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

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

Archive. Please do not edit

Extending the date for evidence I put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have gathered the answer to this query by the actions of recent edits. I do believe an extension would have been a fair and proper way to handle the late submissions but accept the decision to allow some and not others. In fact it makes sense. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] An observation per IAR Yes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] 30 Jan tick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Target deadline... this is a controversial topic... I'm certain something will be coming within the next few days...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer. I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's a fair analogy, but who is in Kirk's role here? My76Strat (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Everyone's ... a Captain Kirk, with orders to clarify, to classify, to pacify."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I call it dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] WP:BUTT. Jehochman Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] A potentially interesting analogy that somewhat misses the point. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it absolutely right. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework right than I do for handing it in on time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of x days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Jclemens, speaking as someone who tried about a dozen of them, nothing is worse than the feeling when the jury's out. Even a note from them is a relief. You just don't know, and there is nothing you can do about it and you don't know how long it is going to continue for. It is no great trial for us as spectators; I feel for those with a more personal interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Updates would certainly seem appropriate here, even if it's just something like "discussion is ongoing."Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Arbcom incivility It does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil. Arbcom did not have to accept the case -- it's actually a pretty crappy test case due to the particular fact pattern. But they did. It's been 40 days. [2] Arbcom itself set the 29 January decision date. To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Good grief. ArbCom decisions are never posted on time. Here's the update: they are working on it, nd a decision will be posted when it is ready. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Facepalm If we are going to call not meeting a deadline incivility or as Malleus did above "dishonesty" theh Malleus has no hope of avoiding the eternal flames of hell. This is not incivility or a lie... I know everybody is interested in what they have to say on this case, but they continue to be volunteers and real life does get in the way. Yes, this is an impossible situation that needs Capt Kirk to resolve, but let's hold off on the vindictives---unless you are intentionally trying to piss the Arbitrators off to get them to vote vindictively.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I once waited 3 hours for the Stones to show up. When they did, the wait was worthwhile.```Buster Seven Talk 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Its just a proposed decision...the final decision will take another month.MONGO 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] From the department of offering an opinion unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts... (in that I have no knowledge of what the Committee is discussing): I can certainly understand that parties in the case would wish that this was over already, but I have a feeling that what may be the most difficult part of the case may be how to deal with aspects of administrator activities, such as the second mover issue, rather than with civility or those editors accused of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think it must be a hell of a job to deal with. A bit like trying to re-build Spaghetti Junction while there's still traffic on it ... I know it's hard waiting, Malleus and others, but fretting about it doesn't make it any easier, or make their job and simpler to do, or, really, change anything apart from making you feel .. well ... fretty. They're only human, and the complexity of these issues is very much out of the normal Arb comfort zone. Or anyone's, probably. Have another beer while you wait. And a mandatory hug (>**)>. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is nothing. Windows Vista took 5 years, Duke Nukem Forever took 13 and Chinese Democracy 15, and all three sucked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh FGS they are all falling out and squabling with each other over this. The intelligent one told them not to accpept the case, the new percentage wanted to show balls of steel and comprehension and the other half are away with the fairies. There will be no sound result in the near future - if ever. We must resign ourselves for a very long wait - and the ultmate result being dispointment for all. Anyone with a gram of intelligence knows that. Giacomo Returned 21:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Funny thing about disappointment, I suspect that some will be disappointed (not surprised, disappointed) if there is an intelligent result. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Party A's "intelligent result" is party B's "lynch mob"; party B's "intelligent result" is party A's "endorsing grossly unacceptable conduct". Since there's never been an RFC to determine what "the community" actually want here, the only intelligent solution would b for Arbcom to have refused to accept this case, and for individual Arbitrators to refuse to take part once it was accepted. Since that didn't happen, someone is going to be shocked and upset by whatever the committee come up with. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well stated. While I disagree on the RFC part, which would have been lost in shouting, I think you've stated the rest of it quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] (re Wehwalt) Sure, an RFC would have been a screaming match, but it would have got the issues out in the open. Half the problem with this case is that everyone has a different idea of what "the issues" are - things that some people see as key points, other people see as irrelevant and genuinely don't understand why people are getting upset. (That cuts both ways; there are people, particularly in Australia and the north of England, who genuinely can't understand why other people see language which to them is part of everyday speech as offensive. There are also people, particularly among the long-standing admins from the vandal-fighting tendency who are used to dealing out blocks, who genuinely don't understand why blocks, template warnings and so on can look like outright aggression to others.) I dare say you remember the problems around Mattisse, which to a large degree were a case of two blocks of users who weren't explicitly trying to upset each other, but who sincerely didn't understand why their actions were aggravating each other. (That's not to endorse what Mattisse became, but her becoming such a problem editor might well have been avoided if early on, someone had presented a list of what was and was not acceptable, as a take-it-or-leave-it offer with no room for argument.) Wikipedia desperately needs a group, separate from Arbcom, with a mandate to draw up binding policies when requested in situations like this - imagine the unlamented WP:ACPD without the "self-appointed provision government" thing. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] What about party C? Or am I in a party of just one? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I like the look of party C. Especially as this party could be a long one: 40 days from incident to result would be remarkably fast for Arbcom; from case opening to case closure, a month or two is quite common in my experience. Pass the wine and chicken drumsticks please, Pesky. Geometry guy 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] An observation: If the party of the first part would only agree with the party of the second part there would be no party of the third part and the parties of the first and second parts could all have a party [Paraphrasing Pratchett (2007) Making Money p. 9] --Senra (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any idea if we can start seeing what way the committee is going to take with this? Perhaps the committee doesn't have enough evidence or proposals to formulate the decision from. If only there were a place where members of the community could provide focused evidence and proposals to get this jalopy out of neutral and moving forward. *cough* Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] On a matter of practicality, ArbCom could have reasonably anticipated that failing to meet their deadline would not be met positively. They could have simply posted an updated estimate. Most people are patient. It's the lack of knowing what's going on that's the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree with this, and would not be surprised if Arbcom members were trying to agree upon such a post as we write. Geometry guy 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It is the image of them "trying to agree" on this that troubles me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Being troubled by such things is the recipe for premature heart disorder. I read the leaks of last summer, and no doubt you did too. There were revelations that were potentially more troubling to me than the idea that Arbcom members frequently find it difficult to agree on a course of action. Am I troubled? Not really: I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and if one aspect becomes stressful, there are plenty of others worth engaging with. Geometry guy 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] There's no fire, so take your time Arbcom. Better to have it right, then have it fast. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Take a gander at WP:WQA, WP:AN, WP:ANI or many other venues. The fire's been smoldering a long time. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It should be apparent that a editor with my username is eponymously patient; it should also be eponymously apparent that it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. What is important is that if ArbCom routinely fails to update the targets they provide the community, then they are routinely rude. The first rule of leadership is example. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just to put this missed deadline in perspective, I remember a case that ran on for four-plus months. We are nowhere near that point yet.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Motion to dismiss Extended content I think the prudent thing would actually be to dismiss the case. It was poorly prosecuted, and no party has emerged in clear need of sanction. As an asset, ArbCom can better serve Wikipedia without the burden of creating a solution for this case. The most justifiable sanction for any party is an admonition and to that effect, all parties have been admonished extensively by the community. An ArbCom admonition serves no practical benefit beyond aesthetics when remediation has already been achieved. I ask all who participated in this case to consider endorsing this summary. My76Strat (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] per propsed motion to close --Senra (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Uh, I think not. The case has gone this far and will conclude, and the fact it is 'running' over is not uncommon, as many ArbCom cases do the same. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Amnesty for all involved; I'm in agreement with My76Strat on that one – they've all suffered more than enough here. And a mandate to re-write the civility policy really clearly and on a principle-centred basis, with is being equally enforcible for everyone. Oh, and community sanction stuff at RfA and RfA talk; same standards, same sanctions, for any and every offender. That would do it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have no great problem with an amnesty; the important thing is what happens going forward. The thing is, ArbCom is no doubt struggling with a way to reduce the second move advantage without being allowed to rewrite the policy handbook. They can accomplish much if they make admins nervous about unblocks without consensus or discussion. That's the simplest way I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes; the simplest way to deal with that issue is to separate it from the immediate case. Implement what I;ve suggested above (simple, fair and effective), and once having got the poor sods out of suspense and misery, then address the first-mover / second-mover / infinite mover (?) advantage / disadvantage. But if the rules are clear, and equally applied, then that in itself would get rid of most of the block-> unblock -> block again warring. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Pesky, you might as well believe that the flying spagetti monster will buy you pizza tonight. I tried once to clarify what the self-contradictory WP:PA page says, which should be narrower/easier topic than civility in general. There is no consensus however what even that means. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11. And according to some, there is no consensus that there is no consensus. Most uncivil editors are much more astute than throwing four-letter words at their targets anyway. Guilt by comparison with an action of >insert villains/deficients here< is a favorite technique in some circles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Concur, terms like "disruption" and "battlefield mentality" can be tossed around and used by some with as much pretense at fairness as in civility cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I didn't participate in this case, but I strongly agree with the comments made by My76Strat, Pesky and Wehwalt. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I too would advocate that the case be dismissed, but I can tell you for certain that it won't be. There's an expression involving a flock of stupid sheep and a precipice - I forget the wording, but this is it. There will be no dismissal; we shall have to endure this right to the bitter end - regardless of sense. Giacomo Returned 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Meanwhile in my universe, Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima, and it's hard to take Wikijustice too seriously when so many are willing to unblock Malleus or make unsupportable excuses for him. Art LaPella (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] How very lonely you must find your universe. Thank heavens the rest of us are not sharing it. Giacomo Returned 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh forgive me, I have just seen "I live near Seattle, U.S." Enough said. Giacomo Returned 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima---So Art, are you proposing that we unblock Ottava?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, and I don't think my complete sentence could be interpreted that way. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Art, I can kinda understand where you're coming from, but it would be a good mental exercise for you to imagine yourself as being "the investigated party" here, and think what effect this kind of emotional trauma would be having on you. Until / unless you;ve actually been in this kind of situation, it's very, very hard to try and work out how you would be reacting to it yourself. A certain amount of empathy is really needed here. Imagine, for example, that you'd been accused of a serious crime in real life, and had been given bail "until asked to return to the police station". During all that time, you would be on edge, hyper-vigilant, sleepless, lost appetite, irritable, miserable and frustrated. It's the being in limbo thing which is hardest to bear. Adding: I'm trying to think of a good real-life comparison here, which is tricky. Umm, imagine that you'd got a home video of your toddlers playing on a nudist beach, and loads of other beach-goers also had similar vids or photos of their own. Imagine that some of those other pics were on display in an art exhibition in your local town, there had been a bit of hoo-ha, and it had been decided that there was "no case to answer" in respect of those pics. And imagine that you, yourself, were still on bail, awaiting the decision whether you were going to be charged with something in respect of your own pics, while knowing that more graphic pics had been passed as OK. It's a similar scenario. And imagine, too, that you knew darned well that the reason your case hadn't been classified as "no case to answer" was because someone on the prosecuting team wanted to "make an example of you". Does that scenario change your views on this? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Empathizing with another person's position is a good exercise in moral reasoning. So is being honest with oneself. Do you really think all of Malleus's outbursts were reactions to persecution? Often they occur the first time someone disagrees with him; do you need more examples? Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any evidence for that Art? Or are you simply operating on the basis that if you throw enough shit some of it is bound to stick? You had the opportunity to say your piece during the evidence collection phase, time for you to put your open hostility behind you now; it's unseemly coming from an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] In addition to my talk page's Modest Genius example, the evidence page shows Kaldari summarizing thusly: "Note that some of these attacks are replies to polite inquiries or requests rather than escalating arguments." Sorry about my open hostility; next time I'll include some f words to make it OK. Art LaPella (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Genteel editors, please focus on the intent of this thread. Other discussions are more proper under their own heading in an effort to keep this thread germane to the topic. I appreciate your understanding. My76Strat (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I do tend to forget the germane-ness issue. I haven't said much about specific sanctions because my main point is that people like Malleus should shape up or ship out; it isn't about how many chances they should get. But I don't think dismissing the case would achieve that result. Malleus has often been warned, so I don't think stopping here would change anything. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Art, Rather than admitting forgetfulness, your admitting obsessiveness and nastiness would be the first step on changing your behavior. Shape up or ship out, indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is the comment to which Art took such exception after I called him on it on his talk page. Clearly he's labouring under the impression that he gets to make up the civility rules as he goes, a not untypical trait for an administrator. And I very much doubt that any neutral observer could believe for one second that Kaldari is an unbiased commentator. But once again, he's an administrator, so he can claim pretty much whatever he likes. The unpalatable truth for those like Art, who seems to actually add very little if any content indeed, is that Wikipedia would be infinitely better off with 100 more like me and 100 fewer like them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not germane at all, but since you keep bringing it up: I think readers benefit more from Main Page edits they might actually see than from Featured Article grammatical obscurities that please editors. Art LaPella (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] First of all I have not kept bring up anything at all about your self-confessed gnomish pattern of editing, which I happen to think is valuable work. Secondly, I have fixed incalculably more problems with FAs, GAs, and even DYKs than you've had hot dinners, but mostly at FAC or GAN rather than once they've hit the main page. All I'm asking you to do is put away your axe, at least until this charade is over. You don't like me, I don't like you, but there's no rule that says we all have to love each other ... yet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK. Art LaPella (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] This discussion thread is utter nonsense. I'm reminded of children saying "are we there yet?". So, it takes longer than some people's limited attention span to post a decision, and therefore we're going to hold our breath until either we turn blue or the case is thrown out. Utterly laughable. (Incivil enough for you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] On second thought, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings with that. But, really, this proposal to dismiss makes me feel like my head is going to explode. If it wasn't dismissed during the evidence and workshop stages, it makes zero sense to dismiss it now, just because some people think it's taking too long to post a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The issue isn't that it's taking too long, but that a commitment was made, not kept to, and there's been no explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I think you are right about that, but the solution to the problem would be either an explanation or a proposed decision, not a dismissal or a change in the decision based only on the fact that there was a delay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tryptofish I often find wisdom in your prose and mostly agree with your counsel. I agree with what you say here except it doesn't describe my motives. I suggested this for consideration not because of any delay, but because I believe it would be an amicable resolution. Otherwise I feel this case is left entirely to ArbCom to create a solution because we didn't reach much agreement at the workshop. My76Strat (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] (Blush) Thanks! Well, there isn't any expectation that the community come to a consensus at the workshop, because it's ArbCom's remit to arbitrate a solution when the community is unable to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] What I find interesting is that Malleus has shown great magnanimity throughout this grotesque charade, which can't be said of everyone on these pages.J3Mrs (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Indeed he has, which leaves one wondering why such dull, mundane and tedious little people bought and accepted the case in the first place, doesn't it? Giacomo Returned 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you mean magnanimity since yesterday. Art LaPella (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Your behaviour continues to be well beyond the pale Art, especially for an administrator; it's about time you woke up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is a classic example of the 'upbraiding administrators' behaviour that I commented on earlier in the case. I'm referring specifically to the 'especially for an administrator' bit and the 'unseemly' bit in the edit summary. Malleus is not the only editor to hold administrators to a higher standard of conduct (and that principle is enshrined in various places around here), but I've manage to pin down what makes me uneasy about this. To put not too fine a point on it, those holding others to a higher standard of conduct should hold themselves to that same standard of conduct (note: not everyone, just those holding others to those higher standards, self-appointed or otherwise). So my question to Malleus is simple: do you hold yourself to the same standard that you hold administrators to? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's actually a classic example your misunderstanding, but not just yours to be fair. The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. I would on the other hand be quite happy to be held to same standard that administrators ought to be held to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] (ec) Sorry to intrude, but isn't he just expecting everyone to engage in civil discourse, especially admins since they're expected to recognise it and encourage it? I haven't read this case but I've watched this farce unfold over the last couple of years and the "problem" is, Malleus recognises polite cruelty and bullying, and doesn't tolerate it, while others stand around saying, "But they didn't say 'fuck', Malleus; you said 'fuck', tsk, tsk." How have we come to this place, where most of the civility police are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between polite cruelty and genuine civility, and between bullying and frankness? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] There is a fine line between frankness and being brusque. I do think that there is such a thing as being too frank and forthright when that can cause more problems than it solves. I also think that telling someone who in good-faith is trying to be diplomatic and restrained, that they should be frank and say "what they are really thinking", is something that isn't always a good idea. The converse holds as well, for those who would say to those being frank and forthright that they should be polite and proper. In practice, though, most people try and steer a course between the two extremes, or take an approach suitable to the context. Some situations require frankness, some don't. Some situations require restraint, some don't I would hope everyone could agree on those points at least. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I definitely agree with the two points outlined. The larger problem which has emerged is "who decides". My76Strat (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] That is beautifully put, Carcharoth. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Whatever, I suspect that this delay is a planned example of the new arbcom trying to flex its pale, limp muscles and say: "we are in charge and make our decisions in our time not that of some lowly non admin editor." From what I have seen of them so far, there's more life, fun and sparkling dialogue to be had in a mortuary. Giacomo Returned 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would "boring" not be a positive trait? As far as I can see, a lot of the problems with the previous Arbcoms have been that the members have altogether too much character. 78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] One can forgive people for being unavoidably dead (so long as they go quietly), but to be dull shows a lack of respect and thought for others. Giacomo Returned 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] There we have it: civility is optional, but dullness is unforgivable. And going quietly (from this talk page, perhaps?) is not a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Guys, this was an incredibly long case in terms of evidence and workshop material to sort through. We are working on it, though I think the 29 Jan target was overly optimistic when set. I think we can get a PD posted over the weekend, and have updated the page to reflect that. Courcelles 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oh deep joy! There's a murmering from the vault, shall we all hold our breath as well? Personally, I think we shoul just take over the decision page, that would be far more fun and doubtless elicit some better responses from the living dead. Giacomo Returned 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Like "bans all 'round"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) GiacomoReturned I resent that you saw fit to disrupt this discussion. Your actions are serving to stifle the very discussion I had hoped to see, and you are flouting policy to serve that end. I'll thank you kindly to show some respect in this thread, or start your own level 2 header and rant till you are fully content. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the update. Nobody Ent 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, thank you ' celles :o) It was always going to be a real pickle to sort through, and I'm sure you've hit the nail on the head with the "overly optimistic" thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Are we there yet?"...```Buster Seven Talk 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] We will get there when we GET there! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] On a case like this, I'd like them to deliberate for as long as they need. I voted for all but two of this committee because I respect them. I heed their advice, as many editors do. This is about more than Malleus' future here, it's an opportunity for the committee to offer meaningful guidance to the community concerning how we treat one another. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] My future here is not for ArbCom to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Your future here is as much in their hands as it is in yours. I hope you decide to stay, and they recognise your worth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "To be honest my dear, I don't give a damn". I wouldn't even have taken part in the ArbCom charade if SandyG hadn't persuaded me that it might just change things for those who come after me. Fat chance. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] She's right. It might. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's quite easy, just don't use foul langauge in ones posts. I personally don't mind, but if enough editors do mind, then there's a problem for the foul language user. Remember, none of us have rights to be on Wikipedia, just privellages. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Look, I know how edgy everyone is; but gently, guys, gently. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not edgy, but rather calm. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] You're also rather ill-informed; this meme about "foul language" needs to be knocked on the head. In what way is "sycophantic" or "wikilaywer", the use of both of which resulted in blocks, "foul language"? And I already linked above to this exchange, which Art LaPella absurdly characterised as "uncivil". What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "foul language". Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] of course it does Nobody Ent 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, it doesn't. It's an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Have you wronged ArbCom, that they seek revenge on you?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't referring to ArbCom, but to those who chose to present what can only laughingly be called "evidence", which in reality was evidence only for their own malice. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Certainly, you make a fair point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some of the "Laughable evidence" you allude to was appended by users who ardently support your actions. Others perhaps a bit misguided or overly optimistic, and certainly some for malicious spite. The problem is that our disagreement, seeming intractable, falls upon ArbCom to mediate. I had hoped we could reach much more agreement than we were able. My76Strat (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] You and I quite probably could, and I think to some degree at least have probably done so. But this case should not have focused on me, as its very name suggests. That it did reflects the malice involved. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Civlity enforcement" suggests you? Nobody Ent 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's exactly the point, it doesn't. Yet so much of the "evidence" has focused on me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] It focused on the involved parties; I wouldn't expect otherwise. Nobody Ent 18:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] You may continue to misrepresent all you like, but I am not one of the parties with the authority to enforce anything. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Civil participation is a choice, encouraged by pillar, policy, and guideline. In truth, the ultimate authority to moderate one's behavior towards compliance rests with the user themselves. To that end, MF, you have all authority. My76Strat (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Do you know Strat, I don't think in my entire long history of Wikipedia, I have never read such pompous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and irritating drivel as some of the comments on this page. Your and GoodDay's posts being foremost in that category. "Let him who is without sin cast etc etc etc." Obviously, you are better than all of us. Why Malleus and others chose to remain here in such company is a complete mystery to me. Giacomo Returned 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is not the first time I've ever been misunderstood, and likely not the last. I do think you've misunderstood some comment of mine for your conclusion is by far a misnomer of my intent. My76Strat (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Rant-o-matic I can only hope the readers of this letter section are as outraged as I am at ArbCom. By way of introduction, let me just say that ArbCom is devoid of all social conscience. But there is a further-reaching implication: While it's out using "pressure tactics"—that's a euphemism for "torture"—to coerce ordinary people into irrationalizing thinking on every issue, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about ArbCom's attempts to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of antidisestablishmentarianism. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that ArbCom's loyalists remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame inerudite fugitives for the problems besetting society. [3] --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Shrink, you can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant *walks out* Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I just hope they don't reach the same sort of impasse that seems to have happened over at Betacommand 3. — Ched :  ?  23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] File:Angry1.gif A crowd gathers at ArbCom's door to demand a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think we should add one of these to every arbcom case talk page. Y'know, just to get things rolling. --Conti|✉ 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Emoticons?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] D'oh, I've been one-upped by Wehwalt... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm enjoying reading all the pro & con Arbcom posts by editors here. They won't change Arbcom's ruling, but they're entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what Floq is complaining about specifically, but I will say that I don't understand what ArbCom imagines itself to be. They obviously don't arbitrate, despite the name: they refuse to deal with content (defined in a peculiarly broad way), and they don't make any effort to mediate between parties. They won't interpret policy or foundation principles. They won't even make more than token efforts to control the presentation of evidence or discussion, so case pages are effectively useless for anything other than slander and rhetoric. Is ArbCom supposed to be a purely punitive body? Because if so, there's no real need for ArbCom except (maybe) in wheel-warring cases - admins are perfectly capable of imposing any sanction that arbcom might impose, and having this big 'case' process creates a huge mess without providing anything of particular value in terms of justice or breadth of vision. heck, they're headed that way anyways with discretionary sanction, so they might as well hand over the reins completely and restrict themselves to dealing with sysop issues. Not that I'd want that, mind you - the project would become even more of a political nightmare, if only because there'd be none of these case messes slowing down normal summary justice - but if that's what they're going to do they should do it. Don't get me wrong, I no longer have an iron in this fire: the project is apparently not ready to be what I'd like it to be (a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system). All I'm saying is that it should stop pretending that's what it is if it doesn't have the cojones to actually be that. So long as it pretends to be a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system it will attract editors who expect that kind of a system, and all sorts of crap will happen as they each in turn learn the hard way that it isn't. It is just creating endless headaches out of misguided loyalty to ideals it doesn't practice. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ludwigs2, something tells me you didn't follow Floquenbeam's link. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, I didn't (and now that I see that, it's kind of cute); if he's going to be sarcastic he should advertise it more clearly. But I don't really care; I have honest complaints about the system here. If you guys want to joke around about it, that's… part of the problem, actually, but only a small part, so it's fine. But it doesn't make what I said any less right. And since I'm on my way out the door, and pissed off at the stupidity of it, I don't see a lot of reason not to express the point while I still can. You really have no idea what a low assessment I have of the political community on project. "Screwed the pooch" hardly covers it. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why are you bringing up a Family Guy episode? That show is highly uncivil. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I've only seen that show a couple of times - enough to know the characters, and that it's not really my kind of humor. Was that a good episode? --Ludwigs2 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I only watch Futurama. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] That one I like better; at least, it's less based on random absurdity. nothing like the early Simpsons, though… Groening lost inspiration over the years (or else passed the writing task off to people with less talent). --Ludwigs2 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, how about it guys? Accurate? ;) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Wikipedia's administrators has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth."? What kind of grammar is that? Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Arbcom's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Arbcom simply came out and said that it keeps stating over and over again that it's okay if its treatises initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that unlike the usual, self-indulgent, garden-variety simpletons, Arbcom claims to be supportive of my plan to confront and reject all manifestations of vigilantism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll do everything possible to keep sullen dumbbells flighty and power-hungry. Not only that, but there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Arbcom announcing some obstreperous thing every few weeks. Manning (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) (Flo's right, that website is freakin' hilarious.)[reply] PumpkinSky's personal attack at KW's RfC/U Evidence on the case was closed some time ago, please do not add further The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. User:PumpkinSky's has admitted to being a sock puppet of resigned ArbCom member User:Rlevse or another alter-ego, and so Special:Contributions/PumpkinSky is indefinitely blocked.  User:PumpkinSky made the following personal attack at my RfC/U: "Producing good content in NO WAY gives one the right to be an arrogant jackass--this attitude is at the core of many of wiki's problems. PumpkinSky talk 1:56 am, 15 October 2011, Saturday (3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+2)" (emboldening added) In my RfC, I repeatedly requested that administrators, particularly WTT and an ArbCom member Elen of the Roads, stop personal attacks and incivility directed towards me. Their response (most clearly Elen's response) was that I regarded every criticism as a personal attack. Throughout the RfC, they failed to address a single incivility or personal attack directed at me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] In the light of a new day, much similar hilarity is to be found throughout the Wikipedia. Except it's not very funny ... that there was so clearly an agenda there should have been picked up much earlier, but even as some of us were appealing for help, we never got it ... and I mean basically from the admin corp, not the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Elen remains perhaps my favorite Arb, and since I do sometimes behave like an arrogant jackass after which I have to forgive myself, I can do no less than forgive her. The point is that the culture at ANI and RfCs must change from that of a criminal trial to group work led by outstanding facilitators...! Forward looking,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, methinks this entire case resolves to the problem with the culture at ANI, where legitimate grievances are sometimes ignored, messengers are sometimes shot, and enforcement is unequal depending on who you are and who your friends are. Not an arb issue, but I'm still unsure how they can change the culture at ANI or RFA by accepting this case. I know had the Rlevse socking not come to light, we'd still be dealing with the disruption at FAC, and we got no help by bringing it to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nor is it the only case that does so, by far. there was there was the case over discretionary sanctions (where I was blocked merely for reporting a favored editor), the ongoing Muhammad case (which is apparently going to be resolved by reinforcing the right to be mindlessly obnoxious so long as you're on the right side), a new case up for consideration in which admins actively close complaint threads because an editor has been cast as a T.M. supporter. Apparently, wikiculture has come around to the point where 'personal attack' is defined in reference to how much the editor is challenging the status quo. --Ludwigs2 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Malleus, just as an aside, I'm not really in your corner: there's a difference between being assertive and being foul-mouthed that you seem to miss, and that's unfortunate. However, I suspect you're getting administratively tarred and feathered much the way I am, so I have that much sympathy for you. That aside, you're right: civility has somehow stopped being about civility and become a mob tool for silencing people who disagree with the status quo. very sad. --Ludwigs2 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] It never crossed my mind that you might be "in my corner", as I don't consider that I have a corner at all. What I have is a point of view that's misunderstood and misrepresented by certain elements of what's risibly misnamed "the community" here, and too often maliciously. Your implicit suggestion that I am "foul-mouthed" is but one example among many. If you want to introduce censorship of the words that are allowed to be used here then the correct thing to do is to start an RFC, not berate me for conforming to a policy with which you apparently do not agree. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Malleus, I don't believe I've ever called someone a c*nt in my life; you have. Not a huge evil in any realistic regard, but not pleasant behavior. own it to get past it. The real problem that you and I both face is that fact that Wikipedia indulges exaggeration and hysteria: The project coddles pissy little trolls who spend all their time trying to make small errors in judgement look like major flaws in character; it loves editors who rend their clothes and the gnash their teeth in excessive displays of angst (or at least, it gives them everything they want - whether that constitutes 'love' is an open question). I sympathize with your plight, because you are on the wrong of that stick, as am I. Accept that for what it is. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I certainly have called someone a cunt in my life, and no doubt will do so again to anyone who shows themselves to be a cunt. Whether it's "pleasant" or not isn't the issue, as it's not intended to be pleasant. I think of it more like a bit of ECT appropriate to those otherwise unable to escape from the constraints of their stupidity or dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think such ECT discourages them from the thinking it would take to overcome their constraints. If they are stupid, I would explain more slowly and completely, as to a child. If they are dishonest, the same patient explanation technique often works at Wikipedia, where people's vanity often prevents them from appearing to be stupid. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Another example of administrative bullying and double standards with no concern for civility or personal attacks by administrators against plebes at RfCs Bishonen's talk page, where she repeats her accusation that I support the anti-immigrant party, Sweden Democrats. (Compare the civility police coming out in force, with Roux's partisan administrative bullying and georgewilliamherbet waiving his blocking billyclub when the administrator Bishonon was mentioned here.) " Good honest God fearin' folks and their corner for evil toxic critters all the other SD supporters roll in for a group hug, naturally. If you care for further colourful material on that particular complainer versus Bishonen, check out his talkpage — sorry, I mean the History of his talkpage — because only happy things get to stay on the front of the page. Here comes the relevant history—RexxS has taught me a wonderful trick for permanently linking to a particular part of a page history — how's that for useful? Great guy, isn't he?" On the same discussion, Bishonen complains about being labeled as "toxic personality" by Jimbo Wales. Monkey see, monkey do.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] "L'enfer, c'est les Autres". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Update on progress for proposed decision Thank you all for giving us some breathing space to try to get through all of the evidence and the mass of workshop proposals. Courcelles, Hersfold and I have been working hard on a proposed decision that addresses both the specific and broad-based issues, and we plan to have this posted within the week. Please continue to bear with the Committee on this; we will be closing one currently open case over this weekend, are doing our best to sort out some remedies on another, and are workshopping a third (very complex) case, which is likely to have its proposed decision posted next week as well. Rather than posting two decisions at once, and overloading the remainder of the Committee with two complex cases for voting, we are likely to stagger the two proposed decisions a few days apart. That doesn't mean one is more important than the other; whichever one is ready for voting first will be posted first. Risker (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Rather you than me! I'm so glad I don't want even to be an admin, even less an Arb! This must have been horrendous for y'all! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, Pesky. That doesn't get acknowledged enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's why they get the and all that "bling-bling".```Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I got a "Wikipedia" pencil and a "globe" button once when I went to a wiki-conference, does that count as "bling"? It's a scary thought if it is... Risker (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Coolness; I went to the National Archives meetup and we got National Archives chocolates, which if you've never heard of them, it's probably because of pre-marketing analysis. In other words, you didn't even get good-tasting chocolate with the calories.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps that's what happens when the chocolate has been archived for too long without refrigeration. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] (ec)The NA is mainly stuff well over a century old -- which means they had to use very stale chocolate? Collect (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Think of it as real-life linkrot.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] ...probably leading to real-life gutrot ... ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] ... or expanded operations ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Shall we raise a glass of rot-gut? Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've got a Blue Peter badge, please may I have a Wikipedia hoodie? (Dark green, ideally ;P) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK, I have a really bizarre question: if the globe image is copyright, what would the Foundation do if somebody had it tattoo'd onto them? It could be a bit hard to insist on its removal ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Rumor has it that's how some people got their jobs with WMF. Reminds me of this girl who had this band she liked autograph her, er, front with a Sharpie, and then went to the tattoo artist ... I hope her taste in music never changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Or that her... um front... never starts to sag.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] This has actually gone to court in the case of Rasheed Wallace, who had a copyrighted image tattooed on his arm and was taken to court to prevent him from displaying the tattoo on TV. Sadly, it was settled out of court so there's no legal precedent in the US. 78.149.157.58 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] There's a secret trick to having a front which never starts to sag .... ;P Pesky (talk…stalk!) 08:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] My facebook page is always plagued with secret tricks... "learn how to loose weight with one secret trick", "Lower your insurance rates with one secret trick", "Avoid wrinkles with one secret trick." Now that culture is spreading to WP... avoid sagging fronts with one secret trick ;-)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] A new update requested I want it to be right, not rushed, so take whatever time is needed, but it wouldn't take but two minutes, if that, to post a revised estimate of when this decision is expected.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Status page says decision is due the 13th and its only 09:07, 18 June 2024 UTC [refresh] now. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK, fair enough. I was watching this page, with an update status that has expired. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] And I now see that the date of the 13th was changed within minutes of the statement here that thee would be a statement within a week (i.e. by the 11th). Sounds like the right hand needs to talk to the left hand. Or come to an agreement where status will be posted. In one sense, not a big deal, but contradictory, almost simultaneous updates in different places doesn't inspire confidence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] It'll be interesting to see what today's excuse will be. Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] They're busy preparing for Valentine's Day. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wasn't there once a massacre on Valentine's Day? Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, I'm sure the wait will be worthwhile and we'll get something Solomonesque (without the cleaving). - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] The proposed decision will be posted before I retire for the evening; unfortunately, it turns out that our developer/operations colleagues have been upgrading software on the server that handles the arbitration wiki, so there have been some technical difficulties as we pull the last bits together. Risker (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I apologize for violating the request not to edit, but as someone who has noisily asked for status, it is only fair that I thank the committee for the response. While I will have some specific thoughts about the decision, there's ample evidence that considerable thought went into the crafting—thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] There's a queue forming Of similar cases. I hope a decision gets posted soon. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Stake holders needed Wikipedia's civility policy needs more stake holders.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Meta-musing I've just had a bit of experience on meta-wiki. It seems that over there, they are much quicker to block for incivility, personal attacks or "intimidating behavior" at least when it's not coming from their admins. Still, even for minor transgressions, over there blocks seem to stick at least for a day or so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] So? Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] So, I don't know if that's better or worse than here, but other kinds of wiki-cultures do exist. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] So you're not sure that if someone is incorrectly blocked it's better that they stay blocked for a day or not? Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Malleus, In block reviews, several administrators (e.g. Joseph Fox) have averred that they are certain the the block was bad, but nonetheless, they support the block and ask for an apology, as you know. It would be a progress for such administrators to be uncertain about a (bad) block while still supporting it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why? What you are proposing is that if Admin JohnQPublic makes a bad block, that the rest of the admin corp shouldn't rectify the situation, but rather rally around the admin who blew it? That makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and sounds to me like a type of mentality that will lead to serious breaches of misconduct amongst the admin corps---especially if such behavior is advocated as the expected process.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Balloonman, You confused description with prescription, perhaps because description is painful. You seem to deny that "the rest of the admin corp" not only fails to "rectify the situation, but rather rally around the admin who blew it".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't deny that the admin corps often fails, but you have declared that it would be better to have admins support a bad block. That is not a solution.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm pretty sure KW is just saying that supporting blocks one knows to be bad is worse than supporting blocks one is unsure about. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] You are correct, sir.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Much of this seems off-topic here (but I could have missed something); though since it is here: Does meta have any sort of AN or ANI reporting area to discuss bad blocks? — Ched :  ?  15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, m:WM:RFH. There's a sample discussion there you can easily find. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the Proposed Decision process. After reading through the page, I recommend two more FoFs (Findings of Fact):

• There needs to be some finding covering the background of the incident, either as a new finding, or an expansion of the existing Thumperward FoF. Right now the current findings pretty much require pre-existing knowledge, but would be difficult to understand for someone reviewing the case in the future. Recommended wording:

On December 21, 2011, Malleus Fatuorum engaged in uncivil behavior,[4][5] prompting numerous complaints and an eventual redaction of his comment.[6] Three hours later, administrator Thumperward blocked Malleus Fatuorum indefinitely, initially with a minimal block rationale,[7] and then a more extensive one at ANI two hours later.[8] One hour after Thumperward blocked, John unblocked, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin, even though the blocking admin had said at ANI that he was writing up a rationale.[9] Several hours later, Hawkeye7 re-blocked, claiming a consensus at ANI,[10] when there was clearly no such consensus.[11]

• There should be a proposed remedy for John to be de-sysopped. He clearly and deliberately overturned a block without any community consensus, and without any attempt at contacting the blocking admin until after he had overturned the block.[12] Further, he claimed a "strong consensus" at ANI, when there had only been 20 minutes of discussion, and it was clear that Thumperward was actively working on responding to queries about the block.[13] And on top of all that, John was self-admittedly involved where Malleus was concerned,[14] which was yet another reason that he should not have used admin tools. It's true that John did offer a general after-the-fact apology, but in my opinion his behavior was so clearly out of line that a de-sysopping should still be on the table. At a very minimum, his behavior should be clearly documented as inappropriate. Otherwise it looks like any admin could engage in pretty much any outrageous behavior they wanted, and as long as they offer an "Oops, I was wrong," apology after the fact, they can avoid any repercussions.

--Elonka 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think ArbCom should be applauded for proposing a reasonable – rather than needlessly punitive – approach to John's actions. I have a fair number of objections to some of the other proposed remedies, but John not being sanctioned certainly isn't one of them. 28bytes (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the background suggestion by Elonka. While I think I had followed all of the background, this decision will be reviewed in the future. While the entire chain of events can be teased out by a complete review of the Evidence page, a summary would be helpful for future readers of this case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #6 in the "Malleus Fatuorum's block log" should be double-checked, as it doesn't appear to refer to an actual block. --Elonka 07:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thank you. Risker (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawkeye de-sysop remedy includes language about regaining tools through RfA. Similar language is not included in the other proposed de-sysop remedies. Is there some reason for this difference? Is it just a drafting oversight? Please explain. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdChem. Fixed. Risker (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye's apology

Hawkeye has apologized for his mistake to Malleus, on SandyGeorgia's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that saying " administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute" . There are many other circumstances that where reversal without discussion is appropriate, some specifically provided for in the rules, for example, unblocking under the usual block review procedures, the undeletion of an expired prod, the admin having left WP, the admin being unresponsive, the admin specifically stating--as some of us including myself do--that any of my deletions may be undeleted, the undeletion of a speedy in case it's clear the criteria for speedy have not been met, the revert of a clearly inappropriate close, the reversal of any clear error. Obviously anything like to be really disputable must be dealt with carefully, but in many situations consent can be presumed. The provision, as stated, drastically changes the meaning of wheel-war to 0RR, and destroys the needed flexibility. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but having seen other arbitration cases revolving around admin actions, I have a horrible feeling that that's exactly what's intended. Certainly it would make day-to-day admin work much more difficult if a silly principle like that passed, but it's been so long since most arbs were actually involved in day-to-day admin work that they probably don't realise or don't care. Hopefully some of those with the benefit of recent admin experience will opine in defence of common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for ArbCom or the Admin Corps, but I think this is more in the "Be sure the admin whose action you're reversing isn't going to complain about the reversal" vein. When a admin grants blind-approval for another admin to reverse them (for whatever criteria) then it's putting trust that the other admin will have done the due diligence before executing the reversal. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My initial view of the proposed principle is that it constitutes a substantial moving of the bar. More so than I think is warranted. I applaud the cleverness; the analogy to 3RR is apt, but we may have to put more teeth into the wording to make sure it is apt—in the same way that a revert short of 3R can be, but it not necessarily edit warring, the undoing of another admins action can be, but very often isn't problematic. DGG identified a long list of cases where it isn't problematic, so we have to take care to ensure that ArbCom hasn't redefined wheel-warring to 0RR. It is my view that we do not have to hash it out here, the talk page of WHEEL, possibly resulting in wording tweaks of the policy, is the right venue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you folks formally redefining wheel-warring from being the second revert to being the first one? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hawkeye7's personal attack" was substantially saying that someone is unblockable. Is that kind of statement now considered a personal attack? Or is there some aggravating factor in the comparison with a koala? (I fail to grok the southern hemisphere cultural allusion myself, if any exists.) I'm asking because I've seen similar statements about the unblockability of other editors on a number of occasions. If ArbCom doesn't clarify their intent here, I'm going to file an official request for clarification after the case is closed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist (which is probably why he chose my talk page for that unfortunate comment, but I wasn't around), where we're both project coordinators, and there's a lot of that sort of Aussie colloquial banter among the MilHist coordiantors. I'm certain the comment was meant to be humorous, and that Hawkeye didn't mean any offence by it. That's not to say that it was well-judged, and it's probably a given that any admin whose actions are in ArbCom's crosshairs twice in such quick succession is going to lose his bit, but I think it would be a mistake to label it a "personal attack". In fact, the majority of diffs in this proposed decision are very mild to say that sanctions are being proposed on the basis of them (and I might post a more detailed comment to that effect later). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the proposed remedies are confusing as far as guidance going forward. On the one hand a pathologically uncivil but otherwise upstanding editor is to get the boot by collective action a month after his last offense (unless you count the de rigueur venting in connection with this case). On the other hand two administrators are proposed for deactivation for hasty actions made hours after the fact or without full explanation. If untimely, thinly explained remedies are grounds for loss of rights, perhaps we should desysop all of arbcom?

The Committee issues a strong, well reasoned exposition of the range of bad behavior considered a detriment to the project, but then cautions administrators that stopping editors from that behavior is a grave last resort. Hawkeye is to be canned for a goofy indecorous comment that pales by comparison to insults hurled after the fact by a few administrators and more so by other parties on these pages. His main infraction is to undo a prior administrative decision, something he vehemently denies. If he is sincere in claiming he did not wheel war, then why is he being punished for that? Shouldn't there be an explicit finding that he is lying or his claims are implausible?

There is no mention at all of the sexist and abusive nature of the original comments. Whether or not Malleus intended anything sinister (and there has been no strong evidence that he did), any other serious web service would allow its functionaries to issue a summary time out for calling people cunts, no questions asked, no hand wringing, and no attempt to kill the messengers. Why is Wikipedia, a website far more civil, serious, and prominent than most, charting its own course where gross incivility can be enforced only by volunteers willing to take the dagger themselves?

Arbcom is strongly warning the community not to bait, harass, provoke, belittle, etc., yet pointing a stun gun at administrators who have tried to enforce the same. What is supposed to happen next, inevitable, time that one of the regulars around here behaves like Malleus did? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U. Nobody Ent 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Committee tells us not to bait, and for the most part does not tell us what baiting is. I see in future "baiting" being slanged around a lot, and especially applied to anyone who objects to being on the receiving end of an uncivil comment, along with the traditional "disruption" axe and the shiny new "failing to work towards consensus", which seems ready made to be slanged around. The Committee waxes eloquent on the beauty of the regional variations of the English language—with absolutely no evidence that misunderstandings of English played any part here. Is it applied to Malleus? I'm having a hard time believing that is appropriate, as Malleus has routinely edited articles in regional variations. Is it directed to Hawkeye? What are admins to do in future?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC who? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one of the regulars around here who behaves like Malleus did. Nobody Ent 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to make innuendos like that. Please say plainly who is causing problems and give evidence in the appropriate forum; otherwise, keep quiet. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nobody Ent was accusing anyone by innuendo, but rather responding to Wikidemon's comment asking what should happen next time we get in this situation. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The word "one" lead me to believe there was somebody specific in mind. "Any" would probably be more accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" probably needs to be tweaked around a bit. Please look at this thread on Jimbo's talk page. It seems highly likely that Wikipedia has way more than the population-normal percentage of people with (for example) high-functioning autism. (I'm one of these myself, and I know for absolute certain-sure that there are other Wikipedians who come into this or similar categories, including quite a high proportion of my own WikiAcquaintances.)

People with high-functioning autism-spectrum differences can be quite incredibly "genius", and can also be seriously misunderstood as being grumpy, misanthropic, hard to get along with, stupid, argumentative, and a number of other such labels. They / we can't help having differently-wired brains. That's important. I'm not saying that Malleus is one such (not naming any names here), but it is very, very important that we don't even appear to be making any statements which would automatically discriminate against a particular group of people on the grounds of what could broadly be considered (compared to neurotypicals) as a "disability". We need to ensure that editors are aware that the probability that they're communicating with someone on the autism spectrum is much higher in WikiLand than in Real Life, simply because the project is a honey-trap for people who would rather stay in and edit than go out and party, and to make allowances for the possibility that conflict has arisen from nothing more serious than a fundamental misunderstanding. See, for example, my interaction with Wikidemon during the course of this case. It could so easily have spiralled out of control, simply because we had crossed wires, through the fault of neither of us. This happens.

This is also a very important thing to bear in mind when writing policy pages; they have to be absolutely unambiguous, and absolutely equally applied. No exceptions. Autism-spectrum people are highly sensitive to injustice, particularly injustice arising from misunderstanding or mis-reading.

The phrase "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" is all-too-close to saying "we don't want anybody on the autism spectrum, thank you very much." Can't have that, sorry! Pesky (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implying a connection where there isn't one. genius ≠ autism. Nobody Ent 09:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Meh, don't take it personally, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I've recently encountered the famous sonnet writer on meta-wiki, who is indef blocked here, apparently after writing sonnets in an ArbCom case request. What ArbCom is saying here is nowhere near as discriminatory as Jimbo's recent statement that a FA writer with similar stats to Malleus (30 or so articles) is "not the kind [of editor] we want" because she wrote a TFA article on "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe". 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Achhh, sorry, I wasn't clear enough (again!) What I meant was that a number of people in this grey, nebulous area do have talents at genius level, and an enormous amount to contribute. Simply because in HFAs and others, parts of the brain are overwired, giving massive abilities in that area, while the social interaction ares are conversely underwired, giving difficulties in that area. I'm not saying autism=genius. Pesky (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, as of the last update, genius is not yet an insult. The Genius Bar is still at Apple stores. When that changes, let's resume this discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bless! Thank you! (>**)> Hugz. I'm trying to come up with solutions here which won't make some well-meaning and bright subsections of the human community feel that they are unwanted. Pesky (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Pesky's original point, I suggest JClemens's substituting "We don't need misanthropic behavior", so dropping off-topic "geniuses" etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jclemens' comment is fine: You can be a great editor, but if your interpersonal skills are atrocious, we don't need you on this project. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, Stop (only both) paraphrasing ArbCom proposals and adding your personal approval! Discuss the issues raised.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment as I please. Your remark is offensive and I am ignoring you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is fine. You are making a mountain out of something smaller than a molehill. People need to be allowed to speak their minds without being nitpicked to death through the application of extreme political correctness. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important proposed "finding of fact", because it is the basis for the proposed topic ban(s):

3) Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([15]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor. On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful ([16],[17],[18],[19]). More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26]). The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

Comments: This needs revision.

1. "Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([27]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor."

   Malleus is one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia. In the last year, he has likely done more editing than all of ArbCom combined. Similarly, he has edited more articles than the other regulars at the talk page RfA. His ratio of edits at talk:RfA versus article edits does not stand out as much as Kudpung's, for example.

2. "On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful."

   The talk page at RfA is more inane than Jimbo Wales's talk page. You could faintly praise or, better, forthrightly condemn most of it, but what would it serve? Why single out Malleus? Why ignore Kudpung?

3. "More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34])."

   Your assertion "more frequently" should be labeled "according to our unwarranted speculation based on an unrepresentative convenience sample". You have not made a census or a random sample of Malleus's comments on Talk:RfA.

   Your statement fails to deal with the RfA-related incivility directed at Malleus, which suggests that the title "Civility enforcement" was dishonest and the committee's failure to delimit the scope of the case incompetent or dishonest.

   It would be fair to write that "Too often, comments at RfA and RfA-related discussions have been derisive and belittling" but then you should include Kudpung's baiting of Malleus, his imputation of psychological problems to BadgerDrink, Demiurge1000's baiting, etc.

4. "The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page."

   Abysmal writing, in style and vacuity.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent and insightful comments from KW (expected, really!) I think, too, that it's vitally important to assess people's contributions in any given area, or their "bad contributions", or whatever, as a percentage of their overall contributions. We shouldn't expect high-contribution-bytes editors to be any "more perfect", percentage-wise, than any other contributor. This is important. We need to ensure that we're always comparing like with like. I had similar things with my npp stuff; I made more mistakes (straight numbers) than several other new page patrollers, but in terms of the sheer numbers of pages I was patrolling, the percentage of mistakes was no worse (and very probably much better). We need, again, to be careful here. Someone with 100,000+ contributions is likely to have ten times more "iffy" ones than someone with 10,000 contributions; that's just the law of wossnames coming into action. Pesky (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community will probably soon have RfCs on proposed changes to RfAs and ANI-AN, addressing both incivility and double standards. Improved clarity, consensus, and likely regular enforcement should deal with perceived problems with e.g. Malleus and Kudpung (or KW). A topic-ban singling out Malleus seems imprudent now.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think it would be ... [searches for word] ... jumping the gun? a bit at this stage, where we are apparently in the process of coming up with some better approaches. We have some (ugh!) "meaningful discussion" going on at RfAReform now, and hopefully will have some "meaningful discussion of re-wording" things like the civility policy soon. In the meantime, everyone could be put "on caution" at RfA and RfA talk. including, but not singling out, Malleus, while we work on better solutions. Shame to stop the cart once we've got it moving. Pesky (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has 1500 comments at WT:RFA. That's 50% more than the next highest contributor. It is not unreasonable to ask him to stop commenting there since his commentary has tended to overwhelm and at times disrupt the venue. If the topic ban later on proves unnecessary, it can be removed by a motion. I think Malleus should accept this decision and move along. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your paraphrasing the current proposal may help persons with ADD, but your personal authority helps nobody. BTW, the decision has not been made.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely that the number of comments by editor is reasonably close to a Pareto distribution. While I'm too lazy to do the actual math at the moment, it is not at all unusual that the largest value would be 50% higher than the next largest, so this observation should not be viewed as a statistical anomaly. While his presence there is obvious, a better metric is what proportion of the total contributions come from MF, and how does this proportion compare to other locations. For example, without running the numbers, I'll bet Ludwigs2 is proportionately a higher contributor to Mohammed image discussions and Moonriddengirl is a higher contributor to copyright discussions. I suspect it would be easy to identify a couple dozen fora where one user is a disproportionately high share of the total discussion. While the comments of MF are often negative, I don't view them as so disruptive that it prevents others from airing their opinions. Even while I disagree with many of his points, I find many thought-provoking, and do not support the muzzling.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of (or as well as) singling out Malleus in particular (he's the most prolific, but not necessarily the worst, and certainly not the only one to fail to maintain the desired level of decorum), why not have something like:

4.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or here discretion, ban any editor from further participation in a discussion on a page related to the requests for adminship process if, in the administrator's judgement, the editor has repeatedly or egregiously failed to maintain the appropriate level of decorum. In the event that this is ineffective, the ban may be extended by any uninvolved administrator to cover a page, set of pages, or the entire requests for adminship topic area. Bans placed under this remedy, and blocks placed to enforce them, may be appealed to the Administrators' Noticeboard or Arbitration Enforcement and thereafter to the Arbitration Committee.

—I was on wikibreak when the evidence and workshop phases were going on, but I hope my proposal will be given due consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy suggested above is inconsistent with many of the findings of fact. This case is very much about inconsistency and individual admins making decisions in lieu of gaining community consensus. Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban strikes the appropriate balance -- the community should impose a ban, not an individual admin. Nobody Ent 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential problem with finding 4

I have concerns with however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. I fear that this could result in ongoing issues because some admins are going to jump the gun and ban him from any discussion wherein he opposes, even if his oppose is no more curt than some others. I'd rather put this reponsibility on the 'crats. This will ensure that such sanctions are placed only in the more egregious cases where he has crossed the line. Not on opposes that people choose to invoke to get at MF.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is sympathetic to your point, however, in terms of process, does ArbCom have the remit to direct the 'crats to take action?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the 'crats haven't taken too much action in the past, they have on occassion. There is also precident that the 'crats are supposed to govern the RfA area; but this has been pretty low key to non-existent over the past few years.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there are too many admins who would be sanctioning Malleus for every oppose vote he ever made, and we'd be no better off than when we started (not that a months-long arbitration case ever solved anything). Giving the responsibility to the 'crats would make much more sense—they do indeed govern RfA, in theory if not in practice, and if ArbCom can mandate admins to do it, there's no reason they can't mandate the 'crats to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that this should be reserved for the crats. Finding of fact #2 basically admits that Malleus is the frequent recipient of poor and hasty blocks; I can't imagine that letting any single admin ban him from an RfA without prior discussion is anything but a recipe for more pointless drama. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting the wording; from further participation and in that specific RFA. So such a sanction would have a very limited scope. It wouldn't prevent him commenting on any other RFAs. Nor would it have the effect of removing the Oppose on that specific RFA; it would merely prevent additional comments of the puerile and disruptive nature that unfortunately he sometimes indulges in around that topic area. RFAs do not need endlessly repeated commentary from one individual editor, no matter how much more important they might consider their own opinion to be. A !vote in an RFA, ideally, should provide a clear rationale of the reason for it, and after that there is little need for much more than a clarification or justification of that rationale if another editor (including the candidate) should have a query about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't address the badgering in general, I'd like to see 'crats step up a little more and put their foot down. While a harsh oppose might be ok, I think they can sometimes cross the line especially in regards to after !vote commentaries.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the points made by Balloonman and HJ Mitchell; there would be a queue round the block just itching to remove me from any RfA I opposed, on the flimsiest of pretexts. This proposed decision would therefore be a de facto ban from the whole of RfA, not just the talk page. While that doesn't especially trouble me, to suppress unwelcome opinions in that way hardly seems like a healthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below on this page, that remedy is just a primer for more drama as you correctly observe as well. I would be more straightforward for ArbCom to have the balls and just ban you from RfAs, period. I don't know if the remedy is justifiable or not (because there are too many diffs for me to look at), but at least that would prevent some future dramatic events that are pretty likely as you say. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously proposing a ban from an area without any review of a single diff relevant to the issue? And you admit you don't know whether it is justified? On what basis?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps modify the ban to allow him to respond to direct queries. E.g. MF opposes a candidate. He then gets into one of his RfA ruts where he starts badgering the supporters/opposers. Admin A comes along and bans him from the specific RfA. JohnQ or the user then asks him a question. According to the current wording, he couldn't respond to a direct inquiry except for his talk page.

Part of my concern here is that there is a very insular group of admins at RfA. It would be hard to find active admins there that do not have a history with MF that could objectively be said to be "independent". Similarly, if an admin has !voted on the RfA, does that make them involved? I think if it were 'crats who gave the ban, that it would avoid a lot of potential drama. I do not see them jumping the gun in blocking too swiftly and I suspect that if they were to perform the action, that MF would be more likely to respect them than he might some random admin flexing his/her muscles.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: MF and the block.

Can someone (preferably an arbritrator) please comment on the times from the initial "offensive statement" to the original block, and from the time of the removal of the "offensive statement" to the original block. It seems to me that there are a couple of comments about the initial block's validity in regard to this specific "offensive statement" and general long-term civilty. I would appreciate someone clarifying what those time differences were from the evidence presented.

This has significance as any actions taken after the event and ratified by this procedure have bearing on:

... core policy of non-punitive - "For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—in particular if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved."

RE: Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship

Can someone please clarify how comments such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19] are un-civil? I appreciate that one may be a sort of personal attack of a very weak kind, but the rest, to me at least, are simply comments and fall well within civility levels in a collegiate environment. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, I'm missing something, remedy 4 only addresses Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. So, am I to understand that edits like this one, 'you're full of shit", from just a couple days ago, aren't covered by the PD and will fall outside AE enforcement? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want AE micro-managing. If that edit is problematic, WP:WQA can deal with it. Frankly, I don't think it is worth the bother. (Had it been directed at a new editor, I'd feel differently).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How successful has WP:WQA been in dealing with comments of that nature from Malleus in the past? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AQFK, this is precisely the problem—people take Malleus's comments out of context, and all of a sudden, we're talking about sanctioning him because he used a naughty word. While I wouldn't have phrased a remark quite like that, I have previously expressed similar sentiments to the editor Malleus was addressing, as that editor has to Malleus and myself. Malleus is no angel, but let's focus on addressing the problems at ahnd instead of manufacturing more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reward for not participating in this case...MONGO 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, you perhaps can understand that your writing a long note on his talk page about having assembled a long dossier of damning evidence was not especially constructive. Let Kudpung be the keeper of a secret dossier (of names of RfA candidates who have been terrorized from becoming administrators), and you stick to editing articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be anything other than a reminder that I could have come here but I didn't...it was just an attempt to try and shake hands...I'm sorry if you don't believe me.MONGO 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the only one who doesn't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what is so distressing...I hope if we work on something together in the future we'll get along better.MONGO 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mongo,

I've tried to be fair with you in the past, and I have sympathized publicly with your position in scrapes. In turn, I have been grateful that you have rethought a position, or rather carefully expressed a position in a way that became much more appealing to me, in our discussions. I also appreciate your directness and your avoidance of passive-aggressive bullshit.

Contrary to Malleus's comment, I did not doubt your sincerity and I do not doubt your sincerity. However, I did doubt the prudence of your writing, because the impact of writing depends as much on the recipient's mood as on an imputation of good will to the author. Perceptions matter.

Perhaps, in retrospect, you can better imagine that had a more effective note might have been, "I shall not participate in the ArbCom Case, because we both have more constructive things to do. Sincerely, MONGO".

I apologize if I sound condescending (but I am still dealing with a cold and I am tired).

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning MF from RFA talk will be perceived as some, rightly or wrongly, as inhibiting contrary opinions. Was any consideration given or should consideration be given, to a throttle measure, rather than an all or nothing measure? (E.g n posts per day or per week). If the view is that voices critical of the process are acceptable, but can be problematic if overdone, the appropriate remedy is some reasonable limitation, rather than outright prohibition. Crafting such a measure is not trivial, but there's no point in trying if such a measure wouldn't be contemplated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I defend Malleus in most cases, I think his ban here is reasonable. Malleus isn't merely a contrarian opinion at WT:RFA, he cane be a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out. I do think it might be appropriate to add a note that at some certain time in the future Malleus can petition ArbCOM to revisit this parameter.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This FoF seems outright false unless participation in the Workshop [35] [36] is not considered participation in the case. Or maybe glorious repetition is needed for one to be heard through the general level of noise in such cases? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change wording to something like "has barely participated in this case, and failed to adequately explain his action". The gist of the finding is correct. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one puzzled me a bit. Obviously there is an obligation for an admin to explain his actions. Thumperward did that, although ArbCom notes it was two hours after the block. Do you have to engage at every forum that your block goes into, or if you consider your explanation sufficient, may you stand on it? ArbCom seems to be creating a new bit of policy here, that you may not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First I'd like see an acknowledgement from ArbCom that they've actually read those two diffs before they posted their proposed decision. Otherwise Jehochman's proposed change may look like the Committee is simply saving face in the 25th hour of the day, especially considering how many times this proposed decision got postponed, and arbitrators saying that they were so overworked [37]. E.g. "The committee has considered Thumperward's explanations [diff1] [diff2], but does not consider them adequate because ..." or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. I also don't see why the Internationalism principle is in there, it isn't followed up in the findings of fact. It's sort of ... hanging there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this finding puzzling as well. Thumperward posted rapid replies to queries about his block,[38] posted a detailed rationale at ANI[39] (somewhat delayed because he was responding to the other queries),[40] and participated at this case's workshop page.[41][42] It would have been nice if he also offered an initial statement, but I don't see justification for saying that he didn't participate in the case. Unless diffs can be shown that ArbCom asked him specific questions, and he refused to answer? --Elonka 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In proposed principle #10, ArbCom is implicitly expanding the definition of "wheel warring" from what's set out in policy. A likely result of that will be that administrators will feel emboldened to make more careless and ill-considered blocks that would be unsupported by the community. I think ArbCom realizes this is a likely result, and is "talking tough" to an administrator who made such an unsupported block in hopes of discouraging administrators who will be granted this new or expanded deference to their blocks. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I guess they don't even read this talk page [43]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda curious what the four arbs who voted for this one before someone threw a flag based their votes on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the proposed decision, there is a bit of "baby/bathwater" going on. If the problem is incivility at RfAs, then simply restrict that incivil editor to only giving a !vote, and ban him from making any comments whatsoever otherwise. This would appear, IMO, sufficient to prevent the probelmatic behaviour seen. Collect (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra speaks: I predict the current ArbCom proposal is simply setting up the stage for more drama down the road. Outright banning Malleus from RfAs would be far simpler, but I guess ArbCom cannot collectively make that kind of decision until they are at case number 3 for a contributor (and even then it's a narrowly split vote). Of course, while they are eager to point out when community sanctions failed, I've yet to see a phrasing like "previous ArbCom sanctions failed" coming from them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community has made it clear that bare Oppose !votes carry less weight than Oppose !votes coupled with a rationale. The proposal to restrict an editor thusly is a partial disfranchisement, and should only be taken with extremely solid evidence. Glancing quickly at the evidence, there aren't many examples of problematic behavior in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship (as distinct from Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship). If I can count correctly, there are only 13 diffs from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, not all of those from MF, and not all of the ones from MF exhibit out of bounds behavior. That sounds like to thin a reed upon which to hang such a remedy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom trumpets that "The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards." What are these "clear documented standards" that allegedly ArbCom applies in contrast to the community? ¶ I'm guessing the subtextual standard applied in this case (and probably written in the sekrit ArbCom wiki) is: "every contributor is allowed to swear or launch a number of personal attacks per day no greater than the number of FA articles s/he has written added to one third of the number of GAs written, before s/he is blocked for no more than 24hrs" or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the Lecen and Rlevse situations argue against that? Or does FA only confer immunity for potty-mouth?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the Lecen case. Was Rlevse ever sanctioned for swearing or PAs? I thought the Rlevse issue was all about plagiarism and it didn't involve ArbCom except in the socking coverup debacle. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. It would sidetrack the discussion, and I'm aware of efforts to keep discussion on Arbitration and Admin pages to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see [44]. Add addendum to the rules: "unless directed at the FA[C] director or any of his delegates, in which case the block shall be for one week with no allowances for FA articles written". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see ArbCom has already documented their standard, and perhaps it's clear to them. We might as well add it to the WP:BLOCK policy to prevent other clueless admins from committing "suicide by ArbCom" in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]