Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

No blocking or unblocking

1) The two most divisive things administrators can do are:

• blocking MF
• unblocking MF

Therefore all administrators who are not sitting members of ArbCom are enjoined from taking either action.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Take a break from pissing people off

2) Malleus has been around long enough to know the type of things that aggravate his detractors (justified or not). Malleus is enjoined from, broadly construed, pissing people off until this case is resolved. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Hawkeye7, can you demonstrate that you were aware of Malleus's subsequent comment (the one with "Goodbye Wikipedia" on it) prior to your block of him?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would change the last few words: "....are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to building an encyclopedia." SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Something like this is obviously needed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace" is a strongly classed sociolectical imposition. Editors are actually expected to maintain decorum appropriate for an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, should not use language that is defamatory, racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive. Leaky Caldron 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Introducing policy via Arbitration are we? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, there is a logical flaw in the argument that because Wikipedia is not a professional environment, but a volunteer environment, then professional standards are not needed. There are plenty of volunteer organisations that maintain professional standards of civility despite not being professional organisations. Whether it is possible for Wikipedia to do that is another matter. My view is that it is the public and enduring (written) nature of the edits made on Wikipedia that means people need to hold themselves to a really high standard. Some of the comments made on Wikipedia will be around and still retrievable and readable long after any indiscreet comment made verbally to someone is forgotten. People can post to Wikipedia in a 'verbal' style as if they are talking, but they are actually writing (technically: publishing in a persistently archived online environment). If you were writing a pen-and-ink letter, would you litter that with expletives and chatty comments? Maybe all posts on Wikipedia could start "Dear Sir" and end "Yours sincerely" (as if writing to the letters page of The Times) - I am being slightly facetious here. The point is that there is a vast range of possible communication styles, some specific to online interactions. Where does that fit in with your remarks about 'sociolectical imposition'? Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be fallacious to argue that all volunteer organisations do not use "professional" standards. However, that isn't what has been argued. Most organisations don't use "professional" standards. Most organisations use business or religious standards that involve subordination. Wikipedia doesn't formally subordinate its volunteers. Moreover, the standards of professionals that I've seen involve high levels of coded backbiting—and we're back to a civility problem but with ten dollar words. If we tour the archives of the volunteer based productive elements of USENET, we'll observe both things that would be personal attacks here and people using the words fuck and cunt as emphatics. People are happy to treat discursive writing moments as spoken writing moments, some as USENET demonstrates are less formal than colloquial spoken. From my experience of RS/N we get newer editors transitioning to full membership of the encyclopaedic community. They write in sociolects that aren't "professional." They write in sociolects that are highly colloquial in the sense of closely related to their spoken forms. If arbitrators ignore the perennial policy consensus against imposing a language gag, then, we are going to lose a large body of potential editors and editors whose natural sociolects involve occasional and civil swearing. Editors begin writing in their spoken sociolects, even as they transition towards a wikipedia "code" (NPA! V! Dispute Resolution, etc...) they still retain much of their sociolect. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless by itself, please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. While civility is a pillar, so is consensus, and that's what's consistently lacking in these discussions.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzi's articulation is understandable, but quite meaningless. The whole point is: what level of decorum is "appropriate to building an encyclopedia"? Some people think that level is the same as a bunch of guys down the pub, some as a bunch of women in a church. If you make a comparison here to a workplace or something, you take us somewhere. But the only place where many users are "building an encyclopedia" is Wikipedia - so all you are saying is "Wikipedia expects a decorum appropriate to Wikipedia" which is to say precisely nothing.--Scott Mac 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reversing administrative decisions

2) Administrators are required to respect the decisions of other administrators, including the decision to issue or not issue a block. When administrators disagree they must discuss the matter. If disagreements cannot be resolved informally, a community discussion in an appropriate forum should be started and continue until there is a clear consensus.

2.1) Administrators should not unilaterally reverse the decisions of other administrators when those decisions are published at the conclusion of a community discussion, such as AfD or a notice board discussion, except in the case of obvious error or emergencies. To reverse an administrative action, an appeal is made in the appropriate forum, and a discussion continues until there is a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps this needs to be broken into a few pieces. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Decisions to issue a block or otherwise take action should be respected. Decisions not to do anything are not entitled to the same deference, unless announced as a clear judgment on the situation as opposed to an exercise in "I don't see the problem here." In practice that often means that the first administrator to arrive simply does not see the entire picture. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Only if a decision is communicated would it be binding. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd just suggest changing the "must" in the second sentence to "should". That will align it properly with WP:BLOCK#Block reviews. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• "including the decision to issue or not issue a block". Nice in theory, unworkable in practice. A decision to take a positive admin action is a decision to flip a switch - a decision not to is entirely different. An admin action is logged in a central place (block log, deletion log etc). It is impossible (or certainly incompetence) for any admin to undo it without being aware he's undoing it. A decision not to act is not so easily logged. It may be noted on a user talk page, ANI, AN, or various other places (and it may be burried in a long discussion) - it is quite possible to miss it altogether. It may also be less than clear in its wording (unlike a blocking decision which is binary). Further whereas any admin blocking is duty bound to know he's taking a serious decision (weighing all the facts) an admin deciding not to block is not under any such requirement. So someone saying "I won't block for this" may be be taking a serious decision or may be expressing an ill-researched personal opinion (with no personal comeback expected) in passing from the peanut gallery. Further, does that mean that an admin declining a block request is taking a first order decision, and may be desysopped if be issues such a judgement while "involved"? Equating a decision not to block with a decision to block just will not work.--Scott Mac 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, priority should not rest on first/second mover advantage, but rather on the circumstances/issues. Most blocks are not contentious. A block for 3RR/Vandalism/etc are pretty much up or down. Civility/NPA are more subjective. One person may feel that a civility block is warranted but another might disagree. Civility blocks should only remain if there is a clear consensus that the actions were egregious enough to warrant such a block. If the block is contentious, then imposing such a block while people deliberate at ANI is reprehensible. A user should have the ability to address those who are discussing sanctions. If there is no consensus to block, then the default should be to leave a user unblocked---not dictated by some random "first/second mover" advantage.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• This would be technically possible if developers made it possible to annotate block logs (or a new log was set up for this purpose). Essentially, you would be recording the decisions not to do something, as well as the decisions to do something. Anyone who has studied theories about processes and safety protocols will know that obtaining a fuller picture about a process is not just about recording decisions to do something, but also recording decisions not to do something. The same applies to articles, where decisions to leave something out of an article, or drop a source, are often done silently in the mind of the editor, and not recorded anywhere. This can cause problems when a later editor comes along and adds the material. Recording more details (from administrative decisions to article editing), though, generally founders on cries of bureaucracy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the words "or not issue a block" are appropriate. That is not in the policy, and it is a radical change. And it is all too much wedded to this one case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• @Carcharoth. Logging is one issue. The other is the sense of gravity by which the decision is taken. If I decide to block, I am expected to be uninvolved, thoughtful, have informed myself, and by fully responsible/accountable for my action. If I decline a block, it could be anything from having carefully reviewed and colluded, to personally deciding I don't want the grief, to knee-jerk without reviewing anything. There's no consequences to me throwing a peanut opinion.--Scott Mac 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• But if the decision not to block had to be recorded in a logged way, people would (hopefully) take that more seriously. What I think the standards should be are: (a) if you are the first admin taking action and there is no obvious discussion, take the action and leave a note in the obvious place explaining your action. (b) If an admin has taken a prior logged action and you disagree, discuss it with them and/or start a discussion. (c) If there is an ongoing discussion either state your opinion or, if you think you are objective enough to judge consensus and take any action needed, state that you are willing to close the discussion and action it both after a minimum amount of time and when consensus has stabilised, and hope that no-one else is rude enough to jump in ahead of you. It is this uncertainty in ANI discussion about when someone will jump in to 'judge consensus' that frequently leads to either premature action or dithering. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor X complains about editor Y. Administrator Foo comes along and posts a note, "I have reviewed this complaint and find no reason to take action. This matter is closed.". If admin Bar nexts comes along and posts a note, " I disagree and am blocking Y," would that be good practice? What if X had gone to another forum, repeated the same complain, failing to mention the prior thread, and admin Bar came along and decided to block without knowing Foo's decision? I think that in both cases somebody has done something wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you are just asking for people not to contribute to the discussion, block the offender, and then deny knowing there was any discussion until afterwards. And you can't differentiate that from the admin who simply sees the original incivility and decides to block, unaware of the discussion.--Scott Mac 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That won't work, will it. Let's say somebody tried to play that game, I would unblock and point to the community discussion, now closed, with an ample consensus for no block, and say that there had been a clear mistake: acting agaist the consensus, ignorant of the consensus. Before blocking an admin needs to look at the user's talk page and see if there are any recent ANI notices or the like, and ascertain all the relevant facts, or else they risk making an ass of themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a clear community consensus on ANI, then there's not going to be a problem in the fist place. But that's not what you are talking about. You are talking about a case where admin A reviews the facts and then declines a block. Admin B sees the facts and (unaware of admin A, or not seeing admin's A's statement as anything but an opinion, or views admin A as heavily involved, or seeing the four admins who have since said "but I would have blocked", or notices that admin A has only commented on bit on incivility one, and perhaps hasn't noticed bit of incivility two, and then blocks). The possibilities are endless. The idea that one admin making a decision no to block can be seen as the equivalent of an admin deciding to block isn't going to fly.)--Scott Mac 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring

2) Administrators must not repeat a disputed administrative action. Neither false claims of changed circumstances nor premature declaration of a new consensus can should be used to justify wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

And here below we have one of the core issues at hand here. I can see problems with both first mover and second mover advantage. With the first mover requiring active consensus to undo, you run the risk of not being able to correct unsound administrator judgements quickly and easily. Second mover we have seen the issue where someone does an action, someone else comes in and undoes it and then it all dissolves into chaos. It is my PERSONAL opinion that we have seen the second mover advantage turn into chaos and gridlock too many times in recent memory. Whether putting in tighter restrictions on undoing administrators actions would alleviate the problem, make it worse, or just present a whole different set of problems entirely is another thing whatsoever, but again in my personal opinion only, I'd rather see administrators play things (with regards to undoing the action taken by another administrator) a LOT less loosey-goosey. If it's a bad decision, take time to establish that it indeed IS a bad decision before undoing. SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nullifying another administrator's decision without discussion and consensus is wrong, but it is not wheel warring. Wheel warring is currently defined as repeating a disputed action. ArbCom cannot change the definition. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We need a bit of elaboration on the standard definition of wheel warring. The second mover advantage should remain. Either we have first or second mover advantage. Second is better because it restores the status quo ante. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change it from "new concensus can be used" to "new consensus should be used". I can see Can being wikilawyered into a different meaning. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The harm is in undoing actions, not reinforcing them. Why should a "second mover advantage" remain? Status quo and second-guessing attempts to deal with problems is not a preferred outcome. First and second-mover advantages are a matter of gamesmanship by parties seeking a preferred outcome, and that's not supposed to be what administrative action is all about. Rather, administrators are entrusted with discretion to deal with things dispassionately and need some room to exercise that discretion if we're going to keep an orderly editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The prior principle states that decisions are to be respected. The second mover might be wrong, but they are not wheel warring. The block review process considers that there will be an independent review of blocks and that a user may be unblocked based upon new information, such as an undertaking not to repeat the offense. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A careful decision to block made by a neutral uninvolved editor is not an "advantage" for any side, it's a simple carrying out of administrative duties. A decision to unblock after new information or due administrative review is likewise not an advantage to anyone, it's a correct decision made upon reconsideration. But the latter does not seem to be the case here, as there was no new information and no block review, just a brief (<30 minute) series of gripes by the usual suspects who show up to the administrator's noticeboard. Whether that fits a technical definition of wheel warring or not, it's the same in substance, and not an process to favor. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a dangerous and unprecedented change to the long-established Wheel Warning definition, which arbcom has previously stated to be "undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue" or "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute" see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. While it may be tempting on the back of this particular dispute to make such a change, I would simply draw arbcom's attention to the law of unintended consequences. The current definition was largely worked out in BLP disputes, and granting a "second mover advantage" could have disastrous possibilities in such an area,. We trust admins to make good decisions. We assume the decisions are good until it is established otherwise, through discussion. If some admins make bad decisions, then deal with the bad admins, don't weaken the position of the majority of good decisions. Had MF remained blocked for a few hours, until consensus established the block was improper, no great harm would have been done. Complaints against the blocker could be dealt with by arbcom/RFC later. At any rate, don't weaken the BLP balance as a knee-jerk to this horrible but relatively harmless civility shitstorm.--Scott Mac 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what I wrote seems to summarize the current policy stated here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a question as to whether that statement is indeed current policy. I've always viewed it as wrong, and the arbcom findings bare me out. It is certainly contentious - although perhaps BLP issues simply need to be seen as a special case, where we must err on the side of the admin who is taking preventative action (whether first or second mover) until or unless that admin is shown to be wrong.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Improper blocks have a demoralizing affect on a user. If a block is improper, it needs to be lifted sooner rather than later. Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper. This is necessary for several reasons: 1) The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a standard in the US where Wikipedia is located. 2) A person has the right to confront his accusers and to defend him/herself; by allowing a block to stand while the case is being reviewed is improper as it conveys a sense of guilt. 3) Ethically it is wrong to leave a contentious block in place. If the persons behavior is so egregious as needing an immediate block, then consensus will bear that out pretty quickly. If not, then it should be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper" - well not quite. Civility blocks that are widely contentious need lifted - period. However, if admin has blocked, you don't know whether it is contentious until there's been a challenge and some discussion. What we don't want is a cycle of block, unblock, discussion, reblock - that simply promotes drama (as here). If someone is over-the-line uncivil, and gets blocked - we need to swiftly review and either unblock (and deal with the admin if he's out of line) or endorse. The notion that someone who gets a civility block gets unblocked to contest it, isn't going to fly. We don't do that with any other type of short block. That's what unblock templates are for. This is not a jail term that you get bail, then tried, then sentenced.--Scott Mac 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that somebody get unblocked to contest it, but if another admin comes along and says, "I think this block isn't warranted" and feels strongly enough to unblock. Then it is a contentious block and needs to be reviewed. The pattern you say you don't want is EXACTLY the "BRD" principle upon which Wikipedia is built. It is exactly how it should work. Somebody Boldly blocks, it is reverted, and then discussed. The verdict from the discussion is followed. That is core Wikipedia. What we don't want is somebody blocks, gets reverted, incomplete discussion, somebody decides to block again, sombody undoes the reblock, etc... which is what happened here. Note John did not unblock until a consensus was emerging that the block was unjustified. In all honesty, I think Malleus' defenders would have been hard pressed to object to a block after he called a specific user a "fucking cunt" during a civility case. That just shows poor self control/judgment on the part of the person taken to ANI. I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye). But I would have had a hard time opposing a block for that comment. Hawkeye's reblock appeared unjustified and abusive based upon the detailed reasoning he provided.

As for this pattern not existing in other types of blocks... you are right. But that is because vandalism/3RR blocks are less contentious. There is less grey area in what constitutes a 3RR/Vandalism block than there is in a Civility Block.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Above, you (Balloonman) say: "I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye)." Would that have been wheel-warring (and would you do that in the future in a similar situation)? Is there a reason you didn't undo Hawkeye's block? If no administrator was willing to undo the block, even given this supposed "consensus" at ANI to unblock, why is that? Was it maybe because all those administrators who looked into it saw the 'farewell Wikipedia' edit made by Malleus and shrugged and thought, "hmm, not worth unblocking after he said that". What if Hawkeye had unblocked - would someone else have reblocked for the Spitfire edit? I keep asking this question and no-one seems prepared to answer. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, yes I would have undone Hawkeye's reblock because it was so egregiously wrong (based upon his stated rationale) and I would have done so knowing the potential ramifications. Hawkeye's reblock, based upon his rationale, was completely indefensible. And I didn't reach that conclusion hastily or knee jerk---if I was going to engage in "wheel warring" I wanted to make sure that I was on solid footing and that the rationale provided was totally indefensible. I read his statement twice looking for some indication that something new had occured that justified the reblock. His statement did not make any allusion to subsequent behavior only to past behavior. His statement claimed that he reblocked "per consensus" at ANI---so I reread the discussion at ANI twice and failed to see any indication of consensus to reblock. His statement even said (contrary to what he had previously said at ANI) that there was a consensus at ANI that John hadn't acted inappropriately---thus he couldn't hide behind a notion that John's act was improper. Thus, per his statement, there was zero valid justification for the reblock---it appeared abusive and completely unjustified. So yes, I was willing to face the music as I firmly believe that when there is a contentious block, the default should be unblock unless consensus says otherwise. If he had argued, like he did at ANI, that John acted against COI, then I could might accepted it. But instead, he acknowledged that ANI participants were siding with John---so he can't hide behind that cover. Now, if somebody blocked due to the Spitfire comment, I would not have unblocked. That comment, especially during an ongoing civility dispute, clearly crosses the boundary of propreity. I've said it elsewhere, had he cited that example, it would have been hard for "Defenders of Malleus"<tm> to object to a block. But Hawkeye gave no impression that he was aware of said comment, only that he was blocking "per consensus" which clearly did not exist.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) NOTE: The fact that I am willing to state that I was about to undue Hawkeye's reblock should speak volumes about how poorly thought out and justified I felt that his rationale was. I am not one of those admins who blocks/unblocks on a regular basis or reverses other admin actions. My history as an admin will show relatively few admin actions, so the fact that *I* was going to act speaks valumes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that there was consensus. Consensus is not measured in twenty minute segments. At least one editor (Protonk) had warned against a unilateral unblock. And the subsequent debate shows that there was, in fact, no consensus. Please stop saying "consensus had formed", consensus forms, if it does at all, after considerable more discussion than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you are getting your arguments confused. Whether you agree or disagree whether or not consensus had formed, there CLEARLY WAS NOT CONSENSUS to reblock. Hawkeye claimed "Per consensus" and it didn't exist---if anything the opposite would have been true at that point in time.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that responding to that would oblige me to comment on Malleus's actions, which I am determined not to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's time to think outside the first mover/second mover box -- it just doesn't work. You need a temporally independent protocol. I wrote one for ya'll Wikipedia:Block protocol. If you don't like that one, write another one, but stop thinking in terms of ambiguous, impossible to define "first" et. al. Thoughtful is way better than quick. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

2) Editors may not goad or bait another editor to provoke an uncivil response, and then seek a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The behavior of all parties will be considered. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accusations of baiting made by disruptive editors and their supporters are entitled to a hearing, but are due a great deal of skepticism and in some cases reproach. Baiting is a deliberate act intended to cause someone to become so angry they disadvantage themselves, and as such is almost by definition an act of bad faith. That accusation should not be made on speculation or as a defensive game, as it seems to be in most cases of excusing long-term problematic behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for evidence on the "admins baiting Malleus" issue, with diffs. Can someone please accommodate this? Until there is evidence, this is premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Wehwalt here. While you might be able to find proof, it will be hard to prove motive. Does Malleus' comments have the affect of baiting admins? Yes. But just because an admin is baited, does not necessarily mean that they were baited. (E.g. Motive of the accused baiter is hard to substantiate.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

*You are with me, yes, but who are you? You have not signed your comment. (please strike through this comment once you have signed yours).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT it's not that hard to read an edit history. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding in kind

2) Improper behavior by other editors, such as baiting, does not justify an uncivil response. Such a response may even encourage further baiting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proper behavior is even MORE necessary when dealing with improper behavior. Or as mom would say "If they jumped off a bridge, would you jump as well?" SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Worth noting. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re my baiting comment, as I would say in court "assumes facts not in evidence".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the other side of the coin. This is addressing the response a person has when they feel like another person is baiting them. Person A says something. Person B interprets A's actions as baiting. Person B may or may not be correct in their interpretation of A's actions, but even if correct person B is not justified in an uncivil response. This point thus, IMO, goes almost without saying as true.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You still need to show evidence, otherwise this is an irrelevancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What evidence? This is common sense. If I feel slighted, that does not justify my acting incivility. If somebody feels attacked/baited, that does not justify their acting in appropriately. Basic decorum dictates that.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning baiting in the final decision is ill-advised unless there is evidence of baiting. Still waiting for diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous issue, I agree. The previous one does need more evidence. This one stands on it's own. It doesn't matter if somebody actually was baiting another. Even if a person FELT baited, that doesn't justify incivility.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, got an essay for that, too User:Nobody_Ent/Simple_civility_principle. It certainly isn't common sense the way disputes are handled around here -- here's the rational provided by another editor when an admin told an editor to "FUCK OFF" [6] Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• The AN/I thread that preceded this case has a few items that some people may consider to be baiting. I think it's important that we "understand" (but I know policy doesn't excuse) how people can be baited into losing their cool. To be honest, I've seen some folks at WP who take "baiting" to an artform. Let's be honest .. there truly are some "master baiters" around this place. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Unclear Civility Standards

1) The Wikipedia community has over the years disagreed about the standards for civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Think of past cases and requests for arbitration. I won't name them because I don't want to mention uninvolved parties. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but actually irrelevant. I don't think anyone much is arguing that calling people "cunt" is civil. The dispute in this particular case is not the "standards for civility", but whether and how they should be enforced.--Scott Mac 18:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Even in that there are shades of grey, though: there's a big difference between using "cunt" as a sexist attack against a specific editor, and as a generalized insult against a vaguely-defined group. The general principle is obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

1) User:Malleus Fatuorum has not yet been the subject of a request for comment on user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This case was accepted without this prior step specifically BECAUSE it was a long-running issue, unusually divisive even amongst administrators. A RfC would accomplish nothing since we're already here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As the person who filed the case, I feel like I should address this directly as to why I came here instead of going to WP:RFC/U in regards to Malleus's behavior. RFC/Us are non-binding. Anything that would come out of it would be at best a stern warning. Malleus has been told many times before to tone it down. All an RFC/U would do would add another time to that total. Secondly, the issue regarding Malleus's behavior has been extremely divisive among admins, which, as I added on to my filing statement, is a legitimate reason for arbcom to take a case without all the prior steps (including an RFC/U) being followed. I agree with the letter of the proposal as it is indeed true, but I don't agree with the spirit of it as an RFC/U would only delay the inevitable. Alexandria (chew out) 14:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, allow me to ask you a simple question: What would an RFC accomplish? Alexandria (chew out) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the logical next step if there are concerns that need to be addressed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration was needed in this case due to the admin sillyness, but lacking an RFC, I think it is an error to sanction Malleus, such as banning him for a year. He still deserves the same courtesy and respect as any editor. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Moot issue at this point. Arbcom has decided to take the case. Anybody who objects to the procedure here could suggest a motion to close, but barring that Arbcom has the full measure of remedies at its disposal, whether or not it chooses to exercise them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a fact that is not in dispute: there has been no RFC. ArbCom has taken the case, but banning Malleus now would be a poor decision. It is highly relevant that despite the assertions that Malleus is a problem user, nobody ever bothered with an RFC. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. The lack of an RFC is telling. It signifies a higher probability of feuding and vengeance seeking, and a lower probability of good faith attempts at dispute resolution by Malleus' detractors. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this point needs to be included in any final decision. However, as it currently stands, this statement is incomplete: it needs to include a finding why one was never opened. (IMHO, none was out of justifiable concern that any RfC about MF's behavior would decend into WikiDrama & fail to address the problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How would this work if applied in general: skip dispute resolution if you think it would be futile? Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were a case that "you" could skip it when "you think" it would be futile, them that would be unworkable. However, if there's a general feeling (and arbcom agrees) that earlier steps are unlikely to help, then we don't need to fulfil futile steps to satisfy TEH RULZ. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and all that. Besides, what is bad in general may be good in particular. Wikipedia has always gone with the pragmatic.--Scott Mac 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If the accusations against Malleus are true, I think an RFC should have been started a long time ago. Perhaps that would have resolved the problem before it got to this stage. There are counter accusations that Malleus has been hounded and baited. Should the alleged persecutors be rewarded for dodging dispute resolution? Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets rewarded at Arbitration - precisely because it examines all parties. If there are indeed persecutors, they ought to beware the boomerang.--Scott Mac 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of cases where people won't file RfCs because they feel nothing good will come of it. One instance, to name names, is Betacommand, but I could name a variety of people dating back at least 5 years. I tried to talk one of MF's victims to agreeing to opening a RfC a year ago -- it takes two people to certify an RfC & get it started -- but his opinion was not to bother, it was a waste of time to do that; MF's day of judgment would eventually come, just like some other colorful characters. (FWIW, Jehochman, your name wasn't on his list.) I wish that opening an RfC was a productive tool to handle these kinds of incidents, but many Wikipedians have no faith that it works; some don't even think the ArbCom works effectively. There are even Admins who have no faith in the process. -- llywrch (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman is right in that no RfC was attempted, and it should have been. I've stated elsewhere (at the tail-end of the request when it was clear that a case would be accepted) that I would have been willing to start or draft an RfC. It would largely have consisted of two sections: examples of Malleus's incivility (with space to add the necessary context) and examples of Malleus helping others and producing excellent content. The time period would have been something like one or two years up to the time of filing the RfC. And then it would have asked the community to give comments and suggestions as to what needed to change, if anything. I would have drafted it in userspace, and then asked all those mentioned to comment first and help make changes, and only then would it have gone live for wider comment. It would have taken time, but might have helped. My question here is whether such an RfC would help after the case closes or not? The point being that it gives the community a chance to comment in a more structured fashion than scattered ANI threads, and in a less restrictive fashion than in an arbitration case. Also, I don't think the concept of ArbCom-directed RfCs should be dismissed out of hand. A properly drafted RfC could do a lot of good here. A poorly drafted RfC will lead to drama. The same applies to arbitration cases, funnily enough. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U is the approved DR approach but is absolutely not mandatory and Arbitration case acceptance terms are very clear - it "deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed." A clearer case could not be found. RFC/U would not be "reasonable" now due to the nature of the case and would do nothing more than kick the problem into the long grass for a few months. Leaky Caldron 13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And it seems to me that part of ArbCom's rationale for accepting this case was, correctly, that the demonstrated inability of the community to even initiate a productive RfC/U process was, itself, evidence of the kind of intractable problem that requires ArbCom to step in. It's worth noting that this case is very different from one in which a problem with user conduct only recently came into focus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Caution on Civility Blocks

1) Administrators are directed not to block for mere incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or biased, and thus should not be performed. If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks may be used.

1.1) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for moderate incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered.

1.2) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for incivility that is merely uncouth. Such blocks are contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. On the other hand, when incivility is used to harass, shock or intimidate another editor, blocking may be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Incivility and personal attacks are against one of the pillars of Wikipedia and are inherently disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SirFozzie, this isn't correct. The language used should mirror that found in Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility, which is somewhat different. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contentious blocks are never good. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's absolutely unwise, and beyond the power of Arbcom, to do away with a foundational principle of Wikipedia by declaring it unenforceable. Bad behavior that is sufficiently extreme and vexatious may warrant a summary block. This is routine practice, certainly in noncontentious cases. The advocacy of a minority against a core policy does not make enforcement of the policy contentious. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the bad behavior is sufficiently extreme it will qualify as harassment, personal attacks, outing, disruptive editing, or equivalent. Mere name calling, such as me saying that you are a poopy-head, is not justification for a block. Some administrators like to lord their powers over other editors. Often civility is used as a pretense to dish out a vengeful block. That nonsense has to stop. It has been tolerated for way too long. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this is wise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If ArbCom knows that certain actions will lead to trouble, they can advise that an administrator who performs such action and causes such trouble will be held responsible for poor judgment. How about 1.1, a softer version. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is "cunt" moderate incivility? YMMV. I certainly think saying "If incivility rises to the level or harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered." is mealy-mouthed. Editors engaging in such activities ought to be blocked immediately. (And I don't think we'd disagree on that).--Scott Mac 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there can be an argument made the "cunt" could be sexual discrimination or harassment depending on who it is directed at and in what circumstances. We have to write principles are generally applicable, then we apply the specifics of the case. As for mealy-mouthed, we don't want to say "you must block" because that takes away discretion. Can you think of a stronger formulation that is not absolute? Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, "cunt" is certainly vulgar (or should that be vulva), but reviewing the original utterance, I'm not sure it is technically uncivil, so much as gratuitous and incredibly unbecoming. It is certainty not a word I ever want to see typed on wikipedia - unless directly related to content. However, I am not aware of it being sexist. When I occasionally hear it colloquially (and by colloquia I don't mean in polite company - it is, here in Scotland, never a polite word) it is generally used to refer to males rather than females. As for wording, I would suggest "... then blocks are normally appropriate" (that doesn't compel the individual admin to actually do it).--Scott Mac 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the US that word directed at a female co-worker in an office would probably be grounds for termination. A bunch of male truck drivers on the loading dock could use this language at each other and nobody would care. Females on the loading dock, I am not sure. It depends whether the speaker is using the word to shock and intimidate the target. There is a big difference between being uncouth and violent. The context is very important. We cannot just make a list of naughty words. We also need to understand whether Wikipedia is a loading dock or a professional office. Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe that anyone is pontificating about this - in the UK, USA or Australia. Cunt is fine down the pub with your mates, about each other or about another person (usually absent). It is never acceptable in writing to or about a stranger - EVER. On Wikipedia we are strangers, despite attempts by some to create an artificial veneer of reality in their "relationships" here. Leaky Caldron 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunt is not solely directed at persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "cunt" like "motherfucker" is in a class of words which may be acceptable within certain informal subculture groups, where there is implied consent to be addressed as such. However, even people within those groups will generally know to drop the language when interacting within the wider culture. They don't walk into a shop in another neighbourhood and address the shopkeeper. So, the word should not be used. The problem is that the same argument can be applied to the word "fuck" - regularly used in many groups - but almost all would drop it in a professional situation, or when discoursing with strangers, unless they were very clear that it would be acceptable, or they were demonstrating their power by indifference to what people thought of them. Actually, although I've mocked the idea of a "swear list", the idea that we ought to have a guideline against using unnecessary vulgar words, particularly where we are aware that they may alienate, offend, or off-put is not that crazy. An exhaustive list would be impossible, but a guideline with examples???--Scott Mac 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Macquarie, a dictionary of Australian usage, disagrees with your universal characterisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Scott. The proposal has merit but also problems. Let me demonstrate. "You are a c@nt", "He is a cnt", "They are cunts". Which do you list? Some goes for "c*nt" or any other character substitution or missing a vowel in fucking, twat, or whatever. Leaky Caldron 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that was my problem with a "list of prohibited terms" - it is impossible to make it exhaustive, and is unlikely to stop me calling you a bawbag or some other Scots obscenity that the list hasn't yet covered. Civility can't be reduced to a list of swear words - because I can also insult you with the Queen's English too. However, a guideline saying "as part of maintaining decorum and civility, please don't use words likely to be seen as vulgar by many editor. Some common examples might be [non exhaustive list]." The point is to recommend a principle, not enforce a tightly drawn rule, and accepting that this is not anything like the sum total of civility.--Scott Mac 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Treat incivility like marijuana; a minor transgression, usually not worth the time or effort to pursue as the time and effort invariably outweigh the severity of the original act. It'll free up admins from getting bogged down in dumb caterwauling every few months. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or it will result in everyone being high - and an increase in a toxic user environment which drives away ladies and more delicate users, until we all sit and swear at our fellow motherfudders. The problem with drug-enforcement allusions, is that there's no consensus in society as to whether abolishing enforcement is the way to utopia or hell.--Scott Mac 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been an admin for four years, and can attest that blocks for incivility are in no way "often contentious". These are probably the least controversial types of blocks. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While it would be a dauntingly unproductive task to seek developing perfectly clear prose that unambiguously govern any and all possible occurrences of incivility, it is irrefutably easy to acknowledge that when a good faith user directly expresses that they were offended, a problem likely exists. In such context, you can not convince me that telling them to fuck off, or grow up would ever be a collaborative, civil response. And I am not available to purchase the Brooklyn bridge either. My76Strat (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Habitual Incivility

2) Editors who habitually violate the civility policy should be the subject of a requests for comment on user conduct. Should that process fail to resolve concerns, a community discussion should be started to determine whether a ban or editing restriction is needed to prevent further incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Instead of placing "cowboy" blocks for incivility, administrators need to seek a consensus. Have the discussion before blocking, rather than after. If a block is needed, make sure it will stick. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, we trust administrators to maintain a productive editing environment across the board. Discretionary use of administrator tools to enforce accepted policies is not "cowboy" behavior. Incivility is not a special class of misbehavior or disruption in this regard. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see. Are you suggesting that the least tolerant administrator is the one who should set community standards on an issue as nebulous as civility? I think not. When the conduct is in a gray area, there should be discussion, rather than administrator versus administrator warfare. Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• All administrators have discretion to enforce policy and are entitled to deference. The least tolerant is only one of 1,500. It's counterproductive to tie all of their hands on the chance that the worst among them will show up. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

2) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Admonished, definitely. Told to cut it out, yes. I would go so far as to say that he should be told that he has two options. Cut out the incivility and remain on Wikipedia, or continue to be uncivil and find somewhere else to be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

You can't call another editor "cunt" and expect to get away with it, no matter what the circumstances. Nevertheless, ArbCom need not place further sanctions at this time. There should be an RFC and we should see how Malleus responds. It is not proper to assume that he won't agree to refrain from further incivility, which would be the best possible result. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• MF has already been admonished plenty of times. It doesn't hurt to do so again but without more how does this remedy do any good? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Has be been admonished by ArbCom? Links? The admonishment means that next time ArbCom sees evidence that he ignored their warning, they can drop the banhammer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By definition, an admonishment is intentionally mild. A mild sanction should be off the table for matters of magnitude equivalent this case. At minimum, MF should be chastised, while being required to acknowledge the aspects of his conduct deemed unacceptable and describe what changes he intends to make regarding his manner of collaboration. My76Strat (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on anything regarding Malleus. However, all I see from this series of proposed remedies is the status quo, reinforced now by an ArbCom decision. Is this what you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking to or about another editor, in a manner that is (or can reasonably be expected to be) hostile and demeaning, is inappropriate and should not be accepted. I don't really care if one uses vulgar expletives or simply calls someone else an idiot — it's still a personal attack and doesn't belong here. In my opinion, this ought to be seen as a "bright line" issue, at least as much so as people consider wheel-warring to be. — Richwales (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus has not been admonished. Whenever an isolated case is brought before ANI, the case is poorly formulated and isolated. Sorry, but most of the incidents I've seen have failed to pass the test. Do I think there is a case to be made again MF? Definitely; but it hasn't been made. ANI has not admonished him, in fact it has emboldened him because he emerges unscathed. He's actually warned admins that if they act against him, that they would be sorry for doing so because he knows it won't stick. An RfC was needed long ago, but his detractors never bothered to formulate one.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Feeling intimidated, or being in fear of being intimidated, tends to have a chilling effect on people's enthusiasm to jump through hoops for no benefit. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... but my comment was directed to those who feel like Malleus has been admonished. He hasn't. If anything he's been emboldened to misbehave because he knows that ANI has failed to do anything.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Some thought ought to go into how something like this might be (or fail to be) enforced. A simple statement of admonishment will likely be ignored. The alternative would seem to be to ask administrators at AE to issue civility blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Desysopped

2) (placeholder)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Need to see all the evidence before writing this one. Whichever administrators wheel warred or baited, if any, need to be desysopped. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Hipocrite

Proposed findings of fact

Hawkeye7 previously admonished

1) Hawkeye7 was previously admonished for "blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 wheel-warred

2) By re-doing a previously reversed action, Hawkeye7 wheel-warred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One can quibble about length, but there was block, unblock, re-block. That to me, counts as wheel-warring. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends. What was the previous action? Was it simply an unblock or an unblock of indefblock? The admin certainly re-blocked, but he did not re-instate the indef block. Thus, he did not simply reverse the unblock. Does that matter? Not sure.--Scott Mac 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Hawkeye7 to demonstrate that he was aware of Malleus's last comment. I think that is key. It may not be possible to demonstrate it, however.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 is incivil

3)[7] is incivil, regardless if "stewed" means angry or drunk, regardless if a koala is used to depict an animal that is angry or drunk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my view of this, this is only noteworthy due to it's connection with use of tools. As a stand alone comment it's not something to lose sleep over. However coming from a blocking admin toward the blockee it's deeply troubling.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I find calling someone a koala to be more surreal than uncivil.--Scott Mac 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the typical meaning for "stewed" is drunk rather than angry, and I suggest anyone who knows anything about koalas knows that (a) they are much more drunk-like than angry and (b) if they are uncomfortable / displeased with someone touching / holding them they tend to express this by urinating over the person. Whilst I do believe that MF would be considered uncivil if he urinated on another editor, surely the key point here is that this taunting (as I see it) post from Hawkeye7 is another example of the exceptionally poor judgement he exercised here, and is part of the reason he should be de-sysoped. EdChem (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At face value, I accept your assertion that "stewed" is more typically associated with drunkenness. I also agree that even the less orthodox usage to imply aggravation would be itself an inappropriate taunt. I disagree that using a Koala for metaphoric contrast means either angry, or drunk. I perceived the metaphor as implying the status of a protected species, also inappropriate. I'd like to see Hawkeye stand for reconfirmation. This because it is obvious that community confidence has waned. I do not believe there is evidence to warrant a de-sysoping. My76Strat (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

From experience, reconfirmaton after contentious actions, and desysopping lead to the same thing. he only diference is that desysopping cuts out the compulsory submission to a lynch mob. (Arbcomn forced someone to reconfirmation RFA once, and it was horrible). No one should be forced into that. If the tools are in question, arbcom ought only to consider desysopping. If the subjects wants to submit to an RFA that's his choice.--Scott Mac 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that the usual concern is more with sustained incivility, rather than a single instance of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 unable to judge consensus

4)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "Per consensus on WP:ANI." At the time he wrote this, the ANI thread did not evidence consensus to reblock - if anything, it evidenced consensus against a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there needs to be another proposal between (4) and (5) here: "That Hawkeye7 re-blocked Malleus while involved." --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Was quite puzzled by this consensus claim, as it did not appear to exist in that ANI discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the discussion twice looking for a way that it could have been justified per consensus... not there at time of reblock.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 abuses administrative authority

5)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself." This is not a valid use of administrative power.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no such right. SirFozzie (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of this is closer to Nick-D's and Wehwalt's, that is it wasn't intended to be taken literally. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just FYI, according to Hawkeye7's user page he has 15 FA credits, so if it were possible to impose a condition like this, it would disempower a large fraction of the admin community. EdChem (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment was made by Hawkeye in response to the repeated claims in the ANI thread that Malleus shouldn't be blocked as he's written lots of FAs (which, of course, has no basis in any kind of policy and seems to imply that the rules don't apply to FA writers) - you've excluded the "There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. " at the start of this part of Hawkeye's post. While including this was unwise, I doubt that Hawkeye meant that this should be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That probably leaves me and a handful of others, and I would recuse myself as an admin! Seriously though I think Hawkeye's comment is sarcasm and not intended literally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Hawkeye's comment wasn't meant to be taken literally (someone should ask him, though). What I took Hawkeye to be referring to was the way in which some editors (or others on their behalf) flaunt their level and quality of article contribution credentials and that this was to some extent discussed in the ANI thread. There is also a meme (among those non-admins who persistently criticise admins as a whole) where most admins are disparaged as not really producing content. Clearly (with Hawkeye's level and quality of contributions) that wouldn't have been possible here. The other side of the coin is non-admins engaging in persistent incivility holding admins to a high standard of civility. It can be incredibly frustrating for admins to try and engage in discussion with someone who is habitually incivil, while being aware of the need to be civil and not respond in the same manner. Hence (in my view) the 'protected species' comment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I regret alluding to my contributions above, even jokingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like he was joking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 dishonest

6)Hawkeye's block rationale was "Long term abuse." He later stated that the reason for his block was "solely for actions after being unblocked." Both cannot be true - one must be a lie.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Would prefer to see the final sentence read something to the effect of "These explanations are contradictory." Risker (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the statements may be somewhat inconsistent, it is simply unhelpful (and a total failure to assume good faith) to speak of a "lie". Remember the admin was being harshly criticised by a whole score of people, that he reacted defensively and tried to put the best justification on his activities is understandable (even if there were inconsistencies). However, I see no logical inconsistency in saying that actions after unblocking were the trigger, but the administrator's understanding that this was further evidence of "long term abuse" was the root cause. The only problem is the word "solely", but with alleged incivility we seldom block for one-off events anyway. I suspect what the admin meant (assuming good faith) is that the "actions after being unblocked" were a sufficient trigger (revealing long-term abuse), even if one discounts the trigger for the initial block. I'm not saying supposition is right, or is the only possibility, but it cannot be discounted - particularly if we are assuming good faith.--Scott Mac 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't correspond with the 4 point block reason posted on the blockees talk page, entered into evidence by Mkativerata.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, granted. I missed that. But when someone is under the type of scrutiny (and downright abuse) Hawkeye7 was under after the block, a certain amount of reorganising the facts (and supplementing the rationale) in your own favour is perhaps understandable (if not justifiable or wise). However, talk of dishonesty and "lies" is unhelpful (and tends to further poison an already polarised conflict)- let's stick to "inconsistencies" (which is doubtless true), and let arbcom judge significance.--Scott Mac 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the key isn't the line "long term abuse" but rather "Per Consensus." "Long term abuse" was a bullet point under the underlying rationale of "Per Consensus." Also, Long Term Abuse and actions after the unblock are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But the actions after the unblock needed to be included in the rationale. If they were in fact part of the rationale to reblock, then Hawkeye failed to ennumerate the reasoning adequately. I read the reblock rationale and was incredulous. I couldn't believe that somebody had reblocked Malleus "per conensus" when such consensus didn't exist. I almost unblocked immediately, but decided to re-read the blocking statement to see if something happened that warranted a reblock. NOTHING was mentioned. So I decided to reread the discussion to see if consensus had changed overnight, it hadn't. The only reason I didn't unblock is because I was LOOKING for a rationale by which I could justify Hawkeye's actions. I couldn't find it. (Now if he had cited the FC comment, I would have accepted it, but he didn't.) The whole Hawkeye situation rests upon the question, do you take Hawkeye's initial rationale as the reasons for the reblock or do you believe that his detailed explanation merely omitted a key point in the reblocking decision? If the former, then action must be taken (including possible desysopping); if the later, then a mere slap on the wrist for not elucidating the primary reason for the reblock.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hawkeye7 desysoped

1) Hawkeye7 is desysoped. He may regain the tools through WP:RFA alone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While we've had a lot of discussion about first mover/second mover advantage and limitations on undoing other administrator's actions (for example as AE), the fact is that a third move; that is "Do, un-do, REDO" is wheel warring and one of the bright line "Admins should not do this" without an ongoing and active consensus in favor of the action. It has not been demonstrated that there was such here. This HAS to be on the table here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that Hawkeye7 has already been warned, that he was uncivil, and that his explanations in regard to judging consensus were substandard, then we are going to have to consider this as an option. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Only reasonable remedy considering previous Arbcom admonishment.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Hawkeye7 cannot abuse his/her/their administrative powers so brazenly and expect to keep said powers for much longer. They clearly do not know how to judge consensus which is something that EVERY admin is expected to be able to do more accurately than this case in their sleep. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted and unhelpful suggestion. Neither the evidence nor discussion have established that the second block was unwise, much less incorrect or outside of the bounds of administrator discretion. If that's the direction the case heads, so be it, but that looks very unlikely. I won't speak to the motivations of specific editors here, but the rush to pile baseless insults and attacks on administrators who dare wade in to make difficult decisions in thorny cases has got to stop, it poisons the atmosphere and, indirectly, provides cover for much mischief. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for desysopping are not limited to the wheel-warring. They arise also from the involvement, the subsequent misleading of Arbcom, and the derogatory statement about the blocked editor. The evidence in support of these matters is set out by me on the evidence page. I think Arbcom should consider the four reasons in their totality; in that context, the case for desysopping is, in my view, compelling. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If that bears out, yes. But there's a far more innocent explanation of everything but the koala comment, which makes it look like people defending MF are simply rushing to make counter-accusations. The evidence does not make it obvious that there was wheel warring, involvement, or an intent to mislead in the first place. The koala comment is the only clear matter. It falls under a standard of decorum but if that's the one sure thing and reasonable people differ on the other three, that's hardly enough to sanction an administrator over a single incident. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen 'explanations' for the wheel-warring and the intent to mislead: I completely disagree with them, but they're explanations. What's the defence for the charge of involvement? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the evidence that he was involved? I don't see it. Is it that he had recently commented at AN/I as to whether Malleus should have been blocked or unblocked? That wouldn't make him involved because that's a prior administrative interaction, not a prior editorial interaction. I can see why you'd say something fishy is going on but that goes into whether he was wheel warring and the plausibility of his claim that the new block was for a new infraction as opposed to undoing the acts he'd just said he disagreed with. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't weigh into a discussion and then act upon what you say is the consensus arising from the discussion. It's not acceptable at AfDs, RfAs, or any other formal process on wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

One question I think should be raised here. Someone (I forget who) said they had been considering unblocking Malleus following Hawkeye's block. Would that have been a wheel-warring action? Also, what would have happened if someone had overturned Hawkeye's block (with a reasonable justification) and then re-imposed the same block but this time specifically citing the 'Spitfire' post that Malleus made (along with posting an explanation at ANI - not sure if Hawkeye did that immediately, later, or never)? Would that have been a wheel-warring unblock followed by an independent (and justifiable) block? In my view, if someone had done that, it might well have calmed things down. But admins shy away from such actions because of the wheel-warring provisos of the blocking and admin policies. The point here is that block modifications and new blocks for previously uncited reasons make things less clear than complete reversals of administrative action. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, consider the following two scenarios. (A): Malleus blocked indefinitely, Malleus unblocked, Malleus re-blocked indefinitely. (B): Malleus blocked indefinitely, Malleus unblocked, Malleus posts a personal attack on Spitfire, Malleus blocked for a week for that personal attack. Scenario A is a wheel-war. Scenario B is not a wheel-war. Which of these two scenarios corresponds most closely to what actually happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A is closer. All the facts based on posts by the blocking admin at the moment disprove the idea that he was blocking for the attack on Spitfire. B is completely inconsistent with the facts, see the evidence submitted by Mkativerata, the only difference between reality and scenario A is the length.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So why did Hawkeye block for a week and not indefinitely? To make an accusation of wheel-warring stick, you need to answer that. It was either based on a perceived ANI consensus (if done in good faith, would you desysop an admin for getting an ANI consensus wrong?), or based on the Spitfire attack. Either way, it is not wheel-warring. The inconsistencies in the later rationalisation is understandable given the shitstorm that ensued. Also, look at the exchange on Hawkeye's user talk page in the immediate aftermath of the block (I would link it, but it takes a while to load due to lack of archiving). Prodego turns up and says at 07:21, 22 December 2011: "You really ought to think about that for a second. Please reconsider, we can reimpose blocks after discussion, a user conduct RFC would be a better step here." Then, only a minute later, Prodego reconsiders and says: "Eh, actually I didn't see the latest. mmm. Ok. Perhaps change the reason though." I read that as Prodego's initial post being before he saw the Spitfire comment (which came after Malleus was unblocked), and Prodego saying that Hawkeye should make clear that the new block is for that reason. I'm not sure what Hawkeye meant by "No, you are right of course." Again, someone should go and ask Hawkeye and Prodego what they meant by what they said there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Said it above. If you accept Hawkeye's claim that he reblocked due to the FC comment, then the reblock might be justified if ill advised at that point. If you accept the detailed rationale provided in Hawkeye's reblock statement that it was "Per Consensus" then you have to seriously consider this motion. Note: I would not be opposed to a short term desysopping. I believe it should be easier to move in and out of adminship when mistakes are made.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You are really proposing that ArbCom desysop every time an admin gets an ANI consensus wrong or is willing to take the heat for making a contentious call? You are going to get a lot less admins willing to close contentious ANI discussions. Look closely at the ANI discussion in question and read the nuances in all the comments. Not just the comments you agree with. Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get too caught up on process or being too anal about rules. The wheelwarring in this case is insignificant compared to wide-spread disruption MF has caused over the years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Caracharoth, notice that I have elsewhere said might be grounds for and that a short term desysopping might be appropriate. As for "getting ANI consensus wrong"... this isn't just getting ANI consensus wrong, this is a whole different ball game. This case was no where close to having a consensus to block (at the time of the reblock.) His reblock thus appeared to be blatant wheel warring and abusive... followed up by his gloating and later revisionist history. All tied together raises the spector that this has to be on the table. Whether it passes or not is a different question. If you believe the revised story that he blocked because of the Spitfire comment, then it is a mute issue. If you question that story and base his actions on what he said at the time, then you have to question a lot of things. That is the key issue IMO.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 banned

2) Hawkeye7 is banned from Wikipedia for 1 week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

(Incoming arb) A one week ban is something I'd be very unlikely to ever support as an Arbitration remedy, cases these days (as opposed to the 2004-2006 archives) are too long for this to be reasonable. Besides, banning Hawkeye7 strikes me as wildly excessive here. Courcelles 17:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is punitive and not preventive. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Desysopping (if justified) could be remedial - banning could only possibly be punitive.--Scott Mac 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. While desysopping MIGHT be an appropriate sanction, I defintely oppose this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Utterly punitive and makes me look at the other proposed remedy in a new light of punishing Hawkeye7.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 admonished

1) Hawkeye7 is admonished for abusing his administrative tools for the second time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The problem with this is that if an admin has used their buttons unwisely twice in a year, shouldn't they have to go through another RfA? PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly, depending on the evidence and Hawkeye7's response to my question. If there was fresh matter (there was) and Hawkeye was aware of it, then I query this. If he was not aware of it, and he was "too much indebted to the event for his acquittal" (that is, Malleus's comment provided a post hoc justification, but Hawkeye was unaware of it at the time of his block of Malleus) then trout slapping is a minimum.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Tryptofish

Proposed findings of fact

Malleus Fatuorum

1) Malleus Fatuorum is a long-time editor of Wikipedia, who has made many valuable content contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, and blah, blah, blah. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as I asked for a similar statement in the Mattisse case and got it after some heat. I will note that while I take no position on Malleus, certainly the Mattisse case is precedent on contributors who do a lot for the wiki, but still get themselves here. That is not to say that I think Malleus is deserving of what Mattisse got, or indeed of anything at all. My concern here is with the administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, I think that most agree on this. --Elonka 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously one of the best content contributors we have on the project.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Malleus Fatuorum topic banned

1) Malleus Fatuorum is banned for an indefinite period from commenting upon administrators as a group or about the RfA process, broadly defined, except in direct response to an action of dispute resolution directed at him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

An evidence submission in relation to this is important. You can start here. Risker (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If evidence is submitted that he's disrupting the RfA process to prove a point, this could be on the table. SirFozzie (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously depends on the evidence, but could also consider a 1-year ban from WT:RfA. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Offered as an alternative to either a site ban or to insistence that nothing happen until after an RfC/U. I think that part of the problem the community has long faced is the argument that if any user such as Malleus were to be site-banned, we would lose that person's high quality content work. A topic ban solves that problem. Malleus would still be free to do his content work and to be helpful to other editors in such work; he might still bite newcomers, but I'm unconvinced that he is generally wrong, or generally disruptive in this regard. And I strongly reject the opposite argument, that we should take no action, or that the matter should be sent back to an RfC/U that will waste everyone's time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker and SirFozzie: You (and some of the editors below) raise a good point about !votes in RfA itself. If you look at the evidence I already offered on the evidence page, I've given quite a bit from WT:RFA, but not from WP:RFA. In my experience, it's a gray area with respect to Malleus' !votes themselves. One could argue, as some have below, that he is speaking truth to power. His comments in talk are, I think, in a different category. My intention in posting this proposal was to address the talk page issues. I'm not sure what to say about RfA !voting, but I will think about it. One thing that is absent from my draft proposal is any delineation with respect to namespace, such as talk pages versus RfA itself. Perhaps, in the final version, some distinctions ought to be made there. (I also framed it as administrators as a group, as opposed to individual RfA candidates.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, see also the evidence submitted by Kaldari. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a good explanation why civility problems are not usually solved by blocking. If a user loses their cool in certain situations, blocking them will only result in them returning angrier and seeking vengeance until they are eventually site banned, which is a very bad result. If discussion and self-control do not avail, a ban from the area of trouble seems like a better solution than blocks escalating to indefinite. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside the immediate case in question, is there evidence that MF has been particularly problematic at RFA? I see none currently presented. I don't go near the awful place. Is MF worse than any of the other swamp dwellers there?--Scott Mac 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an .. ummm ... occasional "Swamp dweller" .. I'd say that yes a large number of the dust-ups regarding Malleus often begin at individual RfAs and WT:RFA - but you're right that this specific venue hasn't been cited with refs and such. Just an observation, but I personally would prefer this to a site ban no doubt. — Ched :  ?  23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think evidence could easily be found where he uses RfA to stick it to the admin corp. That being said, this might be a viable option. Unfortunately, I don't think MF would acede to this requirement.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing this would amount to a whitewash to protect a group of hardened, experienced and largely unaccountable users from a no-nonsense individual with a high profile and knack of calling things correctly. At the same time it would send out a message that the rest of us aren't considered important enough to be protected from his at times forceful opinions. In my opinion this would be worse than banning Malleus completely. —WFC— 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a "topic ban," that's flat-out political censorship. Strongest possible objection to this. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If he's disrupting RfA process, RfA is the locus of his issues, and temporarily removing him from RfA would quiet any problems, a topic ban would have some merit. Wikipedia is not a sovereign democratic state, free speech is not the point here, and in any event pages are not behavior-free zones. But somehow I don't think this gets to the heart of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

MF is capable of contributing anywhere without creating disharmony. His critical comments made at RFA, in a straightforward manner, are frequently persuasive and should not be lost to the project unless there is no alternative. They should always be made in the civil terms without being "vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive". This should be considered as an alternative to a topic ban. Leaky Caldron 12:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While I have, more often than not, disagreed with Malleus's comments made at RfA (I mean the actual discussions about specific candidates), I have felt that most of his comments in that venue were reasonable and at least somewhat constructive, and I see no need to banish him from this topic area as long as he treats other editors with respect and avoids personal attacks. In my opinion, any sort of demeaning language directed at another editor — regardless of whether one uses vulgar expletives or simply calls someone else an idiot — is inappropriate and unacceptable. I think this ought to be considered as much of a "bright line" as wheel-warring is. If Malleus (or anyone else) is unable or unwilling to refrain from expressing himself in ways that others may reasonably consider to be offensive — and especially if he defiantly refuses to change after having been put on notice — then he (or anyone else acting in the same way) needs to have limits placed on what he is allowed to do here, or else should be shown the door. My own talents, skills, and contributions are highly respected at my workplace, but if I were to start verbally abusing or harassing my co-workers in the way we're talking about here, my good qualities would not save me from being out of a job by day's end. This same principle applies just as strongly (if not more so) in a volunteer endeavour like Wikipedia. — Richwales (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This topic ban is widely cast. It covers not only a ban on the RfA process, but a ban on "commenting upon administrators as a group". That is a very bad idea. Only the most extraordinary evidence of harm could support censoring an editor from commenting, no matter how adversely, on one of the principal layers of wikipedia's bureaucracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Wikidemon

Proposed principles

Administrator decorum

1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from WP:ADMIN. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1.1) Administrators are expected to act with decorum, avoiding unnecessary comments about editors they are interacting with in their administrative capacity that those editors may reasonably interpret as uncivil, demeaning, hostile, rash, or threatening.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Follows from principle 1. This standard goes beyond mere civility by going to how administrative comments are perceived, not just their intent. Not all admins currently seem to feel so constrained but it's part of leading by example. If a party subject to an administrative action, or their defenders, perceives the admin as unnecessarily hostile, rude, etc., they will not respect the action and it is less likely to be effective. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree it follows from principle 1, as you add in "in their administrative capacity" which is not present in principle 1. Why are you limiting it? All this will do is endless arguments about whether Admin A was acting in their administrative capacity when warning Editor B about something or other. Suggest striking the limitation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if everyone were on extra-special behavior all the time, but some administrators moonlight as regular editors. It would be harder to get agreement that they should be held to a higher standard whether on duty or off. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For some editors, being inherently civil comes naturally. The others shouldn't have sysop bits. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Hawkeye7

1) Hawkeye7's calling Malleus a Koala falls below the standard of decorum expected of administrators, in that the comment was unnecessary to carrying out Hawkeye7's duties, and whatever the term's exact meaning or intent, an editor may reasonably consider the term derogatory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This seems obvious to me. An admin doesn't have to use a regional slang animal comparison to ask another for help dealing with Malleus. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with this, but I believe such a statement is appropriate only if accompanied by at least as strong a statement regarding Malleus's choice of words. — Richwales (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think Malleus has a thicker skin than some give him credit for... he has to the way he dishes it out. That being said, blocking a user and then using making the statements he did the way he did just doesn't sit right with me. If he had said them outside of the context of having just blocked the user, it might get a pass, but here is felt like gloating.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Hawkeye merely as an admin, choice of language isn't the problem. I'm sure many admins have said far worse about Malleus in justifiable contexts. The issue is that he made the comment in the context of being the blocking administrator. —WFC— 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this as anything more than Hawkeye's macaca moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Hawkeye7 admonished

1) Hawkeye7 admonished not to use derogatory idiom when referring to editors with whom he is interacting in his role as an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is intended to be a mild remedy to avoid future insults. If other administrative failings are found warranting more serious sanction this one may well be subsumed by that. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Wehwalt

Proposed principles

Involved administrators

1) Administrators must not undertake contentious actions regarding editors with whom they can be considered involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Basically straight out of WP:INVOLVED.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Construction of "involvement"

2) "Involvement" is construed broadly, as per WP:INVOLVED and includes both friendly and hostile relationships.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. While the policy cited does not explicitly mention friendly relationships, I believe it is implied and this would be a useful clarification of existing policy by ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm open, as discussed below to changing this to cordial, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak Opposed. This would disqualify 95% of the admins from acting on any case involving Malleus ;-) In all seriousness, just because somebody is cordial and has talked to a user in the past doesn't negate their ability to deal with them objectively or to weigh conensus. Now a user should refrain when they know that such a relationship does exist, but too general.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed my evidence? I'd welcome specific comments on it. I value also your general comment above, I am just asking you to get down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideally John probably should have refrained from acting, I did because I've interacted with Malleus before and tend to defend him against specific accusations. But, I agree with John that at the point that he acted, there was a clear consensus forming that the block was unjustified. I'll move to weak oppose, because technically I guess you can say that he was "involved" and ideally wouldn't act---but I don't think his action was clearly inappropriate in light of consensus forming. You observation about his having over a 100 edits to Mal's page does give the argument more credence than the other cases.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, you don't "form" "consensus" in 20 minutes. Why? Apart from the obvious, the most people to show up initially are going to have the blockee's talk page watchlisted. And I don't believe there was consensus for anything; thus ArbCom was asked to step in. Repeating "consensus forming", as you do several times on this page, is a less than persuasive argument. If there was, all the more reason for John to step aside.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you can form consensus in 20 minutes, what is clear is that the block was contentious. Contentious blocks should, per the BRD cycle, be reverted ASAP. An improper block should not remain so that we can have six hours of discussion while an innocent person fumes. (Again, talking hypothetically---regardless of one's thoughts on MF's guilt or innocence.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant and even-handed. —WFC— 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support generally, but would recommend spelling out what "involved" means, since WP:INVOLVED changes quite a bit. So just linking there won't mean much, if this case is being referenced three years from now. --Elonka 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I could easily link to a specific version, as of the date of decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of indefinite blocks

3) An indefinite block does not mean a permanent expulsion from Wikipedia, but per WP:BLOCK, is often applied when "there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Straight out of the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking procedure

4) In general, administrators should not unblock an editor without a request from the editor, unless there is clear and obvious error, so clear that no reasonable administrator would have carried out that action. Even so, an administrator considering an unblock should consult with the blocking administrator and allow time for the blocking administrator to post a rationale in full.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pretty clear from our blocking procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, though please make it "his or her"?  :) --Elonka 17:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

rephrased to avoid pronoun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

John and Malleus in friendly relationship

1) At the time of his unblock of Malleus, John had an ongoing, friendly relationship with him

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No doubt that they had discussed in an open and cordial way several topical issues, including civility, blocking and the need for Admins. in the lead up to the AN/I [8]. Leaky Caldron 12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Would "cordial" rather than "friendly" be a better term?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think any number of simple adjectives would do, e.g. affable, genial even amiable. I don't think any particular one fits better than friendly. Leaky Caldron 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to any of those, in case "friendly" is what causes someone to hesitate here. Also when I use it above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Cordial" is usually code for "they hate each other but avoid punching each other". Regarding "friendly", the shoe fits. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John involved

2) John, by his own admission, and by the evidence submitted to the committee, was "involved" with respect to Malleus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think there's no reasonable dispute about this. YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John's unblock improper per procedure

3) John should not have unblocked Malleus as he did not consult with the blocking administrator nor allow time for the blocking administrator to post his rationale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John's unblock improper as involved

4) John should not have unblocked Malleus as he was involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There was no emergency and plenty of admins around.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John abused the tools

5) John, in unblocking Malleus, abused his administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In the absence of any reason why John, in particular, should have unblocked Malleus, I think it follows?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

opposed. I think that by the time John unblocked, there was a clear consensus that the initial block was A) over the top and B) unwarranted. While he probably should have refrained from doing so, I would not say that following the clear consensus at ANI was an abuse. Misuse maybe abuse no.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite as accurate. Six people had asked to overturn the block. Additionally, one (Protonk) had warned against a summary unblocking without consultation. That did not stop John. And let's face it, if John had allowed more than twenty minutes, then many of the people who have weighed in here who think the blocks were justified (I say here to include all fora which this debate has occurred in), then there would have been no consensus. Additionally, we generally require more than twenty minutes to judge consensus. Especially at that time of night in some areas. What was the urgency?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse... There is where history comes in and Malleus' position within the community plays a role. Everybody knows it would be over turned... it was only a matter of who and when. Isolated incidents against Malleus were not going to result in a block.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Also, as I've said before (and elsewhere) it doesn't matter; this was a contentious block. Contentious blocks should be reverted ASAP per BRD, innocent until proven guilty, and one's right to confront one's accuser.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward's block of Malleus contentious but not obvious error

6) Although the original block of Malleus was contentious, it was not so completely unreasonable as to constitute a clear and obvious error. Accordingly, an admin seeking to unblock Malleus should have discussed the matter with Thumperward after awaiting his detailed rationale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this follows from the AN/I discussion, and from the purpose of an indefinite block.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the wording, but I will agree that no sanctions/review needs to be made of Thumper. Agree or disagree with the block, I think it was made in good faith and not so egregiously wrong.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Issuing an indefinite block, in this case, shows serious lack of judgment, and I don't accept "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" since it is much too vague. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John continues to adhere to his position

7) John, in his statements to the Committee, shows no awareness that his unblock was improper. Accordingly, there is a significant risk he will repeat his actions, given similar circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think I was very gentle with John in my initial statement, hoping he would say "Yeah, I goofed." If he had, I wouldn't bother with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Query the header for this section is that he maintain his position, but the underlying comment implies otherwise. Is supportin this query supporting his keeping or losing the bit?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)NOTE: section heading was changed from "continue to maintain his position" to "contiues to adhere to his position"... thus, a different header has been provided which clarifies my question.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. While I don't think his unblock was egregiously wrong or merits sanctions, he probably should have left it to somebody else.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

John admonished

1) John is admonished for his misuse of administrative tools, and is directed to follow policy in his use of his tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not wedded to any particular remedy, and all this is off the top of my head.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Misuse I will support weakly, abuse I would have to think twice about.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is stated as "misuse" on the evidence page [9]. Maybe Wehwalt agrees to change the reference to "abuse" above? Leaky Caldron 17:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "misuse" is what is stated in policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John restricted

2) John is shall not block or unblock any autoconfirmed editor, nor shall he undertake any administrative action regarding Malleus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I see the first part of this as something that can be quietly removed after a few months, and assuming John makes it clear he "gets" the policy aspects.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First part, opposed. MIGHT support if there was a time frame. Second part, even if he wasn't involved before, he is now; so it goes without saying.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds punitive as opposed to preventative. --Rschen7754 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting this into two remedies: 1) an indefinite duration restriction against administrative action regarding Malleus, broadly construed 2) a shortish (say, one month) restriction against blocking or unblocking autoconfirmed editors. 1) seems a no-brainier given what occurred and 2) seems necessary as John appears to have lost perspective on how blocks and unblocks should work Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

John may seek a new RfA or modification to remove restrictions

3) These restrictions may be removed by a modification request, or by John initiating a new RfA, attendant to the usual risks of an administrator undertaking a new RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This gives John an out in the event he thinks ArbCom was wrong. There's an obvious risk though, if he fails the RfA, he's not an admin anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Has this ever been done before? --Guerillero | My Talk 16:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I opposed the other sanctions, I don't see this as necessary. He is now official "involved" with Malleus, thus would be ill advised to ever take admin actions there (regardless of what else occurs.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the ways we prevent a "next time", not necessarily with Malleus, but with anyone, is to deter those who would enable. John was involved, he unblocked anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing admins chew on it and consider if an unblock of someone they admire is really, really worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by User:WFCforLife

Proposed principle

Controversial language

1) Words or phrases of a controversial or offensive nature should be used sparingly, if at all. If deemed necessary, such comments should only be made in the context of a well-rounded argument. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of comments made solely to cause offence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer: I've never drafted an Arbcom principle before, and the wording may need significant alteration. Judging by the Arb's initial comments, interpretation of civility enforcement was the cause of what appears to have been a wheel war, which in turn is why this case was accepted. This is therefore an issue that needs tackling. I hope that those that disagree with my proposal will acknowledge that I am trying to deal with the right issue, even if they consider it to be the wrong way. —WFC— 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Balloonman

Proposed principles

Default status in regards to contentious blocks

1) When a block is deemed contentious, the default status should revert to unblocked. Reblocks should only occur after a consensus has been established.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer The normal cycle of discussion is BRD---Bold, Revert, Discuss. When a block is contentious, then discussion should occur until a consensus can be determined. In this scenario, the principles of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one's accuser should apply. This would alleviate the supposed "first/second mover advantage."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree but I'm keen nevertheless to know how a case might be "deemed" contentious? Little doubt the blocked editor likely thinks it is but that is not what you mean. Please clarify the process of determining contentious in a manner that could be applied across a wide range of circumstances. Leaky Caldron 20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This basically guarantees that editors with a following of supporters will be automatically unblocked as soon as they complain about the block, so it's not workable and would actually act to entrench the problems here. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The Admins failed to address an ongoing issue

1) Malleus has routinely been subject to various warnings, ANI Reports, and blocks. In each isolated case, the accusations against Malleus were deemed insufficeint to act upon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As Proposer The individual cases brought before ANI have tended to lack substance and have routinely been overturned by the rest of the admin core. Malleus was never given a warning/sanction that had teeth to it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. What has happened, in most cases, is that an admin has seen fit to unblock without consultation with the blocking admin. In a narrow sense, you are correct, as that was the position of the unblocking admin. However, you make it sound like that was the judgment of the community. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a failure of the sdmin core. The admin core failed to do anything substantive. All that ever happened is that somebody would raise a stink. Then be shot down at ANI and on various talk pages. Ye who shouts the loudest wins.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to agree with this apparent failure of the community/admins. in relation to the subject going back many years, where is the actual evidence by way of diffs. to support the inaction described? Another way of arguing it might be that a group of adherents regularly arrive at AN/I to talk down and effectively filibuster the proposed discussion. I am not making that claim without evidence, but if you are an experienced Admin here making a proposal you must produce evidence to support it. Leaky Caldron 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Community failed to address an ongoing issue

2) Despite ongoing repeated issues with Malleus, those who saw him as overly disruptive failed to initiate an RfC against him or his actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

as proposer No RfC was ever brought against him. While I defended him against most isolated attacks, I never understood why nobody initiated an RfC. I know why I didn't, but I couldn't believe his detractors never did.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I could support except for the conclusory heading and the word "failed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, as a community, the community failed to do anything. The ANI reports/blocks etc failed to address the issue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You talk about "detractors". In any incident there will usually be two parties (others might turn up later). It is not necessary to be a detractor of MF to end up in a dispute, it can happen for a variety of reasons. Are you certain that "detractors" is appropriate and impartial for an Admin. to describe fellow editors? Do you think that fear of intimidation or simply apathy might be a reason why RFC/U has never been attempted? Leaky Caldron 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cases tend not to end up at Arbcom if people are apathetic about it. —WFC— 22:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of his reputation, Malleus was on a shorter leash than most

3) Malleus' was often brought to ANI or blocked for issues that would have been ignored if they had been said/done by anybody else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

as proposer Malleus was often blocked without warning and for reasons that other people would not have been blocked for. Over eager admins applied blocks knowing that they would be reverted. I suspect that this cycle simply spiraled out of control. (Note, I know that Malleus' detractors will oppose this, but it has to be said.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Impossible to prove or disprove. And please don't characterize those who disagree with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Endorse per sycophant and arse.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This case is new for me, but from reviewing the Evidence I get an impression that the opposite is true. Any average editor would be banned from Wikipedia for such a string of actions by now. - BorisG (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Community needs to be more proactive in dealing with ongoing issues

1) The community/admins need to be more proactive in initiating RfC's against repeat offenders---especially when ANI has proven inept at dealing with the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As proposer an RfC on Malleus was long over due. The RfC would have either vindicated him and condemned the admins who routinely blocked or would have chastized him and given a solid footing for future actions. An ArbCOM case should not have been required without an RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the purpose of this, but ANI should be tried before RfC/U is considered. I would therefore tweak the middle bit to "repeat offenders, where ANI has proven inept..." —WFC— 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed as worded. I don't think it is in the remit of AC to tell volunteers what they should or "need" to do. The outside best would be encouraged to — Ched :  ?  22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Fifelfoo

Proposed principles

Community civility standards

1) The standards of civility are a matter for community policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Community language standards

1) The community has perennially and recently addressed the issue of certain language as universally, and has perennially rejected language gags.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incoherent. - BorisG (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence: is "cunt" is not a fundamentally uncivil word

The evidence presented of this recent community discussion on the perennial attempt to impose a language gag clearly indicates that no words are fundamentally uncivil, and that the context of civility is editor interaction not the use of particular words. This is reinforced by the evidence from the Macquarie Dictionary of the use of "cunt" in Australian English. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is Malleus Australian? Even if he does move in circles where the word is an acceptable address, I'm finding it hard to believe he's ignorant enough of wider social mores not to be able to predict it would be offensive to many of his fellow wikipedians. In any case, context is what needs looked at here, dictionaries and evidence can't settle what's uncivil or not.--Scott Mac 23:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"evidence can't settle what's uncivil or not"? What do you propose can settle what is uncivil? You may wish to rephrase yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant generalities. This evidence speaks for itself without analysis. Is that not incivil? The rest is just lawyering.--Scott Mac 23:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange, because I'm seeing a lot of hostility against the community's clearly are perennially put position that no word is inherently uncivil. I'm seeing "Won't someone think of the children?" arguments above (though, peculiarly, with "ladies" instead of children as the subhuman category of victims). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What is inherently uncivil is pretty moot, when what is actual incivil in this case is pretty much beyond dispute. Again, [ you can't get around this with any amount of lingo-philosophical relativising.--Scott Mac 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop impugning a position on me, please redact your accusative, I consider "you can't get around this" as incivil as it claims I hold a position I haven't talked about. Your rhetoric "what is actually incivil in this case is pretty much beyond dispute," is a dubious factual claim without support. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"a dubious factual claim without support"? Please, give it a rest. You're spouting utter nonsense and if you want to consider that as a personal attack, feel free. If I see the word "sociolect" once more I'll not be responsible for my actions. (If anyone sensible here thinks that this is totally irrelevant please feel free to strike it without notice and stick a fucking haddock on my talk page).Leaky Caldron 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

True but not relevant. The overwlelming evidence is of personal attacks, with or without obscenities. - BorisG (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to other evidence of IDHT incivility, and subsequent administrator baiting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott Mac showed an irrefutably uncivil edit. Fifelfoo then showed us how pathetic the lawyering can be. WTF is your intent in labeling women as subhuman? Disregard the rhetorical sarcasm. I could care less what motivates you, as long as you understand I loath your position. My76Strat (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: