Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Proposed decision

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

''Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.''

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the trimmed version. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As amended. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:




 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * The first sentence is relevant, but also covered in the following Principle. The rest is a bit off-topic? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Euryalus. Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the second sentence, but I think it's important to have a principle which explicitly addresses the purpose of Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 25 February 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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * True as a general statement. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Expectation of participation
5) Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, the Committee may, at its discretion: suspend the case; continue the case regardless; or close the case by motion.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Failure to participate in a case will not be held against a party in a direct sense, but historically, failing to participate correlates with harsher sanctions. This may be because parties who do not offer up their point-of-view prevent us from fully considering mitigating circumstances. ArbCom decisions are only as good as the information we have to work with, and failing to participate restricts our information. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Quixotic oppose. Appreciate this is part of ARBPROC but genuinely don't give any weight to whether someone takes part or not. There's no compulsion on any volunteer to be present and active in these fora. An editor who chooses not to take part merely leaves their edit history to speak for itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although this is merely part of the procedure to get the process going, the principle here can be seen as contradicting to the volunteer nature of the project. Alex Shih (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Editors should be strongly encouraged to take part of the case, but the direct NOT being in a case shouldn't be held against them. It just means they cannot produce evidence to defend themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably best just to drop this for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * agree with not including this one  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * This is just a restatement of ARBPROC without additional commentary or explanation; I don't feel strongly enough to oppose but I don't see the need to include it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a inaccurate rehash of ArbPol, not a principle. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If Arbitration Committee/Procedures is important enough to include here it should be quoted in full to avoid any confusion. I'm not convinced we need it nor am I happy with rephrasing it in any way that changes its meaning. Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Doug and I think this is becoming overly complicated for what it is trying to accomplish. Mkdw  talk 16:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * How about an alternative such as "Editors named as parties to an arbitration case are invited to participate in the case and strongly urged to do so...." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What about a principle based on Rob's comment? Roughly, something like "Participation in an ArbCom case is voluntary, and lack of participation cannot be held against a party in a direct sense. However, ArbCom decisions are based on the information presented in Evidence. Parties who choose not to participate and offer up their point of view should be aware that ArbCom may not be able to fully consider mitigating circumstances if they are not presented in Evidence." &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like this idea better - a factual statement that a better decision more likely to solve the problem will be reached if we have everyone's perspective and a holistic view of the situation. There seems to be a trend lately toward case parties declining to participate, which isn't helpful from the perspective of a group of uninvolved people trying to understand the source of a dispute. It seems to be rooted in a basic distrust of the process (or possibly of the people), which I don't quite understand but don't want to exacerbate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going to propose and vote on a principle like that a motion to change the ArbCom procedures should also be proposed (at WP:A/R/Mas required in the procedures). Personally, I wouldn't support it, I think it's quite fair to expect editors to participate in dispute resolution about themselves on a project which relies on collegiality and a consensus-model. Consider the situation where you have two editors engaged in an edit war, one is trying to discuss the issue and the other isn't, the editor who is trying to discuss and being reverted is much less likely to end up blocked than the one who refuses to communicate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not really a workable analogy; continuing to revert is still "participating". This is more like saying that even if you stop reverting, you're still expected to join the talk page discussion rather than walk away from the situation. (Yes, I realize Joe is closer to the former than the latter approach.)
 * I don't see this (or the alternate below) as at all incompatible with the relevant section, which just describes what will happen if you don't participate. My suggestion is that we use a principle to describe why participation by parties is useful and generally to their benefit, because the argument about the arbitration procedures sounds a bit like "you're supposed to participate because the memo said so, didn't you read WP:TPSREPORT?" (oh I hope that's blue... :). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Editors named as parties to an arbitration case ... are expected to participate in the proceeding" is pretty clear to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I rewrote 5A based on this thread, to make it more explanatory along the lines of OR's suggestion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Consequences of non-participation
5A) As this is a volunteer project, participation in an arbitration case is also voluntary. While editors cannot be compelled to participate, per Arbitration Committee procedures, editors named as parties are expected to respond to the discussion. Decisions of the Arbitration Committee are in large part based on the information presented in Evidence. Parties who choose not to participate should be aware that the Arbitration Committee may not be able to fully consider mitigating circumstances or alternate points of view if they are not presented to the Committee.


 * Support:
 * As an alternative to #5. Adjustments are welcome, including the title or the numbering. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As amended. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Refusing to participate can be held against a party, especially if that party is an administrator or a functionary and the case relates to their use of the tools. Additionally, as this principle would effectively make a substantive change to an Arbitration Committee procedure the requirements around amendment need to be followed. See also my comment in the section above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Callanecc is correct as to administrators and functionaries. Probably best just to drop this for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree about simply dropping the matter. I do not see that we need it.  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not something I'm ready to say in an ArbCase, nor am I willing to propose modifications of. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to support this either. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor am I.  Doug Weller  talk 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer 5 or nothing over this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Since this will not be passing, I'll park myself here. The Arthur Rubin case was an example where administrative misconduct was under review but the party did not participate despite remaining active and continued to use their tools. The issue around participation at an ArbCom case is complicated and I am not sure if there's tremendous value in including these as a principle without a much more extensive evaluation. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Suggest "are in large part based on the information" instead of "must be based on." For example, we do consider previous evidence of dispute resolution, ANI threads etc, even where these are not directly posted in /Evidence. For example I also considered Hammersoft's PD talkpage post, previous ANI threads about Joefromrandb, the various comments in the Workshop and (as referenced in Principle 7), "the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances." -- Euryalus (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change made. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest dropping "Lack of participation cannot be held against a party in a direct sense." because Callanecc is right that there are some situations where there's not much alternative. It's also a bit subjective in that arbcom often gets accused of holding something against a sanctioned party, or being out to get them, or just trying to suppress The Truth, or whatever. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed that, then ended up rewriting a good chunk of it. I think this version gets at what I was trying to encapsulate better - basically, that we can't make someone participate, and we usually won't directly sanction for non-participation as a result (admins/functionaries an exception given ADMINACCT) but that there may be less explicit consequences when parties don't give us their point of view. I realize it's partly a regurgitation of policy, I just think it's useful to have explicitly noted, because refusing to participate seems to be trending lately. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:58, 27 February 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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
8) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
9) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a statement of the scope of the case, not what was actually uncovered. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also per Rob. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * True as a statement of fact. We've tried the "and others" formulation a few times now, and I'm starting to think it's not very effective as a way to signal that a broader view of the context is desired. We've tended in the last few years to be fairly strict about not having lots of off-topic evidence about non-parties, which is generally a good development, but I think it implicitly discourages people from showing up to identify the "others" in these cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer to end the last sentence after the word "declined," as different people had somewhat different reasons for declining the case request from last year. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree to end the sentence at "declined". Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For me the now-removed words were accurate (I voted to decline the request last fall based on what I took as a commitment by Joefromrandb to improve his behavior, and it seemed clear that we'd be back here if he didn't), but I don't object to removing them if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes as a statement of fact. Not the principal issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can get sucked into an edit-war while feeling strongly about a given edit on a given article at a given moment. Sometimes in fact it is better to have two or more editors who feel strongly about some matter of principle than none at all. But edit-warring should surely not be a regular part of anyone's wiki-behavior, and the number of instances in which Joefromrandb has been involved is too many. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree with NYB (and somewhat disagree with Euryalus, as a lot of the 'civility' issues seem to be of the pattern 'disagree -> revert -> revert some more -> be rude'). As a side note, although I'm sure I've also done this before, I'm not wild about incorporating someone's evidence submission in toto as an effective component of the decision - in this case there's a couple of omissions in the edit warring table (e.g. the Feb 2017 entry notes that Joe was blocked, but not that the blocking admin later reversed himself. The August 2017 entry states that Joe was blocked for edit warring, but the block log cites incivility.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I suppose my point is the edit-warring itself is secondary; the issue is the aggression that arises after (and sometimes without) the edit-warring. But agree on the overall Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

History of blocks
4) Joefromrandb has been repeatedly [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AJoefromrandb blocked] for a range of issues including edit warring, making personal attacks, and incivility.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of the blocks were undone, and there's a three-year period in the middle with no blocks, but even so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not untrue, but citing someone's block log without details as evidence of their misdeeds doesn't quite sit right, because it legitimizes a behavior that is really common and really annoying in other disputes - i.e. two people get into an argument and one thinks they automatically win because the other guy has a longer block log. I am also still a bit puzzled by one point, which IIRC I was also puzzled by during the case request - Joe hasn't been blocked since the declined request from October. This is a surprising pattern. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While i'd prefer a bit more detail in this FOF, 7 blocks that are not overturned is enough to use "range of issues". -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * The reason is because of the ANI restriction that was placed that I've proposed rescinding below. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:21, 27 February 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).


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We could debate individual diffs, but the overall pattern is there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with NYB that the pattern has been demonstrated. There is definitely some gilding of the lily in the cited evidence section. (See above for thoughts on directly citing whole chunks of submitted evidence - though I do agree it's nicely formatted and presented.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Brad. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Misconduct by other editors
6) No formal submissions of evidence have demonstrated that there has been misconduct by other editors with respect to Joefromrandb.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Technically true re the /Evidence page, but some evidence did get presented in unusual locations like the PD talk page, and to a lesser extent at the declined case request last year and in previous attempts at dispute resolution. The weight a reasonable observer might attach to that evidence is a separate issue, but it's certainly present. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with "have demonstrated" especially. ArbCom never receives a full picture but only a general map of what is going on. This reminds me of all the times as a checkuser where someone has asked me to prove they are not a sock, and I tell them I can't. It's simply impossible to prove a negative. It requires a lot of discovery. If we leave this in here, we make it look like there was no misconduct by other editors, which as we are all aware of is not true. I'm not saying it's proportional, but this doesn't help in wrapping our heads around Joefromrandb's conduct. Even if we say "No formal submissions were made about misconduct....", we are still adding judgement that no one felt it was required enough to submit evidence. And that's another assumption I don't want us making. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See (way) above for my thinking on the evidence patterns emerging in these "and others" style cases, and my post on the workshop. I think we need to do some more thinking on how to be effective in gathering evidence about this type of dynamic, where a number of people may be behaving slightly badly toward a single person who overreacts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Opabinia and DeltaQuad above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also per Opabinia and Amanda. Doug Weller  talk 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Amanda. Katietalk 13:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * also per the others.  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I've tried to read though the information available to us (including the last couple of ANI threads, the prior request for arbitration, and the talkpage to this page) in addition to the formal evidence. As one might expect, this reveals that not everyone who got into a disagreement or dispute with Joefromrandb behaved perfectly at the time. However, these disputes involved a number of different editors in a variety of topics and contexts. I don't see that anyone deliberately went out of his or her way to cause trouble for Joefromrandb and provoke him into sanctionable behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I don't think "goading" is a good description. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb did not participate
7) Joefromrandb did not participate in this arbitration case [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joefromrandb&diff=prev&oldid=823654032] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joefromrandb&diff=prev&oldid=824498187].


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a statement of fact. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * statement of fact, taking into account NYB's comment  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need some kind of statement about this, with diffs. Otherwise future readers might have difficulty understanding why he provided no evidence. Doug Weller  talk 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As modified (though I'm indifferent about the need for it). Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As modified. Katietalk 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As modified. I see where BU Rob13 is going with it, but this FOF does not indicate that point, at least not without further elaboration, like the his comment. In theory, I would be more readily support a statement that actually plainly outlined the effects of not participating. Otherwise, one would only need look at the case pages to see Joefromrandb did not participate. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Correct as a statement of fact, but doesn't require a Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support a plain-facts version that just notes Joe didn't participate (though I'm not sure it's necessary). Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see where this helps. A simple 'did not participate' is better. Katietalk 13:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what this is trying to accomplish other than to point this out as a negative. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)  Moved to support. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Per Euryalus, but not enough to oppose. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this, but I cannot support it either. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per above and my comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Joefromrandb angrily refused to comment on the request for arbitration, even though we carefully considered what he had to say the last time, and then he boycotted the case itself. This is not itself sanctionable, but it doesn't help us as we try to understand his conduct and the reasons for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it relevant because it highlights that we're acting without Joe's point-of-view. We're only as good as the information we have, and so I think it's very relevant to note when we don't have some very relevant information. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll ping everyone on the mailing list, but just noting that I modified the FoF to replace "refused" with more neutral wording based on concerns in the oppose votes. The two diffs make the point for reference in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

Admonishment
1) For a persistent failure to meet Wikipedia's standards of behaviour, Joefromrandb is admonished. He is warned that any further conduct which does not adhere to expected standard of behaviour will likely result in severe sanctions. In particular, Joefromrandb is warned to avoid battleground conduct, edit warring, making personal attacks or engaging in incivil conduct.


 * Support:
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my thoughts are similar to OR. We have admonishments to create a record of the most final warning we can give. Sometimes, they have the happy side effect of changing behavior, since they emphasize an editor has no more chances left if they misbehave. Creating a record of a final warning is a point unto itself. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As part of a final effort to find a solution short of indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Don't really see the point of formal admonishments, particularly in this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A cursory glance at the history and the talk page of this user would probably lead to the conclusion that formal admonishments are quite pointless in this case. Alex Shih (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Euryalus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a pointless measure in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I support the idea of admonishments for similar reason as OR, in this instance I don't believe that it will be effective. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although it might be useful at times, I agree that in this instance it seems unlikely to be of any use. Doug Weller  talk 13:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pointless. Katietalk 13:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * per Doug and others  DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4.1 makes it pretty clear. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I really don't like "admonishments" - the term makes it sound like a school principal giving a kid a demerit, and I don't think there's really much evidence that admonishing people in arb cases actually changes their behavior. On the other hand, I think it serves some purpose - maybe analogous to getting points on your license if you get a speeding ticket - in creating a citable record that a particular issue has been investigated to the best of our ability and determined to be a problem. That's substantively different from things like ANI threads, where even a detailed, thoughtful close doesn't necessarily carry the same implications because there's no real evidence-gathering process underlying it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:

One-revert restriction
2) Subject to the usual exceptions, is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.


 * Support:
 * Definitely, given the evidence on edit-warring. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested to on multiple occasions since at least 2012 but did not receive much response. It's definitely time to implement this remedy. Alex Shih (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If #4 doesn't pass. If it does, no need to pile in with other restrictions. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the evidence of persistent edit warring, this sanction it appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No-brainer. Katietalk 13:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * You're still supporting this if 4.1 passes, right? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Prohibition
3) Should engage in conduct which, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, demonstrates a battleground approach, casts aspersions or is a personal attack, he may be blocked in accordance with the standard enforcement provision. Should a third block under this remedy prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a request for clarification.


 * Support:
 * In preference to a site ban, I'm happy to give this a go. Sanctions such as this have worked in some cases but not in others, given the specific history here (that admins have been willing to step in and act) I suspect it is more likely to work, even if it means that arbs need to take more leadership in enforcing it. If it proves to be ineffective, either the three blocks happen or otherwise, an amendment request can filed demonstrating that it isn't working and we can reassess at that time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Switching to support in dissatisfaction with the alternatives and absence of better ideas, though I think it'd have a better shot if the 'battleground" clause were dropped or reworded, because that's a very subjective judgment, and maybe shortened the timeline a bit (ie, you get one freebie and then the second block goes to ARCA). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Moral support for "comment on content, not the contributor," although I agree we wouldn't use this specific wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The problem with civility restrictions is that they're far too open to interpretation. What constitutes a battleground approach? Is minor rudeness a violation or does this only kick in at the level where any editor could be blocked for personal attacks? Past attempts at civility restrictions have resulted in even worse drama than without the restriction. Our remedies work when they are clearly defined, and a civility restriction is vague by definition. If an editor is truly so unpleasant to work with that they need a restriction to tell them to play nice with others, I see the only remaining option as a site ban. Whether or not we're at that point here is the big question, and one I'm still mulling over. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rob that civility restrictions don't have a history of effectiveness, even though many formulations have been tried over the years. I particularly dislike the "escalating blocks" provision - I think we have strong evidence that escalating blocks for subjective violations are drama-generators. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mixed record of past effectiveness in this kind of remedy, and I don't think it'd work in this instance. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We are going to be right back at this in a matter of weeks/months if this was enacted. I don't see this working at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Historically these tend to cause more drama than they prevent, as they are inherently subjective. This will further the issue, not end it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per BU Rob13. Alex Shih (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rick is correct here. Katietalk 13:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob  DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 19:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Just noting that I've removed the escalating blocks requirement per 's point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we also need to drop the standard enforcement thing - "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." (For another day, a much better standard provision would be along the lines of "...that user may be blocked for a proportionate duration of no more than one month for a first offense and up to a maximum of one year".) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb banned (I)
4) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This remedy may be appealed after six months.


 * Support:
 * Would have gone for a fixed-term block (still would if one was proposed). But with reluctance, am supporting this remedy as the only effective one on the table. Wikipedia is correctly described as a workplace - and that means people should treat it like one. As in any other workplace, disagreement is fine, heated argument is fine, swearing and occasional temper tantrums are fine. But prolonged and pointless aggression, taunting and mockery are not, especially when repeated over several years. As in any other workplace if you consistently act like this you get asked to stop, and if you then persist you eventually get asked to leave. Joefromrandb has thousands of great contributions and deserves applause for that, but there comes a point where the bad outweighs the good. An addendum if this passes - on the basis of preferring a fixed term block, would also suggest (say) a six month appeal time: no apologies or "insights" needed, just (finally) a meaningful commitment to lay off the abuse. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Second choice to #4.1, now a fixed term has been proposed. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if remedies 2 and 3 don't pass (clerks: please poke me to amend if additional remedies are proposed). I am hopefully that 1RR and the prohibition will work in this case. If they don't any editor can file an amendment request and we can reassess whether a ban is necessary at that point. However, if the committee doesn't pass measures which would adequately manage the misconduct, a site ban is left as the other other viable option unfortunately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Second choice to the six month ban below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much good content you produce, if you continue to act in a manner that is no longer collaborative, this becomes a net negative for the community. I would not be opposed to an appeal in six months time, hoping that he understands that the behavior that has built to this has to end to return to editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change this to my second choice based on 4.1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the civility restriction above as a viable solution. In the absence of any apparent effort by Joefromrandb to stop acting in a hostile and uncollaborative manner toward other editors, I think this is, unfortunately, our only option. Like the others above, I would not be opposed to an appeal as long as there was a commitment to end the abusive behavior. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the proposal of 4.1, I'd like to consider this a second option only if 4.1 doesn't pass. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the only choice we really have (clerks, ping me if there are others proposed). I'd prefer a six-month to one-year appeal timeframe added to the end. Katietalk 13:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to second choice after 4.1. Katietalk 01:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Second choice. After careful thought, with a note that I would likely support an appeal in six months if it can be demonstrated that the editor understands what needs to change going forward. I've added language above on appeal time-frame. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very dubious about the other proposed remedies being effective in changing his behavior. I'm happy with the 6 month appeal. Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to second choice after 4.1. Doug Weller  talk 15:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I was hoping not to have to vote on this remedy. This remedy is now passing, so I might as well voice my opinion now. I absolutely still think there are options available. But the majority of the committee views civility restrictions of any kind as something that's not going to work right off the bat. I think that's a horrible assumption, even based on evidence. We don't need to be jumping to a full ban on the first run of an ArbCase with Joe. We (or some of us) declined a case last year when we could have taken the opportunity to do exactly what I suggest and try a remedy that is more unconventional. We instead left it to Joe to deal with the problem himself. Guess what, he didn't. And now we are where we should have been originally. We have that ability, we're just too worried about it blowing up in our faces. Now I do take the arguments that the past hasn't worked out well on civility restrictions. I was hoping we could work together as a committee to find something that would work, using our collective minds, but The majority in support here says that's not going happen, especially given my failing option below. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is now a better alternative: a six month ban.  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Disproportionate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer to offer a second chance and 4.1 affords that opportunity. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I understand the point is making, but I will abstain for this remedy per comment by  below. Alex Shih (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * same as Alex for now. I can't think of an alternative, but perhaps DQ can.  DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * The lack of votes so far on this suggests, I think, a real dissatisfaction with it as a remedy, coupled with uncertainty about what else to suggest instead that might solve the underlying problem. Or maybe I'm just projecting, because that's where I am at the moment. I'm not yet persuaded this is a good idea, but I don't think 1RR by itself is going to be a solution, so still considering alternatives. I did notice that problems - routine issues in isolation, yes, but clear matches to the pattern documented here - are still ongoing as recently as yesterday - see this post on the talk page for example, and this edit summary. I can appreciate not wanting to participate in an arbcom case, or not trusting that the process will be fair to you, but I can't get my mind around knowing there's a case, knowing what specific problems people have cited, and carrying on behaving the same way anyway, when the behavior at issue is so... underwhelming. Edit-warring and rudeness aren't matters of personal principle that you might continue to engage in even if asked to stop, and they don't seem to be part of a grudge or unpleasant interpersnal dynamic with specific users. Even if you think that your behavior is perfectly fine, surely this case is a clue that others disagree. You don't have to do some awkward public display of contrition or anything, but you do have to stop being a jerk to people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my lack of voting on the remedies was to give Joefromrandb a final chance to comment on sanctions which have been proposed against them. On the general lack of voting on this remedy, I think part of it is not being sure what other remedy would work definitely. The decision arbs need to make at the moment is whether or not to give remedy 3 a chance to work or issue a site ban now. If there was another remedy proposed which doesn't come with issues (such as remedy 3 or a restriction to only editing articles) and which presents a viable alternative to a ban then it would deserve strong consideration. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in the position OR makes. I'm not particularly fond of an All or Nothing type remedy set. I have an additional remedy in mind, but I have to go back through the evidence to see if it will work, and the earliest i'll get to that is late late tonight and we are early morning right now. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have proposed two new remedies. I'm still thinking if there are other options, but it seems like those are a solid tackle. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should differentiate "block" and "ban", and personally I prefer if the wording was "blocked indefinitely". I am also leaning toward fixed-term block length suggested by Euryalus, but Joefromrandb has openly taunted at these fixed-term lengths before, so it may also not be an effective solution. My sentiment at the moment is closer to what Opabinia regalis has projected. Alex Shih (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would we block rather than ban? If the Arbitration Committee determines that a user cannot work effectively in the Wikipedia community of collegial, collaborative decision making why would we still allow them to be part of the community by contributing to the community (etc) on their talk page (which is, effectively, the key difference between a block and a ban)? Regarding fixed-term block/ban lengths, why would we expect that a user who has edited in a certain way for year, would suddenly change their behaviour after x length of being blocked/banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 07:25 February 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm where Opabinia regalis is (above) at the moment. I genuinely hate seeing a long-time contributor blocked or banned, and thus turning away someone who wants to contribute to the project. Joefromrandb's edits show a level of commitment that would serve him well if only he could control the behavior that has led us here. When we discussed last fall's request for arbitration he said he would try, or at least that is how I read what he said, but he hasn't followed through on it. Meanwhile we have other editors, long-time good-faith editors, who (from the workshop) are incredulous that we didn't take action the last time, and are convinced that the right outcome is clear here. The concern in not banning after a certain limit is reached is that by keeping one overly sharp-edited editor around, one risks driving others away. Joefromrandb, this is not a "show trial" as you have opined: it is a group of volunteers on a website, trying to figure out from letters-on-screen what is the best way forward. We will do the best we can to make a decision; your silence is not making it easier for us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking, if there is unanimous consensus to implement 1RR, and a slight reluctance from a few members to impose indefinite site ban, is it viable to suggest site ban for six months, and indefinite 1RR after the ban expires, as a combination remedy? I think based on a lot of the evidence that we have seen, many of Joefromrandb's anger outbursts (edit warring with abusive edit summaries), a lot of them could have been avoided with mandatory 1RR. I am imagining editor in his situation would become mellow with indefinite 1RR after six months of site ban. I am worried that indefinite site ban, although not infinite, would appear as disproportionate, and would lead the project losing this editor for good (I highly doubt editors like Joefromrandb, although with unquestionable love for the project, would bother to appeal based on reading their talk page interactions). I am reluctant to suggest this as a official remedy, just voicing alternative thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what we'll have if #2 and #4.1 pass together (or if #2 and #4 pass but #4 is later rescinded on appeal). -- Euryalus (talk) 05:29, 1 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, 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 Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


 * Support:
 * First choice. Proposing this since several arbs have now at least tentatively supported the idea of a fixed-length ban in this case. I originally planned to propose this but had decided it was too unlikely to gain support to bother. It seems I was wrong. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First choice, thank you Rob. This remedy is more proportionate in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More appropriate than an indefinite ban.  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, and will change my vote for the indef to be a second option if this doesn't pass. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like this better, so first choice. Can we follow this with Alex's indefinite 1RR restriction? That might work. Katietalk 01:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I said an appeal in six months, and I believe this would be the better route. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First choice ahead of #4 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First choice. With regret, I've concluded that some time off for Joefromrandb is needed. It needs to be clear to Joefromrandb that if he comes back in six months and immediately resumes the same problematic behavior, the net result will be the same as the indef he may be narrowly averting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First choice but agreeing with NYB above that a return to the same behavior will result in an indefinite ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First choice. Changing to support based on the additional sentence reinforcing that the committee can impose sanctions without need for a case or case request but rather an amendment request which shows that further poor conduct has occurred following the end of the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Unless Joefromrandb acknowledges their past conduct and makes a reasonable commitment to change (either now or in a ban appeal), or we pass a remedy which has a reasonable potential to prevent the problematic conduct, they aren't compatible with being an editor on a collaborative project. Given that this conduct has occurred over a period of years, I have no confidence that six months away from Wikipedia will make any difference to their editing style and believe that in 6-12 months we'll be back for Joefromrandb 2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * My actual ranking is prohibition (or some variation) > time-limited ban > indefinite ban, but only the latter two are really mutually exclusive, so I guess I'll use this method of implementing that preference. Joe had a spate of blocks in 2013, then nothing till early 2017 (which did correspond to a dip in activity, but not so low that he'd effectively left the project). I think that argues against Callanecc's theory. Sometimes a time-out long enough to stop caring about objectively minor issues can work out (which describes many of the disputes Joe has gotten himself into - the edit war on mum (disambiguation) really takes the cake there). Trying to make judgments about what will work to prompt someone to change their behavior relies on an understanding of the underlying motivations that I don't think I have; Joe's decision to not participate, but continue editing elsewhere, is really not working in his favor here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * How would you feel about this if we added language explicitly warning Joe that a return to previous patterns of behavior upon the ban being lifted may result in an indefinite ban by motion? Does that address your concerns? I don't envision needing a Joefromrandb 2 if this persists. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A sentence inviting editors to report inappropriate conduct to ARCA if it continues after the ban ends? I can live with that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the above language to the remedy. This describes existing practice in that we retain jurisdiction over past cases, but it emphasizes it both as a warning to Joe and a note to other editors that we can respond to repeated issues, if they occur. Sending an email on the arb list to prod those who've already voted to look at the change in language. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Restriction
5) Joefromrandb is restricted from commenting on any editor's behavior, through edit summaries or edits in any namespace, outside of administrative noticeboards. When Joefromrandb is commenting on other editor's behavior at an administrative noticeboard, he is reminded he is subject to all Wikipedia policies, especially behavioral policies.


 * Support:
 * A lot of the evidence page could simply be stopped by Joe commenting on the content, not the contributor. In the past, with certain types of behavioral restrictions, we have prohibited a blanket behavior. Here, we are prohibiting a specific behavior. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Moral support for "comment on content, not the contributor," although I agree we wouldn't use this exact wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I just don't see this working, but even if it did work, I think it basically mandates Joe to bring editors to ANI every time he thinks they've made a mistake rather than talking to them on their user talk. That's going to negatively affect the other editors, who shouldn't have to deal with an ANI thread every time someone thinks they've made a tiny mistake. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea but, like Rob, I can too many issues. Consider this circumstance as well, what about starting a discussion on an article talk page where he asks another editor to stop edit warring and discuss instead. It'd almost make it impossible for him to effectively respond to an edit war, his only option is to start a neutral discussion on the article's talk page without mentioning that the other editor is edit warring or let the other editor on their talk page know that they're edit warring since he can't comment on an editor's behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob and Callanecc, I don't think this is workable. There are legitimate reasons to comment on someone's behavior, as noted in the above comments, so a blanket prohibition becomes an over-restriction. Also, Joe's comments on content can be just as abusive as his comments on contributors, so even if this restriction was followed to the letter I don't think this will do much to solve the overall issue - it will just shift the format. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the above comments. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 20:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Editing on Wikipedia is very situational. It is exceedingly difficult to enact such a remedy. It would be much better to require them to self-moderate their actions against our existing community guidelines. We have made it clear there are going to be held strictly to them and the choice is now up to them. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * possible, at any namespace, without the exception for ANI. He can still defend himself there if necesssary, but not comment on hte other party  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence here. I agree with Rob that it requires Joe to come to AN or ANI instead of dealing with it where it probably should be handled. And I also agree with DGG that if he's allowed to comment freely there, it makes no sense as a remedy – it simply brings the bad behavior to an admin noticeboard every time with a wider audience. That said, I'm open to tweaking it if it can be done. Katietalk 22:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe has proven he can't handle taking up issues in the normal areas because of his behavior. So why would we leave that option on the table? Yes, it's extra work for him, but it's extra work and considerations that may actually curb the primary issue and eventually lift this restriction on successful appeal. In regards to and admin noticeboard, I had originally only done reminded because I felt Wikipedia's behavioral policies already exist and would be enforced. But if we need to hard code that he can't violate NPA and a few other policies at the admin noticeboard, I could see that being put in. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Amanda for proposing this remedy. I am also on the fence, because I feel this remedy is basically a tweak of the Prohibition remedy proposed above. While this remedy prohibits specific behaviour instead, I feel that it could also be subject to open interpretations and therefore reduces its effectiveness. Alex Shih (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you view it as open to interpretation? If we need to close loopholes, we have that option. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For me it's the "commenting on behavior" part; I imagine pretty much anything can be covered under this scope, so like the others above, with this restriction I don't see Joe being capable of interacting effectively in any content situation. I don't know how to phrase it better though. Alex Shih (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this is an interesting idea. With regard to Katie's point, I don't think that's likely to be a problem - whatever else Joe may be guilty of, he's not a hanger-on at admin noticeboards commenting on things that don't involve him. I hope we don't have any admins so clodhoppingly literal-minded that they'd interpret "hey, nice job on that article you just wrote!" or "I reverted that edit adding 'penis' to the top of the article because it was vandalism" as "commenting on an editor's behavior", but... no, of course we have clodhoppers who would do that. Maybe "negative comments" or similar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * This is what has stopped the normal administrative process from occuring with Joefromrandb. With blocks restricted and ANIs restricted, the community has very little option left to them. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think had any ability to restrict all editors on Wikipedia from bringing complaints about a particular editor to ANI or all admins from indefinitely blocking an editor using normal discretion. I encourage him to ensure his future closes restrict only the editor(s) under discussion rather than limiting actions that can be taken against that editor in the future. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * per DQ  DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to go. Katietalk 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per DeltaQuad and BU Rob13. Alex Shih (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should supersede this, yes. But I don't think it's correct to say that this is what has caused a lack of recent admin actions about Joe. I do think this kind of thread-closing statement is problematic because there's no effective mechanism to notify people not involved in the original conversation about this "restriction", and I think that lack of information transfer makes itself clear in subsequent events. For example, this February ANI complaint was closed without action on its (lack of) merits, with nobody as far as I can tell making reference to the earlier restrictions. Joe was also reported twice to AN/EW in since that October 2017 close, was not blocked either time, and neither discussion references the October thread. It seems to have been more or less forgotten about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . Don't think this restriction had any impact on subsequent community or admin willingness to pursue subsequent issues, but in the spirit of administrative tidiness it's worth removing it if we're going to proceed with other remedies against the same editor, for the same type of conduct. Worth acknowledging that for all the unorthodoxy of the close, and the understandable question of its validity, it was a good-faith attempt to lower tensions. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Also agree with OR in saying it isn't accurate that this restriction caused the lack of administrative actions. That goes back many years before the restriction was placed. This needs to be undone for other reasons. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

General

 * Just noting that I haven't voted on the proposed remedies as I want to give Joefromrandb a final chance to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * New remedies proposed, ping as requested. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

These notes were last updated by Kostas20142 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * Notes

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.''


 * Support
 * Every proposal is now at pass or fail, so we may as well move this along. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regretfully. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments