Revision as of 05:23, 24 October 2017

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Joefromrandb

Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• editor notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by TomStar81

Approximately 48 hours ago I closed an ANI thread as an uninvolved administrator. The thread concerned the behavior of one Joefromrandb (talk · contribs), whose disposition was...colorful, to say the least. At the time I had three observations, one concerning consensus, one concerning bad blood and one for the editing restriction list. After a night's sleep I decided I had an ethical obligation to follow up on the bad blood on the thread, and that's why I'm here.

At the time of the original closure, as an uninvolved admin, I had assumed that the bad blood was of a vendetta nature - that two editors had a disagreement (they had) and someone with the admin tools had ended it (though that ended up not strictly being the case). In my follow up investigation though I have found that community and Joe apparently do not get along well, if they get along at all. Joe's block log is massive, and lately there have been mounting demands for an indef block on ANI, some going as far back as 2013/14 (ANI reports include the following: ; also located an rfc from back in the day), and in every case to date the blocks have been, for various reasons, declined or overturned, however the underlying issues still seem to be present. As much as it pains me to admit, this is beyond my ability to adequately deal with, and due to the long time over which this has played out it its probably beyond the community's ability to adequately deal with as well. At this point it is my professional opinion that this matter should be referred to the arbitration committee for a thorough, independent, and formal investigation into all aspects of this matter and to better balance the needs of the community against the allegations of the editor. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (PS: I'm an admin, not sure what I did but I apparently messed up how that's rendered here. Sorry.)

• @Gerda Arendt: Quite the opposite, actually: you are to be commended. This request is a direct result of the last ANI - specifically, its a direct result of the community's anti-joe element indefinitely blocking and then attempting to justify the indef block in an after the fact sense. ANI is for consensus on action to be taken, but the community has reached a point where its now looking for any excuse to implement the indef block it so badly wants. In that moment of short shortsightedness though I judge that the community has violated its right to push for the block by assuming bad faith, so the only way I can see to protect joe from this half of the community is to involve ARBCOM. In a sense, what I'm asking for is arbcom intervention because I have no faith or confidence that the portion of the community continually wrapped up in this can act in good faith toward joe anymore. Arbcom supersedes community consensus, so taking this here is the best chance I can think of to keep the indef block from materializing from those who would otherwise implement it simply because they are fed up dealing with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Only in death: Quite right, thank you for the correction. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Joefromrandb

Every time I think I've seen it all here... ... ... Tom closed the ANI thread, with very specific instructions as to how things are supposed to be handled for the next 6 months. Now, after "sleeping on it", he changes his mind and says, "on second thought, let's ban the prick". How is this even permissible? His statement contains numerous inaccuracies and half-truths concerning "overturned and declined blocks" (only one of my blocks was ever overturned, and ANI-requests that I be shown the door were declined because consensus was always clearly and overwhelmingly against it), but considering the underhandedness of closing the ANI thread with the intention of forum-shopping it to Arbcom, why not go for the jugular, right? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Yes and no. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff here. I'll expand upon this later tonight or tomorrow morning, as time permits. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That Ks0stm would even for a split-second consider any action other than recusing tells me all I need to know here, and renders any response to Newyorkbrad pointless. This is obviously going to be a star chamber trial. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Callanecc: I'm certainly aware that "this approach" will do nothing to convince you or the other arbs. It wasn't meant as a persuasive tactic. Rather it was me throwing up my hands, and asking, "what's the use?". The arbitrators' questions are certainly reasonable, and my reluctance to answer isn't meant as dismissive apathy. I just fail to see how I can possibly get a fair hearing. That there are still 14 other arbitrators whom I can attempt to persuade does nothing to change the egregious unfairness of the situation. Upon reflection, I told Newyorkbrad that I would answer his questions, and as such I intend to honor my word; please allow me a bit more time to compose a response. I want my response to be as thoughtful, comprehensive, and truthful as possible, but I also want to note for the record, that I have serious reservations about this entire process. Let me just ask; if Ks0tsm refuses to recuse, do I have any avenue available with which to object, or am I simply shit-out-of-luck? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad, et. al.:With a tremendous amount of things going on in my life right now, & given the gargantuan portion I have on my plate (as do my children, who will always come first), I honestly don't know how long it will be before I have the time, energy, & mental acuity to compose the comprehensive, nuanced response which I would so very much like to do. As the possibility exists that I won't be able to complete such a statement within an amount of time which your colleagues & you will find acceptable, let me, for the moment, say: "what Robert McClenon said (i.e. 'Joefromrandb and others')". I'm always wiling to examine my behavior in the light of constructive criticism. When Drmies, or Floquenbeam, or Dennis Brown, or Black Kite, etc., suggest that I need to alter my approach, I take such suggestions at face value, and I'm grateful for them. When someone like Toddst1 trolls my talk page, attempting to provoke me, I'm likely going to respond in the manner in which said trolling was intended to illicit. I told Bkonrad to fuck off. That was out of line, and I apologized to him. As far as telling Toddst1 to fuck off goes, it could be argued that I should have simply reverted his baiting without comment, but to put one "fuck off" on equal footing with the other is ludicrous. Ditto for edit-warring. I've been involved in some incredibly stupid edit-wars, I admit. The latest one with BKonrad is a perfect example. Childish, idiotic behavior on my part. On the other hand, there are "edit wars" like the horseshit that Mr.X is here trying to peddle. That was a situation where Mr.X was repeatedly edit-warring LIES that I had removed from an article about a living person. Not half-truths, not undue weight; demonstrably false, bald-faced lies. In the future, should I find myself in a situation like the recent edit-war with BKonrad, hopefully I'll have the presence of mind to handle it much differently. Should I find myself in another situation like the one with Mr.X, I'll revert a hundred times in a row, if necessary, and then revert again. If this case is accepted, my hope is, exactly as Robert said, that the actions and attitudes of everyone involved are carefully analyzed, on a case-by-case basis. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@BMK: This specific case (with Mr. X) was not an error. "Learning from my.mistakes" would involve things the likes of not repeating trivial edit-warring. Removing demonstrable falsehoods from a BLP will never, ever be a "mistake" on the part of any editor. (The admin who closed the AN3 report as "no violation" went so far as to rebuke Mr. X for his frivolous allegations, as well as his repeatedly attempting to reinsert material that had been demonstrated to be, in the closing admin's words, "a flat-out fabrication".) Mr. X's behavior here is textbook psychological projection: taking the behavior of which he is guilty, and attempting to assign it to me. Again, wheat from the chaff is all I'm asking. Also, I did not use the word "troll" to describe Toddst1, and you, BMK, know I didn't. I said he trolled my talk page. That he did so is fact. It does not mean that the entirety of his 10 years here, as well as all 100,000 of his edits have been "trolling", and you, BMK, know it doesn't. Make no mistake about it, though: he most certainly engaged in the behavior of "trolling" in this specific incident. I had already self-reverted before he filed his AN3 report, so the edit-war was over. Additionally, he conveniently chose to report all of my reverts at that page except my self-revert. Most egregiously, however, his report made no mention whatsoever of my counterpart in this edit-war -- the editor who, like me, made 5 reverts to the page, and who, like me, had broken WP:3RR; blatant and shameless lying by omission. His report was not at all done in the interests of stopping an edit-war, and you, BMK, know it wasn't. Ditto for his "personal attack" template on my talk page, and the song and dance he's been doing ever since. Wheat from the chaff. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I see Mr. X is still playing the victim here. He didn't "supposedly" add lies to the article. He didn't "allegedly" add lies to the article. He added lies to the article. Full stop. If the case winds up being accepted, I'll compile diffs. In the meantime, I invite anyone so inclined to have a look through the Kim Davis article's history, its talk page, and the AN3 archives. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: I must say I'm a bit puzzled as far as: "continues to respond to administrators with obscene interjections". Which ones? I'm sure I've probably sworn at an administrator before, but I don't recall doing it recently, and if I have, I certainly don't think it qualifies as a "continuing" issue. More importantly, if it were true, why would it be an issue worth mentioning here? Even assuming that I have, in fact, been doing this, in what way would swearing at an administrator be different than swearing at a user without the tools? If your gripe is: "he keeps telling people ro fuck off", then that's a fair complaint, but the way you've put it, in addition to being (I think, at least) inaccurate, perpetuates the whole notion of the Inner Party. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Sure, there's a possibility. Absolutely. Who could possibly argue with such a reasonable suggestion, phrased in such a dispassionate manner? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I have a 5-years history of getting along well with Joefromrandb. Several blocks I watched were overturned for good reason. It's all on his talk. - Perhaps I am not part of the community. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

I'll make an actual statement momentarily, just noting that the first two of TomStar81's ANI diffs are to the same discussion. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I encourage the Committee to accept this case. Joefromrandb's block log shows 4 escalating blocks for incivility since June of this year, none of which were overturned. A fifth and indefinite incivility block was overturned recently seemingly only because of concerns over process, not a significant consensus that the block was incorrect. This most recent incident stemmed from a report of edit warring, and Joefromrandb's block log also shows a pattern of edit warring with multiple blocks for this going back to 2012, and most recently in February of this year. That should be evidence enough that community actions are insufficient to get the point across to this user, thus the Committee's intervention is inevitable. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Just to correct Tom here, "ARBCOM supersedes community consensus" - no it doesn't. ARBCOM's remit is to take action where the community is unable to come to a consensus and so is deadlocked. (This doesn't invalidate your basic point that I agree in this case the community is effectively deadlocked on how to deal with Joe - given the same issues keep reoccurring.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

I find the timing and rationale of this arbitration request very puzzling. Before filing any requests, I think it should be the responsibility of the filer to make sure basic details of the report are factually presented without logical inconsistencies. To paraphrase this request from my reading, "there is no consensus to block Joe, but consensus is to indef Joe; there have never been community consensus to ban Joe, so to avoid Joe from being banned, we should escalate so Joe won't be banned". There is merit to this case however. Since the AN/I discussion has been analyzed as no consensus, to make sure we don't revisit the same situation again, I do think it is to the best of interest of everyone to request clarification on key policies involved, as in my opinion the situation here is and has been beyond Joefromrandb as an editor; rather, it is about the disconnect between editors over different interpretations, applications and understandings on the realities of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Alex Shih 16:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: I don't mean to question you, but you have been extensively involved with the situation of Joefromrandb in the past according to his talk page. I was wondering if you could clarify that you consider yourself uninvolved in this case. Thanks. Alex Shih 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

Arbcom should take this case because the recent ANI thread once again demonstrates that ANI is unsuitable for resolving serious, long-term disruptive behavior when it involves personal attacks, or more broadly, civility. That said, the much more serious concern is Joefromrandb's ongoing history of edit warring and general battleground conduct. Even his reaction to the notification of this case request demonstrates a troubling unwillingness to adhere to basic social norms. Of his ten blocks, five happened in the past ten months, so the problem is only getting more urgent.

Joefromrandb's habitual incivility when his edits are challenged saps energy from everyone else who plays well together in the sandbox. It's wholly unacceptable on a collaborative (and supposedly collegial) crowd-sourced project and needs to be addressed by simple arbitration. I hope, but don't expect, that Arbcom will simply address this user's conduct without trying to create grandiose principles and more discretionary sanctions the only clog up the works.- MrX 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the "LIES" that I supposedly added to an article is documented here. Specifically, this edit in which I added (text in red) "The governor's office said that the conflict was a "matter between her and the courts". Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."" based on this source which says: ""The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office.". My error was in conflating the two (release from jail and remove from office). Had Joefromrandb simply explained this discrepancy in an edit summary, on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page, I would have gladly fixed it. He could have also edited the wording himself, as Neutrality did.- MrX 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Toddst1

As the party that most recently brought this editor's long-term behavior issue to ANI (the first thread mentioned/closed by TomStar81 above), I fully support Arbcom addressing this. I had hoped that it could be sorted out at ANI but as several folks pointed out, the community has deadlocked on how to deal with this. I ask Arbcom, the same question that I asked the community at ANI: "At what point do we say we've had enough?"

This question is not about any particular interaction - this is about the long-term pattern of incivility and battleground approach to dealing with other editors that is now more than clear.

A couple of points on TomStar81's statement - I certainly had or have no bad blood for Joefromradb. In fact, back in December 2013, I unblocked Joefromrandb when I was an admin. The related ANI discussion is worth reviewing for both behavioral and temporal context. The community has been having this same discussion for a very long time.

I became involved recently, observing the edit war on Mum (disambiguation) as an uninvolved third-party, reporting it to AN3, then after becoming one of the many editors told to "fuck off" by Joefromrandb, AIV. After realizing the dimensions of the problem, I closed the AN3 and AIV reports and moved the issue to ANI. Besides this, I don't remember having any other interaction with Joefromrandb since unblocking him.

At this point, I feel the editor's chronic and epic incivility and battleground behavior is a strong net-negative on the project. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

Joefromrandb: Let me just ask; if Ks0tsm refuses to recuse, do I have any avenue available with which to object, or am I simply shit-out-of-luck? Well, you could file a request with SuperDuperArbCom (if such a thing existed) or you could do as was suggested and give concrete reasons, complete with evidence, as to why Ks0tsm is so biased against you that they should recuse ("excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality") from the case. Generally, at least in the American legal system, recusal is a matter of honor left up to the judge, after considering suggestions from all parties. Perhaps it might be beneficial to AGF that if Ks0tsm is shown by you why it's clear that they should stand down, they would do so, instead of assuming that they have already prejudged your case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the merits of the case, I do think that ArbCom should accept it. My observation is that the community is fairly divided on Joefromrandb's behavior, and it seems unlikely that any resolution is going to come about with more AN/I discussions, or more civility blocks, which do not seem to have been effective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb: On the other hand, there are "edit wars" like the horseshit that Mr.X is here trying to peddle. That was a situation where Mr.X was repeatedly edit-warring LIES that I had removed from an article about a living person. Not half-truths, not undue weight; demonstrably false, bald-faced lies. ... Should I find myself in another situation like the one with Mr.X, I'll revert a hundred times in a row, if necessary, and then revert again.I empathize with Joefromrandb's position here, since I found myself in a similar situation a while ago, reverting in what I believed was the defense of WP:BLP. An admin didn't see it that way, and I was blocked (to be unblocked after promising to stay away from the article). The flaw in Joefromrandb's thinking is, I believe, in stating that he would do the same thing again: if one doesn't learn from one's errors (even if one doesn't personally consider them to be mistakes, the community does) then the community has to have legitimate concerns about the editor's ability to function within our somewhat odd system.I also note that Joefromrandb fails to deal convincingly with the question of civility – which is the primary accusation against him, not edit warring. He notes "constructive criticism" from editors he respects, and a willingness to change in the light of this, but doesn't really explain why he hasn't already changed his behavior in the face of long-standing criticism of his attitude. Certainly not all the people complaining are those Joefromrandb has no respect for, and not all of them are "trolls" (a description he applies to a 10-year editor and ex-admin with over 100,000 edits, that in and of itself could be seen as indicative of the complaints lodged against Joefromrandb). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That Joefromrandb is making a distinction between calling Toddst1 a "troll" and saying that Toddst1 "trolled his user page" is quite a good example of why ArbCom needs to take this case: it's the kind of behavior that the community has been unable to deal with, and which it seems it will never be able to deal with, because it appears to be part and parcel of Joefromrandb's attitudinal makeup. Joefromrandb appears to be incapable of dealing with even the mildest criticism without lashing out against his critic ("and you, BMK, know I didn't ... and you, BMK, know it doesn't ... and you, BMK, know it wasn't"). In point of fact, what BMK knows is that despite years of complaints, Joefromrandb hasn't changed, seems to be incapable of change, and is only paying lip service to the idea of changing because he's finally been brought to ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I really can't believe that you are seriously asking Joefromrandb to provide the Committee with his Enemies List. Please consider retracting this very, very bad suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

• I would urge the committee to accept the case based on IvanVector's, SMCandlish's and Alex Shih's last part of observation(s).Winged Blades of Godric 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I fail to find anything other than a bout of good-faith, when TomStar opened this case request.A portion of the community and prob. the subject has every right to believe that ArbCom's arbitrations don't always lead to fair results but as long as the committee exists, that is not an excuse to let it not fulfill it's pre-destined and codified purpose.Winged Blades of Godric 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Fully echo Kurtis's last paragraph and this addition by RMC too.Winged Blades of Godric 08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

The charter of the Arbitration Committee states that “The Arbitration Committee of the English Misplaced Pages has the following duties and responsibilities: 1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve…” The conduct of User:Joefromrandb, unfortunately, would be a textbook example of serious conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve if there were a textbook.

I became aware of conflicts involving this editor four years ago, when a Request for Comments on a User was filed, under a procedure that did not work well at the time and has since been discontinued. (Its original purpose appears to have predated the ArbCom and to have been used to request that Jimbo Wales ban a user.) At the time, I observed that Joefromrandb was a disruptive and hostile editor who in turn provoked hostility and disruption from other editors. There was too much name-calling at the time, and too many idle allegations of trolling, and too much bad blood. The RFC was closed inconclusively with a reminder to all parties that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. The community did not resolve the dispute, at least not with any plausible concept of what is resolution.

Nothing has changed in four years except that the incidents in which the community has been unable to resolve the controversy have become more frequent. The subject editor has his opponents and his defenders, all of whom belong to the divided community. The subject editor is clearly not making any effort to ameliorate the conflict, and continues to respond to administrators with obscene interjections. He is blocked repeatedly, and sometimes the blocks expire and sometimes the blocks are lifted because it is clear that the community is divided.

The community has been unable to resolve the issues of the conduct of this editor and of the conduct of other editors toward this editor. At this point, any further proceedings at the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI are likely just to be shouting matches. It is time for the ArbCom to review the conduct of this editor, and of other editors toward this editor, in a deliberate quasi-judicial manner. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, possibly as “Joefromrandb and Others”.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb probably has cursed equally at admins and at non-admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some editors who are easily provoked, and annoying them in order to provoke them is wrong but fun, like poking a bear. When ArbCom considers a case involving provokable editors, it should consider both the action and the reaction. This case is about an editor, User:Joefromrandb, who has enemies who apparently provoke him, and ArbCom should consider whether they also need to be sanctioned. The analysis by the filing party User:TomStar81 is on the mark. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

In going over the ANI evidence, I come back to my usual "using the F-word isn't automatically uncivil" position; different people have different tolerance and perception when it comes to such language. However, I think the nature of the diffs does suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND and perhaps more importantly a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem (see especially ). Typing "fuck" isn't the actual issue; it is dismissing legitimate WP:P&G concerns raised by other editors (trying to resolve a WP:EDITWAR issue) with nothing but a "go away, I will not listen to you" sentiment, regardless what exact words are used to express it. This appears to be a WP:WINNING pattern, and when it continues for this long it's a WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE problem. No one can maintain this level of hostility, and refusal to listen to others, for this long and still be taken seriously as a net positive to the project, as actually here to collaborate in building an encyclopedia rather than playing some kind of debate and control game. PS: I agree with procedural comments above that this is definitely an ArbCom matter since the community has in fact deadlocked on what to do about it while clearly recognizing that there's a problem to be dealt with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  04:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

My sole interaction with Joefromrandb was from several years ago, when he started a discussion on my talk page about a comment that I had left at an RfA, on which we also exchanged a few words (see here under oppose #3). I later participated in an RfC that was opened against him in August 2013. However, I haven't really paid any attention to the drama at ANI or elsewhere, so I'm not up to speed on the more recent developments relating to this case.

So here's my take on what I've read thus far. Firstly, posting a templated warning on the talk page of an editor who has been here for seven years is offensive in pretty much any context, but doing so when the editor in question is clearly frustrated - especially when the source of their frustration is the person posting the warning - will do nothing but exacerbate the situation. While I don't disagree that Joe's been uncivil, I don't see any personal attacks in the links provided by Toddst1 at the ANI thread. I also don't think that the level of misconduct was sufficient to indefinitely block someone so soon after the discussion was opened, although it's clear that There'sNoTime recognizes his mistake, so I think we can give him a pass here. Everyone screws up sometimes.

Ultimately, I believe that the Arbitration Committee should accept this case and expand its scope to examine the conduct of other involved parties in the recent ANI thread, rather than focusing exclusively on Joefromrandb. The community is clearly deadlocked on how to deal with this longstanding issue, and there is plenty of blame to go around. If we can find a lasting solution that helps us move forward from all this ugliness, everyone will be better off for it. But we have to stop kicking the can down the road. The problem isn't going to go away by not dealing with it. Kurtis 08:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm - I'm surprised that you wouldn't remember this exchange from a while back, especially when at least one person cited it as a reason for opposing your 2012 ArbCom candidacy. I get that it was five years ago, but I remembered it without even having to look it up (granted, I do have a very long memory for things that most people just forget, so take that with a grain of salt). While I won't attempt to pressure you in either direction, I personally think it would be best if you recused in this case, even if you don't currently hold any prejudice against Joefromrandb. That way nobody can make any claims about your involvement, however inaccurate they may be. Kurtis 08:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I promised myself I wouldn't comment on civility issues anymore, but I just want to say Brad has the right approach here, and if it isn't too late, I'd suggest both @Joefromrandb:, and the Arbs who are considering accepting this case, consider that route instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

Don't have anything to say with respect to the case itself, but since it looks like it'll be accepted, please name the case something other than "Joefromrandb" per . Banedon (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Joefromrandb: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/1/1>-Joefromrandb-2017-10-20T18:28:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting statements. To be most helpful (at least to me), statements should address the substance of the issue and not only procedural matters (important as those may be). I ask Joefromrandb to specifically address whether he believes there is anything problematic about his behavior and whether he has changed, or is prepared to change, any aspect of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)"> ">
  • I see the growing consensus to accept, and I understand why Joefromrandb's responses to my question would point colleagues and others in that direction. My goal in posing the question was to provide Joefromrandb with a chance to deescalate this by agreeing to sand down some of his sharp edges, and obviously he's done that to only a partial extent here. I would prefer not to need a weeks-long case focused on a series of questions like "when is or isn't it proper to tell another editor to 'fuck off'?", but that is where we seem to be headed. The frightening thing is that this isn't even the first request for arbitration to raise, as one issue, that exact question about that exact phrase (see here for my silly comment the last time). Joefromrandb, I understand you feel you are sometimes in the right in difficult situations (and admit you are sometimes wrong), but after years of being the subject of complaints, is there any possibility that you could undertake to deal with even the situations in which you are sure you are right in a very different way? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Waiting for Joe's further statement on NYB's question before deciding whether to accept or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Joefromrandb: There are 14 other arbitrators who have a vote along with Ks0stm, taking that approach is going to do nothing to convince them/us of anything. Two other arbitrators have said that we want to know your perspective (before Ks0stm even commented) before making a decision to accept the case or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Joefromrandb: The relevant section of the Arbitration policy is here. I'd suggest the first thing you should do is actually explain to Ks0stm why you believe he should recuse (rather just a link to something from 4 years ago). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Accept: Without attempting to prejudge the case, I find comments regarding Joefromrandb having not already changed his behaviour based on previous discussions and blocks a convincing enough reason to accept the case. Added to that in Joefromrandb's reply to NYB, IMHO, he does not adequately address how he will change his behaviour (and not just edit warring but also civility and a battleground approach) in a way which is different to what one would expect he would have already done from previous blocks & ANI threads. The discussion in the ANI thread TomStar81 closed demonstrates that reasonable attempts to resolve the issue have been attempted and that there is enough bad blood and uncertainty here that ArbCom's involvement is necessary. So, given also that the community after this time has been unable to resolve the issue is also relevant to my decision to accept the case.

      I should also say, that the behaviour of the other editors who have been involved with Joefromrandb bears examination (that is, those one wouldn't call his supporters). It would be helpful to me, at least, if Joefromrandb and others might give us an idea of who those other editors might be (with evidence and short explanation). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning towards accept, mostly per Ivanvector and MrX's statements, but will give Joefromrandb a chance to answer NYB's question in depth first. Ks0stm 02:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih: Honestly, I had completely forgotten about all that, to the point where I had to Ctrl+F my username to figure out where I'd been on that page before. The last time I posted anything on his talk page was in 2013 and I had completely forgotten about my interactions there. Had I remembered those interactions or they been more recent than some years ago, I might be of a different opinion, but as it is I would consider myself impartial and uninvolved in this case. Ks0stm 03:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Accept: as the discussion boards are often polarised around this issue (civility), hence there will be a deadlock. Also examination often stops at cuss-words and edit-wars, while subtler problems such as gaming the sourcing and weighting go unnoticed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Accept Doug Weller talk 12:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Banedon re naming - suggest we name this and all future cases after either the editing area or the policy in question, and not use people's names. It helps avoid personalisation, and makes an easier future reference point for broad-brush remedies. Also worth knocking down this straw man now - this is not/should not be a case about swear-words; its a case examining the presence or otherwise of battleground conduct; if so whether it was provoked, and if so whether it will happen again. Lastly, if accepted, also suggest we shorten the case time to one week per phase. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Accept--ah, a civility case: just what everyone was waiting for. It seems the community can't come up with a reasonably unified judgment on what to do, and while I don't think we're necessarily much better at it, this is our job.

  I've posted on Joefromrandb's talk page, probably more often than the few times than I can remember; I consider myself uninvolved with him. If I remember correctly I criticized him once or twice for cussing (I know I live in a glass house) and more recently I have tried to, what's the word, express sympathy, or empathy, like I would with any editor whose good faith I assume and who finds himself in some kind of trouble. If my colleagues, or Joe, or perhaps others think I should recuse, feel free to discuss on the talk page.

  One more thing: ArbCom has been accused of arbitrarily deciding on scope in order to shaft folks--obviously I don't agree with that. I am a big fan of being conservative in scope and thus of the scope being indicated (even if not nailed down) early on. Just putting that out there. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Accept, but I think we need to have a scope broad enough to consider how the community interprets NPA, and not necessarily just in this specific instance. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Accept, though I'd encourage people to present somewhat broader context rather than focusing on the "fuck off" incident(s) during the rest of the case phases. There does seem to be enough here to warrant a case, but I'm hoping the case will amount to more than just pages of discussion about whether (and under what circumstances) it's okay to tell another person to fuck off on Misplaced Pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Unpopular minority opinion, apparently, but I am solidly a decline on this one. For one thing, while I am all for encouraging people to rethink their decisions and change their minds, I kinda think that once you've blessed an ANI thread with one of those annoying purple close boxes, you have to live with the result for more than... what was it, two days? We can't say "the community has exhausted its options" when nothing actually happened in those two days to warrant escalation other than the closer getting cold feet. A system that works on amorphous "consensus" of self-selected participants and explicitly rejects binding precedent may not always be the most predictable, but we can do what we can to smooth over the gaps, and this is just too much like jerking someone around. As for the "civility" question more broadly, I've made this argument before, and apparently it's about as popular as declining this case, but... anyone who posts a civility warning template on an established editor's talk page and then crows about how civil they've been in the face of rudeness from the template-recipient is being really fucking uncivil. We tend to have a view of civility as basically "white-collar office politesse", where it's unacceptable to say "fuck off" but perfectly fine to say "please observe WP:CIVIL (note that I've conveniently linked to it, in case you're unfamiliar with the concept), and please be aware that I'm simply trying to make sure our policies are enforced".... which is, you know, a long bureaucratese-y way of saying "fuck off". This is stupid. If I were feeling just a little more rouge-y I'd take Template:Fuck off sorry, I mean Template:Uw-civil-qa1 and similar straight to TfD. (No, wait, actually I'd like to encourage more creative uses of Template:Well fuck you too then Template:Uw-tempabuse1 in response to this kind of behavior...) Joe, next time you think you're right and someone else is being a jerk, write whatever you were going to post on-wiki in a text file instead, or maybe in a vent email to a friend, or even, if you must, in an edit window, but wait till tomorrow to decide if it's really worth posting. I've saved myself so many snarky comments that way. Everyone else, this pointless drama-escalation is a common community antipattern that really needs a fresh approach. In the tradition of Goofus and Gallant, if you see someone saying, I dunno, "You stupid fucker, don't you know you made a fucking typo in your last shitty edit??" - Goofus posts civility templates, makes ANI threads, gasps in horror over how the project is doomed if we can't stop such rudeness, and virtue-signals about how terribly polite and policy-abiding he himself obviously is. Gallant says "Oh, you're right, I fixed it now" and moves on because he's writing an encyclopedia and has better things to do than worry about someone else's language and also because it's really fun to know someone is trying to rile you up and choose not to react, but eh, that doesn't fit the character type ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)