Case clerks: Kostas20142 ( Talk) & GoldenRing ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 16:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Case closed on 16:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the
#Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I respectfully request that the Arbitration Committee examine evidence that Joefromrandb has exhibited an ongoing pattern of overtly-hostile editing characterized by repeated personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. There is compelling evidence that Joefromrandb views editors who disagree with his edits as enemies, and that he treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. His interaction with other editors are largely in opposition to the principle of the fourth pillar.
Joefromrandb's conduct was first brought to the committee's attention when a request for arbitration filed on October 20, 2017 by TomStar81. On November 8, 2017, the committee decline to intercede by seven to three, with two members recusing.
The day after the RFAR was declined, Joefromrandb resumed edit warring at talk:Kim Davis [1] [2] [3] [4]. This was followed by bellicose talk page comments [5] [6] [7] in the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Two months later, he reverted an edit restoring the removal of a large amount of content. His response to my request to discuss the matter on the talk page was to delete my request with the edit summary "No-troll zone" it was only after admins El C and Floquenbeam intervened that Joefromrandb nominally joined the talk page discussion. There, he continued making personal attacks [8] [9], including one directed at an admin. [10]
After the matter was brought to ANI, he continued to maintain that Prhartcom and I put lies in the article. [11] [12] [13] When asked to provide evidence to substantiate his accusation, by two admins and another editor, he said that he should be able to the next morning. [14] That was more than three days ago.
There has been at least one other recent incident involving edit warring in which he exhibited hostility toward another editor.
Evidence will show that this editor is unable or unwilling to follow our WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:EDITING policies, even after numerous warnings and blocks. It will also show that, in many case, if his edits are reverted, he becomes belligerent and uncooperative.
With the hope of preempting objections about swear words or subjective civility standards, this comment from the last request for arbitration sums it up nicely:
"No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase "fuck off" is inherently upsetting."
— Euryalus
Thank you for your consideration.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The party did not provide a statement
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
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.
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.
4) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
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.
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.
1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) and any other editors who may have been goading him into poor conduct.
2) Joefromrandb has been the subject of a number of previous attempts at dispute resolution including on the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents ( Oct 2013, Jul 2017, Oct 2017), the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, a request for comment on user conduct, and an arbitration case request which was declined.
3) Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred across several topic areas over the past year ( evidence) resulting in numerous reports to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring.
4) Joefromrandb has been repeatedly blocked for a range of issues including edit warring, making personal attacks, and incivility.
5) Joefromrandb has engaged in battleground conduct, made personal attacks and engaged in incivility on a regular basis ( evidence).
7) Joefromrandb did not participate in this arbitration case [15] [16].
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.
2) Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
4.1) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
6) Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
Case clerks: Kostas20142 ( Talk) & GoldenRing ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 16:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Case closed on 16:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the
#Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I respectfully request that the Arbitration Committee examine evidence that Joefromrandb has exhibited an ongoing pattern of overtly-hostile editing characterized by repeated personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. There is compelling evidence that Joefromrandb views editors who disagree with his edits as enemies, and that he treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. His interaction with other editors are largely in opposition to the principle of the fourth pillar.
Joefromrandb's conduct was first brought to the committee's attention when a request for arbitration filed on October 20, 2017 by TomStar81. On November 8, 2017, the committee decline to intercede by seven to three, with two members recusing.
The day after the RFAR was declined, Joefromrandb resumed edit warring at talk:Kim Davis [1] [2] [3] [4]. This was followed by bellicose talk page comments [5] [6] [7] in the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Two months later, he reverted an edit restoring the removal of a large amount of content. His response to my request to discuss the matter on the talk page was to delete my request with the edit summary "No-troll zone" it was only after admins El C and Floquenbeam intervened that Joefromrandb nominally joined the talk page discussion. There, he continued making personal attacks [8] [9], including one directed at an admin. [10]
After the matter was brought to ANI, he continued to maintain that Prhartcom and I put lies in the article. [11] [12] [13] When asked to provide evidence to substantiate his accusation, by two admins and another editor, he said that he should be able to the next morning. [14] That was more than three days ago.
There has been at least one other recent incident involving edit warring in which he exhibited hostility toward another editor.
Evidence will show that this editor is unable or unwilling to follow our WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:EDITING policies, even after numerous warnings and blocks. It will also show that, in many case, if his edits are reverted, he becomes belligerent and uncooperative.
With the hope of preempting objections about swear words or subjective civility standards, this comment from the last request for arbitration sums it up nicely:
"No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase "fuck off" is inherently upsetting."
— Euryalus
Thank you for your consideration.- Mr X 🖋 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The party did not provide a statement
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
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.
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.
4) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
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.
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.
1) The locus of this dispute centres on the conduct of Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) and any other editors who may have been goading him into poor conduct.
2) Joefromrandb has been the subject of a number of previous attempts at dispute resolution including on the adminstrators' noticeboard for incidents ( Oct 2013, Jul 2017, Oct 2017), the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, a request for comment on user conduct, and an arbitration case request which was declined.
3) Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred across several topic areas over the past year ( evidence) resulting in numerous reports to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring.
4) Joefromrandb has been repeatedly blocked for a range of issues including edit warring, making personal attacks, and incivility.
5) Joefromrandb has engaged in battleground conduct, made personal attacks and engaged in incivility on a regular basis ( evidence).
7) Joefromrandb did not participate in this arbitration case [15] [16].
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.
2) Subject to the usual exceptions, Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to one revert per page in any 24 hour period.
4.1) For persistent and serious violations of Wikipedia's expected standards of behaviour including edit warring, battleground conduct and incivility, Joefromrandb ( talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of six months. If problematic behaviour continues after the ban expires, the Arbitration Committee may impose an indefinite site ban or other sanctions by motion in response to a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
6) Point 3 of this community restriction from ANI is rescinded.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.