request Joefromrandb's statement to include an update on this edit. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Moving to accept. As I have expressed in the previous case request, I agree that the scope of this case should be beyond Joefromrandb's individual conduct. This time around there does not seem to be much evidence of provocation from other editors. Having discretionary sanction for "controversial" editors doesn't sound like the best idea, as many uncivil discussions are derived from content disputes, and without knowing the context, I cannot see how it can be effectively enforced; hopefully, this will be one of the topics. I support shortening the timeframe of the case also, given the amount of discussion that have already taken place. Alex Shih (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Last time this was here, several arbitrators declined on the expectation that Joe would follow through with his plans to collaborate in a more collegial manner. If that has not happened and the issues continue to be unresolvable at community venues, then it is time to examine this in more detail in a case. Awaiting Joe’s statement, which I hope addresses how his behavior has changed since the previous case request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Accept. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• There's enough here and at the October case request for this to be an accept. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• And agree with Begoon, FWIW. It was suggested back in October that there were editors specifically looking to aggravate Joefromrandb, in the hopes of a reaction. That's also worth looking at. Unrelated point, if we did go ahead with a case we should again shorten the timeframe. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it's time to accept yet, without a response from the main party - though *cough* it's not a good sign that Joe has made quite a few edits since this was filed. My question for Joe is what has or has not changed since October's request, the conclusion of which he surely realizes was a lucky break he should have taken advantage of. And for MrX, and others recommending that we accept the case: most of the recent dispute seems to be surrounding the Kim Davis article, which looks to me to be squarely in the American Politics topic area. Spare me the digging at AE - has this been raised there? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Basically, what Floq said. I'm not actually that big on accepting this case, even now - it looks like a great argument for a topic ban from Kim Davis, but normally, for one specific user to need a case that isn't about admin tools, I'd be expecting to see blocks (but there's none since the disputed one in October), or some other significant formal action (but we've only got a 3RR warning for Bernie Leadon, and the ANI thread immediately preceding this request). On the other hand, this really does seem to be a recurring issue. So, reluctantly accept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Add me to those who are waiting for Joe to respond to this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Seeing this edit, I now Accept this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept. Given Joe's response to the RFAR notice on his talk page and the fact that he's been editing since, I think it's fair to say he's not planning to respond. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept per Rick and PMC. Katie^talk 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept Given that the behaviour has continued from the last case request which was filed I don't really see another way to go here, especially since Joe hasn't responded. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) .
• Accept Last time I was on the accept side, and the behavior at the talkpage is a clear indication we need that road again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept Doug Weller talk 06:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept Mkdw ^talk 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Accept while noting my long standing preference that the case was not named after the user. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse per the last case request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Standards of editor behaviour

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions

3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated behaviour

6) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Determining sanctions

7) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) and any other editors who may have been goading him into poor conduct.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous attempts at dispute resolution

2) Joefromrandb has been the subject of a number of previous attempts at dispute resolution including on the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents (Oct 2013, Jul 2017, Oct 2017), the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, a request for comment on user conduct, and an arbitration case request which was declined.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

3) Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred across several topic areas over the past year (evidence) resulting in numerous reports to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

History of blocks

4) Joefromrandb has been repeatedly blocked for a range of issues including edit warring, making personal attacks, and incivility.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

History of battleground conduct and incivility

5) Joefromrandb has engaged in battleground conduct, made personal attacks and engaged in incivility on a regular basis (evidence).

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb did not participate

7) Joefromrandb did not participate in this arbitration case [15] [16].

Passed 8 to 2 with 3 abstentions at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Remedies

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

One-revert restriction

2) Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb banned (II)

4.1) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous restriction rescinded

6) Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.