This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I would like to remind all editors that this page is for statements regarding the proposed decision and not a discussion. Therefore, with the exception of clerks and arbitrators, everyone must comment in their own section. -- Kostas20142 ( talk) 11:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

For the reason above:

1. @ MrX:, I have moved your response here
2. @ Hammersoft: I have added a response template to your response to MrX, to keep the the user to which the comment was addressed easily identifiable. -- Kostas20142 ( talk) 11:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

...whatever you guys decided here is likely going to supercede what I wrote here, so when handing down the verdict make sure someone updates the community restrictions so people don't get confused as whose sanctions/restrictions/etc are to be used. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Noted, thanks TomStar81. Alex Shih ( talk) 14:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Poke @ BU Rob13 and Callanecc: as I don't see anything about this in the PD. If you guys need me to propose something, I can. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Community feedback was asked for last month regarding case naming. See archive of discussion. Several people noted that bias wasn't happening and/or that it was avoidable. Yet, here we are; a case demonstration of exactly the sort of bias we were talking about;

• January 22nd, a case request is put forth named "Joefromrandb" [1]. It should never have been named by the filing party, as this biases the case, but nevertheless this name was allowed to sustain throughout the consideration to accept/decline.
• January 28th, the case is accepted and opened [2], with it being named "Joefromrandb and others", yet the others are not indicated anywhere in the title. This, despite Worm noting his preference that the case not be named after Joefromrandb [3], it was named after him anyway.
• January 28th, the evidence page is created with a scope (thankfully) of "user conduct of Joefromrandb and other editors who may have been goading him" [4] but does not identify who these "others" are. The evidence page concludes with evidence being submitted by 4 editors, none of whom present any evidence of goading/poking Joefromrandb. Despite interest in looking beyond just Joefromrandb from arbitrators NewyorkBrad [5], Alex Shih [6], and Euryalus [7], nothing is ever presented in evidence nor apparently investigated by ArbCom or even looked into.

Unsurprisingly, ArbCom concludes no evidence has been found of goading. I.e., they haven't found evidence of goading because nobody's posted evidence of goading because the goaders haven't been named in the title of the case and therefore nobody knows who the goaders are. And we're shocked about this? Huh?

Joefromrandb is right in identifying this case as a show trial [8]. He has no hope of escaping sanctions nor of having a fair hearing. The case was tilted against him from the very beginning. ArbCom members, despite their claims of wanting to name the case something else, of wanting to learn about editors that have been poking Joefromrandb, has done nothing apparent to investigate the case. Instead, they've relied solely on evidence presented on a case named after him which unsurprisingly failed to produce any evidence about anyone other than Joefromrandb. The case is a foregone conclusion and was from the outset.

In April of 2011, ArbCom passed a motion expecting named parties to a case to participate ( procedures). In this case, they failed to identify any parties who might have been involved in goading Joefromrandb. Instead, there are just two named parties; the filer, who obviously has an issue with Joefromrandb, and Joefromrandb himself. Nobody else is expected to show up. Arbitrators have noticed there is not much participation at the evidence page. Why is this a surprise? If ArbCom is not willing to do even a cursory examination of who might be involved from the other side of the table, how can they ever expect to get a fair picture of what is happening?

Let me show you how easy this is:

• 13/14 January 2018: An editor engages in day long edit war with Joe on Bernie Leadon. After trading edits back and forth for ~15 hours, the editor (a former admin no less, who should know better) warns Joe about about 3RR, and tells him to engage in "sensible" discussion, even though the editor made no attempt to start such a discussion themselves. See discussion. Within that discussion, observe that the editor tells Joe "You don't know how to count though", "you're totally unable to defend yourself", followed with Joe asking him to "go away", and the editor responds with "Just as soon as you tell me you won't undo my change again". This editor engaged in an edit war, refused to discuss until they hit the 3RR wall (which is not bright line defense; they were edit warring and knew it), and then accused Joe of not engaging in civil discussion. Nope, no poking going on here, not one bit.
• 17 January 2018: The editor who instigated this case, posting to Joe's talk page, referring to him: "It seems like not much as changed since the WP:RFAR a few months ago. I wish I could say I was surprised." [9] No, that's not antagonistic, move along, no poking going on here.
• 18 January 2018: Same editor, referring to him again: "Your constant passive-aggressiveness and overt bellicosity is so tiring that I wonder if it's just a tactic to win content disputes, or if you really are just a person with a large chip on his shoulder who seeks to make others miserable too" [10]. Nope, no poking go on there. Move along.

And, subsequent to the case beginning;

• 12 February 2018, an editor accuses Joe of being a vandal, templating him over something his disagrees with [11]. The editor could have taken the opportunity to discuss the issue with Joe, but did not...instead just accusing him of being a vandal. Not satisfied that his warning achieved the response he wanted (is anyone surprised?), he takes the issue to AN/I, where the editor is thumped for being wrong (see discussion). The rapid escalation here with no attempt to engage Joe other than to accuse him of being a vandal was out of line. Nope, no poking here.

I was able to cobble this together in just a few minutes, in a cursory review of Joe's talk page. Had ArbCom bothered to lift a finger and do some checking in on this, they would have seem multiple occasions just in the last month where Joe has been poked.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not defending Joe's actions here. Nobody, no matter how poked, should ever engage in discourse that is hostile towards other editors. The point here is that ArbCom badly tilted this case, got the wholly expected result, and is by fiat of the workshop proclaiming justice is being served. Not one bit of notice is being served to those who are provoking Joe. I am not suggesting any editor should get a special pass to be uncivil because they've been provoked, but ArbCom needs to look into the conduct of editors who provoke other people. They had an excellent opportunity to do so here, yet utterly failed. The case naming had a direct hand in that. ArbCom, if you're not willing to name cases neutrally, if you're not willing to do even a cursory examination, then you have no business accepting a case. You aren't solving the dispute. You will ultimately ban/block Joe from the site, and think you've solved a problem, but you haven't. Utterly, disappointingly predictable. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Hammersoft: Thank you for your presentation and thoughts. I wish you had included most of it on the evidence page but I will consider your points and diffs along with everything else that has been submitted.

Not to repeat aspects of the case-naming discussion, but I still don't agree that the case-name has nearly so much importance as you posit. After all, when an earlier request for arbitration was filed last fall we declined the request (and are now being criticized for doing so), even though it was also titled "Joefromrandb." Our addition of the words "and Others" to the casename was partly intended to address your and others' concerns that a case titled "User:X" is too conclusory, but we didn't really have the option of including people in a casename who hadn't been identified to us or who had been mentioned only casually. I do not know what the outcome of the case will be but I do not believe it will be any different than if we had called this "Case No. 2018-001" or "Civility issues part 6" or whatever alternative casename one might have liked to use. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• I wasn't party to the case and wasn't following it. I only happened across it because it showed up at Signpost. Declining a prior case that was tentatively named "Joefromrandb" does not prove there isn't bias. Adding on "and others" does nothing; nobody else is actively named. No "others" showed up or were referenced. Hardly surprising. Yes, the case will be radically different than what is should have been. You had multiple allusions to people poking/goading Joefromrandb, yet ArbCom did nothing to look into this, instead depending on unspecified "and others" to somehow magically come up with this information. The only person other than Joefromrandb that you "expected" (by 2011 motion) to show up was Mr. X, who is the complainant against Joefromrandb. So, you name a case for Joefromrandb, and the only person you expect to show up other than the named defense is the person complaining about him, and you're surprised when nobody produces evidence of "and others"? This is senseless.
• As I showed, a casual (and I do mean casual) review of Joefromrandb's talk page shows there's strong indications of antagonistic behavior towards Joefromrandb, but not one damn thing is going to happen to any of the people who have been antagonizing him. I'm not suggesting Joefromrandb deserves to escape sanctions, or for that matter deserves sanctions. That's not my point. The reality here is the very nature of the case by its name and scope definition effectively precludes any possibility that any "and others" will ever been found to be at fault in this case. So, the people who were doing the poking/goading are going to get off scot-free and the problem gets kicked down the road. This case will solve nothing. Any "intractable" dispute on the project means there isn't a clear, unequivocal answer to the dispute. Otherwise, Joefromrandb would have already been banned from the project by the community. We can do that, and have. We don't need you, ArbCom, to site ban Joefromrandb.
• We need you to solve the intractable dispute, which includes poking/goading Joefromrandb. Hiding behind "we don't have evidence of that" is shirking your duties when such a cursory examination of Joe's talk page readily shows there's evidence of this happening. My guess is ArbCom won't have the courage to back this up and look at this more closely. We're past evidence now, so it's "too late". Instead, you'll (ArbCom) just site ban Joefromrandb and declare justice has been served, because a long term uncivil editor with a history of blocks has finally gotten his comeuppance. We got here because of situations that involved more than Joefromrandb. If you do site ban Joefromrandb, it won't prove me right and ArbCom wrong. But, if no action is even looked into on the part of the other side of this supposed arbitration table, then the intractable problem remains and ArbCom will have failed in its duties. You will just be empowering the pokers/goaders to target others in the future whom they think they can trigger.
• ArbCom set this table by allowing the case request to have the name it did. ArbCom served up the dinner by accepting the case name under the name it did. You can and must do better. You are solving nothing. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • • @ MrX: First, I'm not introducing evidence for the case. That is not my point. Second, the proceeding was already a circus, one orchestrated by an ArbCom that refused to lift a finger and do even a cursory examination of the situation, and exacerbated by their unwillingness to consider the case is biased by its very name. Third, I'm not interested in your comments about Joefromrandb. That's not the point. If I were concerned, I would say no one on this project, no matter the provocation, has a justifiable reason to treat someone with contempt. Lastly, regarding your accusations of nefarious deeds on my part, I'm quite sure you're well aware of WP:AGF. My point here is ArbCom. Not you. Not Joefromrandb. ArbCom. I hope you have a pleasant day, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hammersoft, I think you're way off base here. It's way out of process to introduce evidence at the tail end of an Arbcom case. It does nothing more that turn the whole proceeding into a circus. I stand behind all of my comments to Joefromrandb as products of my extreme frustration at being goaded by Joefromrandb, not the other way around, while (several, not all) admins looked on with their hands in their pockets. I was provoked by being repeatedly called a liar and having my edits reverted by someone who refuses to engage in meaningful dispute resolution. You conveniently left out the surrounding context that shows Joefromrandb jumping into an edit war started by an editor who had pushed his POV into several articles, or deleting my comment as trolling, or accusing editors of inserting "lies" into an article. Joefromrandb's talk page is absolutely not indicative of him reacting to being goaded. That's either a misread on your part, or a deliberate misrepresentation intended to taint this proceeding in the eleventh hour, for reasons unknown.- Mr X 🖋 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• I don't want to interfere with Arbcom's quite-capable deliberation, but there has been a suggestion of a fixed block. This is consistent with one of my own workshop proposals, however I think such a remedy must be coupled with a WP:CIV prohibition of some sort to ensure that the behavior doesn't recur after the block expires. I understand that civility is a giant grey area, but it is really that hard for people to distinguish between a personal attack and not a personal attack? In my observation, the issue that usually arises with regard to sanctioning personal attacks is the severity of the personal attack. Perhaps a zero tolerance approach could work. That said, an indefinite ban with the possibility of Joefromrandb returning if he commits to changing his ways is a reasonable remedy that puts the needs of the project first.- Mr X 🖋 18:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Miriam Makeba

4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008

(From above.) Thank you[, Hammersoft]. - I didn't have time to look into details, but it seems that - as in the parallel case, where I looked - a strict observance of 1RR by ALL parties would solve the problem, which is limited to very few editors in disagreement anyway, not a larger part of the community. Why a case?? --- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I know people who are too proud to appeal, myself included. It took me two years to melt, and I felt awful about doing so. Please consider that when a "generous" appeal after six months clause is discussed. WP:WER. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

User talk:Joefromrandb#Precious. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn " Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I made a few comments on the workshop page and its talk page but had not even looked at this page until now. I'm mindful of the notice at the top of this page so I'm starting my own section and will endeavour to keep my comments as relevant as I can to the proposed decision.

First of all I'd like to thank Hammersoft for the salient points he brings to the discussion. It's somewhat embarrassing that nobody had previously noted these issues from Joe's talk page... I did mention what I considered to be "poking" in one of the evidence submissions, and an arbcom member did remove it, for which I am grateful. I feel I personally could have looked at more things than I did now, but hindsight is 20/20, and I'm not Joe's defence lawyer - he doesn't have one, nor was one appointed because that's not how we do things. If he chooses not to defend himself and nobody steps forward then basically he's screwed...

I'd like to see the proposed decision acknowledge various unsatisfactory aspects of this case - the noticeable lack of participation from anyone but the complainant(s) being chief amongst those, but also the lack of outreach to try to establish a balanced picture once the decision was taken to proceed with a case. I'm not as convinced as Hammersoft is that the actual case name itself should be blamed, but he does make some strong points in that regard, and perhaps it does lead to something of a 'mindset'.

With regards to the proposed finding on "goading" from the workshop, the lack of participation is again of relevance. To me, at least, it very much indicates that this case was far more important to the very small number of involved editors than to the community at large. Given these things, as Hammersoft rightly points out, it's hardly surprising that the evidence was "one-sided". With such a partisan and sparse presentation it would not be unreasonable for the committee to bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, some acknowledgement of this in the findings and decision would, I feel, be welcome.

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here: there are two possible 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. My concern is when arbitration becomes another "bite of the cherry", a kind of ANI2, but worse, in many ways, because the "proponents" were the only ones motivated (or informed) enough to show up, then that is neither fair, nor equitable. I'm not sure if any of that can, or should, be part of a finding, but it'd sure be heartening to know it has been considered.

I'm sorry if any of this was "off-topic". -- Begoon 15:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• FrankP, it's perfectly fine for you to "disagree" with me - reasonable people can have different opinions, and often do. However, normally one would "disagree" with something which was actually said - "this case is not an issue for the community at large", which I did not say, is different to "[...the lack of participation ...] very much indicates [to me] that this case was far more important to the very small number of involved editors than to the community at large.", which I did say.
  After all, when folks are arguing that if there is no "formal" evidence presented to support Joe then there is nothing to be done about that, and nothing to consider, it hardly seems unreasonable to point out that, apart from a very few involved proponents of sanctions, there hasn't been a great deal of interest from uninvolved parties in "turning up" for the case in general to provide evidence or arguments for either "side" of the "story".
  As I mentioned above what I see as one of the most unsatisfactory aspects here is the lack of (proactive) outreach to try to establish a balanced picture once the decision was taken to proceed with a case. At least one arbcom member has said a couple of things on the PD page that leads me to believe there may be a little understanding of, and sympathy towards this viewpoint - it will be interesting to see if anything is done differently in the future, in similar cases... -- Begoon 16:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The drafting arbitrators did direct the clerks to send an additional message to everyone who commented on the original case request asking them to consider submitting additional evidence during the evidence phase. See this. We can't do much more than request all parties to contribute, since as noted previously, we're all volunteers with no obligation to do any particular task. If you have suggestions on what else we could have done to get additional points of view, I'd certainly like to hear them. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that's a conundrum, but one well worth considering. I don't think it'd be outrageous, when the indefinite ban of a long time, productive community member is at stake to consider central, or even watchlist notices. Petitioning folks who commented on the case is one thing, but perhaps the net could be cast even wider. Here's something off-the-wall: investigate proactively, or create a way of initiating or delegating such investigations (i.e.: look for evidence rather than waiting for it to turn up). That may sound "revolutionary", but consider that one of its main advantages should be that this kind of "evidence" ought to be largely unbiased, as opposed to partisan submissions from involved parties. There may be other options too - I'd welcome a wider consideration of this problem - the community often comes up with good ideas, they could be asked. That's one aspect - here's another: if you can only consider what is "formally" lodged as evidence you do have the option to decide "well there just wasn't enough of that, on a broad and balanced enough basis, for us to do anything". Just as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a decision not to act is not inaction, or a failure to fulfil any obligation. -- Begoon 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I actually agree with you re: proactivity, but the community has historically rejected the idea of arbs doing that sort of research. It's often seen as being involved for us to take an active role in seeking to present evidence ourselves, and traditionally, when arbs present evidence, we recuse. If views have changed here, I'd certainly like to take a more active role in digging into these disputes, but I ultimately try to serve how the community wants me to (as do all arbs, I like to think). I don't like a watchlist notice for arb cases, but perhaps we could try an AN notice if a similar future situation arises? That's not a terrible idea. The big con of central notices is it may encourage drama-seekers without real evidence to present to post their commentary, which is something to be avoided. I'd be willing to try it and see how it goes, though hopefully evidence will be forthcoming in future cases during my term. Or better yet, fewer cases. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd like to note that as of this time, 24 Feb 2018, Joefromrandb has been reported (by me) for another 3RR violation.

I definitely disagree with Begoon that this case is not an issue for the community at large. I stepped in to a situation involving Joefromrandb, without ever having had dealings with him before. I immediately found his abrasive put-downs in edit summaries, his off-hand treatment of another editor, and his repeated reverts very troubling. I maintain that there was no goading involved there. It looks to me like bullying behaviour which serves to prevent constructive editors getting involved with improving a page or starting discussions.

Begoon I meant no harm by summarising what seemed to me to be the overall sense of statements of yours including the one you re-quoted, in combination with: "the noticeable lack of participation from anyone but the complainant(s)", "the second [possibility] 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" and "the 'proponents' were the only ones motivated (or informed) enough to show up". I did not mis-attribute my form of words as a direct quote from you. However, if my attempted representation of your view was inaccurate, I stand corrected of course.

When I took the trouble to look through his Talk page I was astonished at the number of complaints and approaches from people who had been on the receiving end of his edit warring and rudeness. In addition to the many formal proceedings, there are numerous cases which did not make it to ANI. Going back years, as well. This is enough to form a very convincing impression that there is a pattern. I was reminded of the statement in WP:CIV -- "if an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you".

I hope that in your decision you apply suitable sanctions, and if they are time-limited then it would be important that when they expire there is some kind of close monitoring, because that is how to perceive the pattern of behaviour and its true effects. I believe it does not subsist in a few incidents here and there, but has really been a deeply embedded characteristic of this editor's approach to Wikipedia and wikipedians for a very long time. FrankP ( talk) 02:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

As Rob has already beautifully noted, I don't think this proposed remedy will do any good.The times during which a near-equivalent vaguely-worded-remedy found a mention in the TRM-case (and subsequently was altered) has made it evidently clear that the overall disruption and wiki-drama, it causes at multiple venues far exceeds the original disruption. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 04:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Under the indefinite ban proposal, several arbitrators have expressed a willingness to consider a block or ban of limited duration, say ~6 months or so. I'm curious if anyone could maybe add that under the other remedies as an alternative to an outright ban with appeals, and see how much traction it gains. I know what I said in the workshop phase, but I think it's worth considering​. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think most arbs prefer an indefinite ban appealable in 6 months to a 6 month ban, even if both wind up being lifted after 6 months. Requiring an appeal adds a conversation where we can ensure the editor knows what went wrong and how to avoid it again. The worst possible outcome would be to ban an editor for 6 months, have them come back, then see them banned indefinitely shortly thereafter because they make the same mistakes. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 19:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

That's my understanding of why fixed duration ArbCom bans (traditionally one year) fell out of favor in the early 2010s. It's unfortunate, too; I don't always agree with Joefromrandb, and I wish he weren't so angry all the time, but he's is a productive contributor with a lot to offer. It's a shame that it has to be this way. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Noting what BU Rob13 says above, I'd still support a six-month ban if there was interest in one. Joefromrandb's comments in the declined case request last year indicate they do know what the problem is and how to avoid it. There's no point in requiring them to reattest to their understanding in a future appeal - we could proceed with an enforced six-month time away and see if we can't all then just move on. But appreciate others have different views. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Whether it's okay or not, an indefinite block for posting links to YouTube videos, even ones that violate copyright, seems more than a little excessive. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I actually don't think TomStar81 had any ability to restrict all editors on Wikipedia from bringing complaints about a particular editor to ANI or all admins from indefinitely blocking an editor using normal discretion. I encourage him to ensure his future closes restrict only the editor(s) under discussion rather than limiting actions that can be taken against that editor in the future.

@ BU Rob13: I think you've misunderstood the circumstances and the purpose for the editing restriction. When the request came up for an uninvolved admin to close the ANI thread I looked through the thread and discovered that the reason for its existence had originated with a indefinite block of jobfromrandb with no consensus, which the admin at the time had attempt to justify after the fact without gaining any type of consensus for an indefinite block. Emotions were running high, and the general consensus was that the block had come on much too fast. This resulted in a reblock of 3 months, then a lifting of the block when it became apparent that there was no consensus for a block. In order to specifically prevent any indef blocking - and only the indef blocking - the editing restriction was logged so as to force the community to come to consensus to indef block joefromrandb. It was never meant to restrict editors or admins, it was meant to ensure that admins attempting to block an editor with 10+ years of contributions didn't do so without agreement from the community that an indef block was warranted. It was that hair trigger and the sheer ugliness of the ani that compelled me to dig digger, and that in turn brought about the first ARBCOM request filed by me on grounds that if a veteran editor was willing to disregard over ten years worth of contributions to the encyclopedia and perma block one editor and then attempt to ex post facto justify it then we had clearly reached a point admins and editors were not going to be able to solve the problem. It should also be noted that what is logged over at editing restrictions is the third of three given points when the ANI thread was closed; the other two stated, and I quote, "1) There is no consensus for an indef block at this time. I suspect (but can not prove) that the reason for this was the abrupt speed with which the original indef block came on. 2) Given the amount of bad blood I seem to be sensing here one or greater (or possibly fewer) of you need to seriously entertain the idea of avoiding each other because, quite frankly, tearing into one another over actions that may or may not have seen like good idea to an admin or an editor/contributor at the time solves nothing." It was a judgement call on my part, which I noted in my closing statement ("Having reviewed this whole thing - twice - I can make three definitive conclusions..."), and I encourage you to remember the words of Rag'n'Bone Man: "I'm only human, after all, don't put the blame on me." Finding any kind of consensus in that ANI thread was difficult since 60% of it was people engaged in a bar fight over what should or shouldn't be done and whether things were done too quickly or not quickly enough. That was the whole purpose of the October ARBCOM request: if it takes an admin two hours to read through, check up on, and process everyone's nasty commentary on what should or shouldn't be done about jackass editors, overzealous admins, and editors up in arms over the issue then clearly finding any kind of long term solution via consensus at ANI or anywhere else was going to be impossible. I just wanted to make sure that the next time an indef block - and only an indef block - was leveled against joefromrandb there was some discussion and consensus to that effect from the community, and I would have been happy to clarify that if anyone had asked me to (I've done that before, and reworded two or three things to help better clarify what was meant in editing restrictions posts I've made). TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ihardlythinkso: Hi, please make sure that you do not link to videos on YouTube which are copyright violations. I am pretty sure 'matt' is not a copyright holder of Groundhog Day :) Bad things can happen otherwise. Thanks, !dave 12:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

(I moved the template out of the indent to avoid formatting errors ansh 666 02:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)) reply

• • I've removed this, Ihardlythinkso. Fair use depends on the fact that something transformative is being done with the work or the work is being commented upon. This is just a straight copy/paste from the film with no transformation or commentary. Please do not re-add it. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Indef ban s/b reserved for extreme disruption, not "For fuck's sake" (= "OMG!") light rudeness. Indef ban can be destructive, like fire. Groundhog Day - He might be OK (link removed to YouTube copyright violation -- !dave) (smashdown = fixed-duration block; explosion = indef ban). Thx for consider. -- IHTS ( talk) 12:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

From WP:COPYVIOEL: "External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website [...] uses the work in a way compliant with fair use.". Per Youtube: Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the "heart" of the work. I'd bet my editorship on the fact this is a clear case of fair use: it's a 30 sec clip that doesn't constitute the "heart" of the film, it isn't posted here for any commercial purpose, it doesn't harm Columbia Pictures' ability to profit from the film (if anything the opposite - someone might want to own/rent the film after seeing the clip). -- IHTS ( talk) 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

If still not ok, then External media template: -- IHTS ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Brad, you have American jurisprudence background, I don't, so I'm confused about a couple things. First, in American jurisprudence criminal cases, the accused is not required to testify in their own defense, and there are some important reasons for that, and Arbcom mirrors at least that aspect; however, the accused in criminal cases is always represented by counsel, and there is no mirror for that in Arbcom. (As a result I think [I may be wrong but I think], there can be "miscarriages of justice", for example the ban of Kafziel, which was heavily weighted on his conduct while representing himself at Arbcom, which would never be permitted to happen in an American court of law. And that kind of judgment, based on conduct during the behavior "trial", echoes throughout WP venues like ANI, does it not?) Thanks for educating me re jurisprudence and Arbcom with your thoughts. p.s. I'm not suggesting WP should mirror legal court proceedings, I guess I'm suggesting that it already partially does, and questioning whether not going full hog therefore pulls out the reasons the court system evolved to the standards it has today. Sincerely submitted, -- IHTS ( talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ihardlythinkso: Thanks for your points. In a criminal case in the US the accused cannot be compelled to testify and his or her silence may not be used against him or her; but in a civil case, which would include (for example) a disciplinary proceeding against a professional, the defendant may be, and routinely is, required to testify, and a refusal to do so will lead to a strong negative inference against him or her.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in due-process cases that in deciding "what process is due," the Court must consider (among other things) how serious would be the consequences of a mistaken result. More procedural protections are needed for the trial of a felony case than of a traffic violation, as an obvious example. On-wiki, since the worst sanction ArbCom can impose is telling someone to get another hobby, I wouldn't equate it to any form of court proceeding. But for whatever value the analogies have, there they are.

I'm sure there have been miscarriages of justice, or at least misguided decisions, in the history of ArbCom. Tongue-in-cheek I could define the group of bad decisions as coextensive with the decisions in which I voted against the remedy. More seriously, the cases that come to ArbCom are the hard cases the community has not been able to decide, so there is rarely a right and a wrong answer. (No comment on the specific case of Kafziel, in which I was recused, and whose details in any case are not fresh in my mind—except that he was never banned, though he was desysopped and then chose to stop editing.)

To help restore a sense of perspective here—I don't mean for you personally, IHTS, but for the general readership: One of my most distinguished former colleagues on this Committee, who is also an American lawyer, provided hundreds of hours of pro bono legal work in the real world proving that an innocent man had been jailed for 25 years for a murder he had not committed and getting him freed. That was the correction of a miscarriage of justice. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thx for that. Re Kafziel, yes it was a desysop, not ban, but I guess that sort of supports my point, that certain kinds of sanctions can for certain individuals have the same effect as a permaban. And I think that means something goes on that a chunk of society shares generally. Tied with that, "get another hobby" is an expression commonly used on the WP, but I think there is a danger of over-trivialization. (For me personally for example, chess is a hobby and has been since a boy, but it is more a love than "hobby", any devoted player understands that. So if somehow I was stripped of it, it would remove a lot of my self-identity. For me WP isn't a similar love, rather a vehicle for improving my English writing skills over time, and indeed that is a love too, a love for the language, not for WP per se. Even WP is a relatively new phenomenon, I don't know, but some may have formed a bond similar to mine with chess and language!? Afterall there is only one English WP. If I were stripped of my "hobbies", I doubt I'd find happiness & fulfillment in life, even if Penelope Cruze decided she wanted to divorce her husband and have my baby [/joke]. And that kind of depression can be seriously not good. Clearly there are some users who have fallen in love relationship with the WP. Does someone feel good to tell them "get another love"?!) Thx again. -- IHTS ( talk) 01:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Newyorkbrad, here's a Q ... As you explained, civil jurisprudence can mandate testimony or factor-in refusal to testify, whereas that is not the case in criminal proceedings. Ok. But, which jurisprudence is WP more analogous to, civil or criminal? (I think criminal. In civil cases, if you lose, it's generally all about monitary damages, yes? But in criminal cases, the losing party loses a degree of freedom in one way or another, all the way up to permanent detention behind bars or worse. So isn't loss of freedoms more analogous to WP sanctions, loss of editing privileges, all the way up to total loss/site ban? And if so doesn't that make the civil jurisprudence analogy about testimony less congruous?) Thx once more, -- IHTS ( talk) 07:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This is really getting silly. This isn't a legal proceeding, is nothing like a legal proceeding, and should not be like a legal proceeding (American or otherwise, criminal or otherwise). It's a private club on the verge of expelling one of its members because he won't stop snapping towels in the locker room and generally being nasty for no apparent reason. No one's going to the Big House or getting the needle; there isn't even any money at stake. There's no self-incrimination issue because no one "testifies": all facts are openly available in the history. If someone refuses to participate in sorting out the equities it's because he's got contempt for everyone else's time, which should indeed be held against him.

And if chess is important to someone, they're going to have to stop flipping the board over or they'll get tossed out of the league. E Eng 11:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, thx for the clarification. p.s. As long as you have researched this, do you know if posting the webaddress to the Youtube vid (as opposed to the clickable link) is materially different & therefore permitted by policy? Or not? Thx again, -- IHTS ( talk) 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ihardlythinkso: Nope, that's still providing a link to a copyright violation, at least as I'd interpret it. WP:GAME, more or less. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 01:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, I guess I asked if you "know", not what your opinion might be. (You're saying a copyright holder would object to the posting of a webaddress that needed copy/paste into a web browser address bar. I doubt that very much. Or what if, instead of the webaddress, web search instructions are given, to locate the specific Youtube vid?: "Go to Youtube, search on 'Groundhog Day He might be okay', it's the first vid listed." Is the copyright holder violated?) Am not trying poking for "gaming" limit, trying rather to understand the letter of the legal copyvio law/strictures. -- IHTS ( talk) 01:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, the copyright answer is straightforward; yes, linking to copyrighted material can result in liability. See, for instance, The Pirate Bay, which has had legal problems despite the fact that they host no content themselves and just link to trackers. Generally speaking, intentionally assisting someone in infringing someone's property rights can open you up to liability. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 02:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thx. But do the verbal instructions I simulated constitute "infringing [the copyright holder's] property rights"? (For me, I can't see it does.) -- IHTS ( talk) 07:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh, I think I get it. (It's probably not a good idea, to give instructions to locate/play a vid, that is already violating copyright on Youtube.) Sorry for being dense. -- IHTS ( talk) 07:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I never mind people asking copyright questions; it's a very misunderstood area. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Every so often, Wikipedia descends to a point where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent editors. These proceedings are such a nadir. The somewhat misnamed Arbitration Committee was created as an agent of the en-wiki community, with its primary duty the upholding and application of community police. It is simply discarding that responsibility out of hand to reach a convenient but inappropriate outcome.

Much of the evidence "against" Joefromrandb relates to his removal of content he argued violated WP:BLP, such as the editing of Kim Davis, Roger Waters, and Robert Sungenis. The contested material was more in the nature of innuendo placing the article subject in a bad light or reflecting unfavorably on them than of direct assertion (although in the case of Davis, Joe repeatedly removed content that was evidently false). Community review of the content has eventually determined that Joe's removals were mostly correct in such cases -- and, more important, demonstrated that Joe's assessment of the material as "contentious" justified his invocation of WP:BLP. That Joe was in at least one case blocked for removing contentious, unfavorable content from a BLP, while the editors who restore such material were let off scot-free should give the members of the Committee great pause in reviewing Joe's conduct. Editors should not be sanctioned for correctly applying key Wikipedia policies.

But this Committee has a history of siding against editors who are critical of en-Wiki practice while excusing or minimizing equally egregious or more egregious conduct by those who pay lip service to the principles they are loath to abide by. Not so long ago, the Arbitration Committee refused to take significant action against the notorious abuser and sexual harasser "Scalhotrod" while banning the target of his harassment -- until it was essentially shamed into taking belated appropriate action. That Joefromrandb may regard the Committee's proceedings as a form of marsupial jurisprudence does not excuse the Committee from its duty to properly evaluate and weigh the material claimed to be evidence against him -- material which often reflects much more poorly on Joe's detractors than on Joe himself. Since the Committee has failed its duty to the community in that regard, it should not be taking any action whatsoever. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

An indef ban here is absurd, given the almost complete lack of participation on the evidence page by editors other than the case filer. Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Given how this has all played out, the likely "remedy" is hardly surprising, and perhaps unfortunately inevitable.

While arbitration doesn't operate on precedent, there is the potential for the Committee to meaningfully signal on arbitration scope and process. We have here an (unfortunate) situation where the key party chose not to participate and explain/"defend" his conduct; where formal evidence presented was a subset of the ongoing, broader pattern that was asserted as rationale to have a case; and where the behaviour of others was alluded to but minimally explicitly considered in the case pages. In instances like this, what does the Committee do?

1. They consider only such "evidence" as brought to their attention, and so in particular patterns not clearly demonstrated, and explanations for poor conduct not explicitly given, are just not considered. They don't try to be mindreaders or detectives.
2. They poke around a bit, and take note prima facie of easily accessible information (e.g. parties' on-wiki interactions; community commentary in prior dispute resolution), but of course are heavily hampered in reading between the lines, understanding motivations, and ensuring they have a complete picture, by limited participation. And as such, their solution is likely to be more broad-strokes and less nuanced.
3. They investigate and do their best to draw inferences on their own, trying to ensure they have a complete enough picture to resolve the situation nevertheless.

My sense from different committee members' comments is that some of them favour (and in this case, have engaged in) #1 and some #2. Some observers would like #3 and are convinced the committee is only doing #1. I understand the arbitrators' hesitancy to adopt findings of fact 6 and 7 as stated, but I think a bit more clarity of what -- especially in a situation like this -- they did consider in evaluating how to best resolve the situation would be helpful for the community, and for the Arbitration Committee's future cases as well. Martinp ( talk) 15:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

My own approach has historically been #2, with occasionally some #3 in cases where I am a drafter. In other words, I will read through obvious leads (such as the discussions cited as prior dispute-resolution attempts in the request for arbitration) and try to get to the bottom of discrete issues that may come up, but there's no way I could unearth every aspect of an editor's history on the cite or of a complicated dispute that none of the parties decide to explain to us. I should add that given the relatively small number of cases that now go through full-blown arbitration (between five and ten a year lately, as opposed to up to a hundred some years ago), a case with the low level of participation we've had here is not very common. There is also some trade-off between the arbitrators' doing their own digging to find evidence and the parties' (or interested non-parties' ability to comment on that evidence). If I post on the workshop or proposed decision that I may be influenced in my thinking by diffs A and B that I located, then people can react to that ... but if I post that I may be influenced by generalized impressions I've gleaned from a couple of hours of a poking through the history, how are other editors supposed to address that? Put differently if I do some follow-up in a case on my own and find something important I'll say so, and I think other arbs would too ... but the parties certainly should not rely on that happening as opposed to speaking up for themselves. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply