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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

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 08:24, 10 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]

Of similar cases. I hope a decision gets posted soon. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's civility policy needs more stake holders.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. they are certain the the block was bad, but
2. 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]

The case is moving quickly, and there are already motions to close. IMHO, I think that most of the proposed decisions that appear to be passing are reasonable, but that there still really needs to be a "Background" finding. Otherwise this case is going to be very difficult to decipher in the future, especially since the case was re-named as "civility enforcement", which distances it even further from the incidents that sparked the case in the first place. See my suggested wording above (in italics) for a possible background finding. --Elonka 03:05, 16 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]

Absolutely not. DGG's examples of uncontroversial, or previously-defined-as-acceptable, admin action reversals is well taken. For example, it's not possible for undoing a PROD deletion to be wheel warring, because the "easy go, easy come back" nature is part of the process. If anything, any administrator complaining about another administrator undoing a PROD deletion risks being disruptive, because the response to a contested undeletion is not a re-deletion (which could itself be wheel warring), but an AfD discussion, where consensus gets established for any future deletion, satisfying the requirement for WHEEL-acceptable subsequent administrator action. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 15 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]

If you're a terrible but charismatic and collegial editor, shall we boot you too? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting question, and one to which I think you're unlikely to get any kind of sensible or coherent answer. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 15 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]

You should review WP:NPA and might read about political correctness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it, guys. Someone was very close to being topic banned in a recently closed ArbCom case for accusing people of being motivated by political correctness. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having plenty of ASD friends and relatives, I have yet to meet one who is misanthropic. ananthropic--simply not caring about other people, nor easily perceiving their perspectives--seems far more apt a description. At any rate, reviewing my statement and the definition of wikt:misanthropic, I stand by the statement in its original form. That's not an excuse to stretch it to discriminate against people who aren't originally covered, such as ASD editors, whom I have never known to be misanthropic. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 15 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]

Commenting here to say that while I sympathise with those who point out that those who make a high volume of contributions will have some percentage of disputes/errors in those contributions and some weighting allowance should be made for that, I don't think that a simple 'percentage' analysis suffices. It is important not to privilege those who make high volumes of contributions over those who may only edit at weekends, or a few days a week, or only a few edits a day. It is possible for those who contribute at high volumes to overwhelm a venue or discussion, and so with high rates of contributions comes the responsibility to be aware of that and avoid that, and also to try and reduce error rates (and number of disputes) as much as possible rather than just aim for the same percentage as those contributing at lower volumes. Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth,

Stating that somethings "is possible" has nothing to do with the relevant allegation, that Malleus has overwhelmed discussions at RfA, which would be a relevant bullshit claim of yours. Risker's bullshit claim is that Malleus has displayed ownership, which she didn't even try to document. You and Risker make allegations without evidence, and claim to be able to speak with authority on civility. Remarkable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz: I'm not sure what you're so upset about. Malleus Fatuorum is getting off with a slap on the wrist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest for Knowledge,

The conclusion ("slap on the wrist") does not exhaust my concerns.

The decision has so far failed to enunciate

1. principles (e.g., "Administrators cannot be criticized" or "discordant discussions cannot be allowed to continue") or
2. evidence-based findings of facts (Risker's explicit bullshit or others implicit bullshit)

that would justify this banning. Bad precedents and poor procedures are bad for Malleus, bad for the community, and bad for future cases.

I am using bullshit in its technical sense:

"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose."

— Harry Frankfurt

In this decision, Risker has fabricated propositions (e.g., "ownership of talk:RfA") unsupported by evidence to justify an unprincipled ban from RfA. She has been spreading bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt. Per AGF, I do not charge her with deliberate lying, but unconscious bullshit spreading.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An honest alternative

Rather than improperly stretch the WP-meanings of "disruptive editing" and "ownership" and set many bad precedents, ArbCom should honestly pass a resolution such as

• "To reduce the conflicts at Talk:RfA, Malleus Fatuorum is asked to volunteer to refrain from editing Talk:RfA. The committee expects that the community, especially administrators, shall ensure civil discussions at that page, and in particular to stop further personal attacks against Malleus Fatuorum at that page."

Malleus has already averred that he has no problem with not editing that page.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 15 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]

• I've been thinking hard about this point, and I largely agree with what Demiurge1000 said. I feel strongly that it would be a good thing to allow Malleus to !vote in RfAs, whether to support or to oppose, and that it would be a bad thing for the community to ban him from doing so. I think the Arbs did a good job of crafting this remedy. Admins would not be made able to undo a !vote that Malleus casts, and the decision of how to weigh any !votes would, indeed, remain with the Crats. The most that an admin could do would be to put an end to Malleus' ability to continue to reply to questions/baiting by other users. I give Malleus credit for being smart enough to be able to discontinue replying to those things on his own, even if it sits badly with him to do so. The remedy doesn't prevent Malleus from taking a position; it might only prevent him from discussing it at length. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that there's a glaring loophole in the remedy. Malleus !votes on an RFA, someone challenges his vote on the RFA, Malleus responds on the RFA, someone baits Malleus on the RFA ... and then ... along comes an admin and moves the whole thing to that RFA's talk, and voila-- Malleus can't respond because it's now moved to talk. Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but it's certainly gameable: admins may be moving all Malleus RFA vote threads to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what you mean, but I don't think that the remedy, as written, gives anyone the authorization to move the !vote to the talk page. It just gives the authorization to stop continued dialog following the !vote (and maybe move dialog subsequent to the !vote to talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with that, of course, is that people move oppose section discussions to the talk page all the time. 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a problem, Malleus will be banned from the specific RfA before it ever reached the point of moving it to the talk page.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What I was trying to say is that, even given all that, no one should be removing the original !vote off of the main page to move it to talk. (Maybe they might put a copy of the !vote, along with subsequent discussion, on the talk page, and delete the subsequent discussion after moving it, but I would consider it disruption if anyone short of a Crat were to wipe a !vote by an eligible editor off of the RfA page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see. No, anyone who tries to remove his vote will be reverted, I imagine. And then some person will wrongly claim that it was a violation of the ArbCom restriction to reinstate it, and will re-remove it, and an edit war will ensue, and someone will block the edit warriors, and someone else will unblock them, and a third will reblock them, and we'll all be back here for the next round. Or perhaps I'm just being cynical. 28bytes (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, prescient. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 15 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]

Time's a great healer, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 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 imagine that 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]

That comment reflects badly on the person making it, and should cause very little consternation to the recipient. It is not personal in any way. It is a generic rude comment. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 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 pain in the arse 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)Redacted wording per request of one of this pages clerks, who acted just as I propose 'crats act at RfA ;-) And removed KW's comment per his request on my page. I am leaving the original comment here, as a demonstration in action.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make WT:RfA an AE page, in toto. That means all editors have to behave within set limits. Not just Malleus. Silencing the critics is ... ominous. Pesky (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, that shouldn't happen for two reasons. 1) It is outside the remit of this case. While we may know that problems exist there, this case didn't look at the issue of behavior at RfA in toto. 2) ArbCOM isn't getting rid of the critics of admin, it is acting against a specific user, one whom gets carried away with his anti-admin diatribes/rhetoric on ocassion. Plus as a "supporter of Malleus", I'd rather see this ban which is justifiable than some of the other bans which I'm certain some users felt should be imposed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:45, 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]

@ASCIIn2Bme: Apologies, I'm at work currently, so my ability to read and respond to posts is somewhat limited. I hadn't had a chance to read the discussions here at the time I posted that comment, and was only replying to my fellow arbitrators.

To respond generally, Thumperward did not submit evidence, and commented twice on a single workshop proposal. In my mind, that does not constitute involvement in an arbitration case, particularly if one is a named party. His comments did include a brief explanation of his actions, however considering the vast scale of this case, it was hardly sufficient. I count it somewhat akin to a college student entering the lecture hall, signing the attendance sheet, and then walking out again. The participation in the ANI discussion at the time was similarly lacking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but your disagreement with his views, especially his 442-word Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#Rationale should not be phrased as if he did not respond. If you disagree with his views, state it as a disagreement. Or perhaps you object to his lack of engagement with Baseball Bug's baiting right after that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I disagree with his views. I said I took issue with his limited participation. No, he should not be responding to baiting, but he should at least be more involved in the discussion that he caused, and the case he is a named party in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been extremely chaotic, and it was somewhat of a full-time job to follow everything. I'm very uncomfortable with any sanction that follows along the lines of, "You didn't post enough, therefore you're in trouble." If the arbs would have wanted to know what Thumperward thought, they could have asked. Then, if he didn't reply, that would be a different matter. So it's inappropriate to make a finding that "Thumperward has not participated in this case," when it's clear that he did. It's also inappropriate to make a finding that says he didn't reply to questions about his actions, when again, he obviously did. Further, it's extremely disappointing that (with the exception of NYB) arbs are signing off on this finding, without any clarifying comments whatsoever. The finding makes it sound like Thumperward was dragging his feet on posting a rationale for the block, when in reality, looking at his contribs for that day will show that he was responding every few minutes to challenges, which is why the full rationale took so long. Any administrator who makes a controversial call can sympathize with this situation, where several people are all asking you to reply at once, and it takes a couple hours to sort through all the replies. --Elonka 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I coined the term Arbcommissar seeing how voting on that was going until NYB showed up. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward initially said the block was "for the above" [44] that the because of long term disruption it was indefinite. His reply at the workshop if for no other reason than the false accusation that I was editing warring was not compelling. As ArbCom has said, this was not an emergency; admin accountability suggests Thumperward should have been prepared to explain his block clearly and succinctly before applying it. Nobody Ent 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of a long break in China right now: it's rare enough I've even got reliable electricity, never mind wifi. For what it's worth, I participated to the extent that I believed appropriate: I commented to clarify my actions at the workshop, when asked to do so. My remit as an administrator is to respond promptly to questions raised to me (and frankly, for a case several years in the making which has now been going on for nearly two months, the idea that my having taken in excess of 120 minutes to finish composing a response is tardiness worth a desysopping should hopefully sound as absurd to the majority of the community as it does to me); nowhere to my knowledge is it suggested that being a named party in an ArbCom case binds me to making a statement, especially where said statement would be (as noted by others above) little more than a repetition of comments made elsewhere. It appears that the majority of participants seem to have been able to parse my explanations satisfactorily, and in my mind that rather obviates the need for me to have said any more than I did. If the proposed admonishment (or indeed the desysopping) goes through, I'd hope for the responsible Arbs to make clear exactly what level of participation is mandated (for it would be a mandate) of admins who find themselves party to ArbCom cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no heart to look through the volume of megabytes this case has generated, but did any arbitrator or clerk ever warn Thumperward that his participation might be deemed insufficient? Did they ask him why he wasn't participating more? Is there fairness in sanctioning him if they never warned him or asked for an explanation? With all respect to the arbitrators, this decision seems badly put together. I still do not see the relevance of the internationalism principle. Yes, it is true, but no relevance to this case has been shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's make sure we have the facts straight. A two hour delay in responding is not sufficient for a desysoping, but the delay is headed toward the proximate cause for an admonishment. And if I'm in the minority of the community, so be it, but I think when an admin takes an action as serious as an indefinite block of anyone (save technical blocks such as improper usernames), the admin should only do so if they anticipate being able to respond to almost inevitable inquiries. We do not want knee-jerk unblocks, we want potential unblockers to inquire as to the reasons, so that actions, if necessary, can be undertaken swiftly. Obviously, emergenices can happen, such as a need to go to a hospital, but one should not undertake such a serious action if one will be unable to respond swiftly. Even in the case of far less serious action – deletion of an article, I try to avoid doing so in the final hours before going on holiday, to avoid the unanswered plea of a questioning editor. Two hours was too long.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Elonka noted above, in between the block and my posting of the full rationale at ANI I made numerous replies both on my talk and at ANI itself in response to queries. Responding to those, and editing my draft of the full rationale in line with those responses, was part of what resulted in the response coming when it did. It is fallacious to suggest that my ANI rationale was the first response I made to queries over the block, or anything of the sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that in the future you do not rely on Arbitrators looking for the facts themselves because some of them seem to be very superficial in that endeavor, but rather you should post a timeline yourself as /Evidence, something that would have probably assuaged the concern over your official participation in the case as well. If open editing is not for the faint of heart, then wiki-Arbitration is not for the faint of keyboard. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you seem to be missing Sphilbrick's point entirely. If you are planning to indefinitely block one of the top contributors to this website for "long-term" behavior in an obviously non-emergency situation, common sense would dictate you compose your full block rationale before you press the block button. I'm really quite surprised you don't recognize that. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with 28bytes. The block may have been justified, but the brief block message was not,[45] especially when placing a major indefinite block on a long-time contributor. Even in an emergency situation (which this was not), better practice would have been a message like, "Account blocked indefinitely. I am composing a longer message explaining my rationale, please standby." --Elonka 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From blocking policy "Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation." "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." The reason many of us find the communication inadequate is it was a poor block; any sanction against Malleus should have been the result of considered discussion by the community, not a Rambo admin. Nobody Ent 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to accept what I see as moving the goalposts from "promptly" to "in advance" (this finding says "in advance or at the time", but I'm not given to interpret "at the time" as meaning "simultaneously" in exclusion to "in the course of completing the action"). I blocked; in the process of composing a full rationale (which by this point was going to have to go to ANI) I repeatedly replied to queries made of the block on my talk; I then posted my full rationale. I'm prepared to accept that my comments at Malleus's talk were not appropriately detailed and that the block should have been expressed in more formal terms there. Under other circumstances I'd like to think that I'd have had the time to do so before someone started an ANI thread and the block was undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale should have been prepared before the block, and posted fully on the blockee's page at the time of the block. This is pretty basic procedure. Even when blocking routine vandals, we tell them why they're being blocked, and how long that they are being blocked for. If you would have posted a full rationale at the time of the block, along with wording such as, "The block is indefinite, until you (Malleus) are willing to acknowledge the behavior that led to this block, and promise to avoid this kind of behavior in the future," then the block might well have stuck, and this entire ArbCom case might have been avoided. But the fact that you did not post a rationale, helped lead to the chaos that ensued. --Elonka 04:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we're blaming everyone under the sun except the person who actually misbehaved here? These are technicalities, and singling out people on the right side of the matter for hamstringing a month after the fact as punishment for arguable technical infractions, while giving those on the wrong side an umpteenth last chance to curtail their troublemaking, is basically an enabling unblock Arbcom style. You can trout me a year from now if I'm wrong, but taking this approach instead of confronting the underlying problem increases the likelihood of a permanent separaration between MF and the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 16 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 1312 diffs from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, not allonly seven of those from MF, and not all of the ones from MF exhibit out of bounds behavior. That sounds like too 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 [46]. 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]

"The community work to establish where the incivility line stands."

Have you seen what happens when people try to do even minor tweaks, such as to show "official acceptance" that user talk pages have different standards from article talk pages? Pesky (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just charge in and make your edit. Sometimes they stick. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who in considering some intractable problem or widespread problems with understanding of the wp:civility policy, and who then researches , and drafts, and establishes that there is a level of consensus for a new wording at wp:civ that will help reduce the antagonisms or misunderstandings that feature on *many* talk pages, is welcome to edit wp:civility, whether by means of wp:bold, or wp:BRD, or some more prudent method such as *proposing* (blush) on the talk page.

Stability of pol/pages is v. important; so also (is) the impetus which we, the project, get through the application of two heads are better than one and many hands make light work. And good luck with that.

The further problem here is that, depite what ever may appear at the page wp:civ, if sysops, or prolific contributors with strong personalites, are not *on the same page*, and if strong sanctions on individual editors are seen as being applied inconsistently, than we will still be in the position of being open to accusations of the perception of a “double standard” being in place.

So, it it not wholly up to copy-editors at wp:civility to correct this anomaly, it is a matter at this time then of how do we improve consistency in civility enforcement procedures that stands as a stumbling block in our path to smoother, more drama-free interactions on the wiki. NewbyG ( talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC

By way of clarification, the above is not meant as a criticism of the proposed decisions in this case. On the contrary, those decisions, those of a general nature, not referring to any particular editor or sysop, and which now seem likely to pass, have been well-thought through, and well-drafted and will be are now being seen as of enormous benefit IMHO in clearing obstacles in our way to a better-written encyclopedia, making it likely that higher standards of contribution will be able to gain traction, as editors will be operating in a more collegial environment. NewbyG ( talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) <small~>08:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jehochman is responsible for the inane definition of outing as incivility (parroted in this decision at principle 11)? Who'd have thought... Some people forget that Wikipedia's microcosm of "open editing" should not be redefining English. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy fallacy rewriting civility will only be of limited use; until the community synchronizes their expectations, behavior, and reaction to real or perceived incivility, the chronic problems will remain. The most important findings of this case do not involve MF/Thumpeward/John/Hawkeye ... they are inconsistency and definition, Ents care about forests, not individual trees so much.. ArbCom "finding" what we already knew is simultaneously expected and disappointing. This is meant not as a criticism of ArbCom but as a realistic statement of the intractability of the problem. This is not to say the rewriting/clarifying the civility policy isn't a good idea; just that it will not be sufficient. The "new improved" ANI functioning is an encouraging development; hopefully we can maintain focus and momentum. We also need to be more willing to initiate and conduct RFC/Us more as interventions than witch hunts. Nobody Ent 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't say "rewrite the policy," I said "work out where the line stands." They're two separate concepts. One must determine what the standard is in order to effectively document it, and I think that's largely the issue with the policy. We haven't established any sort of clear standard, we're just going on "Incivility is bad... so... don't do it." It's a prime example of what happens when you put the cart before the horse. I realize that this isn't going to be any easier, but hopefully we can spare ourselves some strife and drama by going about things in the proper order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thumperward (talk · contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum after the incident which prompted the block had been resolved. [47]"

Excuse my noob question, but how does that log link prove the incident had been resolved? Particularly since the log entry is "(long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds)" and that ArbCom is also proposing a finding in that direction (although not going as far as stating it was "well beyond acceptable bounds") at FoF 1: "Malleus Fatuorum [...] On many occasions, he has also personalized disputes to the point of making personal attacks,[1],[2],[3] and has made provocative and/or uncivil comments. [4],[5] (Samples only, numerous other examples available on the evidence page.)" ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's included mainly to show the time of the block; it's somewhat difficult to provide a single diff demonstrating that the situation was resolved, and even providing a link to the page at that time isn't particularly ideal. Any suggestions? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Use of word "cunt" redacted ([48] Nobody Ent 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My evidence aimed to provide a complete timeline (without prejudice). Some disruption was ongoing, but it became a chicken-and-egg situation. Geometry guy 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given MF has 124,000 edits your timeline is incomplete. We both (and others) gave evidence; the diffs we choose and our descriptions of them support the POV we wished to present. It's a stretch to claim than any individual presentation (including mine) is without prejudice. Nobody Ent 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My timeline included and was based on complete contributions slices from MF at the time (not on the c. 123,000 edits he made at other times nor on the c. 1000 edits of his that have been deleted). The chicken-and-egg situation to which I referred is an example of interpretation and point of view. However, I merely raised it as a question. No one can claim a complete lack of prejudice (i.e., opinion), but detailed information is better than a single diff with no context every time, and I aimed to provide such information: I used the term "without prejudice" in the sense that information should not prejudice the outcome. Geometry guy 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the archive again contains the word "cunt", albeit in a hatted section. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_214#Contentious discussion now hidden and archived. So, someone must have reverted Nobody Ent and ergo stands by his "cunt" words, no? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I stand by my "cunt" words is not the issue; whoever it was restored the posting it certainly wasn't me, as you seem to be trying to imply. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the sake of transparency and completeness, I see nothing wrong with the first deployment of that word, although I have expressed my regret and apology for using it in a more personal sense in the heat of the moment during the block-unblock-block fiasco. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) (edit conflict) Already presented in my evidence section:

• User:MZMcBride restores "cunts" to discussion [49], but is not blocked, warned or yelled at for it. Nobody Ent 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × many) It's good to know who restored it. I apologize if my post could be read as implying Malleus did something he didn't. Given that permalinks and diffs work well enough for /Evidence purposes, the restauration was perhaps unwise. If Geometry guy's timeline is accurate, Malleus continued to call other people cunts on his talk page after Thumperward blocked him. However, it's nice to see he later apologized for the latter outburst. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this right: one person, not "other people". Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I recall correctly, an apology was later made? Nobody Ent 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, later: not the next day, when MF actually forgot that he had made the remark. Geometry guy 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And it wasn't on MF's talk page, but at ANI. Accuracy, please, folks! :) Geometry guy 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the patience in explaining this. As a constructive proposal, I suggest that the Arbs link to either Geometry guy's or Nobody Ent's timeline in that finding instead of the non-self-explanatory log link. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent's evidence is here: the first section is in chronological order, and documents in particular Nobody Ent's contribution to de-escalation in redacting the original "cunt" comment after MF stated he didn't "give a flying fuck". The timeline part of my evidence is here, and is based on Malleus' contributions. However, the evidence in my timeline for the matter being resolved is that I found nothing worth noting between 19:41 and 22:34 on 21 December (Malleus made a revert restoring the thread in its redacted version at 19:55, but generally showed indifference to the question of redaction, and later restored an unredacted version.) I don't see how one can diff something beginning to calm down, as the matter may have been resolved through acquiescence, rather than statement. Geometry guy 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed my attitude, I'd made my statement. When asked if I'd revert the redaction I said I wouldn't, and I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way "I have to admit that G guy is at least partially right ...I had forgotten about the witless Spitfire" is what I would call a non-apology apology. [50] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that an apology at all, and it wasn't what I was referring to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then Geometry guy's timeline is incomplete, thus not as useful as I thought in showing that the incident was resolved. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My timeline is limited to a specific period: it does not discuss past behavior or the aftermath, merely the events at the time. It is only useful if you read it, all of it, not if you presume what it says. MF's remark about Spitfire took place after the block by Thumperward, so it has nothing to do with whether the incident had been resolved before the block. There is a chicken-and-egg situation here: if there had been no block, would MF have insulted Spitfire? Since the insult took place at ANI, in discussion of the block and subsequent unblock, evidently not. If you are going to reexamine the evidence, at least examine the evidence!

Did MF apologize for the remark to Spitfire? Yes, but not the next day, so it isn't covered by my timeline. As I said above, the apology came later, but MF has repeated it consistently. The earliest diff I can find for such an apology is this one on 2 January: there may be an earlier one, but this is roughly the right timing, in my recollection. Geometry guy 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Thumperward's indefinite block was just plain wrong, but Hawkeye7's subsequent block would have been justified had it been imposed because of my intemperate remark to Spitfire, but it clearly wasn't. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks and bans should generally be reserved for trolls or those doing nothing but disruption...though indefinite means no set time limit, it generally puts the blocked/banned editor in a position of asking for clemency. Coll down blocks don't work either...though I think most RFCu's are dramafests that oftentimes solve nothing, least some majority opinion can sometimes lead to a non-arbitration verdict.MONGO 17:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block was imposed because of your intemperate remarks, but on the basis of what I believed at the time was your statement that you intended to continue until blocked. I do not now believe that this was the case, so it was not unjustified, but unjust. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, something is off here. Thumperward's block was worse than Hawkeye's, and Hawkeye has engaged and apologized and explained, where Thumperward hasn't. Which admin is more likely to abuse again and which is taking the heat here? It's all bassackwards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have every confidence all involved administrators will be more deliberate in their future actions. Nobody Ent 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, an admin would have to be mad to block Malleus, regardless of provocation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or in other words, they better be sure that they can make a convincing case. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it exactly right SandyG. Thumperward's indefinite block was ridiculous, and ought to earn him an admonishment at the very least. I don't actually have a problem with Hawkeye's block, other than that he blocked for the wrong reason. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad commented here: "I've thoroughly studied Malleus's comments on this case, which at one point seemed to come off as a bit of 'administrators get away with bad behavior so I'm entitled too.'" That has never been my position, and it's rather disappointing that the real issue here remains unaddressed in the proposed decisions. My position has always been that to have any legitimacy, whichever rules are established are applied equally and to all. Not ignored in the case of Jimmy Wales, for instance, but applied with excessive zeal to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized what I understood to be an aspect of your take on the issue underlying this case, based on a number of comments you've made over the last few months. I readily acknowledge that the best evidence of your position is your own words rather than my paraphrase of them. That being said, I don't see an enormous difference between what you've written above and how I construed your comments.

I'm well aware of the need to hold all users to the same standards of acceptable behavior. This is a principle that the Committee unanimously adopted, in a decision I wrote three and one-half years ago:

Consistent standards

All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.

So I do not question your premise that it would be unfair to regard or to treat you differently from any other editor who behaved in the same manner as you do. I also agree that in that context it makes no difference whether the editor has been granted administrator or other status (except to the extent that at times we have, or should have, higher expectations of administrators and functionaries). One thing I do question, though, is the equivalency of your own behavior with that of the users you criticize, when judged not by isolated moments of ill-temper that you and they and I all have, but by patterns over a long period of time. And the other thing I do question is whether and how you are allowing the actual or perceived failings of other editors to influence your own behavior.

If I go on much longer I will be repeating comments that you didn't much appreciate the last time we had this discussion, so I'll stop here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hum, I'm not sure how disappointment now fits with some of the low expectations you previously expressed about this case, Malleus! Much remains unaddressed perhaps, but it could have been far worse. I was also interested in NYB's comment, but in a different way: I wanted to revisit what he wrote about the previous declined case, which can be found here. It got me thinking instead about his "no consensus unblock request" conundrum, which I'd like to revisit at AN (most likely after the RLevse/PumpkinSky return issue is resolved) as I have some ideas. Geometry guy 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said in a few places what I think of the "no consensus to unblock". Others disagree. There is not even consensus that there is no consensus on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only agreed to take part in this case at the urging of SandyG. Not for myself, but for the sake of others who may be similarly targeted in the future. So to that extent you're right Geometry guy, I have no right to be disappointed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And one thing I'd like to draw Newyorkbrad's attention to is this: he has made fewer than 30,000 edits to Wikipedia in five years, whereas I have made more than four times as many in the same period. If you don't edit and review articles then you're far less likely to get into conflict. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Malleus-- I was, once again, had by my inner Pollyanna. I notice that NYB quoted the old case where FeloniousMonk was desysopped after some pretty serious abuse aimed at me (and others, including his fellow admins). I also notice that no matter that case or this one, admin abuse continues unabated-- no different than it was in 2007 when it was aimed at me. Perhaps even worse because folks don't even pay attention to it anymore. You raised awareness of the extent of the problem, but I see no change. Will this case do anything to alter that problem? I fear not. RFAs are passing easier than ever these days-- particularly if one isn't actually out there building and defending articles, and getting into conflict as a result. The more disturbing trend is that it's no longer just content builders dealing with abusive admins: it's content builders up against WMF agendas, which aren't always in line with the goal of good content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't how many conflicts you get into, it's how you handle them. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lesson you might consider taking to heart yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted my proposed "solution" to the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum. Comments welcome! Geometry guy 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the proposed decisions is that I should be admonished I'm interested to know how that works. Do I have to accept the admonishment? How is it delivered? What if I choose not to accept it? Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement, passed as a remedy in a case, that formally expresses the sentiment it embodies. An admonished user would be notified by a clerk as part of the closing of the case, presumably by talk page notification. Admonishments do not require any sort of a reply from the admonished editor. If the admonished editor chooses not to comply with expected behavior as expressed in the admonishment, then appropriately escalated sanctions might be forthcoming. For example, an administrator who is admonished in one case will be much more likely to face desysop in a future arbitration case should they take any action which would itself have prompted an admonishment were it taken by a never-sanctioned admin. Some admonished editors have chosen to cease editing, which is unfortunate, because the committee is entirely capable of issuing bans, and by issuing an admonishment rather than a ban it has specifically decided that the behavior in question has not risen to the level of removing the editor from Wikipedia via a ban. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a couple AC things, and I've always thought that the wording had a variety of nuance to it. In terms of (for lack of a better phrase) severity:

1. advised
2. warned
3. admonished

In that a PR an "advised" resolution is more a "think before you post" suggestion; where an "admonished" resolution is a "if you do this again, you may be banned (topic or site) for repeating that type of thing. Is that close? — Ched :  ?  06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so from what Jclemens has said. But if you join up the dots: "Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct" and "A number of these blocks were placed by involved administrators, applied in a manner that was below the standard expected of administrators, or for conduct that did not rise to the general expectations for a disruption block" I think you see where this will inevitably lead, a world in which I'm admonished for having been blocked, but those making the bad blocks are not. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in many ways Malleus. I do note though that the "ban him" option seems to be resoundingly opposed, so in that I take a bit of encouragement. You might be surprised at how much I do agree with you personally on many things (including the admin. culture). From the few things I've seen at AC, they don't often offer a "you did well and we applaud your efforts" type of statements, but often there's a lot to be said for what isn't said. You are right that there is a "protect our own" mentality to the admin. group in general, I don't deny that. But I also see more and more that people such as yourself who point a spotlight on these things - perhaps make us rethink what we're doing here. There's good people here, but grudges, anger, and animosity aren't going to make this a better site. What you do in editing articles, offering suggestions to improve the quality of out articles is ultimately what makes this a more respectable and valuable resource. In the end, sometimes, it's better to back up, re-evaluate, and approach things from a different angle. I consider myself one of the lucky ones, I actually took the time to come talk to you. THAT is what is lacking here. I saw a teacher come laud you for all your efforts to help his students. I listened to what you said about my shortcomings, and tried to improve them. You listen to me when I talk to you. There is so much a lack of communication here on this project. Meh .. I'm drifting into some sort of soapbox stuff here. All my best. — Ched :  ?  07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's all about respect, which has to be earned not demanded. I was criticised recently for not showing sufficient deference to administrators, a view that's quite simply incomprehensible to me and contrary to everything I believe in. The bottom line is that I treat people as I find them; if they treat me with respect then I reciprocate in kind. But if they don't ... well, you know. That note from Jimmy Butler really made an impression on me, and I found the idea of those high-school students having to be restrained from coming to my assistance here to be profoundly touching. Those who've got it into their heads that I'm guilty of chasing away new editors really ought to read it and discover the truth for themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus wrote, "I think you see where this will inevitably lead, a world in which I'm admonished for having been blocked, but those making the bad blocks are not." Actually, I think your admonishment works to your advantage in cases of baiting or vituperative blocking. Having been formally admonished places you "on the warning track" with respect to escalated sanctions, which in turn makes it far more likely that even editors who are not "on your side" will try to step in between you and bad eggs. At the same time, admins who are not "against you" but are trying to get you to modify your behavior in a specific situation are likely to want to pull back from the edge and avoid a ban. Everyone will be trying to avoid breaking the china, and/or trying to prevent others from doing so. This works against bad blocks or other bad admin actions etc. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting perspective, and one I hadn't considered. As ever, time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical answer: if the Hawkeye situation in this very case is not transparent enough, here's another example of what it means in practice. And in the case closed yesterday, they passed a principle about that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above, I think the principal difference between "admonished" and "warned" is as follows:

Admonished: A reasonable man would have known to not do what you did, or to do what you failed to do. You erred in your past actions.

Warned: Your actions in that instance led to a suboptimal outcome. Regardless of whether or not you had knowledge that it wouldn't work out before, you certainly do now, and are placed on notice that doing that in the future will have consequences.

Mind you, that's just my interpretation, but I do see them as backward- vs. forward-looking censures, with admonished perhaps slightly harsher because it implies an error in judgment that warned does not. Other members of the committee may see the nuances differently. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table going into detail on Malleus's block log was interesting, but the finding that resulted from it is vague. Which of the blocks and unblocks were bad and which borderline and which were OK? The three diffs link to three sets of blocks - if the finding is that those three and only those three were bad, then that should be more explicitly stated. Because this question has been left unanswered (probably partially because some of the admins are no longer active), some will in the future point to this finding and insist that it means that a certain block was 'obviously' bad or good, when it may not be so clear. I suspect some arbitrators might also disagree on the specifics here. I know Malleus has in the past objected to how some of the blocks made against him were never truly resolved. And some have referred to the existence of the block log during disputes. Is it possible to draw a line in the sand here and instruct all to move on from this point forward? Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If arbitrators cannot agree on which blocks were bad, the answer is to say exactly that, not aim a vague slap in the direction of the admin corps. After all the trouble the community went to on arb-requested evidence, their finding seems a bit disappointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SilkTork that there is little value (maybe even negative value) in reprising all the blocks to determine which are good and which are not. I thought the point of the caveat in the finding was to simply warn readers not to see 13 blocks and assume there were 13 solid blocks. The right answer is not 13, but it is not zero. I don't see any reason to delineate the exact number; the vague statement that there are fewer than meet the eye was sufficient to make the relevant point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too; it makes little difference to me whether the number of solid blocks was five or even ten; the important point is the recognition that there weren't thirteen. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, would be interested in a clearer spelling out of which blocks were good, bad, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my block log, so why should anyone else be concerned if I'm not? Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, the interest comes from a desire that this arbitration should lead to better blocking/unblocking practices in the future, not simply for blocks of you but for blocks of others. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like that's going to happen any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make above is that the three links at the end to Malleus's block log specifically pinpoint three blocks by three administrators (two of those admins are active, one is desysopped and indefinitely blocked). If I was one of the active administrators in question having a specific blocking action questioned at great remove like this, I'd would expect to be notified on my talk page (was this done for the two admins that are currently active?) and for ArbCom to have the courtesy to say which of the three descriptions apply to the block in question. Those descriptions are: "placed by involved administrators, applied in a manner that was below the standard expected of administrators, or for conduct that did not rise to the general expectations for a disruption block". By not being specific, ArbCom are effectively casting general aspersions at all the administrators in Malleus's block log by saying some are 'involved/poor/misapplied' blocks, but are electing not to say which were which. It would be comparable to saying that of the cases ArbCom decided last year, some were decided by involved arbitrators who should have recused, some were decided in a manner below that expected of ArbCom, and some remedies were passed for conduct that didn't rise to the standard expected to trigger such remedies. And then, rather than specify which was which, finish off by throwing in links to three cases and let everyone try and work out which descriptions applied to which cases. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expunging one's record

Silk Tort and NYB have asked what value there is in listing the 3 blatantly bad blocks years after they occured. It's called expunging one's record. In real life people spend years fighting to clear their name for crimes that they didn't do or to rectify wrongs that they felt were unjustly imposed. Malleus has been punished several times by block first admins who have overstepped their bounds. While some of them were reversed by others, the inditement exists on the record and cannot be removed. BUT there is a sense of freedom/justification in saying, "Malleus these blocks were completely unjustified." Now, I don't expect ArbCOM to overrule all of them. But some are better than none. I mean the Swatjester block that I undid, was his very first block ever---and it was one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Since the block record of users is used by future admins when reviewing candidates, it poisoned the well. Is there any wonder that Malleus has developed a deep seated distrust for the system when it has admins put a "24 hour cooling off block" on a person 36 hours after the last comments in the issue? No, while some of the blocks were valid and some a questionable, some were obviously wrong and the community needs to apologize for those bad blocks. And the only real way the community can do so in a meaningful way is for ArbCOM to declare that at least the 3 or 4 blocks highlighted were bad. False convictions often affect people negatively, time to expunge his record.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC) If Malleus isn't concerned, then I withdraw my reasoning.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would your opinion on the way the encyclopedia is run and administrators in general be determined by inappropriate blocks in your own block log? Those of you gifted with powers of empathy might indeed sympathise with an editor who had such a log, especially if it was used as an excuse for further blocks. I know I would.J3Mrs (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly been an element of that in my mind for some considerable time now, and it certainly has coloured my view of the way things are run here. But I feel oddly relieved that ArbCom appears to be agreeing that at least some of the blocks were improper. It's less important to me whether that was three, four, or however many; what matters to me is that it may go some way to acting as a defence against the "look at the size of his block log" gang. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Injustice really gets under my skin. I'd probably quit; I nearly did in December. Pesky (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on that, being a "stubborn bastard", is that I wouldn't give anyone the satisfaction of feeling that they'd succeeded in chasing me away. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sympathy whatsoever. Contributions can be classified as:

• Black - unquestionably consistent with conservative interpretation of Wikipedia standards.
• Red - Quickly blocked and/or indeffed.
• Gray - pushing the limits of notability vague community standards.

If you play in gray sometimes you have to pay. While I concur with much of Malleus's statements regarding inconsistency of application I have zero sympathy with his having to deal with the logical outcome of his pattern of contributions. Nobody Ent 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comment, as I've yet to see much logic being deployed here, and even less honesty. What I have seen is a great deal of vindictiveness. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, vindictiveness is hard-wired into the human psyche; it's what animal behaviourists would call "species-normal". We humans have to make a conscious decision not to do vindictive things, and sometimes it's much harder than other times, and some people find it much harder than other people do. It's the nature of humans; we should rise above it, particularly in a collaborative and collegiate environment, but what we should do and what we do do can be very different things. Pesky (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imprudent judgement is not vindictiveness. The workshop make its clear that many editors find MFs long term pattern of interaction periodically crosses the boundaries of civil behavior, many do not, many perhaps do but that his other contributions compensate for the perceived misstatements. 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

...who finds the wording of principle #3 somewhat disturbing? While I'm sure that ArbCom didn't mean it this way, I think it could be easily read as, essentially, codifying the concept of the "vested contributor" who can get away with damn near anything because they are "a valuable content creator" and thus "must be protected" from being blocked or otherwise being given any sort of corrective punishment or being blocked for incivility or anything else. Given that one of the loci of this whole case has been whether or not civility policies do and/or should apply equally to all editors (hell, just look at FoF's 10 and 11!), it seems odd that the wording of that principle should be ambiguous enough to allow anyone to potentially WP:GAME it by, hypothetically, parading their GA or FA counts, or their article creation numbers, or their total edit count, or any other metric.

Note that I'm not saying I disagree with the principle--I certainly agree that someone who has been providing quality content to en-wiki for a long time and snaps at someone on very rare occasions (say, once or twice a year) should get a "slap on the wrist" reminder to play nice, while someone who just shows up and starts cussing people out with no history behind them should be treated more harshly (it's similar to how if someone like me, with a conviction for driving on an expired license and a couple speeding tickets, ends up in court over something, I'd almost certainly get a lighter sentence than someone with three armed robberies and five felony assaults on his record). I just think that it might need some tweaking in the wording to avoid being wikilawyered into "I churn out four FAs per year so I'm untouchable and can say anything I want." rdfox 76 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the first thing an unregistered or newly registered account does is make personal attacks, edit-war, contribute BLP violations, or vandalize, the response will almost certainly be a block that nobody will overturn after only a few edits; they have to make an extremely good case to get unblocked. With editors who have a history of positive contributions, much more effort is put into educating, encouraging the editor to participate in discussion and consensus-building, warning/reminding; blocks are a last resort and tend to be of limited and short duration. That doesn't just apply to those who have GAs and FAs; it applies to just about every editor with a history of positive contribution to the project. While I think sometimes we're too quick to block new editors who just haven't had the expectations explained to them (we're pretty awful at educating new editors), I do not think it is a net negative to have different standards for contributors whose work is mostly positive as compared to newly created accounts whose first edits make it clear they're not here to improve the project. Risker (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I had typed out much of what Risker has just written, but she's said it better, so I'll just endorse her comments. It's also worth noting that principle 3 is not new in this decision; it's been said several times over the years in various arbitration decisions, and fortunately, to my knowledge it hasn't been misused in the way that you (Rdfox 76) are concerned about. That being said, if you have a better wording to suggest, feel free; if nothing else, we can bear it in mind for next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's old news indeed. By the way, I've added that to the blocking policy yesterday. Insofar nobody reverted. Cross fingers. Tough luck for exopedians. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm interpreting it, the way the decision is trending now, the entire thing actually more or less codifies incivility by vested contributors as protected. FoFs here establish that a) Malleus has been uncivil, repeatedly and long-term, b) Malleus writes lots of content, and c) B cancels out A and means that A does not rise to the level of being blockable; and Proposed Remedies establish that blocking Malleus will be responded to with admonishments and possible desysoppings, while incivility by Malleus will be met with a reminder that being nice is a nice thing to do. Looks to me like incivility blocks against anyone will be thing of the past if this proposed decision goes into effect, as arbcom will have raised the bar for blockable incivility so high that no one is able to meet it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there will be fewer blocks for incivility. But I would not despair just because of that. In a recently closed case, a long-term contributor was banned for somewhat similar behavior. However, he had received a prior warning from ArbCom and also an AE topic ban for the same type of behavior. In yet another case closed yesterday, a principle about recidivism was passed. So, when NYB says "excessive at this time", I think it's an overreaction to read that as "never". In the end, it's a balancing act. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that if repeated, long-term, acknowledged-by-pretty-much-everyone incivility isn't blockable, then in practice, virtually no incivility is blockable. That may be the intention - perhaps arbcom feels that incivility blocks are bad medicine and wants to curtail them - or it may not - perhaps arbcom intends to give Malleus a wink-and-nudge pass on this one because of his content creation, and doesn't realize that it sets a questionable precedent - but if it's the latter, they need to revisit their decision and work that kink out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The way the decision is trending now, the entire thing actually more or less codifies incivility by vested contributors as protected." Isn't ArbCom admonishing Hawkeye7 for saying the very same thing? Unless I'm missing something, this PD doesn't indict them, it vindicates them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took three ArbCom cases to find a solution to the Δ conundrum. (And I'm not saying they found the best one.) In the end, half of the participants were going to be unhappy anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it means that there will be fewer bad blocks for incivility, and that productive editors will be more likely to be treated with dignity and respect rather than as naughty children. I realise that Flutternutter and AQFK must be deeply disappointed to see that it seems unlikely now that I'll be banned completely, but I really must take issue with hyperbole such as "repeated, long-term, acknowledged-by-pretty-much-everyone incivility", which is very far from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MF: My comment was about the irony of admonishing someone while simultaneously agreeing that they were right. I suggest ArbCom pick one and go with it, but not both. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have they agreed that I was right? My reading of the proposed decision is that they're agreeing that at least some of the blocks were appropriate, but others weren't, without agreeing a precise split on which is which. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how many of the blocks, if any, do you think were appropriate? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. I haven't refreshed my memory of any but the earliest ones, which set the pattern really, but off the top of my head I'd say that a reasonable case could probably be made for three or four of them. Including ironically Hawkeye7's most recent block. Arguably he did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I wouldn't say that he did the right thing for the wrong reason... but I will agree that if he had cited your "fucking cunt" comment in his block rationale instead of "per consensus", then his inolvment in this case would be vastly different and I don't think people would have come after him like they had. The action of desysopping Hawkeye indicates that ArbCOM accepted his initial rationale for the block and not the revised version. Thus, I would classify the block as misapplied.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the "fucking cunt" thing was way over the line, and a block for that would have been perfectly understandable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... productive editors will be more likely to be treated with dignity and respect rather than as naughty children. Not holding my breath on that one. That is one of the things this case should have studied, but if'n you ask me, the trend towards admins treating productive editors like naughty children to be blocked (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail) is not only not on the decline-- it's on the rise. The problem here (Wikipedia, in general) is that there is no institutional memory-- we're dealing with a new crop of editors every time a recurring issue surfaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that where ArbCom comes in? Aren't decisions taken here part of Wikipedia's institutional memory? Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: 1) I told you a while back that this case was not well presented. The clear connection between admin abuse and uneven civility enforcement was never made. Can't blame the arbs. 2) I'm referring to institutional memory of editors and admins-- take for example the DYK problem-- a whole ton of contemporary editors don't even remember Halloween 2010, the abuse you took from Rod, any number of things, and that contributes to bad decision making at ANI. 3) WRT ArbCom's role, yes-- it troubles me that NYB is downplaying the significance of the bad blocks in your block log, since from the very first (involved admin) sprung the rest of the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that NYB's attitude is somewhat revealing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think a big part of the problem is that many of the blocks in your log are really shitty blocks—even the ones that were imposed for genuine incivility and were procedurally correct were more often than not for very tame comments that (in my opinion) didn't rise anywhere near the level where a block might be justified. However, you have made comments in the past that did rise to a level where a block would be entirely appropriate, such as calling Spitfire a cunt—calling someone a cunt (barring significant provocation, and even then...) is a good way to get yourself a 24-hour enforced wikibreak, even from me, and I very, very rarely make "civility blocks"—and a lot of those comments have gone unsanctioned, which means your block log looks rather odd when one hears of your reputation and then investigates it from your block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never disputed that my calling Spitfire a fucking cunt was a misjudgement on my part, and I've apologised for it several times. What else am I expected to do? Say three Hail Mary's and one Lord's Prayer? And just to round this off, I've been called far worse by administrators who weren't even warned, never mind sanctioned. That's the untreated sore here that needs lancing, to borrow Balloonman's metaphor. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Newyorkbrad has got it completely wrong here in suggesting that my attitude is that if the administrators can do it then so can I, to the point of dishonesty I think. My attitude is that nobody should be doing it, and that example needs to be set from the top. Including from him. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to miss the part where I was agreeing with you about the state of your block log! ;) But I used that comment as an example because it's a memorable example of the kind of comment that would justify a block, as opposed to some of those that wouldn't (in my opinion), but for which you were blocked. (And for the record, if I witnessed an admin calling somebody a fucking cunt, they'd get a 24-hour enforced wikibreak if that's what anybody else would get in the circumstances, but there's little that can be done about comments older than a few days). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely. I've never protested any block, I would never protest any block, and I certainly didn't protest Hawkeye7's recent block. But putting that recent example to one side, do you have any others? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, my points 2 and 3 are related. The lack of institutional memory at ANI wrt your block log-- yes-- can be partially cleared up by passing the finding that NYB opposes. What we have now is admins who lack institutional memory judge you based on the length of your block log, and block you based on your pre-existing block log for things that evereyone everywhere does all over the Wikpedia. Nonetheless ... no more f'ing cs, ok? If my point 1) wasn't established in this case, I've got an example of the whole shebang (admin neglect, uneven enforcement, admin abuse, intimidation of regular editors, sexism-- the works). Except that I no longer give a damn-- having stared down an abusive cabal of admins once already, I just think it's sick that it still goes on to such an extent in here, and strong remedies are needed to get it to stop. Yes, that's up to the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least part of the reason for this is the requirement that admins be uninvolved being read so strictly. Not having had any prior interaction with Malleus meant that I literally had no memory. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as I've already said I think that your block is one that a reasonable case could be made for, but not for the reasons you gave for imposing it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the finding very well written. The standards should be the same for everyone; how they're implemented should take context, including an editor's contributions et. al. into consideration. Nobody Ent 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed the bit where my contributions were taken into account before the decision was taken to eject me from the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit you seem to have missed is where you eject other editors from the project without taking into account their contributions. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Good luck Malleus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye -- I haven't seen evidence that you're being ejected from the project? Nobody Ent 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's just being led by the horns into the wilderness and pushed into a gully. Which considering the alternative fate isn't that bad. Still, as he did little more than any goat, I cannot blame him for feeling that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Malleus Fatuorum

(Arbitration subsection break)

One of your comments above illustrates precisely the issue that I find exists in some of your editing. You were calmly pointing out that you still disagree with my paraphrase of your attitude. I was carefully considering what I should say in response, in addition to what I've already said on this page...

... and then you throw in "... to the point of dishonesty, I think." Unless I am misunderstanding it, in which case I would appreciate being corrected, that interjection is offensive and without value. Are you really meaning to suggest that after all the consideration I've given to this case and its proposed predecessors, that I've now started gratuitously telling lies on the proposed decision page on purpose? Why on earth would I do such a thing? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said that you're telling lies? I simply think that your eyes are either closed to, or averted from, what's really going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dishonesty" implies intentional falsehood as I understand the word. If you say you were using it differently I will accept that. We can consider this part of the thread closed, as no good is likely to come of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just realized one other thing, in re-visiting the decision page: my comment to which you've objected was that your comments seemed to come off a certain way. Only you know your intentions as you wrote everything you've written about civility issues and administrator "corruption" and the like; but only I can know how I understood your comments when I read them. And in this case, among other places, I have not been an inattentive reader. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall accusing you of dishonesty; read what I said again. What I most definitely do accuse you of though is turning a blind eye to administrator abuse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By saying 'to the point of dishonesty, I think' you are openly musing apon the possibility of NYB being dishonest (as in, lying) when he 'suggest(s) that my attitude is that if the administrators can do it then so can I'. So while you may be able to hide behind the technical fact that you at no point said the words 'Newyorkbrad is a liar' or 'Newyorkbrad is dishonest' you came about as close to saying it as possible without actually saying it. From where I sit, I see both BAITing and GAMEing... and NYB falling right into it. 72.37.244.156 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to sit somewhere else, where the view is better. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? If taken literally (and I think that's what we're supposed to do), this would mean that every comment made by every editor in a discussion would have to create an improvement on the discussion as at the preceeding comment. Now, that's gonna be flippin' hard to do if the discussion started well or was going perfectly ... the only option left is not to contribute at all!

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's what you said! Pesky (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ....ummm, and eight of you signed it? ;P Pesky (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is a little concerning, but the principle they're trying to get at is something that there seemed to be consensus for. It shifts the goalposts from "in my opinion this post was civil/uncivil so I won't/will block" to "Was the poster's primary intention to disrupt, to upset, or to make a strongly worded but helpful point?" —WFC— 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has no teeth for the regular editor if it's not first enforced for admins. And it is not enforced for admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pesky was pointing out that the phrasing implied we were all now required to be more constructive than the current level of discourse at any given discussion, which is indeed a (certainly unintended) consequence of the awkward phrasing. 28bytes (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I take this opportunity to praise Pesky for drawing attention to a potential implication in the wording of the resolution, which if interpreted literally, could lead to difficulties in making contributions to effective discourse? I have every confidence that esteemed Arbitrators, in their collective wisdom, did not intend any problematic inference to be drawn from their resolution. I would therefore politely suggest that they consider if minor alterations to this phrase could convey the same positive message about the importance of constructive discussion without the awkward implication that Pesky has so kindly noted. Geometry guy 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably have been blocked for saying that: insufficient deference shown to the arbitrators. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd have been reprimanded, Malleus. Actually, being an HFA with that literal-sense-of-humour thing, it had me in fits of giggles as I visualised editors sitting at their respective computers, racking their brains to try and think of any comment which would "directly improve" upon what had gone before, with silence and reprimand sitting on opposing horns of their dilemma. I may add it to my "funnies" stable, though it will never have the die-of-laughing quotient as, for example, The ArbCom Secret Ballet ;P Pesky (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have concerns about this wording simply because it leaves the determination of what directly improves the level of discourse up to someone who might have a specific agenda. It might also appear more even-handed if "editors" was changed to "all participants." Pesky's point is well-taken.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, of course, that more serious note. In whose opinion does the "improvement" have to be? Or is this going to be another nebulous, ill-defined (and therefore unequally applied) area for dramah? Pesky (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the level of discourse here seems to be completely failing to make the point, let me try to raise it according to a different metric.

Wake up arbitrators. This is one of the most bizarre parts of a remedy that I have ever seen. How can you possibly ask all editors to improve the level of discourse in their contributions, without defining what "improve" means? And no matter how it is defined, do you really want every contribution to a discussion to be "better" than what has gone before? Geometry guy 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a copy-edit that I think would solve this. The point of this is "no trending towards flinging mud" not "you have to be better than the last guy to run his mouth", which I agree would be an unreasonable standard. Courcelles 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 'celles :o) - please see here though; it's quite important to get this one absolutely right, and though your suggestion is vastly better, I think it still needs a tweak. Easy to do; and will work better for more editors. Pesky (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT#Is it possible to block an editor just from some pages but not others?. The answer is no. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is possible, but we don't normally do that. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) More accurately, the answer is yes, but we don't have such a facility enabled and it would mean reconfiguring our implementation of Mediawiki (which is not going to happen). 92.24.57.155 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principle 14 is poorly constructed such that it flies in the face of repeated opposition to language gags. As Principle 14 is perhaps the clearest expression of the Arbitrator's collective finding in relation to the potential for language to disrupt, (Principle 13, on the other hand, is reasonably on target; Principle 2 focuses on the offensive nature of language, not on language itself). In particular:

• "or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community"

is a monstrous formulation. The reasonability is not on the offence, but on the anticipation of the offence. This is anti-internationalist as the criteria for reasonability is culturally constructed. In particular, it leaves our friends from North America with their dictionary prudishness as the standard of anticipation. Moreover, the solution is relatively simple:

• "or use of language that can be anticipated to reasonably offend a significant segment of the community"

the core of this is: the offence must be reasonable, not the anticipation of the offence. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think even Fifelfoo's proposal gives too much weight to the block-happy tendency. "Language that can be anticipated to reasonably offend a significant segment of the community" would forbid someone even saying "jeez", given that there there are significant communities in the US who would genuinely consider this "blasphemy". If Arbcom really want to go down the road of dictating what is and is not "uncivil", they should tell the WMF to grow a pair and just issue a statement saying "Wikipedia is an American project and users are expected to conform to US cultural norms when communicating". People wouldn't like it, but at least it would get rid of the culture of "uncivil is anything controversial when said by somebody with whom I happen to disagree". 92.24.57.155 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about right. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the test of what a reasonable person is, I think we're secure in arguing that extremist political-Christianist Americans are not reasonable when offended by "jesus fucking christ," for example. At least this is the only way I can square Arbcom's apparently neglect of the community's vehemently put position against banning me using words such as "cunt" as emphatics with their Principle 14. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly depends on who uses the words, not the words themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the principle in favour of internationalism in language, principles like 14 indicate that this encyclopaedia is very clearly en_US. and not en. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I generally try not to pass US-centric judgment on anybody, I do have to say that in this particular instance I have to agree with that one. Sorry, guys, but the majority isn't necessarily "right" about what language is or isn't offensive, when it's purely a geo-lottery thing. It's tantamount to saying that American intepretations have to take priority over everybody else's interpretations, and we're all to be judged by American standards, in too many cases. Pesky (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a culture in which such language is acceptable? I exclude certain pubs and certain teenage groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P14 is spot on and should be supported by any reasonable contributor. I find Fifeloo's interpretation totally objectionable and his persistent forcing of his opinion to be utterly tiresome. It is enough for us to know how proud he is of his idiosyncratic views regarding civility without bombastically trumpeting the fact to all and sundry at every opportunity. Leaky Caldron 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wehwalt, regarding "is there a culture", well, yes, there is! And it's not just pubs and teenage groups, it's in all sorts of areas in the UK, such as riding stables, farms, racing stables, and a lot of other places which aren't "restricted to formality only" areas. In some of these it might be considered slightly risqué, but not "unacceptable", per se. And I've head the c-word on some could-be-surprisingly upmarket lips, too! Many, many years ago (decades ago, actually), when I was in instructor training, one of the "sets" which used to visit the yard was Bunny Esterhazy's "set" (yes, that's as in Princess Esterhazy), a motley assortment of titled and "the Hon", and I even managed to achieve driving the lush Ferrari of a Hooray Henry who is now a baronet ... and yes, the F-word and the C-word, and quite a few other such words were regularly heard! It was, if anything, a wicked-giggle matter rather than a shock-horror matter. Pesky (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to point you, LeakyCaldron, to the repeated failed discussions of such language gags at village pumps? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Leaky Caldron 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of formal ban on certain words only implies that -- there is no prohibition on specific words. It does not mean that they do not contribute to incivility, as clearly stated by our policy. It is a (frequently repeated all over Wikipedia) false dichotomy that anything that doesn't get you blocked is hunky-dory. The are vast regions of gray. Nobody Ent 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Repeated discussions of language gags have been closed with an awareness that it isn't the form of a word, but the content and moreover the direction of words that are problems. The construction of principle 14 is both retrograde and in conflict with expressed community opinion in this regard, expressed opinion which Arbcom's attention was drawn to. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding of fact 4 says that the stated cause for the block had been resolved. However, the stated cause was "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds".[51] Likewise, 4.1 says the incident which prompted the block had been resolved. But the block wasn't about a specific incident. You guys need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a FOF that more accurately represents the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward said the block was for the comment (which had been redacted with MF's consent) and the indef was based on the long term pattern: I've blocked Malleus for the above. No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this; that this is not merely long-term but a permanent part of his presence here has led to said block being indefinite. Nobody Ent 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "I've blocked Malleus for the above" don't you understand AQFK? Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK is referring Thumperward's block log comment, which is inconsistent with his statement on Rfa. Nobody Ent 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly told you, I did not block for the swear word but for the entire set of drama. You've chosen to repeatedly interpret the phrase "the above" with a meaning which suits your argument, and by virtue of my choosing not to rebut you every single time this appears to have gotten some traction. That doesn't make it any more factual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make it any more true either. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nobody Ent: Hmmmm...I guess I can see what you're saying. But the current wording still misrepresents the situation. It should say something like 'the which incident which prompted the block had been resolved but the ongoing issues had not' or something. I'll leave to ArbCom to come up with better wording; this is why they get paid the big bucks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid characterizations and directly quote Thumperward. Generously, not a soundbite.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording of the remedy is "John is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.'", but I don't think that goes far enough. Setting aside whether or not John was "involved" in this matter, we also have multiple other issues:

• John reversed another administrator's actions without making any attempt to contact that administrator ahead of time.[52]
• He even said in the diff, that he hadn't heard Thumperward's rationale yet.
• John claimed a "strong consensus" at ANI when there was no such consensus.

I understand the arbs' desire to show leniency because John has since apologized for his actions, so okay, that's reasonable, he has avoided a de-sysopping. But at a minimum, the case should document what he did. Suggested wording could be, "John is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions without attempting to contact the administrator first, for acting while said actions were still under review through community discussion, and for claiming there was a "strong consensus"[53] when in fact a discussion had only been ongoing for 20 minutes." --Elonka 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In John's defense I'd like to highlight one comment in the AN/I thread Elonka refers to:

...I've just told Thumperward I'm about to unblock Malleus, although I would prefer it if he did. This is the silliest block I've seen in a while - the conversation was in the early hours of the morning, and Malleus had allowed someone to redact the rude word - which seems to be the root of the problem. I have one of those, and therefore am allowed to say I didn't faint when he referred to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) [54]

When you have an arb saying that she thinks the block is bad enough to unilaterally overturn, I think it would be more than a little unfair for ArbCom to then sanction – or even admonish – someone for overturning it. To her credit, Elen did not back away from this assessment and stood firm on this point later in the same thread:

Just to point out that John wasn't wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL. He (and I, and Gwen Gale, and a couple of other admins in the half-hour or so between the ANI notice and the unblock) all thought it was a bad administrative action, which can be undone by another administrator. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC) [55]

Yes, Elen does not speak for all of ArbCom, and she was not acting as a representative of ArbCom in that thread, but I hope the point is clear that this wasn't some cowboy admin action John pulled out of the air: this was an action that multiple respected admins, including an ArbCom member, clearly stated was warranted. 28bytes (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, and I agree that Elen's voice has some extra weight due to her status. However, I feel very strongly about this. Kneejerk block reversals are disruptive, and need to stop. When one admin undoes a block without any attempt at discussion with the blocking admin, that's a serious breach, and they should probably be de-sysopped for such an action. And just because someone is an arbitrator, does not make them infallible. If Elen would have unblocked without discussion, it would have been just as wrong. Indeed, that appears to have been her first inclination, was to unblock without even waiting for Thumperward's rationale,[56] but when another editor said she should wait,[57] Elen backed down and said Thumperward should do it.[58] But John was already unblocking by that point, and informed Thumperward of the unblock 4 minutes later.[59] Further, there were other admins who spoke up in support of the block, but it got undone too fast to be subjected to any serious discussion.[60][61] I stand by my proposed wording: John unblocked without contacting the blocking admin first, without waiting for consensus to form, and his characterization of a "strong consensus" at ANI was incorrect. An admonishment is the least that should happen. --Elonka 07:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid block reversals need to stop. Rapid blocks by individuals without community consent which eventually, eventually, rely on a long term disruption rationale need to stop. Administrators hold a mop. They too can bring what they consider to be long term issues to AN for a community block. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with your concern about kneejerk block reversals, but as Fifelfoo says above, poorly considered blocks are disruptive as well, and in many cases, I would argue, more disruptive. Kneejerk anything is bad, but we do need some sort of checks and balances that allow for a prompt but considered reversal of poorly considered admin actions. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, poor initial decisions (if we can even accept that in this case) are far less disruptive by an order of magnitude than strident undoing of decisions. There is a process, and going outside of process to coddle troublemakers from the consequences of their trouble only increases the amount of trouble here. Some Arbocom members support the proposition, incredibly, that a few frequent denizens weighing in a few minutes after the event establishes that the administrative action ran against consensus. That too only encourages game-playing. If you had polled the other 50,000 active editors instead of the hotheads who play the administrative boards, and they agreed to weigh in within a few minutes, the outcome would certainly have been a lot more supportive of the proposition that you can't go about calling people cunts on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am supportive of the proposition that you can't go about calling people cunts on Wikipedia. I'm not real wild about calling people "troublemakers" and "hotheads" either, but then I think the best way to promote civil behavior is to speak civility, even to those with whom one disagrees. 28bytes (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have a process for blocking for long term actions: a community ban discussion. Mop wielders need to understand that they merely toggle a switch in a technical apparatus. Everybody makes policy. Rationales either have an immediate preventative purpose, in which case they relate to presently continuing conduct; or, they have a long term habitual rationale in which case there is no immediacy to blocking and the mop-wielder can bring their ideas to the bloody community. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, John was involved. He himself admitted it. Whether or not his action was right, or wrong, is not relevant. He was involved, there was no emergency, and his action was not that tolerated under WP:INVOLVED for involved admins. John was in the wrong, he admitted it, and while I don't know whether this ArbCom would actually have sanctioned him seriously—based on the way they are adjusting the finding against Thumperward to fit the desired punishment, my cyncism argues no—John was at least one of the few people in this case who have admitted some fault. In this case, it is pointless to build up Elen by calling her an arb, though she is of course. She also is involved, she promptly recused, and as a partisan, her opinion is entitled to no more deference than that of the next recused admin. Please do not diminish John's forthright, though belated action by admitting his wrong by trying to pretend it was not desperately needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John was correct to apologize, especially for the involved aspect of the unblock, and I am glad he did so. I will readily agree with you about the involved aspect, but the admonishment makes no mention of it, and it's a separate issue from the unblock timing concerns that Elonka points out. 28bytes (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the argument that trumps "Well, John's unblock wasn't really so bad."--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies, I was editing my comment as you were posting a reply.) Yes, it does trump it in that sense. My point is mainly that the unblock was not something John was alone in contemplating, and indeed he had very good company. 28bytes (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. But I contemplate a lot of things, in which I am no different than the next guy, experience then dictates which of those will be OK things to do and which of those things might attract adverse comment. John definitely picked from Column B.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I admire John for his statement, and hope he understands that I bring it up here not because I still hold it against him (I do not), but because until this case is closed, we have to discuss these painful things. I hope I did not cause him any unhappiness by my mentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark me as inactive on this case. I really don't have the time just now to go through it all in detail. Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 07:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded is not a reasonable remedy. It's unrealistic to think either every editor will read the decision nor that following the closure of the case the clerks are going to put reminder notices on every user's talk page. Of course positing such a notice to the many editors minding their own business would be inappropriate spam. Nobody Ent 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the purpose of the reminder is to serve as a soft switch for rapping the knuckles of editors who misbehave and to set them on a path for potentially greater sanctions should they not "engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion". Read NYB's commentary at the bottom which appears to address your concern. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What about editors who are keeping the level of discourse just as good as it was before, without improving it, though? ;P Can't we just have something simple, without the double-negative thing in there? Perhaps "engage in conduct that makes any discussion more confrontational or contentious" ? Pesky (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the vaunting ambition of that phrasing struck me too. How about just "not to engage in conduct that will lower the level of discourse in a discussion"? Kanguole 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For me (and therefore probably for anyone else anywhere in the region of HFA or its relatives), that would still be too ambiguous. It still leaves the "in whose opinion" thing about what equates to "lowering the level of discourse". I think anything like this has to be really specific. See this thread for a bit more info on why this is important. Pesky (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More directly: The run of the mill editor will never see the reminder, so what's the point? Nobody Ent 23:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky is right, I was wondering about the wording even before he posted. Perhaps removing the double negative and going to something like "not to engage in conduct disruptive to the ongoing discussion or which lowers the tone below acceptable standards for the development of wiki-consensus"? This would remove the problem of posts which do not raise the tone of an already-polite discussion. It would reiterate the prohibition on disruptive behaviour. "Acceptable standards" is, I recognise, a debatable standard but it leaves the threshhold at the pre-existing level and so does not threaten that editors who never read this reminder could be suddenly blocked by an over-zealous admin deciding that ArbCom has endorsed a new standard. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request the committee address the following: Written policy clearly states Requests for comment on user conduct is the main avenue for disputes about user conduct. and yet no RFC/U has ever been filed regarding MF. Nobody Ent 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the WQA has been mentioned above. It is not a suitable forum for discussion of Malleus's long term editing behavior

Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks.

The issue is not that MF is unaware of other editor's interpretation of civility standards, it's that he doesn't agree with them. Regular participation in the board is light, and posting of a discussion involving traditionally brings many editors supportive of MF to the board. Nobody Ent 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone sufficiently sick of hearing that such and such is a red link knows how to deal with it. I see no point in discussing it. We know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why -- if it is true as has been repeatedly asserted 'everyone knows Malleus is incivil' -- no editor did what our written policies say to do. Is RFC/U thought to be broken? If so, how do we fix it? The big picture I'm suggesting is: Where do we, as a community, go from here? block/unblock wheel wars, ANI churn and ArbCom cases are not a good solution. RFC/U is all I've got. Nobody Ent 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the feeling is that people's views on Malleus, pro and con, are fairly intractable, and that both sides exists in sufficient numbers to block any possible consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, there is always a consensus -- it's just right now the consensus is seemingly ceaseless disruption fretting over it. An RFC/U could wrap the whole discussion in a bow such that, the next time a dramafest begins, we can just direct editors to the summary. Presumably a full length RFC/U would give everyone a chance to have their say. (I don't advocate starting one now -- we should see what the final decision here ends up being.) Nobody Ent 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes, RFC/U is broken. I could go on at length about why I think that, but this isn't the venue for it. Suffice it to say that if anyone thought another RFC/U on Malleus would have helped anything, they'd have started one. 28bytes (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another? Was there ever one? Nobody Ent 17:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's astounding. No wonder MF is cynical. He makes a cogent point, and does so cleverly, and the reward is an RFCU which took too long to reach this obvious conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, aside from the 2008 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum, there was also an attempted RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum in 2009, brought by Ipatrol (talk · contribs). It got comments and endorsements from a couple dozen editors, but was then retracted by the nominator, and deleted as uncertified. --Elonka 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically (for the benefit of non-admins) no one endorsed the filer's complaint, 16 people endorsed Malleus' response, between 10 and 17 people endorsed a number of outside views condemning the RfC, and the filer requested deletion with the edit summary "Please delete this, not filed in good faith or with a clear mind". I don't think I've ever seen a bigger WP:boomerang. As a side note, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum was only undeleted for the purposes of this case; I presume a clerk will want to redelete it once the case is closed. 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even matter? AFAIK, ArbCom routinely sanctions editors who have never had a RFC/U on them, and requiring one at this point would mean unduing years worth of ArbCom cases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of... see the evidence page.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in the "finding of facts" space rather than remedies. One goal of an ArbCom decision should be to help provide clarity to the community. Nobody Ent 17:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question posed at the top of this section. I offer two observations: ArbCom indeed mostly declines to handle requests that haven't followed the DR "chain", but we reserve the right to not let that become a straightjacket., The Committee will accept (and issue remedies in) cases that are "highly divisive amongst the community and administrators". Looking at, for example, MF's log (I'm not commenting on the substance of the blocks, just the fact that they're there and there is much action/reaction etcetera( , is there much doubt that this is a highly divisive issue? We do not want to be so hidebound by rules and traditions that requiring folks to fill out "Form 16/c, "Evidence of Request for Comment" in triplicate, in red ink" is a necessary step to resolving highly divisive issues on Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understand the circumstances of the case -- what I'm getting at (apparently not very clearly) is I note the committee has addressed in general terms, e.g. inconsistencies but no mention is made of RFC/U. It's more a request to consider a finding / encouragement / note regarding RFC/U. Nobody Ent 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sir Fozzie is exactly right on the thought process (and I say this as one who thought an RFC/U should have been done.) The correct meta process is to examine what steps in the DR process have been tried, and not to mindlessly point out missing steps, with an admonition to come back when the paperwork is in order, but to thought-fully decide whether filling in the missing steps has enough chance of success to insist that it take place. I believe the committee considered that, but determined that this case was "ripe". I think they should continue to have the authority to accept or reject cases as they see fit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Fozzie,

I remain troubled by the reasoning behind the RfA-ban on Malleus. The conclusion (the ban) may be reasonable, and indeed has been informally accepted by Malleus (as not being a problem for him); however, the findings of fact fall short of compelling the action: Risker has commented on "ownership" and on "disruption" [disruptive editing], expanding greatly the meaning of the these terms in WP's current documents, imho. There is enough problem with lesser administrators misusing those terms at ANI without ArbCom setting a precedent expanding the scope of each "ownership" and "disruption" each.

Being a committee of arbitration more than a supreme court, ArbCom has the authority to recommend an RfA ban (perhaps voluntary) without resorting to BS findings about "ownership" or "disruption".

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

with a unanimous finding of "11) The civility policy has been the subject of ongoing debate since its creation in 2004, with over 1700 edits to the policy and more than 3400 edits to its talk page. This ongoing debate highlights continuing disagreement on what constitutes incivility, and particularly sanctionable incivility, and makes it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy." it seems very unusual that the Arbs would even consider handing out anything beyond a warning to any of the parties involved.

and considering finding 10 along with 11 are at the very root of this whole mess, it is extremely dissappointing that the Committee has proposed NOTHING to address those concerns. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]