Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Joefromrandb		20 October 2017	4/3/2
Conduct at Reference Desks		30 October 2017	0/1/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	19 July 2024

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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]; 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)
    • @Callanecc: Any list as such would be rather long I suspect, but we could limit it to those participating the ANI and RFC, which would narrow it down and timeline it as such. The RFC was filed by Purplebackpack89; ANI threads begin with AutomaticStrikeout in 2013/14 and end with TomStar81 in 2017, so they who participated in some way shape or form on those venues would in turn be the ones subject to the rule in an et al capacity for purposes of the case - essentially, the community most immediately affected by whatever arbcom does here since they seem to be the ones who vioced an opinion one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:25, 24 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)

@Committee: I urge the rest of you to at least give pause to what OR, and now Cas, have said, which was initially my biggest gripe about this whole thing. Tom closed the ANI, initiating the caveat that any civility complaints in the next 6 months could be brought to ANI, discussed, and reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Two days later, he was here filing a case. If any other user had filed this case two days after the ANI was closed, it would almost certainly be considered "forum shopping", and the filing party would have been advised to follow the instructions Tom provided in his closing statement. Why is Tom then permitted to change his mind? When Gerda questioned him about this, his position became that he was trying to shield me from being indef-blocked by another knee-jerk reaction from a trigger-happy administrator, but that just doesn't add up: his close specified that I am not to be indef-blocked within the next 6 months without a full discussion at ANI, reviewed and closed by an uninvolved administrator. An administrator should be just as expected to abide by his or her close as any other user. Allowing this case to proceed runs the risk of setting a troubling precedent. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Callanecc: While I could surely provide such a list, I would almost certainly decline to do so. One, I consider "tattling" to be an obnoxious activity for children and an inexcusable one for adults. Two, I find it egregiously frustrating that such behaviors are anything less than self-evident. Any instances of incivility on my part that haven't been followed by an apology have most likely been predicated by puerile baiting. If the case is accepted, I will likely provide evidence of the reciprocal behaviors of other editors on a case-by-case basis, but to provide such a list as a prophylactic measure is not something I could likely justify to myself. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@BMK: I am not "making" the distinction between calling Todd a troll and noting that he engaged in a act of trolling. I am pointing out the distinction, as you apparently either confused or attempted to conflate the two. Your attempt at poisoning the well with your accusation would certainly suggest the latter. As far as "paying lip service to the idea of change" because of a potential Arbcom case, that's laughable. I've never done anything at the point of a bayonet in real life, so I'm damn well not about to do so online. The idea that I would pay "lip service" to anything is your most ridiculous conjecture yet. My response to Newyorkbrad's question was proportionate to the amicable way in which it was poised, and the fact that Brad is obviously attempting to de-escalate the situation, as opposed to Todd's obvious attempt to fan the flames. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Yes, rereading that, I can see how it could easily have come across as: "well sure, anything's possible. That isn't at all how I intended it. What, exactly, is it that you're looking to hear from me? If I were to promise to never again be rude to anyone on this site, I'd just be setting both of us up to look like assholes: me for going back on my word, and you for sticking your neck out for me (which, by the way, is not at all something that I take lightly). I certainly think that OR's suggestion is an excellent one, and I do intend to make a serious attempt to put it into practice. I so much wish I had handled both recent situations that way. With the former, I would have realized that the user in question did nothing to deserve my invectives, preventing a lot of needless escalation, not to mention the crow feathers I'm still picking from my teeth after apologizing (again, on my own accord, because I realized I was out of line; not because of someone threatening to block me, report me, what have you [what would an apology like that be worth anyway?]). With the latter, it would have prevented the hours upon hours of drama. The best way to deal with attention-seeking behavior is to ignore it, and I did the opposite, allowing myself to get "played like a Stradavarius", as one editor perfectly put it. I don't know if that's anywhere close to what you're looking to hear from me. I'm certainly willing to listen to any good-faith suggestions, and give serious consideration to any constructive criticism. On the other hand, if I'm going to be expected to respond to baiting with obsequiousness; if I'm going to be required to offer the other cheek upon demand, that is a situation that I will invariably find untenable. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@IHTS: My value to this site is nowhere near that of Eric's, but I understand the parallel. I've only interacted with him a handful of times, but in each case he was quite cordial. Eric strikes me as a decent, well-liked individual. Sadly, he's been subjected to a mind-numbing amount of–I believe Black Kite called it "fuckwittery"–on this site. For all the talk about him having a short fuse, the fact that he has continued to donate his time to this project despite being shit on for years, in reality, shows that he has the patience of Job. I believe it was Eric who said something along the lines of; "the key to avoiding incivility is to avoid the triggers", wise words that are particularly germane to this potential case. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:03, 25 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)

Thank you, Opabinia regalis. What cat image would express best: you worded that so much better than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 24 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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Supplemental statement by Ivanvector

clerks: if this lv4 is inappropriate please feel free to just remove it, it won't affect my subsequent comment

I see in the interval since I posted my statement that this seems to have turned into another rehashing of the "can editors say 'fuck'" pointless perennial debate. Can we not? I mean, it should be fucking obvious to anyone who's looked at any of the fucking drama boards any time in the last few fucking years that editors saying 'fuck' is not a big fucking deal. The utterance of the word 'fuck' is not at issue here, or ever really, it's patterns of incivility. Sure, sometimes you can use 'fuck' in a rude comment, but if just typing the four letters was enough to draw sanctions, we'd have a lot fucking fewer editors. 'Fuck' isn't an Arbcom issue; except for a rare few purists there isn't even significant disagreement on this point.

Drawing attention to Joefromrandb's use of 'fuck' is drawing attention away from the more serious issues. Those are that there's an editor with a history of sanctions directly related to their patterns of incivility and edit warring, some other editors who (allegedly) deliberately goad this editor knowing that they'll either be drawn into an edit war or respond rudely and draw admin attention, and a history generally of the pitchfork squad being utterly and sometimes hilariously incapable solving these exact kinds of disputes (and this one specifically). It's on these issues that the Committee should accept or decline this case, not because someone said 'fuck'. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 24 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^Talk 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^Talk 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)

Well done, Opabinia regalis. You took an isolated incident involving Toddst1, built that up to be a strawman of injustice upon Joefromrandb, and then used it as an excuse to decline to consider evidence of long term WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that several respected editors view to be a detriment to the project. Bonus points for appearing to be one of few reasonable people in the room. Fuck! Drmies even needs to get a coffee.

If it is not clear enough from Joefromrandb's comments on this very page that there is an attitudinal problem that drives his edit warring, overt hostility, and unwillingness to cooperate with those he deems as unworthy, then I have little hope for the future of this project. I'm also slightly disappointed that an arbitrator would use this setting to advance their personal views that are evidently at odds with WP:CIVILITY policy, unambiguously described in WP:IUC.- MrX 00:58, 25 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. As far as I know, I've never had a conflict with him before October 16. In fact, back in December 2013, I unblocked Joefromrandb when I was an admin. Now, you'll see quite a few mentions of my name on his talk page by other users who *have* had a beef with me, and decided that this editor's talk page was a welcome place to kvetch, but as far as I can tell, I haven't had any other history with Joe. Several editors have characterized "bad blood" and "enemies" related to Joefromrandb. I have not and do not fit that description.

I became involved on Oct 16, 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 and longevity of the disruptive behavior from this user, I closed the AN3 and AIV reports and moved the issue to ANI.

Yes, him telling me to fuck off was preceded by a template on his talk page, but the dimensions of excuse-making for this editor, comparing my one template application to Joefromradb's epic history of edit-war and incivility blocks laced with battle-ground behavior is absurd and clearly driven by other editors' bad blood for me. Please separate these issues. If anyone wants to open a case on me and get their beefs off their chests, please do so - separately.

At this point, I feel Joefromrandb'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)

@Callanecc: That appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. You're opening the door for score-settling, which, from an editor with a reputation for having an extremely thin skin (see both of his immoderate responses to my rather tepid criticisms here for an immediate instance), is a pretty dangerous thing to do. Additional parties would have become apparent on their own without the invitation to Joefromrandb to provide them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not looking to railroad Joefromrandb, my opinion is that the community had not been able to solve the problem of his behavior, and that leaves ArbCom to do the job, so in that respect I disagree with OR & Dennis. I do think that the more the scope of a potential case is opened up to be a sweeping review of "What is civility?" the more problematic it becomes, as opposed to simply dealing with the behavior of one editor in relation to the expectations of the community.

Then there's the approach of the never-naive Newyorkbrad, which I appreciate, but have some trouble seeing how it leads to a solution. I would appreciate hearing from Brad his feelings about how his efforts could result in a concrete action which would provide the community with some expectation that Joefromrandb will change his behavior. The late, lamented civility parole was, at least, an action that promised relief if the editor did not follow-through. On the other hand, the civility sanctions levied against The Rambling Man did not appear to work very well and ended up being watered-down to (essentially) a restatement of WP:CIVIL. What kind of assurance can the Committee give to the community if they wind up following Brad's path instead of accepting a case? (I'm not asking for a pre-judgment of the merits, rather an exploration of what kinds of results are conceivable.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would encourage ArbCom in their effort to deal with this by motion instead of opening a full case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 28 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^{On leave} 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^{On leave} 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Fully echo Kurtis's last paragraph and this addition by RMC too.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• +1 to Euryalus's comment over here and DQ's statement that there is a pattern of behavioral issues which needs to be investigated.I don't think anybody can drag someone to ArbCom over the use of a single word,( which was delivered under a bout of instigation) but what matters is Joe's (percieved) incapability to constructively accept any criticism from any quarters (sans a few case(s)), without him going after the editor who dared to tread on his path.But, as many arbs have commented this case shall not turn out to be one tending to define the boundaries of usage of cuss-words, their appropriateness or rel. to civility et al.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

The charter of the Arbitration Committee states that “The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Follow-Up Statement by Robert McClenon

While I respect the comments by Opabinia regalis and the effort by Newyorkbrad to ask Joefromrandb whether he is willing to consider changing his behavior, I will note that similar questions were asked four years ago. There are a few editors who are surrounded by conflicts, and Joe is one of them, and asking him whether he is willing to consider changing his behavior is noble and idealistic, but is not likely to change the fact that other editors will bait him. The problem is that the atmosphere that surrounds editors like Joefromrandb is not conducive to retention of new editors. Something needs to be done, and the community as mob at ANI will not do it, so ArbCom needs to do it quasi-judicially. Maybe a new sort of discretionary sanction is needed, that attaches to an editor who is constructive but provocative, and that permits quick imposition of 30-day interaction bans. In any case, I ask the ArbCom to consider various sorts of remedies for editors such as this one, whom we do not want to indef or ban, but who are surrounded by controversy and have lengthy block logs that are often then lifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 30 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 [11]). 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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 [12]. Banedon (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

Opabinia has it exactly right here. -- Begoon 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe, "fuckwittery" is indeed the right word, and if Black Kite invoked it in that context he should be commended. "The key to avoiding incivility is to avoid the triggers" is also correct, and, as IHTS says, profound. -- Begoon 11:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I'd like to echo the suggestion made by Kurtis to accept the case, but with a scope wide enough to examine the actions of other involved editors, specifically Toddst1. I also agree with Kurtis, after looking at the discussion he linked, that Ks0stm should recuse himself. I do not believe that Ks0stm would act in bad faith in this case, but the Arbs should be careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Lepricavark (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Question by IHTS

Can an arb please explain to me a meaningful/substantive difference between this complaint, and numerous ANIs/arbcoms surrounding another extremely smart, language-capable, long-time editor-writer (E.C.)? Joe doesn't have the FAs but his mainspace contributions are > 76%. Neither users' blunt remarks have been 100% on target, but never from a vacuum, always real/sincere, never seeking contention w/ any editor, never campaigning against any user (unlike the pursuing "When is enough enough?" [ex] admin). Thx. --IHTS (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:. Yes, "The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. —  Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)". Like most things profound, utterly simple. (Another: E=mc². ;) ) --IHTS (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as the discussion has grown psychological/philosophical wings, my comment: Asking one user for "assurances this problem" will be lanced—due to the lack of a working set of definitions, due to the inherent complexity of text-only messaging (which I doubt has ever been researched sufficiently, or at least said research has never been plugged into WP)—is really an unreasonable & inappropriate requirement for any user. (It is like asking someone to drive nails into a cloud.) And I believe the compulsion to take that dysfunctional shortcut, is simply because we're "lazy". (The project lacks time/resources/capability to define CIV parameters, so to just make one or the other user go away thru "restrictions" is easier. Will they be fairly applied & implemented? The meme is we don't have to know or care, this is WP, not a court.) "The problem is Wikipedia is unprincipled: there are far more editors willing to jump in an ANI or talk page kerfuffle to talk about a specific incident than discuss underlying principles on the WP:Civility talk page and actually come to a consensus. It's choosing drama over hard work. Gerardw (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" ¶ Lastly, curious why presumption that perceived incivility drives users from WP always seems to take precedence over presumption that being required to absorb perceived incivility like Jesus or Gandhi doesn't. --IHTS (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cwmhiraeth

While declining to take on this case, Opabinia regalis has made some really sensible comments on what happened to initiate this case request, with good advice to Joe and everyone else as to how to de-escalate a situation and avoid making snarky comments. I would urge the Committee to reject this case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Oh joy... Annother case that turns on the vested contributor and super mario problem duopoly. It comes down to how much casual incivility the community is expected to tollerate from a user who has some quantity of good contributions before the practice (Pillars, Rules, Policies, conventions, etc.) are enforced as opposed to a new user. Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary observation by Dennis Brown

After reading Opabinia regalis's exceptionally well written comment, I felt I need to applaud. As to the last section of her comment, she is correct, and why I always wave and smile like an idiot to someone giving me the finger during my daily 100 miles worth of commute. Sometimes the best revenge is refusing to be offended. Civility is not a good subject for ArbCom to settle, it never has been, regardless of who is serving, so my opinion isn't related to the current office holders. It is simply too subjective, too prone to bias, and anything short of NPA is too time consuming for a website that is building an encyclopedia, rather than a perfect society. As she states, it doesn't seem that all other options have been exhausted, nor that enough time has passed since the ANI was closed to allow behavior to change. Admin are willing and able to use the block button as needed, as evidenced by the block log. This simply doesn't seem ripe for Arbitration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary observation by Hawkeye7

I have a dream that one day instead of posting Dennis Brown sends me the 2c and I use the accumulated funds to establish a scholarship for athletes with disabilities. ArbCom routinely deals with editor behaviour, and our notion of civility lies at the heart of that. It is within the bailiwick of ArbCom to lay down sweeping rules on editor behaviour, if you chose to do so. It is also possible for arbitrators to set an example and exercise civility themselves by recusing when asked to do so regardless of whether you personally feel you would be biased or not. A recent candidate at RfA was asked whether it was acceptable for an editor to tell a vandal to fuck off. The simple fact is that we do tolerate this (and, for that matter, vandalism). Nor is NPA the line in the sand. I understand that some of you feel that turning down this case will merely kick the can down the road; but consider what you are attempting to accomplish. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92

Oh, for Pete's sake, of course the case needs to be accepted. After years of problems, god knows how many ANI threads, clear evidence of battleground and idounthrearyou issues, just what makes you think that this problem is magically going to go away? So, instead of engaging in verbal gymnastics to talk yourselves out doing your job, don't be cowards and take the case. Nsk92 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by WJBscribe

@Opabinia regalis: Actually, I have nominated {{Uw-civil-qa1}} for deletion - see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 30. I don't think it's a particularly rouge action - there are definitely some issues with that particular template that go beyond the general issues with templated warnings... WJBscribe (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ks0stm

I urge the committee to take this case. Joefromrandb has an extensive block log of edit warring and incivility blocks, and the community has struggled to cobble together meaningful solutions to prevent issues from recurring, whether those issues rest with Joefromrandb or the editors and administrators who interact with him. This can be seen at a minimum through the raw number of ANIs over Joefromrandb, which have taken up far too much time that could have been spent being productive elsewhere, regardless of who's fault that may be. Further, the state of some of Joefromrandb's talk page interactions concerns me. However, from what I've seen, Joefromrandb is legitimately prone to taking bait, which is just as bad (or worse) a reflection on the person doing the baiting as it is on the person who takes the bait, so the committee as part of the case should examine whether baiting has been a significant factor, and the interaction of other editors with Joefromrandb should be within the scope. If baiting has been found to be a significant trigger for Joefromrandb's incivility, rather than it being inherent to his mode of interaction with other editors, then the first and foremost outcome of this case should be measures to limit the baiting of Joefromrandb and his taking of the bait, rather than draconian sanctions against Joefromrandb (which, FWIW, I feel like shouldn't be the default or assumed outcome regardless without significant evidence that they're necessary). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:48, 30 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 <4/3/2>

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)
  • @Joefromrandb: You are reading my intentions here correctly: by my question I was seeking to deescalate the situation and potentially avoid the need for an arbitration case relating to interactions between you and other editors—not by sweeping the alleged issues under the rug, but by seeking to address them. I appreciate your acknowledging the reasonableness of the question. But if we are going to potentially make progress here, you need to be much more concrete about what you are willing and able to change about your behavior going forward. I suppose that Sure, there's a possibility. Absolutely. is literally responsive to my question, but it hardly provides any sort of commitment to try to change behavior. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, or to lead you say something you don't really mean, but can you do any better than that? (Also, to colleagues and other commenters, the "f-off" reference was meant as a synecdoche of the issue here and I agree it is not the crux of the issue or the proposed case. Lastly, I do not agree that username-based casenames are inherently prejudicial—some cases really are focused on interactions involving a particular editor— but if there is a reasonable suggestion for a different sort of name for this case if it is accepted, we can consider it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All right, yesterday's response from Joefromrandb to me is certainly more promising. Let me put some thoughts on the table here. The key issue in "civility" or "battleground mentality" cases (though I hate the latter phrase) is not that an editor is violating someone's idea of decorum or politesse. Rather, the issue is that the editor who pushes the limits in these areas makes Wikipedia less pleasant for others—and if Wikipedia becomes less pleasant, fewer people will contribute, or fewer people will contribute on particular topics or pages, or else if they do contribute they will respond in kind which makes the place less pleasant for everyone. So at some point it becomes "we have to lose the difficult editor lest five others walk away." Joefromrandb, there is no denying that over the past several years, many other editors have concluded that Wikipedia would, unfortunately, be better off without your being here. That's a harsh judgment on a long-term, good-faith editor, and the community has not quite reached it yet—but you need to continue reflecting on why respectable editors, not all of whom are your personal or ideological foes by any means, would feel that way. Moreover, even apart from what may or may not become of this arbitration request, you really can't want a wiki-future of narrowly ducking proposed bans on the noticeboards, or eventually succumbing to one. So you need to make a very serious effort to heed the advice you're being given here by Opabinia and others, and I am reading your last statement as reflecting willingness to try. I suspect that some of those who have commented above believe that after all these years your wiki-attitude is inherent and unchangeable, and that by accepting assurances from you, I would be proving to be as naïve today as I was in 2008—and that if we don't accept this case we are just delaying the inevitable, which is your separation from the project. Will you be able to prove them wrong? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 25 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)

    • @BMK: No I'm not asking Joe for a list of enemies, I'm asking him, along with the other editors, for a list of users who they believe should be parties with evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 24 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 ^{(T•C•G•E)} 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 ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Recuse per Alex Shih's wonderfully reasoned and compelling request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:08, 26 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) switch to decline, mainly per OR....the discussion board was closed...as far as I can tell it was an afterthought from the closer rather than a huge kerfuffle. Note to all that revert wars do not have to be adjudicated on a strict 3RR rule, and advise people to check sourcing etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Accept Doug Weller talk 12:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also putting my accept on hold to consider Joe's response last night and other possible responses to it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 25 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)

• @Opabinia regalis: I agree we should decline a case about whether someone can say "fuck." We had massive and entirely fruitless debates about that away back in 2015; let's not do it all again. Rule of thumb - if you could do or say it in a standard real-world workplace, feel free to do or say it here (and plenty of people where I work swear in a collegiate manner every day). As above, this request is/should be about perceived "battleground" conduct and interpersonal hostility which may (or may not) be interfering with the productivity of other editors. It doesn't need detailed introspection - just a review of the edit histories of both sides, and a decision one way or the other. That's what I'm supporting anyway. If there's Arbitrators who want a "bad words" case, then you have my backing in urging them to go look elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• *Moving to hold for a bit to think about this. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: well said. Alas the "bad words" straw man comes up every time we have this discussion. This case request is clearly not about that. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Per Nsk92 its worthwhile giving an update in case anyone is wondering where this request has got to.

Theres a couple of options to deal with this via motion rather than the palaver of a full case. We're just seeing if there's enough support to justify formally proposing one of them here. A motion seems preferable given the evidence is pretty easily obtained from this case request and a couple of people's edit histories. It's also the path of least drama. But let's see how the discussion goes.

If we do end up with a full case, there's rough consensus that we would try to deliver it in half the usual time as suggested here. That would be one week apiece for evidence, workshop and PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• We've spent so long discussing the case request that we could actually have done half a case. Anyway ... made some suggestions for ways to resolve this by motion but they didn't get support, so am likely to move back to "accept." But before we get there, Joefromrandb, will you agree to 1) make every effort respond to legitimate disagreements in a collegiate way, and 2) try not taking the bait if you feel someone is acting from bad faith? No need for obsequiousness or avoiding "bad words" - just treat Wikipedia like a real-life workplace. Because the whole "rough diamond with a nuclear temper" thing is pretty unhelpful. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 31 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)

  • I looked over every single linked dispute again (linked in the opening remarks), perhaps more carefully, and I wish I had looked as carefully the first time. I am convinced, really, that there is no there there. I do not see "mounting evidence" of the community being incapable of "solving" whatever the problem is besides the obvious but occasional "fuck off", and the occasional edit warring (which can be handled by a regular block). The community has been presented plenty of times with supposed evidence of Joe's incompatibility with the community, and has always soundly rejected an indefinite block. So, I'm taking back my "accept". If Joe cusses too much in the wrong place, ask or tell him to stop or block him, and then move along. If he edit wars, block him, just like should be done when you or I do it. If he's being a dick on his own talk page after he's blocked, well. This is not to say he's not occasionally problematic, but hey, glass houses, and this isn't anything the project cannot handle. BTW let me just note also that once or twice NOTHERE was brought up in those linked threads, and that also was always rejected. No, don't accept. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 31 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 Wikipedia. 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, how about just deleting it with "fuck off" as the reason? 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)
  • Damn you OR those are some really decent arguments. Hmm. Need more coffee. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Here you go: ☕ :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Joefromrandb, thanks for your response. Sorry for the slow reaction time; life came up. I think you are on the right track in your post, but echoing NYB, what assurances can you give us that this problem will be under better control in the future? The trouble with "baiting" as a defense is that very often people don't mean to do it, or don't realize that that's what they're doing. (Someone wrote all those civility templates, after all, so obviously some people honestly think they're useful. No doubt they would react gracefully upon receiving one and would immediately acknowledge the error that prompted the warning. No doubt.) This community is too big and too diverse for each individual to have their own personal requirements about how criticisms should be phrased or how others should approach them in a disagreement. It's necessary to be able to put with a bit of baiting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ihardlythinkso, you're not wrong; a better way to put it might be "what specifically are you going to do differently?" It's very easy for me to tell you that I'm not going to eat the candy in the kitchen at work, no sir, not me! But you probably shouldn't believe me if I plan to rely solely on my own willpower. "I'll put it in the cupboard" or "I'll get my coworker to smack me every time she sees me go for it" or "I'll let myself eat exactly one piece at exactly 4:30pm" are actual plans, "I'll stop, I swear" isn't. This isn't just about Joe, although he's the subject of this particular issue; everyone who knows they have a trigger for bad behavior should make an actual plan to avoid the behavior, even if it's as simple as "countervandalism drives me nuts so I'll write articles instead". Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WJBScribe Thanks for doing the homework I didn't :) I had no idea that was such a recent invention! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Very reluctant accept First, I will second OR's first paragraph, that the closure of the ANI thread and subsequent filing of an Arb case is definitely not unheard of, but doing so while placing a restriction, from what I know is rare if not unheard of. I'm especially concerned about the when the community can review it clause, and this post filing (not that I even understand that restriction or it's reasons).

That said, I disagree with the thought behind OR's third paragraph where Joe needs to just rant in an off-wiki form. He's had a few years to figure that one out, if not knowing it already, and yet we are still here. This seems to be resolving the "that the community can't solve" aspect.

The reason why this case needs to be heard is there is a lot here that isn't to be taken at face value, such as the number Tom's links to the ANI threads (One doesn't link properly, one is to a very short thread, another is to his own recent ANI closure) as being an indicator of an issue or the special restriction on closure of the ANI thread. At the same time, Joe's reply to NYB seems to indicate that he's learned from his mistakes, yet we are somehow still here. I'm not putting wrongdoing blame on anyone yet, all I'm saying is this needs to be looked into before we can have a legitimate view of what's going on.

I will agree with my colleagues who state they don't want a case about the use of the word "fuck" or the similar. What would need to be established is that there is a pattern of behavioral issues that make it hard or difficult for the community to continue on a day to day basis. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Post edit 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Conduct at Reference Desks

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFram&type=revision&diff=807907742&oldid=807049782

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStuRat&type=revision&diff=807908029&oldid=807834499

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMedeis&type=revision&diff=807908198&oldid=807752541

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuy_Macon&type=revision&diff=807908423&oldid=807580646

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeyond_My_Ken&type=revision&diff=807975790&oldid=807972572

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=807759840

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=807878925

Statement by Robert McClenon

I request the Arbitration Committee to open a case concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. I propose that this case may take either of two forms. First, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on the Reference Desks, permitting administrators to take quick action against disruptive editors. Second, the Arbitration Committee may conduct a full inquiry to identify editors who have been persistently disruptive at the Reference Desks and impose appropriate sanctions.

I am not primarily seeking to show conduct violations by any particular user, and so will not be providing a long list of diffs. The Reference Desks have been troubled for a very long time. On 30 October 2017, as shown below, WP:ANI is mostly about the Reference Desks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=807878925 See in particular this open dispute on whether to topic-ban User:StuRat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=807878925#StuRat.27s_behaviour_on_the_Reference_Desks_.28again.29 and this closed dispute between User:Guy Macon and User:Medeis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=807878925#Medeis_.2F_.CE.BC.CE.B7.CE.B4.CE.B5.CE.AF.CF.82_violating_WP:TPOC_again

Also see this thread at the Village Pump concerning a proposal by User:Fram to close the Reference Desks. This proposal will probably be closed with a consensus against closing the Reference Desks, but illustrates the intensity of the hostility at the Reference Desks. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=807759840

There have been suggestions that the Reference Desks need to be “reformed”, either by moderation (which is not consistent with standard practice in the English Wikipedia), or with something unspecified, or with ArbCom discretionary sanctions.

If the ArbCom does not want to open a full evidentiary case, I ask that the ArbCom at least impose discretionary sanctions by motion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:ApLundell - Perhaps I should not have named specific users, but, as you noted, the format of a request involves naming parties. If the ArbCom takes the first approach, simply putting ArbCom discretionary sanctions into effect, it doesn't need to consider individual users, and can let Arbitration Enforcement work out the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

This seems premature. The RfC about the refdesks is ongoing, and while it may have no consensus for the original proposal, it is quite obvious that the refdesks currently face some serious issues and that a change is needed; if things don't change and we are again at the same situation in a year or so, it may be time to escalate this here, but not yet. The discussion about StuRat will probably yield some results (sanctions or voluntary changes), the discussion about Medeis will end in no consensus or consensus not to apply any sanctions. The only problem is perhaps the current series of proposals, AN and ANI sections, ... by Guy Macon which way too often are ill-thought out and have to be withdrawn or closed as having no consensus at the best. But these aren't restricted to situations at the refdesk, so don't fall fairly within the scope of this arbcom request. And, more importantly, no reall attempt to address this directly with Guy Macon (I think) or at a general level (AN or ANI) has been done yet, so this specific problem isn't ripe for ArbCom yet. Fram (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by StuRat

This seems like quite the overreaction. They've already taken this way too far, in a (failed) proposal to shut down the Ref Desk, and now they want to escalate it even further. Everyone needs to just relax. The Ref Desk does a lot of good, and if there are occasional problems there, the same is true everywhere else. We don't need to escalate this any further.

Statement by Medeis

There is no "dispute" between me and Guy Macon, and McClenon has provided no evidence of my fighting with or attacking this editor whatsoever. There are several ANI threads started by Guy Macon against me which have been closed, and then the last snow-closed. I have not filed counter complaints, or conducted a vendetta against him. I have not edit warred with him or interacted with him in any way except very minimally as necessary to counter the charges he has brought.

I find the vague allusion to "provokable" editors without diffs (i.e., there's a crime 'somewhere', you go find the evidence) baseless and defamatory whomever it is aimed at, including if the target is Guy Macon, and a reason to close this matter as unfounded. I find this request for arbitration tendentious, I resent its ambulance chasing nature, and I am not a party to it. I can file my own reports if I need to; I do not need to and have not filed any report. If I have been mentioned to elicit testimony against other editors I flatly refuse to participate in such a witch hunt.

I will not be watching this page. I do not wish to be hounded any further. I will not respond to the comments of any party or the petitioner. If a member of the arbcom needs my input they can contact me on my talk page, otherwise, please count me out. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon pointed out on my talk page that "provokable" was from another thread, I have stricken it, but the same point still holds.

While looking at my talk page, I found this from Aug 16, which I had forgotten; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Medeis#August_2016. Guy Macon accuses me of wrongdoing at the ref desk, then admits he posted a problematic question in order to garner "exactly the reaction I was hoping for". After I delete the trolling, Guy Macon puts a warning on my talk page. User:Newyorkbrad says "I construe Guy Macon's conduct as disruptive point-making". User:Jayron32 says "Trolling is trolling whether or not it is done by a noob, a blocked user, or a long-time regular" and "Medeis did nothing wrong except to take out the trash, and got "warned" and "threatened" with an ANI thread for it. Unacceptable."

Then of course there's this thread, linked to above which User:Beyond My Ken calls Just part of Guy Macon's ongoing crusade.

Then there's this "straw poll" to ban me, by Guy Macon from two weeks ago.

There's more, but it's bedtime, I will revisit this tomorrow. In any case, it should again be clear that there's no "dispute" on my part. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

I would encourage Arbcom to take this case. In the following discussions, a large number of experienced editors have expressed the opinion that the reference desks have a problem, but there is little agreement about what the problem is and about what the solution should be.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Downgrade Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 129#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis / μηδείς violating WP:TPOC again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283#Proposed sanctions against StuRat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

The disagreements between Medeis and Guy Macon are just that, and not rising to the level of disruption, although per my comments there I do wish Guy would discuss things elsewhere rather than keep bringing it to ANI. The other issue regarding StuRat is being handled perfectly well at present (permalink), and is a rare example of an ANI discussion actually working well, in that multiple people have given their views on what the perceived issue is (or that there isn't an issue) and now it's become obvious that there's a general consensus that there's a problem proposals are now being discussed as to how to address them without resorting to sanctions. Despite all the current threads, the toxic atmosphere at the Reference Desk isn't a natural state but the result of a few people being over-exuberant and a general unwillingness to follow the existing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, and now it's been made obvious that many people consider what's currently going on there inappropriate its regulars will hopefully cut down the chatter and bickering of their own accord. While this may end up at Arbcom at some point, that time shouldn't be now; please decline, or at least defer for a couple of months (it can be a lovely welcome gift for the incoming committee), to see if community discussion and if necessary community sanctions can work. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm probably vaguely involved by Arbcom's definition as I've commented fairly extensively in the assorted threads and wrote some potential draft wordings for a potential community sanction, although I have no involvement in any of the reference desks or anything to do with their administration. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

The community is still in the process of trying to deal with it and is making some surprisingly positive progress, so I really don't think it's within ArbCom's remit yet. I recommend declining the request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Statement by EEng

Goddam it, can people stop running to Arbcom at the drop of a hat? Let the ANI thread on StuRat run its course. Hopefully that will be the thin edge of the RefDesk wedge. Arbcom has enough to do, and this is premature. EEng 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by APLundell

While I admit I'm curious what the ArbCom thinks about the state of the RefDeks, I don't understand this request for arbitration. Why are specific editors called out? That doesn't seem to have been made clear. Is it simply because ArbCom protocols require a dispute between users, and that a dispute against the reference desks themselves are outside of ArbCom's purview?

I agree that there are issues that are not going to sort themselves out. In fact I believe that over time the RefDesks are getting less useful while getting more disruptive. (As much because of changes in the Internet landscape as changes on wiki.)

However I don't at all support framing that issue as a problem with certain specific users. ApLundell (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tigraan

I may be considered involved in this since (1) I have become a RefDesk regular, though with comparatively short tenure and (2) I have taken part to a couple (two, I think, but did not check) of the threads that Guy Macon linked to.

In the event this case gets accepted, scope is crucial. There are clearly two things going on on the RefDesk: a few problematic editors, who may or may not deserve sanctions, and a general atmosphere where the rules (WP:RDG) are, to say the least, enforced with little zeal, not to mention that maybe some additional rules are needed (but is it ArbCom's role to make them up?).

The individual problems are (as far as I can see from the threads provided) either stale or under active discussion at ANI, hence not really ArbCom material. The general atmosphere may warrant a structured discussion, but:

1. Discussing in a structured forum is nice, but at the end some decision must be made. All decisions with real impact I can imagine are outside the realm of possibilities (nuking the RefDesks is politically impossible after the matter was put to a VPP thread, individual sanctions are (I guess?) not going to happen with a restricted scope, and ArbCom cannot force unwilling admins to monitor the RefDesks). I would say the case should only be accepted if there is an imaginable set of evidence leading to a plausible decision with nonzero impact, otherwise it is just a loss of time.
2. Per Iridescent's "it is urgent to wait" statement, there is hope that recent developments will kick in and force self-regulation. (Whether that hope materializes or not will probably be seen within the next month, so I do not think the can must be kicked very far down the road.)

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

Admin User:Graeme Bartlett needs to be added to this case as a responding party. He is abusively reversing closes of off topic threads without proper justification. [[[13]. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

No clear indication has been provided by the filer that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. Perhaps the filer does not know how to properly link threads, and/or perhaps they do not understand that "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" means that multiple other steps in dispute resolution should have been tried, completed, and then given time to assess their efficacy. Either way, since the most basic criterion for ArbCom acceptance has not been demonstrated to have been met, I urge the committee to decline this case. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Inspired by Mr rnddude's post at WP:AN dated 00:12, 31 October 2017, here are some of the threads that have been deleted from the refdesks in recent weeks.

• Which billionaires are involved in Congo mining?
• Why do schoolgirls wear short skirts in spite of their sex appeal?
• Money Making Ideas Online from Home?
• Predictions about nuclear war in 2019
• How much cleaning would make it safe to lick a rock dipped in diarrhea?
• How long could a person survive if they ate nothing but salmon?
• How could you safely burn your fluff (fart) with a blowtorch?

My prediction is that Arbcom will decline this case, but I thought people might like to see how easy it is to troll the refdesk regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

I am not a ref desk regular, indeed, until the RfC was begun here I had never been there until I did some research for my vote/comments at the RfC. There has been an unexpected build up of discussion on my talk page in these threads: [14], [15], and [16]. My opinions on the future of the Ref Desk are irrelevant to this Arbcom case but the discussions may add some additional background which the Committee may wish to review. That said, I believe these issues are currently being adequately discussed in their respective venues for the time being, and that an Arbcom case would be premature. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Graeme Bartlett

Responding to user:Legacypac. My reverts of closures do not directly relate to this case, but since I am invited to comment I will add some text here. A number of questions and answers were closed with archive top by user:Legacypac in which several opinions about the questions were included as closing rationales. This is not the normal way to stop discussions on reference desks. Instead the standard procedure is to totally redact inappropriate questions (trolls, adverts, attacks), or to put in a text statement responding to the question to say it should not be answered or why not. Hatting has proved controversial in the past. Some of the closed off questions were in fact quite answerable, and the given reasons for closure were not consensus reasons to stop a line of questions and answers on the reference desks. My actions I considered were the R part of WP:BRD. Legacypac took a bold step of closing some question. I reverted the closure. And then started a discussion on the talk page for the reference desk WT:RD, the standard place to discuss controversies. I am not trying to abuse Legacypac. Legacypac may have an opinion on use of reference desks, but it is not the only authority which is determined by consensus discussion. I do not think that this needs to be handled by arbcom yet. There are perfectly good discussions going on about how to control the problems. There are some people that have reacted strongly, but nothing that is abnormal enough or uncontrollable enough to need Arbcom intervention. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I would respectfully advise the Committee to decline this case request at this time. There is no specific misconduct or specific individuals engaged in misconduct that have been suggested in the complaint. Rather, the complaint appears to claim that there is some misconduct by malfeasant editors that is the cause behind the well-known toxicity of the reference desks. While it is not necessary to fully plead and prove a case at the request stage, the complaint must go beyond alleging generalized and nonspecific grievances and asking the Committee to investigate further, or to authorize further investigation. Whether we consider arbitration adversarial or inquisitorial, it is still an adjudicative process, and is not itself an investigator of facts. I would further argue that until the pending threads regarding the future of the RD and some RD participants are decided, it would be inappropriate for arbitration to commence because there is no indication that those lesser processes have, in fact, failed.

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).

Conduct at Reference Desks: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Leaning decline unless someone can show me some specific conduct by an editor or editors that is stymieing the ongoing conversation. For something as substantial as the reference desk, there will need to be some detailed (and structured) discussion to gain consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Decline, per Iridescent. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)