Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
 * Could you provide diffs for the edit summaries you mention on the evidence page? It would be helpful to the Committee to know what you're referring to. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a message on their talk page asking for the same thing. :) Prhartcom is going away for a week, but MrX will add some evidence to support what Prhartcom has said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, 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 forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Behavioral standards
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Feuds and quarrels
Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Blocking policy
Editors who violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be blocked for periods of time, which may increase in the event of repeat offenses. Blocks are intended to be preventive and not punitive. However, in extreme cases, it may be decided that particular editors should be left blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I concur. The conduct is an ongoing problem.- MrX 🖋 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Net negatives and containment of damage
A few editors, while intending to contribute positively to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, have a net negative effect, doing more harm than good, typically because of combativeness. In such cases, it may be necessary to consider whether the damage done by these editors can be contained by topic-bans or similar restrictions, or whether it is necessary to ban them from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of the dispute
This case concerns User:Joefromrandb, and other editors who have engaged in conflict with him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Combative Editing
The ArbCom finds that Joefromrandb has habitually been rude, profane, and hostile to other editors, but that other editors have in turn chosen to take advantage of Joe’s irascibility by baiting and provoking intended to goad him into gross violations of civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No evidence has been presented to support this as of yet. Indeed, we’ll be hard pressed to write any findings of fact without substantially more evidence. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could include a few diffs which demonstrate the behaviour this finding alleges. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidence for the first part of this has been presented. The second half? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no evidence of "baiting" has been supplied. To those on the other side of this, including Joefromrandb: We still want to see that evidence, if it exists. Our only goal here is to reach a decision that provides the best way forward to improve the encyclopedia without disruption. The more information/evidence we have, the better we can accomplish that. The quality of the outcome will be a function of the quality of the information we receive from community members, ideally from both sides of the proverbial aisle. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * The first part is well-evidenced, but as Euryalus pointed out, there's really no evidence to support the second half of this FoF. Having reviewed a few hundred diffs and couple dozen talk page discussions, I would say such occurrences are so rare as to be completely insignificant.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Evidence has been presented in the past five days. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The evidence that has been presented here is against Joe, not against those who have been goading him.  It is unfortunate that no one has presented the other side.  Both sides were argued at length in the RFC on a user five years ago, but that was five years ago.  What we have established is that Joe hasn't learned in five years or in four months.  Yuck.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At some point, someone has to learn not to take the bait - if nothing else, think about the analogy, a fish/bear/whatever who cannot avoid bait, is in trouble. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe has said on his talk page that he refuses to take part in this show trial. This proceeding is something of a show trial because Joe refuses to take part in it.  (Unlike in the other case, at least he hasn't committed Wiki-sepuku.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that if others have been unnecessarily taking advantage against someone's weakness and there is evidence of that, then they should be sanctioned. I have not looked into the evidence yet though. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lessons learned - Deferral of persistent problems
The ArbCom notes that, in October 2017, for the best of reasons, to minimize division and conflict, it declined to accept a case about Joefromrandb, based on promises to improve his editing behavior; but in retrospect it can be seen that deferring persistent conflicts that have not been solved by the community merely worsens them. The lesson learned is that very long-running conflicts, whether due to troublesome editors or troublesome subject areas, should be dealt with as soon as they are presented to the ArbCom, because they are likely to continue and recur if deferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Not at all. The committee was perfectly correct to decline a case in October based on the discussion at the time. It is very important that the committee continues to assess cases on their merits when deciding whether to accept or reject them. As I said during the request phase of this case, there are two reasons that "the community has failed to handle an issue" - one being that there is a genuinely disruptive issue for which the community cannot agree upon a solution, the second being that the community has not acted because the vocal proponents of something being an issue requiring more action have failed to convince the community of the necessity of the further action they desire. By imposing some kind of "this must be dealt with immediately because if we don't it might possibly continue or worsen (and then people might say "told you so"...)" rule of thumb you lessen the committee's proper role in judging which cases to accept and move arbitration more towards becoming ANI 2, or a kind of court of appeal for people who didn't like the ANI result they got (or failed to get). Even in this iteration, this has been a very lightly participated case, probably indicating that it is far more important to the very small number of involved editors than to the community at large. In short - no, I think the committee is exercising its discretion to accept or decline cases just fine and see no need for this finding at all. -- Begoon 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Although I do not think that ArbCom failed to act in its fiduciary role, I do not think that ArbCom was right in declining the case in October, only optimistic.  This editor had been dividing the community for four years, and thinking that he would change his behavior, while a noble assumption, was something that could have been taken into account in an October case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true. This is one of the reason why we are losing good editors, because they are fed up with slow process. Capitals00 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's biggest challenge is to avoid "losing good editors" out of frustration at the near impossibility of addressing "polite", persistent "civil" POV-pushing. This is a far greater issue than the community's failure to agree about what is "rude" or "incivil". I'm not saying that "rudeness" or aggressive behaviour should go unaddressed, but what I am saying is that if we start patting ourselves on the back for banning a few users who have been "rude" or aggressive (to a degree that has not even convinced the community of the necessity of that action - just a very few, involved case participants) while largely neglecting the bigger issue then we are doing it wrong. To forestall the inevitable "but..."s - no, I am not saying civil POV-pushing is a major factor in this case, nor am I saying that all of the concerns in this case are without merit. What I am doing is questioning our priorities, and the message we send to the "civil" POV-pushers by addressing cases like this in this way and leaving their behaviour and tactics largely unaddressed. I'm sorry this was slightly off-topic, but your overly general remark needed some context, I feel. -- Begoon 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct because anyone calls anything a personal attack often. I can call your above comment a personal attack that you directed on me because I was being civil. And if that really happened, then no one will do anything but someone will tell you to tone down and assume good faith. Civil POV pushers that I have interacted were usually those who are socking since they are too aware of Wikipedia policy of civility and have suffered before and they cause so much disruption that it is easy for most to ignore the problem because they are "polite". Civility is important but some people are really evaluating credibility by evaluating that who is more civil. Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (1)
User:Joefromrandb shall be blocked for sixty days, and shall be unblocked only on appeal to the community or the ArbCom, not to an individual administrator. Each time that he is blocked again, he shall be blocked for sixty days, with unblock only by the community or the ArbCom.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbcom did use to block people for fixed times, back in the very old days. Per Kurtis, it does seem a bit punitive. Has also gone out of favour in recent years. On the bit about mechanisms for appeal (and without particularly endorsing this remedy) a simpler approach could be to make blocks subject to AE, which would certainly slow down optimistic unblocks. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the reason ArbCom time-limited blocks fell out of fashion is because the community became more adept at handling issues that were less than fully intractable. It's not because the sanction was bad but because the disputes needing such a sanction were solved by the community. I don't think we should completely remove that tool from our toolbox if a less severe dispute happens to reach us for some reason. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It is past time for increasing blocks. Each block should be for sixty days.  There is no point to longer blocks, but no point to permitting him to request unblock from an optimistic administrator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This remedy is unprecedented, punitive, and probably won't do much of anything to help matters. If you want to sanction Joe, either do an outright site ban, or some sort of civility-based restriction (although these tend to be a source of great frustration for all involved). Kurtis (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Block for what? There is evidence of edit warring and personal attacks, it should be clearly stated that which policy violation will lead to instant block. I really think that this proposal sounds better than siteban. Proposal should also clarify if he should be blocked for more than 60 days if he violated any relevant policy after coming from a 60 days block. Capitals00 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposal was that each time he is blocked for any blockable offense, such as edit-warring or personal attacks, it should be for 60 days, and that it should only be reversed by the community or the ArbCom. My intention was to prevent the situation with other contentious editors in which the contentious editor is blocked, and then, after discussion, a single uninvolved administrator decides to unblock, which now cannot be restored, because restoring the block would be punitive.  Contentious editors often do not serve out their blocks, because there are always a few administrators who are simply in the minority on any given issue (that is the nature of a minority).  My intention also was that upon completion of the 60 days he would come off block.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (2)
User:Joefromrandb is banned from the English Wikipedia for at least six months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Either repeated two-month blocks, or a ban. One or the other.  Nothing less will work.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Respect and dignity
1) Wikipedia is operated by unpaid volunteers from diverse cultures. These volunteers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity at all times.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Well yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Recidivism
2) When editors are repeatedly blocked and warned for violating Wikipedia's user conduct policies, it is reasonable to assume that they do not respect these policies and guidelines as laid out by the community, nor do they have any intention of adapting their behavior for the benefit of the project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth posting for discussion, but as a personal view the assumptions here are too black and white. In particular, the second part of the last sentence, which doesn't necessarily follow from the rest. doesn't editor can intend to adapt their behaviour even where they are blocked or warned multiple times for failing to do so. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I may not have worded this well, but the point is: Did previous blocks have the desired deterrent effect? I would say no. Blocks have done little more than temporarily curtail the disruption, as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 02:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a fair point in this case. I suppose the issue is that principles need to be universal - this might better suit a proposed Finding of Fact. Appreciate that might appear a little bureaucratic, but we are, after all, in this most bureaucratic of fora. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether this is relevant will ultimately depend on what our remedies are, I think. I think the underlying principle here that we could agree on is similar to the "At wit's end" boilerplate. I think this has been used more recently, but the version I was able to find was from 2006. Is this basically what you're getting at, ? ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess that's sort of what I'm getting at.- MrX 🖋 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For purposes of discussion, that boilerplate is this: In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. But - again as personal view and noting I'm not a drafter of the PD - we're not particularly "at wit's end" here. In fact, in the absence of evidence of baiting we're left with a straightforward incivility complaint of the kind routinely considered and resolved at AN. The outcome of such complaints might routinely range from warnings to 1RR to bans, and that's the same kind of range that's proposed at this workshop. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Cooperation
3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on mutual cooperation, communication, and basic standards of social interaction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
1) Joefromrandb has engaged in edit warring to gain the upper hand in content disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks
2) Joefrorandb has an unabated history of verbally attacking, insulting, deriding, mocking, disdaining, and taunting multiple editors, including admins.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Definitely against "including admins". Admins are normal editors with some tools, or at least they should be. The target of the behavior being an admin shouldn't be an aggravating factor; we aren't the police. Actually, I would consider the opposite – targeting new editors – to be the real aggravating factor, as biting the newbies has extreme effects on editor retention. (To be clear, I'm not saying Joefromrandb has targeted new editors. I'm just noting how I think experience of the target editor should relate to severity of the behavior.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "including admins" is not an aggravating factor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Refusal to participate
3) Joefrorandb has rejected attempts to calmly address his conduct, going as far as refusing to participate in this Arbcom case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It is any editor's right to walk away from an arbitration case, in my opinion. By doing so, they let their past contributions speak for them. We should never sanction an editor for deciding not to do something. This is a volunteer project, and walking away from a stressful situation is perfectly acceptable. The sole exception is that admins are expected to be accountable, and a failure to abide by those standards could lead to desysopping. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * People aren't compelled to take part in cases. If they choose not to take part, they're just letting their edit history speak for itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Our procedures say that editors named as parties are expected to participate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but tbh it's kind of silly, and has been ignored in practice for years. This is a volunteer encyclopaedia; we can't force anyone to take part in a discussion if they prefer not to. I've said consistently since the 2015 Collect case that I for one don't attach any significance to someone's absence from a case, and simply assume they have nothing they wish to add beyond what their edit history shows. People may be distracted by real life; they may be refusing to take part because they're too stressed, too angry or simply too uncaring. Or maybe they have nothing useful to say. Good luck to them whatever their circumstances: it seems reasonable to respect their choice and just move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely can't force them to no, but we can and should consider the fact that they weren't/aren't willing to be involved in determining what happened and how it stop it in the future. Refusing to participate in any dispute resolution onwiki has an effect on the consensus/collaborative model the project is built on. To me anyway refusing to be involved (however that involvement may take place) indicates an unwillingness to work collaboratively and resolve the problem. Consider the editor who has edit warred, ignored a discussion on the talk page and continued to edit war, or an editor who is asked on their talk page to stop doing something and discuss, refuses to do so and keeps doing the thing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mm, but in each of those examples their editing record speaks for itself. Refusal to participate isn't a leave pass from sanctions, and in most cases it's harmful to the interests of the editor involved. But it's their right as volunteers to contribute where they choose and let the outcomes flow from those decisions. Either way, I reckon I'm coming across as repetitive so I'll stop banging on. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbcom failed to act in its fiduciary role
4) Arbcom, as a whole, failed to adequately address the issues when they were first brought to its attention nearly six months ago. This has allowed to problems to persist, resulting in the wasted time and energy of unpaid volunteers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Mildly, I don't think this is a fair reflection of the October conversation, or of the community or Arbcom comments expressed at the time. But noted nonetheless as a general statement. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I voted to decline the case request last fall because Joefromrandb made some comments, albeit after much prodding, that I interpreted as a meaningful promise to improve his behavior. It is quite possible to disagree with that vote. It may well be that the result of this case vindicates the pessimists rather that the optimists. We do the best we can with the information we have, including both past behavior and statements of intent, and it is not helpful to analogize a specific disagreed-with judgment call, evaluated with the benefit of hindsight, to the disregard of a fiduciary obligation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not surprised at the reaction to this proposal. Nobody likes criticism that hits close to home, just like nobody likes to be repeatedly called a liar while admins shrug their proverbial shoulders and Arbcom takes a pass.


 * My comment above was not made with the benefit of hindsight. The eventuality of this case was entirely predictable back in October to anyone who would care to scratch the surface. That said, my criticism was not directed at any particular Arbcom members, but at the flawed system that gives way too much rope to single editors who create unpleasantness for numerous others, and undue disruption for the project. While I don't expect this proposal to see the light of day, it needed to be said.- MrX 🖋 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Arbcom is unpaid volunteers. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this point. If Arbcom had not reduced the October rfa to “swear words” and then punted none of us would be here and as an added advantage joefromrandb would be participating because he did put his two cents in on the originally filled request. Instead, this body reduced a well crafted petition for intervention to a few cases of mild language use and then punted on fourth and inches, only to end up right back where you started four months later, and this time without the input from the accused party. As much as it hurt to hear, folks, you epically screwed this up, and if you had done what the community entrusted you to do in the first place this whole thing may well have been avoided, or at the very least, would have proceeded with the input of the accused. 2600:1011:B027:2023:11B7:434B:9E0C:6629 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom acted in October for the best of motives, to avoid a divisive case that would worsen polarization, and got the worst of results. In my opinion, it appears that the ArbCom failed to see that the controversy had been simmering for four years, but that is only my opinion.  We are here, and blaming is not useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, although blaming is not useful, it may be in order to acknowledge, and even to formalize, some Lessons Learned. (That's a term of project management methodology.)  In this case, the Lesson Learned is that if an issue (whether a difficult editor or a difficult area) has been causing trouble for years, it isn't likely to go away due to reluctant promises, and postponing it makes it worse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Joefromrandb blocked
1) Joefromrandb is blocked for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * One-year bans have long since fallen out of favor with ArbCom. Nowadays it's indefinite with a right to appeal after a set period of time. Either that, a civility-related sanction, or nothing (i.e. an admonishment). Kurtis (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

One Revert restriction
2) Joefromrandb is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Prohibited from making personal attacks
3) Joefromrand is indefinitely prohibited from making personal attacks of any kind, anywhere. Violations are to be enforced at WP:AE with escalating blocks starting at three months duration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement of restrictions
1) Any violation of these restrictions will result in Joefromrandb being blocked, initially for three months, and then with blocks increasing in duration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement
2) Admins enforcing these restriction may not have their actions undone, except by the standard Arbcom appeal process described at WP:AC/PR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * How would this differ from other matters adjudicated at AE? -- Euryalus (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't, but an admin action could not be reversed by another admin even if the matter had not been taken to WP:AE first. I guess that would be considered discretionary sanctions.- MrX 🖋 01:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All arbitration enforcement action (not just discretionary sanctions) are subject to those requirements. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is merely stating the basis on which we accepted the case and the scope we analyzed it under. That's why we included the "may have" language. Finding of fact 5 makes clear that we have found no evidence to support goading. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per my comment a couple of sections below, I have a problem with "any editors who may have been goading him into poor conduct". Whether it's included or omitted has no really practical effect, but if we are being honest, Joefromrandb being goaded was never actually a factor in this case.- MrX 🖋 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

History of blocks
3) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As I've said before, I have never cared for the phrase "battleground conduct." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a proposed alternative? For better or worse, that phrase is common and understood. I'm happy to replace it, so long as the replacement is equally common and understood by all. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an ideal phrase, but it's a common one and I don't see another alternative (unless we invent one here). Katietalk 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We could be more specific about the actual issue(s), whether it is "has unnecessarily personalized disputes" or "has pursued minor disagreements excessively" or describing the actual problem. But I won't press the point unless at least one other person agrees with me.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To the drafters, I might suggest adding a paragraph referencing prior attempts at dispute resolution, including the RFC/U a few years ago, as well as the request for arbitration that we declined last fall with a clear "final warning" sort of message. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't quite understand the pushback on "battleground conduct", considering how freely we use similar phrases like edit warring, wheel warring, boomerang, WP:HORSEMEAT, and WP:ROPE. I suppose you could substitute bellicosity, hostility, or combativeness, which mean roughly the same thing.- MrX 🖋 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps the finding can say that the person in question has engaged in confrontational behaviour? To me this is the essence of the phrase: editors who confront others instead of pursuing a more collaborative approach to reach consensus. isaacl (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No evidence of goading
5) No evidence has been presented during this arbitration case which would indicate that Joefromrandb has been goaded by other editors in recent disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We're not even concluding that. We're simply saying there's nothing in front of us that would alter how we act. Had evidence been presented that Joe was being goaded, that would have changed quite a few things. In the absence of such evidence, the unsupported assertion of goading can't really affect our decision. I've tacked on "in recent disputes" to the end of the sentence. The RfCU contained at least some evidence of goading, perhaps, but that behavior is so old that it doesn't really affect anything here. We're focused on recent behavior. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more to clarify the meaning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I see where you're coming from. The case was accepted on the premise that it would look both at Joe's action as well as those who has been allegedly goading him. The fact that no evidence has been presented indicating that no one had goaded him speaks to it either not being fact, that there just isn't enough examples of it to make the point, or that no one who was participating wanted to present that evidence. Including the FoF is important as it partly justifies sanctions and possibly the comparable severity of sanctions. So, in summary, whether or not people were goading Joe is a factor in the case because it's included in the scope (and name for that matter). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's desired to address the scope of the case in the findings, without explicitly referencing the "goading" claim, we could simply say that "no evidence of misconduct by other editors has been presented in this case" or similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep meaning to post on this and I'm late to the party, but I'm not really sold on this - it's true that no one posted "Evidence presented by John Doe: Joefromrandb was goaded here [1], here [2], and in this conversation here [3]", but that's a bit too literal. Does it count if an evidence submission itself contains goading? Does it matter that no one submitted much evidence at all? (I think Begoon is exactly right on the correct interpretation of that fact - this is a subject of low general interest.) I suspect that terms like "goading", "baiting", etc. are leading us toward an overly narrow view of the issue - goading is what I did to my little sister when we were kids, because watching her have a tantrum was funny. Deliberately riling someone up specifically to prompt a reaction. What usually happens in these "civility" conflicts is different - it's taking actions that are individually defensible while remaining either oblivious or willfully indifferent to their negative effects on others, smugly self-assured that if policy says you're in the right, it doesn't need to matter whether you annoyed someone or frustrated them or hurt their feelings. I don't particularly want to endorse most of Hammersoft's post here but it is not wrong that evidence of smugness on the part of Joe's correspondents is easily available. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * True, but the notion that Joefromrandb may have been goaded or baited is a false narrative suggested by him in the declined RFAR. He suggested that he was baited because an editor put a templated warning on his talk page after Joefromrandb told another editor "Whatever. Please fuck off and go away." during a content dispute in which Joefromrandb was edit warring. None if this is actually a factor or premise in this case. Adding it as a FoF just perpetuates the myth.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When I examined Joefromrandb's interactions for the past year, I looked for examples of goading in the broad sense of the term. Only in one case, on a user talk page (possibly EEng?), did I any find goading, and it was from both parties. If there is "evidence of smugness" that rises to the level of goading, that rise to the level of excusing or justifying Joefromrandb's policy-violating conduct, then that should be highlighted somewhere as evidence, not vague aspersions ("smugness on the part of Joe's correspondents") by an Arbcom member.- MrX 🖋 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The key word here is "presented". This finding should not suggest that such instances of goading are non-existent per se; it merely states that no examples have been provided to the committee over the course of this case. The arbitrators are therefore forced to conclude that its occurrence is so infrequent as to be negligible. Kurtis (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - The funny thing is that I was going to say something very similar to that, but I revised my comment at the last minute. I know what you had intended to convey, and I was attempting to parse it (apparently unsuccessfully). Kurtis (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The participation in the evidence phase of this case in general was pretty lacking. Seems like it would be difficult to come up with sweeping findings of fact given the participation of only a few involved editors. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I said somewhere above this has been a very lightly participated case, probably indicating that it is far more important to the very small number of involved editors than to the community at large. -- Begoon 15:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and that's what concerns me. This case may be unfairly biased against Joefromrandb, which could in turn influence the committee's decision. I'm not saying that the evidence presented is inaccurate or doesn't stand on its own merits, but even a detailed repudiation of the alleged goading would be better than such a blatantly one-sided picture. Kurtis (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement
Standard provisions

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: