Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Unblocks and enabling		26 October 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	18 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	18 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Unblocks and enabling

Initiated by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) at 08:04, 2 November 2011‎

Involved parties

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1] Mkativerata
• [2] Kaldari
• Georgewilliamherbert filing party
• Notification to Malleus per his informal request to be notified [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion with Mkativerata on his talk page: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is an unfortunate situation and one I would much rather not be filing. It involves longstanding editors and administrators who are generally productively active in some of the most problematic areas on Wikipedia today. However, it's only the most recent in a very long history of similar block/unblock cycles, which have been periodic and persistent enough to earn a specific nickname - "enabling unblocks". At some point this requires a systematic response rather than ongoing disruption.

In short summary, this incident proceeded in the following sequence (ANI archive thread [9]:

1. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) got into a name calling dispute on Talk:Manchester United F.C. arguing over singular vs plural grammar.

2. Tbhotch reported the incident to ANI

3. Mkativerata responded first, arguing that neither party was in the right and that administrators should not intervene

4. Further comments from Guerillero, Tbhoch, John, Wikidemon, and Quinn follow.

5. Kaldari responds with: "I warned Malleus about making personal attacks last month. Clearly he hasn't taken it to heart. Blocking for 24 hours. Kaldari (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)" [10]

6. SandyGeorgia commented that the block was asymmetrical despite roughly equal misbehavior, with a brief exchange with Tbhoch.

7. Kaldari answered: "I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)" [11]

8. Bushranger edit conflicted with Kaldari, roughly supporting his position / noting long history w/Malleus.

9. Volunteer Marek objected to the block. Discussion with all of the above except Mkativerata, eventually adding Dayewalker, followed.

10. Kaldari left a warning for Tbhotch at 03:12. [12]

11. Tarc called for unblock in a new subsection at 03:23. Bushranger opposed, further discussion followed with several additional users. Rough even split on the block.

12. Mkativerata unblocked without participation in the ANI discussion and without an effort to contact Kaldari, at 0345. Unblock message was: "(ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served.)"

Per policy: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

A number of similar issues have been addressed by Arbcom relating to Arbitration Enforcement blocks, and a somewhat stricter guideline was laid down as a result of those cases. This case requests review for similar persistent non-AE problem related blocks.

The issues with this unblock include:

1. Failure to establish unambiguous error. There was considerable noticeboard discussion, including a number of admins who believed the block to be flawed or in error. However, there was a significant body of discussion there prior to the unblock, which was approximately 50:50. The assertion in the unblock message "ANI is clear" was a mistake, false, or intentionally misleading.
2. Assertion of an oft-repeated but never policy-recognized first mover advantage for noticeboard respondents. If the first administrator who responds to a noticeboard request declines to do something, that has not in any meaningful sense prohibited others from acting after seeing the discussion. Indeed, it cannot; it would punish administrators who were in the process of responding elsewhere, or were unaware of the filing of a noticeboard report. It establishes an unreasonable first mover advantage in administrator disputes, which Arbcom has repeatedly stressed it does not want to see happen on the project, with considerable community support.
3. Failure to make a good faith effort to contact or notify the blocking administrator. As the ANI thread demonstrates, Kaldari was online and responsive during the time period.
4. Failure to make a good faith effort to participate in the noticeboard thread. The thread was active and available; Mkativerata made one and only one edit in the thread, at the beginning. He made no effort to engage in the discussion there.

A number of valid questions were posed regarding the block - SandyGeorgia and others on the lack of symmetry, several on whether it rose to requiring administrator intervention. Mkativerata raised 3 in the discussion that followed on his talk page:

"(1) Why did Kaldari block an editor in a dispute when an uninvolved administrator had already decided not to block either editor in the dispute? (2) Why did Kaldari do so without consulting that admin or getting consensus for the block? (3) Was Kaldari involved, having been very recently been in direct conflict with the editor he blocked over an article matter?" [13] -Mkativerata

I do not know if or assert those those concerns are all necessarily factually true or correct, but they were raised and discussed.

Arbcom may wish to consider the wisdom of the block. Kaldari is a named party.

My primary focus here, however, is the unblock. In my opinion, this was the latest example of enabling unblocks, done in a disorderly manner and without respect for or consideration for the blocking administrator. It is entirely possible that the block was not in keeping with best practices, unfair and asymmetrical, downright mistaken, or any of the other objections prove sufficient to overturn.

Such unblocks are disrupting the ability of Wikipedia to handle disputes. They are disrespectful and abusive to other administrators, policy, and the community as a whole. The policy was written to allow admins to do the right thing, but strongly encourage them to do it civilly and constructively and collaboratively. That has manifestly failed here as it has repeatedly in the past.

This is an ongoing, oft repeated pattern. We need to establish that this is not OK behavior by administrators.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Responding to Mkativerata's first reply, I refer to this discussion on my talk page regarding the discussion and proto-filing [14]. I repeat my words from there:

It's a disputed and controversial block, not a bad block. There is a difference. I believe the difference is subtle but pertains to when the "except in cases of clear error" in the block policy kicks in, and that particular point has been much ignored and abused. That's the point of all this. With a disputed consensus on ANI, with due notification and discussion, an uninvolved administrator can without controversy or without abusing the policy unblock someone. But - I argue, and I believe importantly - should not simply pull the trigger. Several strong opinions that its bad do not a consensus make when there are countervailing opinions that it was good. Unambiguous bad blocks without support clearly meet "clear error". This incident was exactly and precisely on the line of the problem, and is in fact a perfect test case.

This only "enshrines" an advantage to the first blocker to the degree that absent unambiguous consensus, admins should make a good faith effort to either discuss at the noticeboard and obtain consensus, or discuss with the blocking administrator, prior to unilaterally acting. The community has invested significant faith in the good judgement of admins in giving them the mop; other admins should respect that and not overturn one another without regard or consideration. This is not "don't overturn them". The investment of 15 minutes of discussion prior to the unblock would have eliminated the basis for this complaint. If one is not willing to invest just that much time in community discussion and consensus-building, and at least an effort to notify the blocking admin, should one be wielding the mop? I am not proposing that one must *get* consensus or blocking admin's agreement - just make at least a good faith effort to discuss and get input anytime it's not legitimately "clear error". IDONTLIKEIT is not "clear error", and admins mistaking the two are the crux of the matter. We trust each other to overturn each others' actions when warranted - but not that much. Either put the effort in, or put up the mop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Re striking - with respect, no. If I believed ANI had been clear and supporting the unblock (at the time of the unblock, or any time since) we would not be here; that would meet the "clear error" criterion already established. It was not, and your insistence that it was despite my multiple requests on your talk page is why we are here. Controversial - and 50/50 is controversial - is not "clear error". Controversial is grounds for unblock, but not for unblock without good faith efforts. So here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Again with respect - this is the first time in several days of talk page discussions you've stated that interpretation or intention to your block message. If that's what you intended, no, it's not at all clear in context, nor was it the impression I (and several others) got from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata

I am accused of failing to comply with a policy. What does that policy say? "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." I didn't do the should bit. Normally I would, but I chose not to here. The policy leaves it open to me to make that decision: it says should, not must, and properly so.

The reasons I unblocked Malleus Fatuorum without discussion are:

1. I had decided the matter already. An editor (Tbhotch) requested administrator intervention at ANI in respect of a dispute between him and another editor, Malleus Fatuorum. I was the first uninvolved admin on the scene. After reviewing the circumstances I made the "call", a decision, not to block either party: [15]. I felt well placed to make that call: perhaps unusally for an active admin, I am neither a friend nor a foe of either editor involved in the dispute. I believe I have never edited either of their user talk pages. As the matter had been dealt with by an uninvolved admin (me), a block should not have been unilaterally imposed by Kaldari. I assumed he either deliberately overrode my decision or (carelessly) didn't see it. So I fixed it. As it was a short block, I fixed it quickly. Then came the only thing I regret about my actions: an overly firm message in Malleus' block log. The "First come, first served" reference in the log is a reference to the quite sensible principle that a decision on a matter reported to a noticeboard may be made by the first uninvolved admin to do so. "ANI is clear" meant (contrary to Georgewilliamherbert's assertion) that it was clear from ANI that I had made a decision on the request for intervention.
2. There was clearly no consensus in support of the block, as is clear from the state of ANI at the time. As there was no consensus for the block, I felt it well within my rights to unblock Malleus, reflecting my original decision. For a 24 hour block, an editor shouldn't have to wait longer than 47 minutes to be unblocked when consensus doesn't support the block.
3. It was a short block. Discussing the matter further would have only prolonged two things: first, the ugly ANI thread; secondly, the situation of Malleus Fatuorum not being able to edit because he had been wrongly blocked out of process. The correctness of my judgement is confirmed by the fact that shortly after my unblock, the ANI thread was closed and the heat disappeared (that is, until Georgewilliamherbert showed up).

There are times when acting boldly and quickly and ignoring a policy -- which in this case isn't even mandatory -- is proper. This was such a case.

Georgewilliamherbert criticises the first mover rule. But he essentially proposes a first blocker rule. That any admin can block an editor no matter how many admins have decided not to; and that the block will stand until the blocking admin is convinced to rescind it. That ain't right.

If Arbcom is being asked to change policy in this case, it shouldn't. The policy that I'm accused of violating says "should" not "must" for good reason. In general, such wording is the essence of IAR; in the specific, such wording in this policy reflects the principle of "anyone can edit", by not subjecting editors to unilateral blocks that cannot be quickly reversed when demonstrated to be wrong or out of process.

If Arbcom accepts this case, it should of course also examine the conduct of Kaldari. Kaldari blocked an editor over the head of another admin. He also did so having only recently (in October) been in a direct dispute with the editor he blocked: see, among other things, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination). I wasn't aware of the involvement at the time of the unblock but it provides after-the-fact justification for my action, not that any is needed. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

@Georgewilliamherbert: please strike: "The assertion in the unblock message "ANI is clear" was a mistake, false, or intentionally misleading." As my statement says, you have the wrong end of the stick on that. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

George, read carefully please. "ANI is clear" meant (and it is quite clear from the context): "it is clear from ANI that I had already decided not to block". The statement is not an assertion of consensus. I want you to strike the words because you are ascribing to my words a meaning that I clearly did not intend. I will happily have you question my judgement, but not my honesty. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

George, you never asked what my block message meant. You're now casting aspersions that I'm making up this interpretation after the fact. Read the whole of the block message. It's tolerably clear what I meant: ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served. The sentences run together. It's plain English. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

Georgewilliamherbert's version of the truth is very far from the truth, particularly as it ignores User:Kaldari's involvement. I may add to this statement later. Malleus Fatuorum 09:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why it is that editors like MONGO and others are being allowed to use this request as yet another stick to beat me with; I didn't unblock myself, obviously. Is this just to turn into some kind of kangaroo court, or is there going to be some order imposed here? Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by tangentally involved Black Kite

As I noted at the time, Mkativerata beat me to the unblock button by a matter of seconds. I would have unblocked for these reasons;

• The incivility was very minor ("arse" in the UK is a far more minor epithet than the US equivalent "asshole") and led me to believe that Malleus was being blocked because of who he was, rather than what he'd done (some of the later statements on ANI back up that belief)
• The block was premature - Kaldari should have waited for consensus to emerge at ANI, especially as at least one admin had already refused to block; any block can always be re-instated if there is such consensus for it
• The block was unbalanced - Tbhotch was equally incivil and yet was not even warned until Kaldari was called on it by other editors
• Malleus' frustration was understandable - an experienced copyeditor being called on a matter of grammar by someone who admits to having a shaky grasp of English
• Blocks are preventative, not punitive - what was this block preventing, given that the very minor spat had ended around a hour before the block?
• As Mkativerata says above, regarding contacting the blocking admin, blocking policy says "should", not "must". I did not see the point of wasting time and expanding drama by jumping through this hoop, especially as Kaldari had already clearly made up their mind on the issue. The encyclopedia was clearly better served by Malleus being able to edit.

I also note that - although I didn't know this at the time - Kaldari was clearly at least semi-involved, having been in a disagreement with Malleus only the day before. By all means we can have a discussion about WP:WHEEL and the second mover advantage - there have been spectacularly bad unblocks performed in the past - but this is a particularly bad poster child to use for that particular discussion. I strongly suggest rejecting this case. Black Kite (t) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• @MONGO: "Adminstrators should only unblock if there is a clear majority supporting it." You fail your entire argument with that sentence, because there was no majority to block in the first place; indeed, at the time Kaldari did, nearly every argument was against it. You appear to be saying that the first admin to act is always right, which is clearly ludicrous; a situation which is confirmed when you then go on to mention "clique supports of Malleus". Black Kite (t) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• @Fetchcomms: "Why people are still spending their time bickering over this petty block is perplexing.". Well, there's only one person you need to thank for that. Perhaps George would like to explain why he brought a matter that was done and settled to this venue? Black Kite (t) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment by Collect

I fear the issue is not formed symettrically -- the rules about "wheel war" are pretty well settled -- but that supposes that there is a difference between a "positive action" (i.e. a block) and a "negative action" (i.e. a specific decision not to block)

The clear logical position is that both, when posted as a "decision" ought to be treated as equals. Clearly a "discussion" is not the same as a "decision" but where the post states it as a "decision" the two possibilities ought to be deemed equal, and reversal of a "decision" is "wheel war."

Proposed motion:

Any decision by any administrator, posted as such, whether to block or 'not' to block, to undertake a specific action or 'not' to undertake a specific action, shall not be reversed by any other administrator without full discussion, and subject to clear consensus.

The Wikipedia procedure where there is a disagreement is not to reverse a decision, but to review the decision, with the premise that a consensus is needed to reverse a decision made in good faith. I suggest the committee adopt this position in order to prevent further argumentation and that this is doable by simple motion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

This sort of frivolous blocking has long been a scourge against editor morale. This case would do far better focusing on adding true accountability to admins who cause trouble cluelessly using the block button instead of trying to make an example of the admins who are forced to clean up their messes.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Floquenbeam

1. What Black Kite said.
2. The only thing worse than a second mover advantage would be a first mover advantage. Just as, in editing, BRD can be annoying, but BDR would be far worse. WHEEL is written the way it is for a reason.
3. Mkativerata clearly did not break policy here. If you want to change policy, or have a discussion about what WHEEL should say, have an RFC on the policy talk page or VPP or something. ArbCom doesn't change policy.
4. Kaldari's level of "involvement" is a little troubling, especially since they do not seem to recognize it, but I don't anticipate it resulting in any sanction from ArbCom; I suppose some clarification of "involved" might be useful.
5. With all due respect to the Arbs, it seems unlikely that a good solution to the underlying issue of how to handle eggshells armed with hammers on the internet is going to come out of this case.

I'd suggest declining this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by not-terribly-involved SarekOfVulcan

While I think that Mkativerata was correct to unblock in this case, as he had already made the uninvolved-admin call on AN/I and the unblock message is clear (given the explanation above, though I initially read it as GWH did), I would urge Arbcom to discuss this in more detail, as I've had blocks overturned in the middle of AN/I discussion that was tending towards, or strongly, supporting the block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Alexandria - I unblocked Malleus early not because I thought I was mistaken, but because I was sure someone would overturn it because it was Malleus, and I didn't feel like dealing with the associated drama.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC) @Trusilver - invoking Godwin's Law on purpose doesn't work. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC) @Mathsci - I'm not sure how you get "just venting" from You simply display your ignorance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Balloonman - precisely. It's the larger problem I'd like to see addressed, rather than this block/unblock in particular. Hatting above comments as irrelevant to this goal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 28bytes

Administrators must be free to undo administrative actions that clearly go against consensus. Kaldari's block was indisputably such an action. Georgewilliamherbert states above in his timeline that "further comments from Guerillero, Tbhoch, John, Wikidemon, and Quinn follow" immediately prior to Kaldari's block. Well, let's look at what those further comments are:

• Mkativerata: "Are you asking for administrator intervention? If so, my call is not to do anything. If you'd been called an ignorant arse without any provocation, maybe, but this thread is a classic escalation of insults from both sides (eg 'Knowledge god' a sarcastic insult you've left out from your summary above) that should go completely unsanctioned, if anything just for the sake of bringing an end to it."
• Guerillero (replying to Tbhotch): "you brought it on yourself"
• Tbhotch: "In Spanish we have a proverb 'eye for an eye and everyone will end up blind'. In this way have I start to attack him as well. If the answer is yes please let me troll the page of the user who has called me Mexican fajita and faggot for two years."
• John: "Toys back in pram please gentlemen. I am still at somewhat of a loss to see why my question about singular or plural on a Featured Article seems to have precipitated such passion, and feel faintly bad about it. But I think talk page discussion will be more productive than a drama contest at this board in terms of resolution."
• Wikidemon: "Is 'arse' in British English truly as bad as 'asshole' in American English? It sounds a lot more civil(ized), particularly imagining the accent."
• Quinn: "Calling someone an 'ass' or and 'arse' is not productive. At least with 'ignorant' or 'a know it all' you can at least justify the meaning (well intentioned or not), but probably nothing to be done on either side except to say 'cool it.'"

What I see here is that, aside from Tbhotch, no one is calling for a block, and in fact three editors (including two admins) are specifically recommending no action be taken.

Now, it could be that this early consensus to drop the matter is mistaken and that a consensus would later emerge that supported a block. But to see that discussion as it stood then, with Mkativerata's definitive rejection of a block, and no other editors aside from the complainant suggesting administrative action be taken, and simply ignore that consensus and unilaterally block anyway... well, it's not something a responsible admin should do.

If Kaldari had been the first to respond to Tbhotch's complaint, investigated and decided a block was warranted, then a unilateral unblock would have been inappropriate. But that's not what happened here. What happened here is that Mkativerata was the first to respond to Tbhotch's complaint, decided a block was not warranted, then Kaldari unilaterally overrode his judgment with no consultation whatsoever.

If it's inappropriate to override a fellow admin's judgment by issuing a unilateral unblock, it's far more inappropriate to override a fellow admin's judgment by issuing a unilateral block.

The suggestion that we owe deference to a blocking admin, but none whatsoever to an uninvolved admin who takes the time to investigate a complaint and decides not to block, is something ArbCom should soundly reject. Consultation can't be a one-way street. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Balloonman: "...when two admins differ on the status of a block, then the person should remain unblocked until/unless consensus can be determined..." is the most sensible approach to this I've seen. Adopting this approach would make for much more consistency and much less needless drama. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ludwigs2

Having been on the receiving end of this very problem (as evidenced by a previous ArbCom case), I suggest that this is a something that needs to be resolved, but needs to be resolved in the opposite direction from what GWH suggests. GWH wants to strengthen the already too prevalent 'Tombstone' atmosphere on contentious pages, in which minor civility issues are left to fester until some admin gets annoyed and shoots down one side with prejudice. Note the problems that come from this:

It imposes biases on articles

Almost invariably, the first admin to 'get annoyed' is going to be one who has strong opinions on the matter and has been watching the page. s/he may be 'technically' uninvolved, yet still carry distinct attitude about the conflict that privileges one side. This is why we invariably see such conflicts resolved by sanctioning one side of the dispute and not the other.

It makes wp:ANI and other administrative pages hostile and inaccessible

Personally, I will no longer bring any behavioral problem to ANI, because experience has shown me that it will only lead to me getting blocked and the issue being dismissed. It does not matter how over-the-top the problem I'm facing is or how reasonable my own behavior - some admin with a chip on his shoulder is going to block me before there's any time to discuss the nature of the problem, and I will simply get screwed. ANI has become - essentially - one giant, useless booby-trap.

It encourages system gaming

Every contentious page I work on has a number of editors who break wp:CIV and wp:NPA on virtually every post, and then (literally) tell me that if I don't like it I should take it to ANI, counting - obviously - on springing that booby-trap to work in their favor. If you only knew how many times I've heard people try to invoke wp:Boomerang as an active principle...

I think the ideal behind these kinds of sanctions in fine - it works well in principle, where we can trust admins to be fair-minded, unbiased, thoughtful, and not to operate on gut-level reactions. I suggest that may even be true of the large majority of admins. Unfortunately, long experience shows that there are always a few admins who are not fair-minded or unbiased, and who react emotionally rather than act with consideration, and the system that we currently have gives them all the advantages. The principle simple does not apply. Admins who show favoritism or make poor decisions - if they make those decisions early enough - can count on the fact that more fair-minded admins will be unable to overturn them, and such 'bad egg' admins do not face any appreciable sanctions for their acts, no matter how egregious such may be. It creates a system of summary justice which contradicts the core principles of collaboration and neutrality that the project is built on. It needs to be dismantled and a new, fair system built from scratch. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Should the arbs decide to accept this case (which I don't think is a particularly good one for deciding the "second mover" issue), I hope they will additionally consider admin Eagle247's December 6 block of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. That provides an example of how precipitous admin actions can negatively affect the Project when other admins are afraid to unblock after a bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Followup: the pending case might proceed more, ummm, "civilly" if we didn't see frequent misstatements along the lines of:

I dislike the growing movement among established editors to brush off WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as though it doesn't apply to them. Trusilver 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(objecting to asymmetrical blocks and noting the unequal application of policy is not the same as brushing off pillars) or casting of aspersions with statements like:

Clique supporters of Malleus such as SandyGeorgia and John are unable to render an impartial assessment regarding Malleus and provide little more than biased opinions. MONGO 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope the clerks will be enforcing some decorum here, since these memes and casting of aspersions don't advance understanding of what happens in these cases to anyone pointing out that blocks are frequently applied unequally, and don't bode well for an orderly proceeding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Karanacs

I have several issues with Kaldari's block:

• blocker advantage - so all one has to do is search for a single admin willing to block and even if several others have declined to take action the block stands?
• one-sided. Malleus was blocked for civility issues. Tbhotch wasn't even warned for this, and his behavior was just as bad.
• Civility is being held as a higher standard than actually creating an encyclopedia. Tbhotch admits in his signature that he does not have a great command of English. He then got into a disagreement over English grammar. In Malleus's shoes, I would have been highly upset too. To me, tbhotch's editing was blatantly tenditious, even if made in good faith. We expect editors to be competent in the areas in which they choose to edit, and if they choose to argue about grammar they should not be telling the WP world they don't have a strong grasp of the topic. Kaldari did not appear to even look at this issue - he saw Malleus use a word he didn't like and blocked immediately.

I cannot comment on whether Kaldari was involved because I didn't follow that dispute.

I have frequently collaborated with Malleus, and I did comment on the ANI, so I'm not completely uninvolved.

Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

Adminstrators should only unblock if there is a clear majority supporting it. Malleus is incapable of working collaboratively with those he may disagree with. Clique supporters of Malleus such as SandyGeorgia and John are unable to render an impartial assessment regarding Malleus and provide little more than biased opinions. Malleus has a long history of egregious incivility across a wide spectrum of articles and namespaces....including extensive hostility to admin Arthur Rubin a month ago. A 24 block is no big deal...Malleus is still under risk of a topic ban for his "contributions" at 9/11 articles. At some point a cost benefit analysis in dealing with characters like Malleus should be considered.MONGO 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia...standing by my comment...it doesn't do Malleus, the blocking admin or the system any benefit if you support anyone that has repeatedly demonstrated egregious incivility...just because this incivility isn't directed at you doesn't mean numerous other editors are suffering from some sort of mass delusion. The supposed ability to copyedit, promote Good Articles and contribute to Featured Articles doesn't exempt anyone from following poicies...and no one is above the policies here no matter what their supposed contributions are.MONGO 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite...yes, clique is correct. Whenever Malleus is mentioned at AN/I or some other noticeboard, his FA and GA buddies show up to defend him...they say things like: well, gee, golly..."Arse" isn't such a bad thing to call someone...and I've heard things like he's not as bad as he used to be...on and on. Sadly, its oftentimes other admins that have yet to be on the receiving in of the wrath of Malleus that find it expedient to ignore his ongoing incivility issues and thus do act as enablers for the then inevitable unblock. Furthermore, the blocking admin in this case didn't need a majority opinion to penalize an editor who has a long track record of incivility. That this would be missed by you, an admin, is disheartening.MONGO 03:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Colonel Warden

On the matter of usage, arse in British English means much the same as asshole in American English. For example, the OED has "A stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person" and "someone or something foolish or contemptible" respectively. See also: The No Asshole Rule. Warden (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Alexandria

It's becoming increasingly harder and harder to block for civility because as soon as someone gets blocked for it, especially users who have been established among the community, there's a mass rush to defend them. For example, Malleus has a very long block log, however of those only four of those blocks have stuck, one was 10 seconds, one was one hour, one was 24 hours for a pretty blatant offense, and the other was three days, which was undone then reapplied and allowed to expire. Of the many unblocks, two of them were lifted by the blocking admin (Sarek and GwenGale). This mass rush to defend accused incivility to me is the root problem of all this and why the dispute (from what I can see) got escalated from ANI to here. I also believe Malleus should also be a party to this case as it was the block on him that cause this RFAR to surface. Alexandria (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Trusilver

Should we look at all the people that have made some kind of mistake in this situation? Malleus was wrong to get involved in childish personal attacks. Tbhotch was wrong to get involved in childish personal attacks. Kaldari was wrong to block without clear consensus. Mkativerata was wrong to unblock without discussion. I dislike the growing movement among established editors to brush off WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as though it doesn't apply to them. Civility is the fourth pillar. It is not optional. But at the same time, these are rules that need to be evenly applied. Someone who is making a block based on an ANI witch-burning should have comprehensive knowledge of the entire dispute before clicking the ol' block button. Are there "fan clubs" that spring up around individual editors? Absolutely, but I feel these are symptomatic of a larger problem rather than a problem unto themselves. As Black Kite noted above; Malleus is an excellent copyeditor who was being harassed about grammar by someone who, by their own admission, is not. Obviously errors were made on every side of the dispute, but nothing that requires an Arbcom case turning into The Night of Long Knives to everyone involved. Trusilver 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

Editors don't get to own articles; why should the single admin who wants a user blocked then "own" that block, and require placating before the user can be unblocked? It doesn't make sense, yet that is what WP:WHEEL states, if a little weakly. (As Mkativera points out, there is a sop to common sense in the wording "should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator", rather than "must avoid"; but many people don't seem to notice it.). I agree with Mkativerata and Collect above: if anybody gets to have dibs on a block, it should be the first uninvolved admin to post his/her block or not-to-block call. In this case, the first move was Mkativera's report on ANI of his decision not to block; Kaldari's block was the second move, not the first. Please deal with this by motion, according to Collect's incisive suggestion, and encourage the community to make the appropriate (slight) change the wording of WP:WHEEL. Oh, and of course nobody should be sanctioned here. In fact, if the committee feels able to also avoid their usual magisterial reproofs of the individuals involved, I believe it would improve the rather infected atmosphere surrounding the wheel-war issue. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

It appears that this case will probably be accepted. I do not see any parallels with the previous case involving Ludwigs2, Sandstein and Dreadstar. Manchester United FC is not a controversial article, despite recent events in the real world that have presumably "gutted" various football personalities/fans and made them "face their demons". Malleus is a prolific and skilled content editor, from the Manchester region (or so I understand). When irritated he can be uncivil. In this case no arbitration enforcement was involved, nor was there overt wheel-warring. As a fellow Brit, I find Malleus' language is possibly near to the limit (grating?), but as always he seems just to be venting rather than trying to belittle other editors. In this case, I do not believe any editors or administrators should be sanctioned or probably even warned, but some clarification of blocking/unblocking policy would be helpful to avoid future misunderstandings. Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: "venting" applies here because it involved a non-English speaker, whose written English is not perfect, pronouncing on the use of English. I can see how that could be irritating. Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by HJ

Firstly, I couldn't agree more with with Floq and Black Kite. Secondly, blocking somebody after another admin has declined to do so is at least as discourteous as unblocking without talking to the blocking admin. Thirdly, blocking somebody for the use of the word "arse" strikes me as extremely petty (that's not to say we should encourage editors to speak to each other in such a way, but I doubt anyone other than Malleus would have been blocked for using that word). Fourthly and finally, I hope this case is declined, because the committee is effectively being asked to make policy and, contrary to what they seem to believe, that is outside their jurisdiction. Accepting this case will only serve to prolong the drama, which has already got out of hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Hear, hear! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

I think Collect's motion sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Some words from ErrantX, giggling frantically

This is amusing, and pretty much par for the course after that disaster. If Arbcom take this case I think they need to look carefully at the decision to block - which was incredibly stupid, out of process, and in no way constructive to the project (i.e. look at this disaster).

Malleus can be a dick. He can be grumpy and rude to people he perceives as fools or acting foolishly. Welcome to the real world - we all act like dicks now and again (and no matter how often Malleus has come into the firing line he doesn't like a dick much more than the rest of us..).

In that context, and given the current views at AN/I at the time, the block feels *highly* suspicious.

Kaldari made a somewhat against the grain decision to block over a civility issue. Lets consider that. Civility blocks are controversial and generally not well supported (rightly, in our current policies). The civility issue in question was not entirely one sided. AN/I comments seemed to tend towards not blocking. We don't do punitive blocks. The block Kaldari made was a punitive civility block against the vague consensus at AN/I.

If Malleus has a civility attitude that we judge on-balance a net negative to the project, fine, get the community consensus and do the blocks. But at this stage blocking after a civility incident is simply not supported in policy.

Out of process blocks can be overturned, especially with a dose of IAR, especially if it is a second move.

Unblocking was the only sensible thing anyone (Malleus included) did in relation to that incident.

After all that, I suggest this case not be taken. Perhaps the issue does need resolving but a) this can be resolved by the community via normal processes and b) it will just turn into another Malleus-gate, an entirely useless endeavour... --Errant ^(chat!) 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Tryptofish

I'm taking special note of Risker's point B. I think a big part of this issue is Kaldari's position that Malleus was susceptible to a block in a way that Tbhotch was not. Is that a valid position to have taken, or not? Where does the English Wikipedia currently stand on the question of what are sometimes called "vested contributors"? Does someone who is a superb content editor (as Malleus is) get a pass for low-level incivility that would likely be faulted in a new editor? Does someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over and makes it very clear that they will keep doing it (as Malleus does) have to be sanctioned over such an insignificant comment as the "arse" one that occurred here, while Tbhotch gets a pass? Any time the community tries to answer those questions, the usual suspects show up to give an inconclusive outcome. (I suspect I could set my watch by the monthly ANI threads.) Maybe this is something where the Committee can draw a line. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Resolute

Somewhat along the same lines as Tryptofish's comment, I am often amused at how the same people keep returning to ANI for low-level incivility issues, sometimes resulting in blocks, usually resulting in overturns when said contributors' friends show up. While this specific example might not be great, GWH's argument about "enabling unblocks" being a concern is valid. That said, I am not sure that it is anything arbcom can remediate. If anything, the issue of enabling unblocks and the second mover advantage is something that should go to RfC with an aim towards changing or clarifying the blocking and wheel warring policies. Resolute 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Commentary from uninvolved, but was fully reading the whole damn fall out whilst it happened Pedro

Strongly urge ARBCOM to reject this (although you will accept it of course). It's well known that GeorgeWilliamHerbert (GWH) is gunning for MF - if you really want diffs fine but I think we all know it's true and it hardly needs citation (the sky is blue). For GWH to state "Such unblocks are ... abusive to other administrators"' defies any form of reason, and the ludicrous hyperbole of such a statement simply calls into question the validity of any other comments GWH makes. Other than that I would agree with Floquenbeam / Black Kite. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Balloonman

First, it's a fact that MF gets away with more than most. He does have a clique that comes to his defense every time he offends somebody. Second, it's a fact that MF gets the brunt of more criticism than he deserves. He has a clique that is ready to jump on every slight as quickly as they can.

In many ways both sides are right. MF DOES have a priviledged position here on WP where he crosses the line and people will defend him because generally the individual scenarios are blown out of proportion. I say this as a person who likes MF and has come to his defense... but he can be a real ass (or should that be arse?) I say that knowing that he can handle it. ;-)

But what really bothers me is the argument being put forth by MKat centered around that of the first mover.

This raises serious concerns about behavior at ANI. If we accept the first mover motion, then some may be inclined to move in and make a half assed/half informed action to claim primacy. "I acted first thus I get primacy over the issue!" I think that will create problems down the road and be ill conducive to the process. It would then become a comedy of errors of people rushing to defend their friends and block their enemies... often without researching the particulars of a case (because if you research the particulars of a complaint you might lose the prime mover position.) Personally, I think we should have some guidlines such as:

Unless the action is detrimental to the project, when two admins differ on the status of a block, then the person should remain unblocked until/unless conensus can be determined at ANI. Detrimental would be currently engaged in edit warring/vandalism/etc that is not being abated by other actions."

I feel that way because by blocking a person you silence their ability to contribute to ANI. I also feel this way because unless the current actions are actively harmful to wikipedia, then waiting an hour or two is generally not going to harm the project. Civility blocks can be too subjective to default any other way.

If ArbCOM accepts this case, I think they should do so with the clear distinction that they are NOT looking at MF's behavior nor are they looking at the specific circumstances/rightness wrongness of the MF block, but rather around the notion of WHEEL/first mover.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Epbr123

I agree with Collect's proposed change of wording to the blocking policy, but this is a decision we should try make at RfC first. I don't think sanctions are needed for either of the admins involved here, as both believed they were acting within policy, and a clarification of the policy will hopefully prevent this situation in future. I agree with others above that an Arbcom decision on civility blocks is long overdue, but it would be better if that decision was made in its own separate case. Epbr123 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'm not involved in or familiar with this specific incident, but I urge the Committee to accept a case to address the problem of an unblocker's "second mover advantage" that results from the wheelwarring prohibition, and the problem of unblocks without even prior attempts at discussion. In my experience, these systemic problems make attempts to prevent repeated disruption, especially by established editors, unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming. The community and the Committee have so far not been able to agree on a clear, predictable, discussion- and consensus-based process for unblocking. Consequently, any block (including, in practice, AE blocks) may at any time be undone for no reason or in bad faith, and there is no practical way to reinstate it or to hold the unblocker to account for the problems that result from shortsighted unblocks. This creates a serious disincentive for administrators to get at all involved in the time-consuming, stressful and antagonizing work of protecting the project from uncooperative participants; and it has weighed heavily in my decision to withdraw from dispute resolution activity altogether.  Sandstein  21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Fetchcomms

Wikipedia's a website. Why people are still spending their time bickering over this petty block is perplexing. Malleus gets blocked a lot. His feelings haven't been hurt (at least not badly). Georgewilliamherbert jumps into AN/I drama a lot. Perhaps someone wants to ban him from that, but it's irrelevant. Mkativerata tries to be reasonable sometimes, and IAR says that's fine. Kaldari works for the WMF so it's not like taking action against him would be very productive or anything.

Look, I know there are all these "issues" to discuss in an case like this one, but seriously, don't y'all have better things to do in your spare time? People get blocked and unblocked all the time.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Nathan

Been awhile since I commented in an RfAr. The second-mover advantage, enabling unblocks and the sense that "the good of the encyclopedia" privileges certain editors over others are all linked to a long series of discussions in many fora over the long-term decline in editing activity and the gender gap among active editors.

A simple, true statement: While editors who are routinely rude may create valuable content, they unquestionably contribute to a generally hostile atmosphere - which has the effect of driving away many other editors, who would unquestionably contribute far more valuable content. This case and point in time are ripe for finally addressing this problem in some meaningful way, and with an outcome less clumsy than a "WikiLove" extension. Of course, if an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is sanctioned for demanding a little civility from an editor who has been blocked many times for thatreason, this may prompt more meaningful action from above. Win/win, maybe? Nathan ^T 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved Beyond My Ken

If, as seems likely, this case is accepted, I would urge the Committee to deal with the underlying cause that Risker mentions: our civility policies and specifically, and more importantly, the disinclination of some admins to enforce them, and indeed to actively work against them by not taking other admins' civility blocks seriously. These actions by part of our admin corps are undermining what is supposed to be one of the project's Five Pillars, a trend which I believe is harmful to the community and to the building of an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that the willingness of some admins to rather automatically undo the civility blocks of certain high-profile editors creates a de facto class of "untouchable" editors who cannot be reigned in when necessary, an untenable situation for a self-policing community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

If we really must address the so-called "second mover's advantage", I hope we'll all keep in mind that first mover's advantage is just bad and probably a good deal worse. With second mover's advantage, you end up at worst exactly where you started; with first mover's advantage, incredibly stupid blocks (of which I continue to see an alarming number) are difficult to overturn. So any solution to the second mover's advantage must avoid just shunting the advantage over to the other person. As for the underlying civility issue, I continue to assert that we would deal with incivility a lot better by ignoring it much of the time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Polequant

If, as seems likely, this is accepted, can there be some clarification of scope. Is it purely going to examine admin actions, or dive off into civility and so-called enabling? Polequant (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Told you so" from Hans Adler

Quoting myself from almost 3 years ago [16] (ignore the stuff about Arbcom, which is the one item in my earlier list that appears to have been fixed since), some important contributing factors:

1. Misleading "personnel records":
   • Every single unblock, whether for adjustment of a block or because the block was controversial, makes a user's block log longer and increases the chance of further inconsiderate blocks.
   • Positive information is routinely ignored. An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community (especially if they also spend a few more hours every week voicing popular opinions in project talk space).
   • The notoriety of an editor is measured by the amount of drama, not by the effects of their behaviour. Therefore behaviour about which the community is divided is more likely to be held against an editor than behaviour that is clearly beyond the pale. Moreover, inappropriate behaviour can be wiped out by apologies and clear signals that the editor understood that they were wrong. The negative impression from something that was considered OK by more than half of the community cannot be discarded in this way.
2. Every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user. This works well with the vast majority of users, since normally only a small number of admins look at a case. It does not scale well to prolific editors who get themselves into trouble occasionally.

The last point, which you are calling the "second mover advantage", although IMO that's an inappropriate euphemism and should really be called "veto right against keeping unblocked", is the most immediately important here, but the problem of misleading personnel records also applies. The unfortunate result is that some of our most valuable editors become almost perfect mobbing targets due to relatively harmless behaviour.

As an exceptionally clean case, this is your chance to fix the problem. But I guess most of you know that already. Hans Adler 08:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)

• Waiting for more comments, but this is a problem I've been warning folks about for a while. The second mover advantage.. Perhaps its time we took a second look at it, and decide if there's a way to ameliorate it without undue bureaucracy. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Enough people have opined that I feel ok about voting to accept now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• accept - WRT our role to review admin conduct, which this sits very squarely within the realms of. Unless we want to deal with this by motions, but that might be tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Accept Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Accept; There are actually several interlinked issues at play here. (a) The so-called "second mover" advantage, which in practice only applies asymmetrically (as pointed out above, interestingly, a decision to not block isn't seen as a putative "first move" a block would "undo"); (b) what critera are used before undoing another administrative act (i.e. "bad decision" is too often equated with "decision I disagree with"); and (c) whether specific admin misbehaviour occurred in this incident which pretty much demands examining (a) and (b) to settle. The focus is the specific incident, but it's necessary to reevaluate the entire context if we want to make sense. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Leaning toward acceptance, but awaiting further comments. While I think this event may be the jumping-off point, it strikes me that the focus should be on (a) the asymmetry in the perceived "second mover" advantage that devalues decisions that do not directly involve admin tools, and the related "undoing" of such actions and (b) effectiveness in managing interpersonal communication issues (yes, I mean "civility" and personal attacks), particularly concerns about asymmetry in dealing with multiple parties. Risker (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not fully persuaded that there is a genuine case here. I will, however, actively discourage editors from pointing fingers at each other; there are some comments on this page that border on personal attack. I'll also point out that every single person who has posted on this page is a vested contributor; without vested contributors (i.e., people who have invested their work in this project), there would be no Wikipedia. Just because some guy on MeatballWiki used the term pejoratively years ago doesn't mean that we should remove a valuable term from the English language. In every other sphere, vested contributors are considered amongst the most critical and necessary factors in the success of an enterprise. Risker (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)