Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Kostas20142 (Talk) & GoldenRing (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk)

Case scope

Case scope:
The case will examine the user conduct of Joefromrandb and other editors who may have been goading him.

Notes:
On opening, who those other editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review.

Evidence presented by MrX

Edit warring

Joefromrandb has a history of edit warring, undeterred by multiple warnings and five blocks for edit warring.

Edit warring examples from the past year

Date(s)	Page	Diffs	Comments
January 13, 2018	Bernie Leadon	[1][2][3][4]	Reported to AN/EW. Self-reverted with an edit summary "A user I respect has disagreed with my edit (see how fucking easy that is?"
December 1, 2017	Australian rules football	[5][6][7][8]	Reported to AN/EW. Both editors warned.
October 6, 2017	Mum (disambiguation)	[9][10][11][12][13][14]	Reported to AN/EW
August 21, 2017	Kim Davis	[15][16][17][18]	Reported to AN/EW. Joefromrandb blocked.
August 3, 2017	Kim Davis	[19][20][21] [22]
July 28, 2017 to August 1, 2018	Kim Davis	[23][24][25][26]
July 17, 2017	Roger Waters	[27][28][29][30]	Reported to AN/EW. Page protected.
June 13, 2017	Efforts to impeach Barack Obama	[31][32][33]	Reported to AN/EW Admin MSGJ commented: "Neither user has breached 3RR particularly since one of those reverts was immediately self-reverted. However I agree with Drmies that Joefromrandb is on extremely thin ice, and it was spectacularly bad judgement to return to edit warring on that article straight after the previous block expired."
February 19, 2017	Robert Sungenis	[34][35][36][37][38]	Reported to AN/EW Joefromrandb blocked

Treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND

Too many of Joefromrandb's interactions are brutish and hostile, and clear violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. He frequently attacks, berates, derides, mocks, insults, ignores, and taunts editors during content disputes. These interactions, especially when combined with edit warring, appear to be designed to win by force and humiliation, rather than reason. Admins are hesitant to block such behavior, knowing that such blocks frequently boomerang back on the blocking admin[39] because of a vocal faction of Wikipedia editors who advocate for greater latitude when it comes to civility enforcement.

Refusal to assume good faith

[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]

Mocking sarcasm

[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Accusation of trolling

[55][56][57]

Accusations of lying (without evidence)

[58][59][60][61][62][63][64]

Taunting

[65][66][67]

Hostility

[68][69][70][71][72]

Hostile edit summaries

• Refers to other's edits or comments as "bullshit":[73]
• Refers to good faith editors as "trolls": [74]
• Tells editors to "fuck off": [75]
• General hostility: [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]

Personal attacks

Date	Personal attacks from the past year	Reply to...
February 2, 2018	"I have no interest in participating in one of Arbcom's famed show trials at all, let alone one opened upon the testimony of an unrepentant recidivist BLP violator. If Arbcom wants to railroad me the hell off of this website, they're going to have to do it without my help."[84] (Repeated on February 7, 2018.[85])	Gerda Arendt [86]
January 31, 2018	"There's nothing at all "conservative" about linking idiot-terms like Pink fucking Floyd and Jethro fucking Tull; it's an insult to our readers' intelligence and 100% inappropriate, per astonishingly clear, (seemingly) idiot-resistant instructions at the MoS page. Given your history, however, of ignoring policy (and tag-teaming), I guess I shouldn't be surprised."[87]	EEng [88]
January 18, 2018	"You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good". That's demonstrable fucking fact, a testable claim, there in the article's history for all to see. Please do ignore me; I'd love to be able to fix this article in peace."[89] (Reinserted after I redacted it.[90])	Prhartcom [91]
January 18, 2018	"It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations."[92]	MrX [93]
November 11, 2017	"Spare me your patronizing bullshit. It was far from the first lie that I've had to remove from this "good" article."[94] (Reinserted after I redacted it.[95])	Prhartcom [96]
April 16, 2017	"If you think a "distinguish" hat-note is a "confusing disclaimer", I'm afraid you lack the competence required to participate here."[97]	Weams [98] (This editor who had contributed since 2006, only made two more edits after this.)
March 28, 2017	"Well I hope you go fuck yourself."[99]	Philafrenzy[100]

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon

Request for Comment on a User

The Request for Comment on a User is a procedure that is no longer used. However, in August 2013, a Request for Comment on a User was used to conduct a community inquiry into the long-term behavior of User:Joefromrandb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb

It was agreed that Joe is a difficult editor who is frequently provoked. It was agreed that other editors who provoke Joe should stop provoking him. It was agreed that Joe should try to be more civil and to treat other editors with respect. Unfortunately, it appears that there has not really been any progress in four-and-one-half years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Prhartcom

Bullying and incivility

It is an honor to present evidence before the committee. Joefromrandb began to make his first of many little tweaks to the Kim Davis article on July 28, 2017.[101] At the time, I objected to his small changes and took it to the talk page here and here: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Not improvements and Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Improvements. During those discussions, I realized I was wrong about some of my objections and said so, and I told Joe that I recognized he was only trying to help, although doing so very abusively. Joe appeared to be honored by my respect I paid to him and replied to me here. User talk:Prhartcom#Davis.

But it was to no avail. Joe continued bullying editors in his edit summaries on the Kim Davis article, while making his tweaks and reverting their edits. His edit summaries had the unmistakable tone of a person who considers themselves far superior to everyone else; that no one deserves his respect. (Simply scan the history page of that article at that time period to read his edit summaries and confirm this.) Joe makes it very unpleasant to work on Wikipedia.

On November 10, 2017, I finally decided to stand up to his constant reverting of others and began reverted his tweaks. He was very surprised that anyone would stand up to him. I challenged him to do some work around here: Stop with the reverting and actually rewrite the sentences he objected to: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 7#Write, don't just revert. He refused.[102] This was when I knew: He is not capable of editing. (Redacted). —Prhartcom♥ 06:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

In 2017, Joefromrandb repeatedly made attacks against me in completely unrelated ANI threads: July 2017, April 2017.

It is clear that Joefromrandb was still unhappy about a block I made in June 2012: [103] (Whether that was a good block to make or not I do not want to get into, mainly for the fact that it was over five years ago.)

I found these incidents very unpleasant (especially given the high-traffic nature of AN/ANI), and was personally reluctant to participate in AN/ANI discussions for several months after that. I debated for a while whether I wanted to post evidence in this case, but I believe that we need to stand against any form of harassment on Wikimedia projects. --Rschen7754 08:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.