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

Prhartcom's evidence
Well, to save us all a little time, Prhartcom appears to have analysed his own evidence: "...This was when I knew: He is not capable of editing. He is one of those people who spends far more time typing up uncivil edit summaries and talk page complaining than actually doing any real work. This is not a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Joefromrandb is not an editor." Aside from the obvious similarities to the now semi-legendary "x is not a Wikipedian" comment from the past, for those who remember it, I wonder if this is entirely appropriate for an evidence submission. Elsewhere, it has been noted that insufficient evidence of "baiting and provoking" Joe has been provided. Whilst obviously this comment, as part of this case, cannot have contributed to the events that led to the case, I'd certainly feel "baited and provoked" if this was a comment about me. I'm quite surprised it was allowed to stand, on balance. Begoon 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, statements of opinion have no real value as /Evidence. I'm generically opposed to asking people to edit their evidence statements for civility, because venting on an Arbcom page is probably better than venting on pages where actual content work gets done. But there does come a point where venting becomes a personal attack, and the last two sentences above are probably it. the comments about "not being an editor" aren't helpful to the case. It'd be great if you removed them. If not, fair warning that we'll probably do that for you. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed in the absence of a response. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed one bit. Do you think that it's so clear that Joe types more positive contributions than edit summaries (whatever content) that you can leave that part as plainly and obviously not true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's very clear, and I don't think anyone would consider this particular part of Prhartcom's statement as other than hyperbole. There is a balance to be reached between giving people space to express their views, and forcibly removing swathes of unhelpful commentary. Opinions might vary on exactly where that balance is found. However, I've now also removed the additional sentence. Interested parties can read it in the page history if they wish. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I appreciate your point about "venting", and I'm generally the last to complain about "incivility", since I believe we are in a grown-up environment, not a kindergarten where "bad-words" need to be "policed". However, there is a difference between just rudeness or irascibility and comments which appear designed to actually hurt, despite their superficial "civility". We do a very bad job, in general, in the way we differentiate and treat these things, which unfortunately tends to "reward" nastiness couched in civil terms over honest expression. [/rant]. -- Begoon 06:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Kurtis' section

 * I agree with Begoon. You may or may not like Joefromrandb, but he is very much an editor of Wikipedia. To say otherwise is to diminish the many positive contributions he has made over the years. Kurtis (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerda's section
What Begoon and Kurtis said, and a general cure of AGF might help. As I said in the last case request, I always had good exchanges and collaboration with Joe, just check his talk. Happy Valentne's day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Workshop phase extended
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the workshop phase will be closed on Friday 23 February instead of the scheduled day. The drafting arbitrators have posted some proposed principles and finding of facts here. All interested parties are more than welcome to comment. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved some statements to individual sections to enforce the sectioned discussion in accordance with the direction of the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

L3X1's section
I have a couple questions: Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  02:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On the Workshop page one of the proposals there is talk about whether or not to mention that Joe has included admins in his poor behavior. While I agree that admins are normal editors and not really any different than the rest of us, I do also think that a flagrant provoking/middle-finger-to-the-face (if that's what you want to call it, I can't think of any English idioms right now) is perhaps a sign of not caring? I hate to go to the cop analogy, but if you deliberately speed past a cop running radar, you're essentially saying "I don't care, nothing you can do will affect my behaviour, I do what I want, and I follow the laws I wat to follow." If an editor doesn't care how they behave to someone who is capable and somewhat required (depending on your reading of NPA and the blocking policy) to block him for as long as they wish for uncivil behavior, then is s/he not demonstrating that they doesn't care to follow certain policies? And an editor is willing to pick and choose what policies they follow, then would it not be reasonable to expect them to someday up and decide to not follow copyright, BEFORE, and BLP (e.g.)?
 * The section about blocking for 60 days an requiring an unblock from the Arbs. Does that mean if he waits out the 60 days, he will automatically be unblocked?
 * Pinging and  as they drafted the proposals which contain the material I don't understand. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the specific case,, I would see that type of behavior of flagrantly ignoring the rules a concern that it will only get worse. I would agree with your analogy. As far as the 60 days, the way I read the proposal, it would be a block set to expire after 60 days, and an appeal would only be required during that duration. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's section
I sat most of this one out, but wanted to add some observations, since it could affect (even if only a little) what remedies are decided and what they are.

Some claims are exaggerated
From what I see in evidence diffs, there's clearly a civility problem (perhaps among others) on JFRB's part, but most of what's claimed to be a personal attack doesn't qualify, it's just either a) criticism delivered with incivility, b) irritable dismissiveness, or c) WP:ASPERSIONS which could actually be true but for which evidence wasn't provided. I don't feel inclined to comment beyond "yeah, I've found JFRB unpleasant sometimes". Just wanted to object to hyperbolic mischaracterization of the behavior as worse than it really is (even if it still ends up being assessed as impermissible). I'm starting to think we need a corresponding "What is  considered to be a personal attack?" section at WP:NPA, because the frequency with which people misapply it to mean "said something in anger" or "used strong language at me" is pretty much off the chart.  People really are not getting it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Provocation"
I repeat my objection to Robert McClenon's "provocation" hypothesis from the last case. It is not our job as editors to try to mentally assess people for how easily they may be provoked and what may provoke them. It's too subjective and too much of a WP:GAMING loophole. Numerous editors (of the kind we tend to indef or block) are provoked merely by anyone having the audacity to disagree with them. Others are provoked by particular opinions on particular topics. Others by specific choices of words. Many by someone changing "my" article without getting agreement first. Others by inserting flag icons into infoboxes. Or adding an infobox. None of us have any way of predicting these things in most cases.

One of the ideas I proposed in the Workshop phase of the other concurrent case was something of a "baiting" standard (which needs further revision), that would apply to persons who are subject to topical restrictions, and others trying [or having the negligent effect of trying] to trigger or trick them into violating the restrictions. I think that's as far as we should ever go in that direction, and even maybe that's too far (it was the most tentative of my proposals in that case). It's potentially viable, because it speaks to a predictable but unreasonable and avoidable effect that doesn't serve any collaborative or encyclopedic purpose. By contrast, being alleged to have "provoked" someone who is irascible is likely to be based on nothing but unprovable assumptions of motive (i.e. admins casting aspersions under color of admin authority), about what's usually going to just be normal editing and discussion activity and some ruffled feathers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just letting my mind run here,, and not towards this case, but would this "baiting standard" including bating in the circumstance that someone would say something like this (used as a template, subst your own words) "I know your not an idiot, but your being one."? I've seen it in a dispute I've dealt with recently and that's why I ask. Though it was a little more obscured but baiting for that provoked response. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon's section
In response to L3X1:
 * User:L3X1 - I have tried to explain in the workshop. Yes.  An unblock before 60 days requires community or ArbCom to reverse the block.  Yes.  (The alternative is the current situation where an administrator who is honorably in the minority unblocks, and then that action, although against consensus, cannot be restored because it would now be punitive.)  After 60 days, he comes off block.  (The alternative is longer blocks, or a ban, and I did propose a ban as an alternative.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX section
In response to L3X1:
 * You captured pretty much exactly what I was thinking when I wrote "... multiple editors, including admins." It underscores the flagrant nature of the conduct. It's not necessarily an aggravating factor, but it does speak to attitude. - MrX 🖋 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)