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

Request that Arbitrators use their power to gain access to relevant official IRC channel logs to determine if they are evidentiary

1) One element of complaint in the underlying disputes over civility has been that administrative actions may have been discussed on official IRC channels maintained by wikimedia for the purposes of discussing and improving wikipedias, en.wikipedia, cross wikipedia administration, and en.wikipedia administration. The guidelines provided at wikimedia for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel repeatedly refers to the potential for conduct issues of improper formation of consensus off wikipedia, and, arbitrator oversight is assumed in the channel's userlist. Separate from the complaint in the underlying dispute, the explicit and repeated prohibition on using the IRC channels for off-encyclopaedia formation of administrative action is a reasonable cause to believe that such behaviour may occur in that space. Obviously evidence would be required for claiming such a thing.

But evidence is not available, by design. None of these channels keep public logs, and so users cannot submit evidence based on official logs. These channels prohibit the taking and use of private logs without permission from all involved parties. Some of these channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins keep private logs that they claim are accessible on arbitrator order for the use of arbitrators. Some of these channels are not accessible to non-administrators, and so members of the community cannot even have viewed them "live" as WP:AN/I or WP:AN may be viewed live in order to bear witness from experience without the benefit of logs.

Given that members of the community are restricted from accessing these logs to determine if they have any evidentiary value in relation to the formation of consensus or the development of decisions regarding administrative action, I request that Arbitrators use what powers they have to:

1a) Obtain such logs for a suitably deep time period in relation to the underlying dispute of failure to administer and conduct civilly (this may be months, I do not know the time scope arbitrators believe holds for their case)

1b) Examine such logs for their evidentiary benefit in relation to this case

1c) Where possible and appropriate, make such logs, or redactions of such logs, or summaries of such logs available for viewing by members of the wikipedia community. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have no idea what you're talking about, Fifelfoo. There is no ability of the Arbitration Committee to "subpoena" IRC channel logs. There are also literally hundreds of IRC channels where Wikipedia is discussed that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and they aren't even under the nominal control of the Wikimedia IRC channel contacts. Further, I cannot imagine any arbitrator voluntarily reading through thousands of hours of IRC drivel. Risker (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Jehochman, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a "duty" of the Arbitration Committee to supervise the proper use of official IRC channels. That is the responsibility of the channel operators and channel contacts. If you look at the link provided by Fifelfoo, you will see that not a single arbitrator is a channel contact or channel operator. In fact, most arbitrators do not use IRC at all. Risker (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jehochman, please feel free to make your proposal here. The Arbitration Committee does not control IRC channels. Risker (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems impractical; we're talking about pages and pages of logs here. --Rschen7754 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fishing; and it's fishy. My76Strat (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not fishing for ArbCom to perform their duty to supervise proper use of the official IRC channels. There is no public scrutiny of the channel, so this is the only way to make sure the channels are not being misused. Have any arbitrators have been watching that channel regularly? It is also not impractical to download the logs and perform a text search to look for a unique keyword like "Malleus", a word not used in everyday conversion, and see if any admins were improperly plotting to block an editor. Given access to the logs, I could do this in a few minutes. There are several people on the committee with sufficient skills to to do the job. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Risker, why then is there an official en-wikipedia-admins channel? If ArbCom can't supervise the admins convening there, it ought to be shut down for the sake of transarency. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)?

You're paranoid beyond even my paranoia Jehochman. Impressive. Who sent you? Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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:

Arbitrators are not meant to be super-admins, and should have no additional authority outside ArbCom matters. It is true that some Arbs are widely respected and their views are accorded disproportionate weight, but I suggest that this is because of their reputations and not their status as Arbitrator - for example, NewYorkBrad had already earned subsantial community respect before he joined ArbCom, and I believe he will continue to be influential and respected after he retires from ArbCom.

It is unfortunately also the case that some members of ArbCom have provoked considerable controversy in acting in a de facto super-admin manner. One simple example was Coren's blocking of Giano during the Randy / alleged outing incident, a block that was divisive and reversed almost immediately. That incident is significant to this motion in two regards: firstly, it shows an Arbitrator whose judgement was not up to the sort of authority this motion contemplates granting in a particular case. Secondly, that incident led almost immediately to an RfAr request in which it was clear that internal ArbCom disagreements were going to be a factor. ArbCom declined to take the case, which makes me concerned that a proposal such as this could result in unilateral super-admin action which ArbCom would decline to review. ArbCom is meant to be a review body and there are good reasons for Arbitrators to avoid acting in areas which are likely to become cases. Consequently, Arbitrators should not be directed to act as first responders in the case of potentially highly contentious blocks. EdChem (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you come with five to ten non ArbCom administrators with absolutely stunning judgement? Nothing Malleus has ever done has triggered as much disruption as hese last two wheel wars. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

However well intended, this is a bad idea. My76Strat (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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:

All editors are expected to avoid pissing people off at all times. Is Malleus so out of control that this needs to be specified? Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Malleus may be right now, excluding the God-King, the most watched editor in the history of Wikipedia. Arbcom will be told by many of anything deemed out of line. Also, all of his good deeds will be presented to the Committee. This is the least of our concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Malleus's block expired, he seems to be right back to unhelpful comments.[1] My recommendation is that, to minimize disruption, ArbCom pass a motion that Malleus be restricted solely to commenting at the case, and nowhere else. --Elonka 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand your proposal. Once this case is resolved, Malleus can return to pissing people off?--Buster Seven Talk 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundant to current policy WP:CIVIL My76Strat (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Question from Wehwalt to Hawkeye7

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)

Question from My76Strat to Malleus Fatuorum

Malleus Fatuorum, Please consider wp:npa where it states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Upon reflection, do you believe you remain fully compliant with this policy each time you edit on Wikipedia? My76Strat (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe that you or anyone else here does? The policy is so floppily worded in any event as to be a bit of a joke. Is it really always a "personal attack" to comment on an editor? (Hint: think carefully before you answer.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (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.

1.1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to the academic project of writing an encyclopedia.

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)

While the nature of the project we're working on is one that tends to be considered professional, we are volunteers scattered all across the globe. I'd suggest something along the lines of "maintain decorum appropriate to a collaborative environment," as in order for the project to function at all we have to be able to work with one another. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 31 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)

This is interesting. If you haven't written an essay on this, you should. And then tell more people about it. I had been thinking of USENET (or the various flavours of bulletin boards) as the closest thing to a persistently archived environment similar to Wikipedia, but you've brought in your experience at RS/N, which is invaluable. Have you looked at other areas of Wikipedia to see if similar 'transitioning' behaviour is seen? Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Getting a bit off-topic now, maybe best continued somewhere else?

It might be interesting but I'm struggling with its applicability in this case. MF does not need to transition in the way described. He is extremely intelligent, articulate and erudite and chooses the style he wishes to use as fitting the circumstances he encounters. I am certain his "sociolect" does not influence him and I think he would be appalled at the suggestion. We do not allow patois in article space, even though its use is increasing in street language among certain "sociolects". Regardless of "sociolect", it is asking little in a project than anyone can contribute to abide by simple civility guidelines in which racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive interactions are not tolerated.(Incidentally, that list is taken from the T&C of a moderated forum inhabited by English speaking members from all "sociolects"). Leaky Caldron 13:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If we hold you to my normative values system that's fine; if you attempt to hold me to yours that's not fine. Your slander is my emphatic; your analysis is my hateful. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have almost no idea what you mean. If you are saying that anyone can say anything to anyone using any expression they choose because that is their "shtick" then I totally disagree. Leaky Caldron 13:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion that a particular moral code is adequate for wikipedia is fundamentally offensive. It is fundamentalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are implying but I'll tell you what, I've not had the pleasure of working with you and I will be delighted to keep it that way. Leaky Caldron 18:44, 31 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)

A lack of decorum creates social tension and that is what it's like to edit with and around editors like Edito Fatoreum. Is he irratible today? Will his bully tactics surface? There is always tension; always hoping that no-one says anything to upset him. Hoping that he is in a playful mood. Hoping he and his minions don't take over the discussion and it crashes and burns. Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 1 January 2012 (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:

Prefer 2.1 here, it's a bit clearer. I believe similar statements on wheel warring have been used in past cases, though, it may be best to take from those. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], 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)
• Also with Wehwait. If admins bait Malleus, then that is a serious issue. But first we need to see evidence that this is the case --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse this. Baiting should not be acceptable in any form here. Toa Nidhiki05 22:11, 31 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" [7] 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. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  There are many master baiters on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Selective enforcement

0) Wikipedia's civility policy has been subject to selective enforcement. Depending on the personal friendships or antagonisms between editors, some relatively minor civility violations are met with blocks, while other blatant violations are ignored.evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Busybodies:

We either need to enforce civility with reasonable uniformity, or else we direct admins not to make capricious blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Civility Standards

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

While in this particular case, as Scott Mac notes, I don't think this is really the issue, this is a core problem if we are to look into this situation from a broad scope. It's because that there have been disagreements that we're here in this case, rather than the situation having been dealt with by the community. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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 and responses by others:

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)

The lack of a prior RFC is a contributing factor for why we are here. It needs to be noted that Malleus' detractors did not bother to use an obvious dispute resolution option that was available to them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 1 January 2012 (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)

It would put all the evidence in one place and give the community a chance to review and comment. Once that was done, assuming it deadlocked because of the faction supporting Malleus, it would have been easy enough to move to arbitration if there were further problems. It would have avoided some admins getting desysopped for wheel warring. It would have contained the drama to a designated page, instead of spilling hither and thither. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 1 January 2012 (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)

That's interesting. Why wasn't it possible to start an RFC/U? Who was obstructing the process? If so, let's have the evidence and make sure that doesn't happen again. My reading is that Malleus' detractors couldn't be arsed to compile the evidence. Instead, there was on-wiki and potentially off-wiki lobbying for administrators to block Malleus. That's wrong. Our purpose here is to help other editors, not to play the "get the other guy blocked" game. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that "the futility of it" plays a part in not going to RFC/U and that applies across the board - not just in the case of MF. If there has been off-wiki collusion against MF that would be a disgrace - can anyone show evidence? Same goes for so called baiting and / or lobbying. I believe MF has brought most of the problems on himself but editors/admins. actively working against him is beyond acceptable behaviour. Leaky Caldron 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen lots of off wiki collusion, in general. It is an endemic problem. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 1 January 2012 (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 and replies by others:

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)

Aye, this isn't terribly useful. Moderate incivility, if spread over a long period of time, can have just as much or more of a chilling effect than a short block. Even in short bursts, it can be disruptive and impede collaborative discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Very true, but if there is mild incivility spread over a long time, start an RFC. Blocking may only escalate the problem, rather than resolve it. "You seem a bit upset. Let me provoke you and see if that helps you calm down." Blocks are provocative, and should only be used as a last resort. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 1 January 2012 (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)

I am thinking of past cases related to civility. Some of our most contentious disputes have had a heavy barrage of civility claims flung back and forth. It seems like these cries of incivility only complicate disputes. If somebody is habitually incivil, then start an RFC. Otherwise, don't complain about isolated incidents that may occur when an editor gets overwrought. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It is precisely this well intentioned but ultimately counterproductive viewpoint that has led Wikipedia into the civility morass it finds itself in. Whenever incivility occurs, there needs to be community pushback, proportionate to the situation. It can be as simple as a hey that's uncool, tone it down, a request to strike, use of {{nono}} template, something. Silence is consent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. It may work toward some advantage to construe it as consent, but it is not consent. Silence is Silence. It has no meaning until we give it meaning. Buster Seven Talk 08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To some degree silence is consent. You Buster7 were not silent as you did speak out when you called for common courtesy. Thumperward on the other hand endorsed the edit, by editing after MF and even after Deb, giving no indication that he saw MF's edit as a blockable offense, even himself seeming to undermine Deb's appeal by commenting to her "You must be new here." I am working on evidence and will provide links and diffs. My76Strat (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I back up My76Strat on this one entirely. Silence most definitely is consent - those who see such abuse and do nothing about it or don't speak up against it, are just as guilty as those who commit the abuse in the first place. If nobody speaks up, it'll go on and on ad infinitum until something gives.  BarkingFish  15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that incivility is often a form of baiting? The rude editor is looking for a fight. Why give them what they want? If you refuse to take the bait, they will eventually get bored, and go do something else. Sometimes a good tactic is to leave a deadpan reply that appears to be completely untouched by the insult. Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Editors My76 And Barking Fish---There may be a hidden natural self-interest for silence. Back in grade school, did you respond when the bullies were "initiating" the new kid to the rules of the schoolyard? Silence is not indifference or support or consent. It's silence. Let's assume that MF is completely silent as to the conclusion of this case. Will his silence mean that he consents to its decision?

There may be simple reasons to explain silence:

1. ..Repeated edit conflicts to the point of creating a long delay or just too much effort required.
2. ..Internet connection problems.
3. ..Fear, plain and simple. Not wanting to become the target.
4. ..Disinterest. Not willing to spend the time to respond to foolishness.
5. ..No time, late for work!--Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 1 January 2012 (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:

User:Wikidemon states below that administrators are entitled to deference. Can he or someone else explain to me why that is so? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

• No janitor on this site is entitled to any more "humble submission and respect"[8] than any other editor. That sort of thinking is a cornerstone in the quarrels between Malleus and various admins—an idea that gives some the impression that we editors are mere proletariat among the exhaulted admins with all their noble powers and wisdom. Lara 22:04, 2 January 2012 (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)

This is restating the standard process, no? ArbCom can remind people how things are supposed to work. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While not wishing to offend, I would say that having tried to raise a Wikiquette Alert against Malleus in the past, and being mauled badly for doing so, I find it difficult to believe that the people who have problems with him would actually have the courage to raise an RFC/U against him, because (like I), they know what would happen. It would get shot down like everything else people do when it comes to Malleus. Bypassing RFC/U to get here is like climbing over a pit of alligators to get to the bad guy. It's something that needed to be done in order to get the real issue resolved. Would you stick your hand into a pit of vipers knowing full well you were gonna get bitten to death? I doubt it.  BarkingFish  18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) (returned to sign - original comment left at 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC) )

Agree w/proposal and Editor Barking Fish. Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good start, possibly incomplete. Where would the community discussion following a failed RFC/U take place? Nobody Ent 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AN would be the customary venues. The RFC is crucial for developing the evidence and allowing a full discussion. ANI is not a good venue for presenting lots of evidence and having a lengthy, thoughtful discussion. However, once there is an RFC page, it can be linked from ANI, and there can be a relatively rapid discussion about what sanction might be needed. If ANI were to deadlock, the matter could be sent up to arbitration. Hopefully that would be a rarity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's seems like there's a lot of churn on the AN boards about other issues; additionally the conversation would end being split between the RFC and the board. We should just consider implementing an RFC variant where non voluntary sanctions are on the table. Nobody Ent 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum admonished

2) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for incivility.

2.1) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished to improve the civility of his comments.

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:

Balloonman appears to be claiming below that I've been "emboldened" by the limp-wristed admonishment dished out at venues like AN/I, but that's very far from the truth. I have a very strong sense of fairness, which is all that emboldens me to challenge those who should know better to behave better. Those charged with enforcing (an admittedly poorly written) civility policy need to understand that their own behaviour must be beyond reproach, but too many of them do not, and are far more long-term uncivil than their victims. The change that needs to be made here is a clear and unambiguous statement by ArbCom that the civility policy applies equally to everyone, from the highest to the lowest, and show some courage in actually enforcing that ideal. If blocks are to be made for incivility then there are several commenting in this case who ought already to be blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good response. Do you agree that you need to tone down your remarks somewhat, to set a good example for others? If your comments were not excessively strident, it would be easier to focus attention on the conduct of those who you have been criticizing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely, as that puts the blame on me. I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy, but right now we have neither. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the standards are unclear and need to be reworked. Let me rephrase my question. Do you agree that it would be better practice to write your comments so that the substance of your comments would be the focus of attention, rather than your word choice? Less strident comments are usually more effective at informing or convincing. It is certainly not my intention to blame you or anybody else. We need a common understanding so that people can work together to write great articles. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, not entirely, as I see nothing wrong with using occasional intensifiers to drive home a point. In this specific case though the only thing I regret is having called User:Spitfire a "fucking cunt" in response to a comment he made in the aftermath of my indefinite block. That was clearly wrong of me, no matter what he had said. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And Buster Seven's comment that we're trying to "create a new culture" just puzzles me. I thought we were trying to write a freely available encyclopedia? Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

If evidence warrants, an editor could be subject to a civility restriction, perhaps with a requirement that a warning be given, and then escalating blocks for each incident. The advantage of AE is that the block appeal process is rigorous. We won't have this block, unblock, endless discussion at ANI nonsense. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this, but not as the only action against Malleus - it should be part of the solution, not the whole of it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We, acting as a community, should not tolerate provacatuers. In spite of all his claims to fame, Malleus' provokes. There is no viable logical defense for boorish behavior anywhere on Wikipedia. We are creating a new culture not implementing and continuing the nonsense of ancient ones that exist under a tent of so-called "cultural and tempermental differences". Buster Seven Talk 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not support this. An admonishment (read: yet another slap on the wrist) is going to do nothing. He's openly ignored administrators, and other users, and basically knows he can get away with pretty much anything. It's going to be like "Oh whoops, i've been rude, oh well, nothing bad's gonna happen again, as usual..." - and that's the kind of thing which needs clearly and concisely discouraging on here. Any other user acting in the way MF has in the past would have been out on their ear a damn long time ago, and as far as I can see, ARBCOM need to be looking at more than just "admonishing" this user. Enough is enough.  BarkingFish  17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please stop assuming bad faith of one of our best content writers. Malleus has never been admonished before by ArbCom. You don't know how he would react. Hopefully things will improve and no further dispute resolution will be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 2 January 2012 (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)

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)[9] 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)

Consensus is not a vote. It's the strength of arguments that matters. AQFK (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Who decides the strength of the arguments? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For most observers, and certainly for anyone involved, the strength of the argument is usually the extent to which it supports the observer's position. By another measure, the strongest argument is the one that prevails, in other words outcome proves consensus. Whatever consensus is, it has little to do with the ridiculous posturing and whining of people who show up to AN/I block and unblock discussions to re-argue old debates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 31 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)

While that may be the case, it's still an inappropriate comment to make when explaining the rationale for the block (what is supposed to be a rather serious matter). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (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)

• If this statement was meant seriously it was a gross violation of administrator standards which was a substantial over-reach of his authority. If it was a pointy joke, it is simply more evidence of very poor judgement from Hawkeye7. I suspect it was the latter, but no matter which interpretation you favour it provides evidence of Hawkeye7's mishandling of this situation and unsuitability to retain the sysop tools at this time. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously not meant seriously. Although it's a lame joke (too geeky), it exhibits a very common aspect of humor, which is making an absurd or exaggerated statement, the implausibility of which renders less threatening a harsh underlying message. What Hawkeye7 is saying is that he's a strong content contributor too so you shouldn't pull rank on behalf of Malleus that administrators are simpletons and unfit to render judgment on him. I do believe that administrators should avoid humor and posturing -- see my proposal on administrator decorum -- but this is hardly a mishandling of anything and in fact the position he was expressing is a widely held and important one. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 31 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)

Any ArbCom-issued ban must be greater than three months at the least, otherwise they're worthless. By the time the case finishes, you may as well consider it time served. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (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:

Statements such as this I take slight issue with. While I do not question Malleus's - or anyone's - value as a content contributor, such is irrelevant when considering allegations of disruption. A history of good editing should not serve as a "get out of jail free" card. It's possible this deserves some mention in the case, however presenting it as a finding of fact, to me, implies that any sanctions against the editor in question will have been lessened out of deference to this fact. That is something I do not support. Disruption is disruption, no matter who is causing it. (I should note that I have not reviewed the evidence in enough detail to determine if sanctions against Malleus are appropriate or not, however.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: I'm not sure if a site ban is necessarily on the table here anyway, but even in that case, I don't think that it necessarily is worth considering. An editor can have a hundred featured articles under their belt, but given a grievous enough offense (or more likely history of such offenses), the proper response would be to remove them from the project, at least for a time. Allowing any sort of preferential treatment creates a hierarchy of sorts, with those at the top able to avoid the worst sanctions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: That might be acceptable, although it would probably be best presented as two separate findings, with the latter pointing out specific issues with diffs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

@Hersfold: Please understand that I fully agree with you about the concept that good content work is not a license to be disruptive in any other way. That's very important! I think, however, that this is a simple, objective statement of fact. It should not be used as a reason to back off from making any sanction at all, but I think it is worth considering as a reason not to consider a site-ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: I agree with you. When I posted this, it was not yet clear that we would rule out a site-ban. Here's a thought: a finding of fact that starts as above, but is followed by a sentence or two about the downside. In effect: Malleus is an excellent editor, and we acknowledge that, but that doesn't change the fact that there are problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (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)

I agree: topic bans are about preventing disruption, not silencing critics. OTOH, I generally agree with Tryptofish's analysis, and think a specific RFA topic ban is worth considering. There can be a protective element to a topic ban: I appreciate that Malleus makes useful contributions to individual RFAs, but this is an area that leads him disproportionately into conflict, and it might be better for him, and for the encyclopedia, if he had to disengage from it. Geometry guy 23:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Geometry guy has that right. I said earlier that I would think about this some more, in response to the comments so far from the Arbs. There are numerous thoughtful comments from editors above. I think that the drafting Arbs will need to reconcile a number of things. A total site-ban is not supported by the evidence. A generalized remedy forbidding Malleus to be incivil is going to lead to a never-ending series of arguments just like those throughout this case. There has to be some sort of remedy that isn't about one person's definition of civility versus another person's definition. I think that rules out a very large number of remedies proposed elsewhere on this page! I agree with the comments that we have to be careful about preventing disruption while not preventing dissent. I think my evidence clearly establishes WT:RFA as a place that should be put, indefinitely, off limits. If that's all, however, we have to consider whether the disruption will move somewhere else, such as ANI, and we should try to avoid that. Kaldari has some evidence about WP:RFA, but I think that, overall, preventing Malleus from !voting on individual RfA candidates would end up being an undesirable silencing of dissent, rather than protection against disruption. That's what you (the drafters) have got to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree taht a topic ban may work. But this proposal, as written, is ambiguous. Would MF be allowed to comment re:Admins and RfA's anywhere except WP:RfA? Or does the proposal mean to limit his ban to WP:RfA and other Administrative pages? --Buster Seven Talk 19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is only a draft. I trust the Arbs to improve on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (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)

• Agreed, especially the "expected to lead by example" part. --Elonka 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. Leaders lead. Buster Seven Talk 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. Though what this means in practice may not be clear. One reason (amongst several) why my first RfA bid failed a year ago was that many people objected to my judgment call that an admin involved in edit-warring merited an immediate 24-hour block, whereas the newbie he had been edit-warring with was entitled to a warning before any block. I bring this up, not in order to rehash ancient history, but simply to show that there isn't necessarily full community agreement on how to deal with disruptive behaviour by admins and other experienced users vs. users in general. — Richwales (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2012 (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)

Agreed. --Elonka 21:28, 31 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:

Worth stating. Agree with Richwales that something at least as strong is required for Malleus' comment. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

I agree generally with the finding, but don't think it's necessary to repeat the insult. Why give more weight to an insult by repeating it over and over? Better would be to simply diff it, and say, "Hawkeye7's language towards Malleus after blocking him, fell below the standard of decorum expected of administrators." --Elonka 21:32, 31 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)

Seems fair. Frankly, in such controversial circumstances, he should have been more careful to avoid contentious asides like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2012 (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)

Endorse. Entirely reasonable, given there are over a thousand other admins that are not biased. Wait for one of them to do it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support per Wehwalt. Could be rewarded more strongly to get the "done and seen to be done" feel about it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2012 (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)

Endorse. Toa Nidhiki05 22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

While I have not seen commentary that indicates anyone considers an indefinite block to be "permanent", I have seen several comments which indicate many do consider it to be "long term". My76Strat (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit wordy. Suggest: Indefinite block does not mean permanent, it means at a minimum until editor agrees to contribute productively. Nobody Ent 15:43, 1 January 2012 (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)

Support. Might even consider removing "In general" since it becomes unnecessary given the remainder of the proposal. Leaky Caldron 11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support wholeheartedly. Toa Nidhiki05 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree because it makes collegial sense, and I thought it was already Quid pro quo to these regards. My76Strat (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2012 (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 [10]. 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)

This is baloney. Most long-term editors have (or should have) either friendly or cordial relations with most other long-term editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too often they are "cordial" rather than friendly!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. I would describe the relationship as "mutually respectful". Interacting in a productive, cooperative, mutually respectful and polite manner with another editor should be encouraged as default behavior, not flagged as a sign of "involvement". Geometry guy 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I don't rightly see the point of it, unless it's building a case of friendly-->involved-->unfair. Is there a need to describe the relationship in the first place? Must we analyze their conversations, word choice, WikiLove? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The were, as editors should be, collaborative. What's the point of this? I'd never be able to get unblocked if this criteria were applied to me. I think most active admins have had friendly (or hostile) dealings with me at some point in time. Editors who've been around a long time are well known. Is that a crime? If there was mentoring, John's action was appropriate. Mentors can and do block or unblock mentorees as part of the process of helping guide them past difficulties. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 1 January 2012 (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)

See point 1 above this one-- this is equal baloney. That long-term users frequently interact, cordially, means nothing in this context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• What Sandy said. Defining "involved" so broadly might soon get to mean that no one gets to act towards anyone anymore, and it amounts, in this case, to calling John partial (or at least suggesting that). BTW, I hope the indentations are clear here. I am not sure whether Toa Nidhiki, below, is supporting "John is involved" or Sandy's commentary. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is challenged as being inflammatory and accuses John of an ethical violation. Please post diffs to support this, or else strike it. I am not aware of John admitting any such thing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 1 January 2012 (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)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even as I hold that Thumperward's block was itself "improper per procedure". My76Strat (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (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)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 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)

Those rights apply against the US and state governments, not Wikipedia. We do not put people in jail or execute them or issue fines, and no blocking them is not an equivalent, as the editor is only restricted in the web site. It has no effect on the rest of his life. By the way, I'm fine with "misused" rather than "abused", which alludes to the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Clear abuse of admin tools. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not support that John abused the tools. I believe he had a mild lapse in judgement while honestly believing he was following consensus. I do not see this mild lapse as requiring an Arbcom remedy. My76Strat (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, John did not abuse the tools. Balloonman's point is well taken, and I think John was following consensus. I do not believe they had a lapse in judgment--the block was at the least contentious, as the ANI discussion made clear, and in my opinion out of all measure. That one editor "warned against a summary unblocking without consultation"--well, that one editor was Protonk, whose dislike of MF is a matter of record, and who (I think) calls for him to be banned at every possible moment. Supporters of this statement seem to think that it doesn't matter for the blocked party how long it takes for them to be unblocked; well, I am quite sure they are wrong. John should get a kitten for sticking out his neck and unblocking; perhaps ArbCom would be kind enough to include that. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

20 minutes of "consensus". That is all John had. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (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)

I've quoted from the policy on indefinite blocks and their purposes, Drmies.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And I've stated my opinion on Thumperward's block, in what I think are very diplomatic terms. To make my position clear, I'll chime in with Sandy, below: oppose, as a punitive block, in error. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, he most certainly blocked punitively for a resolved issue well after the fact, and even if he had done it immediately, many would still argue the block was uncalled for because the "uncivil" comment was directed at no one in particular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Sandy. The block was punitive, taking place several hours after the issue had been resolved. Lara 04:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the block was both contentious, and obvious. So obvious that the first foul was called 2 minutes after Thumperward announced he had blocked MF. My76Strat (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree that it was contentious. If you can't ask people to stop saying "cunt" to deliberately offend, what's left of civility policy? Knee-jerk opposition by regulars flocking to AN/I because they do not believe in civility enforcement cannot reasonably be counted as demonstrating that something is contentious, as the proper forum for their complaints is to advocate for changing policy, not to object to its enforcement. Otherwise, six vocal people on any noticeboard could basically veto any policy. Whether the block was wrong for being stale is a question that comes to reviewing the facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read more about this, it seems to me that the key issue is the timing. It's probably reasonable to block for something like this (although not universally agreed to), but there is a question as to what was being prevented, several hours after the fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2012 (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)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am aligned with Balloonman here. To go further, I do not feel John is "unaware" or even "likely to repeat" where he erred. My76Strat (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2012 (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:

Worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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 [11]. 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)

Support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I could support such an admonition but I would prefer calling it an "apparent misuse" noting that at times the appearance of a COI is sufficient enough reason to avoid an action. My76Strat (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John restricted

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

This should be 2 seperate remedies. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See comment below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Let's leave it as it is for now and people can say if they support each part. All these are are suggestions to the arbs anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, then:

2A) Until the restriction is removed by ArbCom or by a successful RfA, John shall not block or unblock any autoconfirmed user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we are to broadly prevent an administrator from using an aspect of the tools in such a manner, I feel it would be more appropriate to remove them entirely. This sort of remedy creates a "partial admin," a concept which the community has rejected on a number of occasions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Weak support. Seems a little harsh, but I support the idea in theory. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. One arguably bad block/unblock should not result in loss of blocking privileges. Lara 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose; this is much too harsh a penalty for an unblock that other admins (including an arbitrator) indicated they were also willing to (and about to) make. 28bytes (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this remedy. My76Strat (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2B) John shall not henceforth undertake any administrative action regarding Malleus, or with any other editor concerning whom he would be deemed involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

He has shown he cannot be trusted to use the tools without bias, and to avoid future error, support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this intuitive restriction. My position follows an earlier comment where I stated my belief that the appearance of a COI is sufficient reason. My76Strat (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (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)

Works for me. Support. Toa Nidhiki05

This does not work for me. If by chance John succeeded an RfA it would mean he had community trust. It would not mean the appearance of the COI regarding unblocking MF had vanished. Yet by this provision, he would then be free to do so. My76Strat (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In essence, 2B) applies to all admins as the tools aren't meant to be used in a situation where you're involved (except to rectify WP:BLP problems) and this implies that it could be relaxed for John. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2012 (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)

As someone who dislikes harsh language, I support. Toa Nidhiki05 22:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the concept but do believe it needs additional clarity. As worded, I can envision this provision being used to support the use of "controversial language" as equally as it could be used to suppress the same. It becomes a "flavor of the day" remedy in such fashion. My76Strat (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, with respect for the effort. The proposal is too vague at every point. Offensive words (whatever those are) should not be used. Incivility never rounds off an argument. And, we should not be arguing; we should be collaborating. But your headed in a positive direction.--Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 2 January 2012 (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:

Is this supported by any policy or guideline? I don't recall any such directive, and in fact the blocking policy appears to imply the opposite: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter [... or ...] a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard". This seems to imply a consensus must be gained before any further action is taken. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

This requires a policy discussion of the community, beyond the remit of ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, this would just cause more chaos. --Elonka 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have previously suggested Wikipedia:Block_protocol#Default_is_block. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Balloonman, being bold in editing and the idea of the BRD cycle make sense in mainspace, but are they really appropriate for admin actions? In particular, should admins be encouraged to be bold in blocking? One of the problems shown by Malleus' block log appears to be an overabundance of bold blocking. It seems to me that whilst reverting contentious bold blocks is a reasonable idea, avoiding contentious bold blocks being made in the first place would be a better outcome for everyone. EdChem (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this for practical reasons. My76Strat (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2012 (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:

As Wehwalt notes, this is not possible to support through evidence; as such, I don't think it's appropriate to include as a FoF. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

I agree with BorisG. I think that what's overlooked in this proposed finding and also in the remedy proposed directly below is a sort of blame-the-victim thinking applied to the community. What I mean is that the existence of a very entrenched group of supporters associated with long-time editors like Malleus means that large numbers of less-experienced users can feel intimidated by small groups of experienced users. Telling those less-experienced users to try harder is the wrong solution, and potentially very hurtful to Wikipedia in the long run. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably true, but hard to prove. I also wouldn't quite put it that way. It's his history, not his reputation. And the leash isn't necessarily shorter, it's just that everyone who looks at the history knows there is a leash. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. SandyGeorgia's evidence supports this, and it is surely not the extent of relevant examples. For individual instances, Malleus has been more harshly punished than is the norm. The issue is compounding in that each incident causes additional strife on both sides, leaving Malleus more embittered and likely to react harshly, and admins more frustrated and quicker to hit the block button. Lara 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. SandyGeorgia's evidence shows the opposite (see analysis of evidence: "SandyGeorgia's concerns with TCO"). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose IAW BorisG. I think this finding is confusing higher visibility with a shorter leash. My76Strat (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the facts show a longer leash than most. "Why do you keep arresting me for jaywalking?" "Because you're in the middle of the street!"--Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 1 January 2012 (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:

Consensus

2) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Per EEML Principle 1, specified for IRC

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this an issue here? Granted, I haven't read the evidence in full yet, but I wasn't aware that IRC was involved in this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo: Are you able to provide evidence of the abuse you appear to be asserting (obviously not logs, but the references you mention)? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo: I'm having a hard time seeing what your diffs are demonstrating. A good many of them don't appear to relate to civility enforcement at all, and by pulling primarily from one user's talk page, you're also not showing widespread concerns, but only the concerns of a single user. Some context, rather than just the diffs, would also be appreciated to assist in understanding. It's important to answer the "so what?" question: "This happens!" "So what, why's it a problem?" "Because it is!" doesn't cut it at arbitration. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Can you explain the relevance of IRC here? Giacomo Returned 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the long running civility issues that lead to this case, repeated reference has been made to administrators discussing wikipedia actions on IRC. Who can tell what veracity exists in this, as the most relevant official IRC channel is closed to non-administrators and not logged. This isn't a checkuser or WMF channel; it is merely an en wikipedia administrator channel. Similarly, from my weak understanding, there is no logging process of any of the other major en wikipedia channels that are officially operated. In fact, wikimedia proposes that only Arbitrators have access to some logs. So any action I may take to attempt to solicit evidence regarding this would require administrator action. See wikimedia's stance at logging. Resolving the meme of off-wiki administrator inappropriate discussion of administrative action would require either restatement of the EEML principles, or, administrators requiring logs from these "official" yet uncontrolled off wiki bodies. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is all beginning to sound horribly familiar and déjà vu; I hadn't realise that IRC was going to be an issue on this case. I had been assured tafter previous Arb cases concerning IRC that the en wikipedia administrator channel was being carefully regulated by former Arbs, checkusers and trustworthy admins - are you saying this is not the case? Giacomo Returned 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• @ Hersfold: Surely, in the secretive IRC channel (controlled by arbcom and J wales) it is for you admins to prove that it is not, rather than Fifelfoo to prove that it is. Giacomo Returned 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• To reply to Hersfold, I have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence#Editors_have_been_concerned_about_IRC_and_the_administration_of_civility_going_back_at_least_to_early_2011_in_a_half_hour_manual_diff_search provided diffs at the evidence page of user concern of IRC in relation to the underlying civility enforcement dispute. In particular the early 2011 concerns discussed related to a named party, a potentially poor administrative decision, and appropriateness of discussing matters on IRC. I feel that the community concerns make it a reasonable supposition to believe that evidence may exist within IRC logs. This is amplified by the 2007 case, the 2007 arbitrator personal opinion, 2008 issues with IRC, and complaints about the quality of the culture of the off-wikipedia exclusivist IRC community. This, and the privacy and inaccessibility to user scruitiny of channels that duplicate the purposes of AN and AN/I lead me to believe that evidence may exist on IRC. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Admins IRC channel has always been a place for them to misbehave and insult other editors. I rememember well when and admin and clerk to the the arbcom insulted one of our senior lady admins[12]. Those that rule IRC were furious that behaviour there had leeked out and even more furious that I (a non admin) had dared to edit their precious wikipedia page describing it. This edit was enough to cause an Arbcom case [13] against me, but the insults were not. I had incurred the wroth of the great David Gerard (Jimbo's favourite Wikipedia spokeman). today, the Admins and Arbcom are still making the rules up as they go along - no one has the remotest idea where they stand on civility and the confusion allows editors like Malleus to be persecuted on the whims of their enemies. If the Arbcom don't like you you will be persecuted, if they do, you won't. Giacomo Returned 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication

2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Per EEML Principle 9, specified for IRC

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Off-wiki conduct

3) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in IRC channels in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Per EEML Principle 11, specified for IRC

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't thnk the above statement is quite corect. IRC is very much under the rule of Mr Wales and the Arbcom per the official statement [14]here. I'm sure the "spirit of loving harmony" ia as alive there now as it was then. Giacomo Returned 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is under the loving spirit of wikimedia, then they can either choose to log channels such as #wikipedia-en-admins much like WP:ANI is logged, or wikimedia can withdraw their support. It is highly disturbing that wikimedia is operating a clique that needs to repeatedly regulate off-wiki canvassing in its rules; that doesn't log; and, that is not open access to non-administrators. Wikimedia should not be supporting off-wiki objects that have such a severe problem about outside of consensus canvassing for disciplinary action that they spell it out in their rules multiple times (Purpose a; Guidelines 1b, 2abcd). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Community language standards

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Thanks, I was missing a noun. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were missing an adjective, but ok. Feel free to delete all this. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration system that anyone can edit. (But my formal knowledge of English grammar extends only to a high school level :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be said --Guerillero | My Talk 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Collect

Proposed principles

Symmetrical value of actions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believed this was current policy and practice, but it does need to be restated occasionally. Collect's emphasis on negative decisions and the need to evidence them to the community by posting them is worthy. It currently needs a title though. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Title now provided - but certainly amendable. Collect (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. This should be considered a statement of the obvious, as it's the basis for respectful interactions between admins responding to the same issue. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A decision not to undertake an action is not always visible for everyone. Not all admins explicitly state that they reviewed the situation and decided not to block. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which basically means that admins would now be encouraged to make such positions known, right? Any problem with such a step? Collect (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Defining "Civility"

2) "Civility" is not defined by the use or non-use of any given word, but by the attitude of editors towards others. While Wikipedia tolerated use of rude and sophomoric language in the past, that toleration no longer extends towards the use of objectionable language, but this stricture is not necessarily the same as "civility." Blocks for incivility, therefore, should be based on apparent attitude, as viewed by consensus of others, and not simply on choice of words.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hope this manages to parse the root problem here - that is, how are "civility" and "language" intertwined. And noting that there may be reasons for blocking for "improper language" apart from specific "incivility." Collect (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me, and reflects the way most admins act when following up on problems with incivility. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:ErrantX

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopaedia with the minimum of fuss

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is intended to lead into the next finding... --Errant ^(chat!) 16:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Escalation

1) The community often fails to stop the escalation of issues beyond what common sense dictates is appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel this is not something any long term editor could disagree with :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility

2) Civility is not a simple issue to resolve, and often only surface civility is noticed/addressed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Exercise restraint

1) In general the community should encourage editors to pursue the minimum level of dispute resolution required to conclude a matter

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator responsibilities

2) Administrators should attempt to enforce de-escalation of issues where possible

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All editors have a responsibility to de-escalate issues, so this isn't admin-specific. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Intent

3) Editors should try to consider the intent of comments when judging their civility

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is worth noting that ArbCom has decided in, for example, the Noleander case, that the effects of a pattern of editing are more important, for purposes of dispute resolution, than their intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a complex line to draw. In theory a good faith commentator (i.e. someone without specific intent to offend) should be amicable to having any adverse effects of their actions explained, and would then fix the issue. Whereas someone with a specific intent simply to cause offence can be dealt with more simply through blocks. This all ties back to my point about taking the minimal level of dispute resolution - where a quiet word or redaction should be the primary DR weapons :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with you. It occurs to me that your answer suggests a solution. The good faith user makes subsequent edits whose effects are to deescalate the conflict, whereas the user intending to cause offense will subsequently escalate (a distinction that I also drew in my evidence, by the way). Thus, one can look at the effects of a series of edits, taken as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Toa Nidhiki05

Proposed principles

Incivility

1) Content creation is no excuse for incivility. Content creators make valuable contributions to this encyclopedia, but are expected to maintain standards similar to those of all editors - perhaps even higher, given their prominent role in the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, especially the part about how content creators should strive to maintain high standards of conduct. In any online community, not just Wikipedia, individuals new to a community look to the established members of the community for cues on how to act. One thing that Wikipedia does well, is to communicate that content creation is a valued skill within the community. That part's fine. But content creators must also be aware that their behavior and language are also observed, so they should endeavor to be good rolemodels in other ways, not just article-writing. --Elonka 21:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as a whole. The first sentence would be acceptable if there were more awareness of the explain/excuse dichotomy. Holding content contributors to a higher standard than "normal" editors is counterproductive to say the least. Also, "prominent editor" and "content contributor" are not synonymous; in fact, I would venture to guess that newbies have more contact with admins, NPPers, RC Patrollers, and any number of other groups than with the folks over at FAC. You want "role models"? Impose civility on the admin corps; they're the ones largely seen as "authority figures", not content editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility

2) All editors are expected to hold to reasonable standards of civility. Language that one may use with friends in a social environment may not be acceptable in a more professional environment, and may even be patently offensive to those in a different country or region. Editors are expected to use caution in using strong language on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. WP:CIVIL is policy, not a guideline. It is one of the five pillars of the project. "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." --Elonka 21:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on multiple counts, especially the variable definitions of "reasonable standards", "professional environment" and "strong language". Nikkimaria (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring

3) Administrators are expected to respect and honor the decisions of other admins, including decisions to block or unblock users. Disagreements between administrators are common and acceptable, but should be dealt with between the feuding admins before a decision to undo an action should be made.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest using a word other than "feuding". Also, would the decision not to block be considered a decision to "respect and honour"? Nikkimaria (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Malleus Fatuorum

1) Malleus Fatuorum is an established editor of Wikipedia and has made many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. However, he also engages in incivil behavior on a somewhat regular basis, and thus has a lengthy block and unblock record. Recently, Malleus used a word considered extremely offensive and possibly sexist in much of the English-speaking world to refer to admins as a group. The use of this word led to a large-scale conflict and debate on civility standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incomplete without stating the context in which he used it. After all, he might have noted that the word is found in the dictionary somewhere between cunning and curt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this good? Toa Nidhiki05 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He also directed the same term (with 'fucking' in front of it) at a specific editor. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward

2) Thumperward made an administrative action by blocking Malleus for an indefinite period of time. Although the action was contentious, he justified it as 'long-term hostility far beyond acceptable bounds'.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: Oppose The phrasing implies Thumperward did something wrong, which is not in evidence. Administrators sometimes have to do contentious things, it is the nature of the job.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Wording is weak. He made a punitive block, hours after the issue had been resolved. Lara 04:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John

3) John unblocked Malleus after a short period of time, citing community consensus and declaring the block 'disproportionate'. However, John did not give the blocking admin time to give his case, and had a cordial and friendly relationship with Malleus, and thus could be considered INVOLVED in the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hawkeye7

4) Following an additional use of the word "cunt" by Malleus (in combination with an additional profanity) directed at an editor, Hawkeye reblocked Malleus for a period of one week. Hawkeye did not cite this in his original block justification. Editors have regarded his action, which was not supported by consensus, as 'wheel-warring'.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suggest simply stating what Hawkeye7 rather than characterizing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Toa Nidhiki05 22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"shifting over time" is a "characterization" and for "many editors", see WP:WEASEL.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to represent both views here. Toa Nidhiki05 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Lara 04:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: amended wording slightly without changing meaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2012 (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 restricted and warned

1) Due to his long record of incivil comments and personal attacks, Malleus Fatuorum is strongly admonished for his incivility. Additionally, for an indefinite period of time, if Malleus makes any comments that may be possibly construed as a personal attack, he will be subject to a minimum block of one-week, which may possibly be made longer based on the blocking admin's judgement. As this sanction is indefinite, not infinite, it may be appealed and removed if he has shown a sincere change in attitude and behavior towards fellow editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So it would be considered an AE block, or just the standard workaday block?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

AE block. Workaday would allow an appeals process for the block, wher as this gives no appeals process due to the very plain nature of the sanction (Malleus cannot make any comment that can be interpreted as a PA). Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we apparently will always have one person who says "this violates CIVIL" and another who says it does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"any comments that may be possibly construed as a personal attack" is a very broad net. I feel that it is almost too broad. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward

2) Thumperward is advised not to make severe blocks on established editors without community consensus, even if there may be a track record of incivility or abuse by the user in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is well-intentioned, but wouldn't work in practice. Admins generally can't judge whether there's going to be a 'community consensus' before blocking. It also implies that a very different set of rules applies for "established editors" and other types of editors, which is undesirable. All editors are expected to meet the same standards, though established editors are in practice cut some slack for out of character actions. Also, if an editor has a "track record of incivility or abuse" blocking them should be totally uncontroversial. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. The idea that everyone here is or should be treated equally is an illusion. WP:DTTR is a good example. Established editors, having displayed their value, have earned certain courtesies. Indefinitely blocking an editor who makes unquestionably high-quality contributions to the project should not be considered acceptable when there is no community consensus for it. If the issue has been resolved for a number of hours without the imposition of a block, then one can assume several more hours could pass while discussion takes place (if even necessary) before a block per consensus need take place. Of course, that would be punitive, wouldn't it? Lara 04:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John restricted

• 3) John is indefinitely prohibited from making any administrative actions or decisions regarding Malleus. He is advised not to make administrative actions in situations where he is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3a is fine, 3b is purely punitive. - BorisG (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I can scratch it. I want some agreeable and needed sanctions, not anything that violates policy. Toa Nidhiki05 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider mine. I want John to learn, not to be punished. He is in most ways an admirable editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually used your idea here, in a slightly altered manner, but if the block is punitive, it goes against policy. Toa Nidhiki05 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yours is punitive because it is for a set term. Mine is not, it runs until John convinces the Committee or the community that he gets blocking policy. He can do this by motion or by convincing the community to reconfirm him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

3) Hawkeye7 is to avoid wheel warring, and may be subject to loss of administrative powers if he does so. He is also advised to avoid making comments that may be considered derogatory to editors that he has blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"that may be considered derogatory" is a bit vague. Lots of people who get blocked for good reasons go on to complain that the admin has unfairly labeled them a POV pusher, sock puppet, vandal, etc, and that this is highly offensive to them. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility blocks

4) Admins are advised to avoid blocking soley for civility unless the user in question has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. However, civility is one of the five pillars, and must be upheld by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The second sentence completely contradicts the first at the moment - you can't realistically uphold WP:CIVIL without allowing admins to block editors who violate it. I don't think that any experienced admins block editors for civility problems unless they've a) received and ignored previous warnings against this, or b) are engaging in totally unacceptable behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can: admins can issue time-limited topic bans from the context which provoked the incivility in the first place. Further disruption in that area would then result in a block, but it would not be a civility block; it would be a block for violating a topic ban. Geometry guy 23:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am startled to discover, on reading WP:BAN, that I am wrong: individual administrators can block an editor for a week, but apparently, they may not topic ban an editor for the same period. That is a completely absurd position, which needs to be addressed. Geometry guy 01:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I too would like to see that addressed. It has long seemed bizarre to me that admins are allowed to block editors entirely from the project, but not to issue short-term topic bans. --Elonka 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes From what I've seen Wikipedia governance suffers far more from a lack of judgement than a lack of power. If a topic ban is appropriate it should be easy to get consensus for it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is another way to deal with incivility. The drama-loving community we have can't seem to do it, but the way exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Elonka

Proposed principles

Civility is sometimes context-sensitive

1) When determining whether or not a block should be issued for a violation of WP:CIVIL, administrators must take into account the context of the statement, and the intended audience. Comments made on a user's talkpage, to an audience that does not regard them as offensive, are probably not a serious violation. However, the same comments, made in a more public venue, especially when directed towards an audience that does regard them as offensive, should be treated more strictly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just because two friends are using "pub language" to each other on their respective talkpages, does not mean that they are being particularly disruptive to the project. But the exact same language, said in a more public venue such as an article talkpage, said to a new editor, or to an editor who doesn't know you, could be very disruptive indeed. Editors should try to adapt their language to the venue, and adopt a more professional tone as needed. --Elonka 22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What about two friends using "pub language" to badmouth another editor on their respective talkpages? And because they do not find it offensive and it is just their talkpages, no problemo? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages are not "private" — so no, I would probably not see Sonicyouth86's scenario as a good one, especially if the third party being talked about speaks up and objects. It should be understood, in any case, that an "iffy" statement may cross the line into clearly being offensive if the target of a comment indicates that he/she finds it offensive and the originator refuses to stop. — Richwales (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The insulted parties did not say that they were offended, does that mean that dickhead and fool are not personal attacks? In Elonka's scenario, enforcement relies on the "victim's" willingness to confront the offending editor or group of editors. But many (particularly new) editors may not be aware that this is expected of them, they might just "suck it up". And even if they are, seriously, who in their right mind would want to post on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page "I am offended, please stop"? All this discourages editors from complaining. Did you read Deb's statement that she left the discussion because the "response was so aggressive"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not being precise. If another editor is being referred to, that would come under the category of personal attack though, wouldn't it? Not to mention just being tacky to discuss someone without informing them of the discussion. In the case of both of your diffs, Sonicyouth86, I am in agreement that the language was inappropriate. My principle was meant to refer to other casual banter between editors who know each other well. So if two editors (call them Max and Ned) knew each other, and Max went over to Ned's talkpage and said, "Hey dickhead, you screwed up the article," and Ned replied, "Oh fuck, thanks for letting me know," and they were both okay on this level of discourse, then I don't think an incivility block would be appropriate. Neither of them were being offended, it wasn't being targeted at anyone else, and no one else was being forced to read it (unless of course they were just stalking the talkpage). My point being that just because someone uses profanity, doesn't necessarily mean they are being disruptive. As an admin, if I saw that kind of exchange, I might pop in and ask them to chill, but more likely I'd leave them be, and I wouldn't block. If on the other hand the community were to adopt a strict "no profanity" rule, of course I'd do my best to enforce it, but I don't think there is support for that. To follow the example though, if either Max or Ned used that language towards someone else who was offended, then WP:CIVIL could be invoked. Would that make more sense? Or is it your feeling that a block should be issued, even if the language was in a limited venue, between two people who weren't complaining about it? --Elonka 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. Agree with you and thank you for taking the time to clarify, Elonka. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Different jokes for different folks. Buster Seven Talk 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This should be a statement of the obvious for all admins, but it would be a good idea to 'formalise' it. Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block is appropriate, when dealing with repeated disruption

2) Blocks are not intended as a revolving door. If an editor is disruptive, has been blocked multiple times, and is showing a pattern of just resuming the disruptive behavior upon their return, it is reasonable to block the editor's access indefinitely. The block should not be lifted until the editor acknowledges that they understand the problems that caused the blocks in the first place, and agrees to modify their behavior accordingly. --Elonka 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. Time and time again I have seen editors be disruptive, get blocked, then just wait out their blocks and go right back to the same behavior, without ever acknowledging that they understood why they were blocked, nor making any indication whatsoever that they were going to try and change their behavior. It might make sense to AGF for the first couple blocks, but once someone has been blocked multiple times, they should just be blocked until they indicate that they understand why they are being blocked, and agree to modify their behavior accordingly. --Elonka 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Leaky Caldron 23:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. My issue with this is that the majority of Malleus' blocks have been overturned. I believe two, including the one that has just expired, are all to have been left standing. To be able to determine "repeated disruption" for this sort of case, serious investigation has to be done as to what has provoked each incident. If Malleus (or any editor who is being looked at regarding "repeated disruption") has been baited or provoked, or was inappropriately blocked leading to an escalation of an otherwise resolved issue, thereby causing disruption, that should not be put on the user in question. At least not solely. These issues aren't black and white, and this proposal attempts to make them so. Lara 04:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Buster Seven Talk 01:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for their own behavior

3) It is never acceptable to respond to incivility, with incivility. Provocation is not an excuse to justify personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems to be some misrepresentation here, particularly in BarkingFish's endorsement of this proposal, as I have not claimed to have been provoked. In fact I have as yet made no statement at all in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We are responsible for our own words and actions. Those who are making excuses for Malleus's behavior by saying that he was "provoked" into incivility are wrong, and to some degree disrespectful, because they are implying that Malleus is incapable of controlling his own behavior. Malleus is not a wild animal who should be expected to lash out. He is a human being, an adult, and therefore responsible for his own language and actions. --Elonka 17:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Every editor makes choices about what they write. There is no way to be provoked into personal attacks. A lack of self control and questionable self monitoring are the only impediments.--Buster Seven Talk 00:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Partially Endorsed - All editors on Wikipedia are responsible for their own actions, and their own behaviour, and must be aware of the consequences (and be subject to the same) when their behaviour and actions cross unacceptable boundaries.  BarkingFish  13:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment @ Malleus Fatuorum: I accept that you do not actually claim to have been provoked, and will reword my endorsement of this proposal accordingly - however my endorsement of the proposal in general (Excluding the statements on provocation) stands.  BarkingFish  14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Jennavecia

Proposed findings of fact

Referring to editors as words that represent genitalia

1) It is common and accepted practice for an editor to refer to another editor as a "dick", a word representing male genitalia. An essay justifying this use exists on Meta. Despite this, referring to another editor as a "cunt", a word representing female genitalia, is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yet another of the many peculiarities of the English Language, how different words that in the dictionary mean essentially the same thing can carry such wildly different connotations. However, I'm not entirely sure this statement is wholly accurate. If I were to to see Editor A say to Editor B "I think you're a dick," I'd consider that a personal attack, just the same as if they use "cunt" or any other offensive term. And as pointed out, the essay does not encourage the use of the word in that manner, but is simply intended to act as a behavioral guide.

There is a general hierarchy of swear words, from the largely acceptable "damn" to the more vulgar ones, many of which do refer to bodily parts or functions, however I'm not entirely sure that it's in the best interests of this case to establish such here. Something that's offensive can and often does present a barrier to collaborative discussion, which is really the core issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't actually agree with it, but it is the apparent double standard on the project. Lara 05:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But remember: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to count the number of times editors have used the word 'dick' and not been blocked. How about 'tool', or 'schmuck'? Are we putting all these words off limits? Indeed, why the double standard? This highlights to obvious fact that blocking for naughty words is douchey. The criteria needs to be the effect of words upon the target, not the words themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Art, that is irrelevant. That sentence does not negate the fact that it is common and accepted practice. Find any editor blocked for calling another editor a dick, linking it to that essay. If there are any, I'd be willing to bet money it's a tiny fraction of the instances of such specific-user name-calling.

Jehochman, the criteria most certainly does not need to be subjective. What offends you may not offend me. And there is no right to be unoffended, especially important considering some people (here and in the real world) are pathetically sensitive. The criteria needs to be straightforward and consistent in its enforcement. Lara 16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we do not set standards to protect the most sensitive. There's the problem. One administrator judging each case could lead to wildly different levels of enforcement depending on their personal views. How do we set a standard that everybody can understand (and enforce)? Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Solution: The most pathetically sensitive Administrator is decreed the Civility Administrator, is the final word on the subject, and slowly builds a community standard that reflects experience and foresight. ---Buster Seven Talk 17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be blocked for calling him/her "pathetically sensitive". "Never offend anyone ever" is not a viable goal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've expanded upon in my evidence section, the reason why "cunt" is more offensive really needs to be considered. Lara 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Editor Nikkimaria...I did not coin the phrase "pathetically sensitive". You can thank Editor Jennavecia for that. As to my solution and what you fail to understand. Maybe its the way I stated it that confused you. The admistrator would self-identify and step forward as, in the words of Jennavecia, the most pathetically sensitive of the available administrators. In this way we would have a single decision-maker, a final decider, a what-she-goes type of decider. The many facets of the Civility debate would have to "shut-up and chop wood"..Buster Seven Talk 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of the solution is accepting that people need to grow up a bit and get thicker skin. We aren't a primary school here; wikipedia is real life. We should be shooting to have our standards of civility to be the median amount accepted across the world. If do what you are suggesting, Buster, then we would live in a world much like a feminist blog. A world where if something can be seen as offensive by ANYONE or X-ist it is banned. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Buster, please take care when attributing words to me without using quotation marks. I said "some people (here and in the real world) are pathetically sensitive." Just to make sure that's clear. Lara 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Nobody Ent

Proposed principles

Consensus on civility vital

1) Civility and consensus are equally important coexistent pillars of Wikipedia. The community has failed the former due to lack of due diligence in regards to the latter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators expected to lead by example

1) Per Wikipedia:Administrators Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. This standard is not currently being met by all administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Dysfunctional

1) Wikipedia's approach to civility is Dysfunctional. Sniping, snide comments, lack of good faith, innuendo are rife in discussion pages and noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Indisputably true, but it hardly helps towards any kind of solution to address that dysfunction, which is the only thing I think ought to be important here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

True. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics leads to disruption

2) Malleus has significant influence over some other editors due to his article contributions, willingness to help other editors, willingness to Speak Truth to Power, and double standards of Wikipedia civility "enforcement."

• allowing him to continue to periodically engage in excessively confrontational behavior, and
• curbing such excesses

will cause disruption to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This makes me seem like some sort of Svengali, and that contributing to articles, helping other editors and so is in some way a bad thing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Think this needs to be edited for clarity and phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Something along these lines would be reasonable finding, but the conclusion that acting to stop the problems would cause disruption is highly questionable (and its worth noting that the 'disruption' would be limited to a smallish number of people complaining at ANI and other discussion boards). Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely in agreement with Malleus himself on this. I don't see why any individual should be held responsible for other contributors being easily influenced, whether for good or ill. Deb (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to the community

3) The civility dysfunction has been allowed to systematically develop by the community over years. No ArbCom decision can, by itself, resolve this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Systematic change required

4)The goal of dispute resolution is to minimize disruption to the community. In this case, this requires reducing Malleus's political influence by removing those factors which provide him influence.

• Malleus gains great political advantage by statements by himself and others claiming his actions are scrutinized to a much greater effect than other editors, especially admins. This is because his actions are scrutinized to a much greater effect than other editors, especially admins.
• The class warfare practiced by a portion of the admin community puts Malleus in the role of victim/martyr.
• Malleus operates in the gray area created by a wide variation of community understanding of civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Points one and two are impossible to prove or disprove, and point two ignores the fact that some of Malleus' 'supporters' (loosely defined) are admins. The fact that he's been unblocked within minutes of being blocked on three occasions in the last two years speaks for itself in this regards - it is very unusual for any blocks to be lifted within such timeframes. Point three seems to be outright wrong - he's very clearly crossed any conceivable line on multiple occasions based on what I've seen on the evidence page. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity and temporal component of Wheel War doctrine leads to conflict

5) The current wheel war policy results in accidents of timing, incentive for hasty instead of thoughtful administrator action, and ambiguity in interpretation; this makes conflict inevitable.

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.

Hands off

1) For a period of one year, no administrator will block or unblock Malleus Fatorium except those listed here:

• Admin to be named later
• Admin to be named later

...

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. No no no. If there are issues with specific administrators, then they can be placed on an interaction ban. The inverse of this is unfeasible and presents severe problems. Absent any specific issues with their conduct, administrators should be able to act as they see fit in accordance with policies. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What is this trying to achieve? It would be better to specify the admins who should avoid blocking or unblocking Malleus (eg, those who are - or have recently been - WP:involved with him) and support the other admins to do their jobs. I see no reason to assign a special admin squad to this editor, and if the situation is so bad that such an extreme remedy is needed it would be better to block Malleus and move on. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Nick-D and in support of Hersfold — It's wrong to state who can do it, better to say who can't/shouldn't - as Nick rightly says, those known to be involved with Malleus are the ones who should be told to avoid the issue. Blocking Malleus permanently would be the better of the two solutions if it's got to the point where you need to do something so drastic.  BarkingFish  13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there should be remedies specific to Malleus. This case is not in his name. We need general principles laid out to apply to everyone and all future issues similar to this that arise, regardless of who is involved. Generalized remedies. Admins should not block editors based on "offensive language" unless there is a community consensus to do so. Something like that. Lara 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an empiricist Realpolitick solution. The fact is the block/unblocking causes far more disruption to Wikipedia than Malleus's comments. The Arbitration Committee has an incredibly difficult task here. The political influence of MF is the elephant in the room and should be considered when they issue their decision. I agree 100% that we need general principles that apply to everyone, but the admin community has repeatedly shown a lack of judgement with regards to Malleus, and I don't think excluding the admins with past interaction MF is sufficient given the number of admins. It's my understanding it is out of scope for ArbCom to dictate a policy solution regarding how to deal with the generalized incivility problem; I'm suggesting a stop the bleeding band-aid until the community as a whole figures this out. Nobody Ent 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but it should probably be generalized. Ie. "no user (with more that xxx edits) should be blocked for incivility unless imposed by arbcom or a committee set up by arbcom." Or something to that effect. --Harthacnut (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking and unblocking administrators admonished

2) User:Thumperward is admonished for a non-urgent, disruptive block without prior discussion. User:John is admonished for unblocking while involved. User:Hawkeye7 is admonished for reblocking without a clear community consensus, poorly worded blocking statement, and intemperate remarks following the block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

These should be split into multiple remedies rather than balled up into one. Waiting for further comments as to the merits of the proposal itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Desysoping any admin in this case will create a martyr for the "pro-Malleus" or "anti-Malleus" cause. Admonishing them takes this off the table. If they're unfit to be admins they'll eventually pooch up an admin action when dealing with an editor no one cares about, and they can be desysopped then. Nobody Ent

Administrator community instructed

3) The administrator community is enjoined to be personally be scrupulously civil when discussing or performing administrative functions, and to hold each other to the highest standards of behavior. In particular the attempted use of humor when imposing sanctions is not appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enough already

4) The community acknowledges that Malleus Fatorium has made his point regarding double and varied standards for civility. It it therefore requested he just get onboard with the Wikipedia concept of civility or leave already.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Better would be to fix the Wikipedia concept of civility and apply it consistently to all editors, which is the only possible good outcome I can see from this case. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: Can you not see the logical inconsistency in your position? Would you still be here? Would Jimbo Wales? Would anyone? Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Malleus is too skilled for topic bans or other externally imposed restrictions to be effective; if he chooses to test the limits of any imposed restrictions the situation would be as contentious as this current discussion. On the other hand, if he gives his word on something, he will do it. Nobody Ent

Interesting. But perhaps we need to allow for if he declines the "request". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus Fatuorum. If we did that, apply the rules consistently to all editors, I doubt you would still be here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 

@Malles Fatuorum. Plenty of us would be here. Plenty of us do not call users "cunt", "arse", "windbag", "dick", "idiot", "mindless zealot", "dishonest", "delusional"... on a regular basis, even when we want to. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Block log redacted

5) ArbCom will work with WMF to redact the records of the inappropriate blocks and corresponding unblocks from the log of the Malleus account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Revision Deletion/Suppression policies do not support such an action. For this to be considered, a very good justification would be needed. If nothing else, redacting these log entries obliterates the evidence that improper administrative actions took place, removing support for the admonishments you have also proposed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with Hersfold. There's always the risk that some will just look at the log's length, but more thoughtful editors are currently able to judge for themselves whether blocks for using terms such as "wikilawyer" or "sycophantic" are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Temporally independent blocking protocol

5) The community is urged to implement a temporally independent block protocol (e.g. Wikipedia:Block_protocol#Default_is_block).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Geometry guy

Proposed proto-principles

None of these principles are refined enough to be part of the final decision: the formulation of such principles is a matter for the drafting arbitrators. Instead, I present my thoughts on the proto-principles that I believe should inform the final decision. They are interlinked so I list them together for easier discussion.

1) Blocks of experienced editors (those with a history of good contributions to the encyclopedia) are generally ill-advised:

a) They are likely to be punitive, rather than preventative;

b) They are unlikely to have any benefit with regards to rehabilitation;

c) They are likely to be divisive or contentious, causing unnecessary drama;

d) Blocking is too blunt a tool, preventing a good editor from contributing to the project as a whole because a particular area leads them to edit disruptively;

e) If an experienced editor does not improve their behavior in response to reason, they are even less likely to do so in response to chastisement.

2) Blocking editors for incivility rarely accomplishes anything:

a) The whole notion of civility is poorly defined;

b) Such blocks are almost always punitive rather than preventative;

c) The impossibility of applying civility blocks consistently means that they are unlikely to be respected or have any benefit with regards to rehabilitation;

d) The disruption caused by the block may outweigh the disruption caused by the incivility.

3) Policies primarily designed to deal with vandals, trolls and point of view pushers should not be used blindly as rule book for handling occasional disruption or incivility by experienced editors.

4) There are circumstances where blocking experienced editors may be appropriate because there is a preventative benefit for such a block. For example:

a) When two or more experienced editors are actively engaged in a dispute involving incivility and/or personal attacks, blocking all such involved editors without prejudice for 24 hours or so may prevent further escalation of the dispute.

b) When an editor is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and shows no sign of letting the matter drop, a "cool-down" block may be appropriate: this is rather more to take the heat off the associated drama than to cool down the editor!

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Combining 1) and 2), blocking experienced editors for incivility makes no sense in almost any circumstance. However, I believe that 4)b) was relevant in this case, which is why I would have supported a 48 hour block on that basis. I intend to summarize the evidence that led me to this conclusion. Geometry guy 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Experienced editors don't - and shouldn't - get a free pass to be rude to one another and new editors as you in effect suggest here. All editors are expected to be polite to one another. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  I am not suggesting any such free pass. I am rather pointing out that most uses of the block tool in these situations serve no useful purpose, other than making some segment of the community feel good about "enforcing" something (despite the enforcement being ineffective and often counterproductive). If instead blocks of experienced editors were applied only to support (time-limited, topic-specific) bans, then everyone would see the purpose. Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Proto-principle #1 is accurate only when a given experienced editor also show that she/he understands the dynamics of how Wikipedia works; otherwise, that editor is more accurately described as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for a long time. However, writing essays about Wikipedia -- such as Antandrus' Observations on Wikipedia behavior, which I find is relevant on this case in many ways -- does provide proof of experience. On the other hand, when an editor routinely makes blanket attacks on a specific subgroup of Wikipedians, then it is proof that this editor doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, & is just a person who has contributed to Wikipedia for a long time, & nothing more. -- llywrch (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  How does Wikipedia work? Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Been trying to figure that out myself; so far I've only been successful in figuring many explanations are completely worthless & inaccurate. However, it has been my impression that experienced Wikipedians are always trying to figure out how to be more effective, & have often accumulated a great deal of writing on the topic. You are welcome to look here for some of what I've written on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply and the link. I have been editing here for nearly 5 years now, and believe I have a pretty clear idea on what Wikipedia is about, its purpose and ideals, but there is much I do not understand. I know next to nothing about IRC (I'm an "onwiki please" editor) and was completely shocked by the Arbcom leaks last summer. That leads to the point of my question. If we are not even sure whether we understand how Wikipedia works, how can we reliably assess whether another editor does? Geometry guy 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Divisive. Pandering to a self-declared elite, when only a handful of the best content contributors actually cause any issues, is unnecessary. Also, it gives Admins. further excuse to exempt themselves from their responsibilities. Contributing excellent content is a scarce talent, treating everyone here with respect is a universal obligation. Leaky Caldron 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to be arguing against a point that no one has made here. Did you post this comment in the right place? Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I opposed your suggestion as I believed it to be divisive. Editors who contribute great content are no less bound by WP:5P, including civility. From what I understood of the unrefined and (to me) complex proposal, you appeared to be making a special case for content creators. I note that the following oppose also interprets it that way. However, I have re-read it. If you simply mean editors in good standing, i.e. not vandals, socks, disruptive, irredeemable block history, then I could see it differently. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for coming back on this. I am not making a special case for content contributors and agree that it would be a divisive to do so. I would add/agree that excellent contributions in one area are no excuse for disruption in another. My notion of "experienced editors" broadly coincides with your "editors in good standing", but my "proto-principles" are not intended as any kind of concrete proposal to be supported or opposed, just a starting point for discussion. Geometry guy 22:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Editors who repeatedly and persistently refuse to obey one of the pillars of Wikipedia should be blocked indefinitely, even if they are otherwise great content contributers. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and requires some minimum standards of communication. These decisions should not be taken lightly, and should not be used in borderline cases, but ultimately the whole drama caused by persistent incivility may outweigh one's contributions. - BorisG (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  Surely they should be banned indefinitely, shouldn't they? Geometry guy 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Incomplete while these principles present a view point on what not to do about incivility they don't seem to address what to do. Nobody Ent 14:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, but if every editor proposed a complete set of principles, findings and remedies, this Workshop page would be even longer and more difficult to digest than it already is. Geometry guy 14:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Completely agree. The original five-hours-post-comment-block is what ultimately set off all this drama. If an experienced editor who makes valuable contributions is persistent in causing problems, that's what RFC is for. That the community failed to initiate this process early in the history of disruption is its own fault. The fact remains that there are various tools available other than blocking. A community discussion could solve a lot in a much more productive way when it comes to these situations, particularly when a block will set off a community discussion with a much greater heat to light ratio. Lara 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

I'm leaving this as a place-holder for now.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed outcomes

As with the proto-principles, these are not refined enough to be remedies.

1) The community needs to develop more refined ways to deal with occasional disruption and incivility from experienced editors. Blocking is an ineffective, and far too blunt, tool for this purpose. Options to be explored might include specific short-term topic bans from areas which have been causing an experienced editor to become disruptive or uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• One of the questions we sometimes ask prospective administrators at RfA is "What is the difference between a block and a ban". It is easy enough to read the relevant policies and parrot out an answer. It is not so easy, it seems to me, to understand what the distinction means. The block tool is a tool, and like all tools, it does not have an agenda, but is a means to achieve an end. Blocking an editor without having any idea what the block will achieve is like drilling a hole in a sheet of metal without having a use for it.

Experienced editors (as defined above) are generally familiar with the way Wikipedia works, even if they don't always agree with every aspect of it. Most editors get by okay most of the time. Some are so unable to adapt to Wikipedia that they end up being banned. In the continuum in between, we have no coherent approach: blocks, arguments and drama characterize this zone. In my view, it is a zone that should be regulated through time-limited topic bans, as a continuum between no ban at all, and the ultimate sanction of an indefinite site ban. Geometry guy 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is some logic in using blocks instead of topic bans for incivility. Some behaviour (such as POV pushing) is often limited to a specific topic area. But incivility is a behavioral thing and it may or may not have anything to do with any specific topic area. Yes it is blunt but sometimes necessary. - BorisG (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example 5

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: "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)

My suggestion was not meant to protect the children or the ladies. It was meant to put a possible solution forth for editors that have a problem with incivility: one that required a bit of imagination. See [15]. We are all taught to be polite when ladies are present. It's one of the standards in RL in almost every culture I can think of. So why not bring that standard here, as a tool to fix a problem. Granted, it has a certain silliness to it, but it just might work.--Buster Seven Talk 10:14, 1 January 2012 (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)

Thank you for the threat, insult, and rhetorical argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 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)

"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)" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The key point is the intent of whatever was said. We can debate how uncivil a word or phrase is — but in my view, it really doesn't matter if someone uses a string of locker-room vulgarities, or simply calls another editor an idiot or a fool; either way, it's an uncivil personal attack, and it doesn't belong here, and it needs to stop. — Richwales (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifeloo. Please present, once and for all, your evidence of Admin. baiting. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Fifelfoo, both you and Balloonman have been casting aspersions on the admin corps and their treatment of Malleus. Your claims are long on rhetoric and short on diffs. Please reply with that rigour that you have so often advocated for FA articles. Of course, I greatly respect you, I'm just trying to cut to the chase here; this is the "analysis of evidence" section. Please say what evidence you are relying on, or if it is not yet in evidence, remedy that. Happy New Year, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Given Deb's evidence, all this discussion strikes me as beside the point. I'd prefer to have an editing environment where editors feel welcomed, rather than demeaned, over an environment where we have to argue ad nauseum about whose cultural assumptions are the correct ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel demeaned by WMF's suggestion that I'm less valuable then an editor with two X chromosomes. I feel demeaned by political correctness. I feel demeaned by referring an instance of an editor calling another "a prick" from WQA to AN and the admin community blowing it off as "not actionable." Do you think the witch hunt du jour is going to fix any of that? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And if I were to say that I, in turn, feel demeaned by the phrase "political correctness", we could doubtless go in circles ad infinitum. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are "demeaned" by the the WMF's goal to increase the proportion of female editors. Of course it is extremely rude to let on that women make up less than 10% of the editor base. And of course, the only reason why the WMF wants more women (and other under-represented groups) to contribute, is because the wicked WMF devalues male editors. Simple as that. Whatever was the WMF thinking!? Very déclassé. Yes, I am being sarcastic, if you are not quite certain. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, as a female user I can say I also find the WMF's approach, and that of some editors, demeaning. If you'd like to spend your time increasing the proportion of female users, feel free- but don't assume everyone else should share in that goal. Furthermore, if you want to look at sexism, answer me this: why is it considered grossly uncivil to use the word "cunt" or "bitch" but not the word prick or dick? To my way of thinking, that fact is more insulting than actually having any of those words used against me. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pointless to suggest that all the sex organ invectives, male or female, should be at the identical incivility level and to claim offense that they aren't. For better or worse, that's not how things are in the world beyond Wikipedia. "Cunt" is considered far more objectionable and sexist in most English-speaking places than "bitch", "prick", and "dick", though much depends on context. I link a few sources for this in my evidence section, and summarizing that again here would create a big wall of text. Some relevant factors are the history of abuse and discrimination against women, and the conception of female sexuality as something unclean and shameful that must be hidden. The public conception of men and their sex organs, historically, has been different. Held against that backdrop, calling a woman a cunt for having too strong an opinion or too much ambition is particularly hurtful. In my opinion we shouldn't be calling each other bitches, pricks, or dicks either, and on a one-to-one level that could be just as uncivil. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See page 110 of An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geffrey Hughes, published 2006, in New York and London. "Cunt has always been a specific term, unlike cock, and has been the most seriously taboo word in English for centuries, remaining so for the vast majority of users." Not long ago it was considered "obscene libel" and necessitated a seperate legal category (pg 112). So, it's not WMFs' or the Civility Polices' approach, its the vast majority of English speakers.--Buster Seven Talk 09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of [Various, ?pseud] "Letters" The Economist 2011-01-27

[Various, ?pseud] "Letters" The Economist 2011-01-27 was offered as evidence "there are undoubtably a significant number other editors who are driven away from the project."

• We assume that The Economist displays the fact checking behaviours of reliable sources as encyclopaedists; however, in presenting and analysing evidence we are able to go further and engage the source's bias. The Economist comes from a right wing economic perspective, a perspective that since the 1980s has been overwhelmingly biased against volunteer social projects, and which since the 1850s has been selectively biased against volunteer social projects started by people who rely upon wage labour for their living.
  • Thus: There is no reason to expect that the letters in The Economist are representative.
• Tim Rooks of Berlin complains that he was obliged to follow WP:V
  • Tim Rooks' letter describes what we wish to have happen: editors be obliged to support their writing by reference to reliable sources.
• Jonathan Kane of Belle Mead, New Jersey appears to have a problem with WP:FRINGE; and with the CONSENSUS pillar.
  • Jonathan Kane's contribution appears to be a complaint with the pillar of CONSENSUS—editors unable to edit within the pillars should not be esteemed when they attack the pillars.
    • Neither letter is worth consideration, and the claim is not supportable from the evidence provided. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kane: "One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”." Nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's concerns with TCO

Sandy has cited TCO's block log here as an example of inconsistent standards regarding Malleus. I entirely agree with her.

TCO was blocked eight or nine times, each time for incivility (he has some recent blocks at own request). On each occasion, he either served his time, or engaged with the blocking admin to reduce or get the block lifted. In other words, the block system worked as intended without being gamed and left us with a productive (and far more self-controlled) editor who authored a fine report on the Featured Article system.

On the other hand, Malleus never requested an unblock, served his time only twice (counting this), but was almost always unblocked, generally within an hour, and never with his request or engagement with a blocking administrator.

Yes, I agree with Sandy.

By the way, regarding Sandy's point about me, I did not see it at the time. I do not spend a lot of time reading others' talk pages. If I had, given the considerable heat he was taking from Sandy and others at the time and to today over his report, I probably would have sent him an email so as not to inflame the situation. I would not have taken administrative action, nor referred him for same, as I was involved. I would not have thought it worthy of same because what he said was at worst vulgar, not a personal attack against anyone. End of story. And I have taken no position regarding what should occur with Malleus, if anything, in this case. My concern has been with the misuse of tools.

Happy new year.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When I was made administrator in 2006, there was the understanding that it was for fixing typos on the Main Page, and I have never blocked anyone, TCO, Malleus, or anyone else. Had I seen the pussy juice comment, I would have responded at least as much as I did to TCO. All editors including Malleus and TCO are inconsistently disciplined for some incivility and not others. Malleus drew my attention here more than TCO did, after John gave me a sample of what Malleus's defenders are like. If Sandy considers me to be part of an IRC cabal, that is impossible because I have never learned to use IRC. Art LaPella (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think each side (to use a very loose term) sees the other side (again) as tightly organized, and communicating via IRC. I am not sure if I ever tried IRC, but if I did I gave up in frustration, I remember using some communication system but not being able to figure it out. Really, what it is, is that some people see Malleus as getting away with stuff, and others admire him and fear that if a block stands, Malleus will never come back and we will be out a key editor. By the way, some of the people who see him as getting away with stuff admire him too. But I don't see him walking away. As a fellow Wiki addict, I know how hard it is to keep away from editing. We'll work this out without retirements.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The section heading here is a misnomer-- my "concern" is not with TCO, it's that Malleus is targeted, discussed on IRC, hounded, and watched, where others aren't. TCO is one example. No, I don't consider you a problem, Art LaPella-- my point is that some admins hound and go after Malleus while other editors are left to much worse behavior. I spose it mostly depends on their IRC buddies, and certainly Wehwalt's characterization of that "fine" report on Featured articles give us a clue as to who and why Malleus is hounded while others are left alone. Hersfold asked for evidence of same, I provided latest example, there are many others, nothing special about TCO in particular (except that his pussy juice was actually more offensive than any of the random "fuck yous" I'm exposed to). But, while we're on the topic, "the block system worked as intended without being gamed and left us with a productive (and far more self-controlled)" editor doesn't seem to be true, considering his "motherfuckers" and "pussy juice". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It was by no means perfect, but it also by no means needs to be flushed down the virtual toilet. But we digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy, I'm no much on IRC now, but last time I was I found the level of activity to have very significantly dropped off, particularly in the admin's channel. Is there any actual evidence that IRC has anything to do with this?? You keep talking about Malleus' blockers/critics as "IRC buddies". In fact, a number of people I assumed were included in this have denied using IRC at all. Do you have evidence of any significant admin discussions of Malleus on IRC?--Scott Mac 02:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised IRC levels are dropping, since everything related to Wikipedia is declining. Another editor commented somewhere they had seen blocks cooked up at IRC-- and I don't know where to find that comment now. I do know that I periodically get clueless new admins popping in to my talk page for a "little chat", where they are clued in to how they've been used, and it's pretty clear those cases are cooked up either on IRC or via e-mail. Since I conduct my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, where all can see everything I say and stand for, such business bugs me. But, yea, for example, where did The Fat Man block come from? I've never been to IRC, wouldn't even know where to find it, but know many folks talk of how blocks are cooked up on IRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, it would be in private channels or one-to-one chats (or via e-mail). It is unlikely that evidence of such will be presented, unless someone's guilty conscience pricks them. I think a lot more is down to watchlists, rather than anything like IRC or other chat clients. Also, consider this: if a single block is cooked up at IRC, imagine how many blocks that would be by the time it had been through the grapevine - hundreds, likely. But the other 'blocks' would be only rumours spawned by one incident. Sometimes hard evidence is needed to avoid chasing shadows. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone supply full text searchable logs of all official IRC channels associated with en.wikipedia; or, where editors know en.wikipedia administration has been discussed. This sounds to be precisely like the off wiki canvassing related to EEML; whether foundation "set-up" the channels or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer appears to be "no by design"—I do not see how unlogged IRC differs in anyway to EEML. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, while we can't discount the logical possibility that admins have been chatting about Malleus on IRC, if there is, as it appears, absolutely no hard evidence of this whatsoever, and some involved admins have specifically denied IRC use, can we drop the subject until and unless there is evidence? Assuming good faith means we don't make unevidence assertions that things we don't like involve a conspiracy in a place we don't like. This appears to be an attempt to poison the well. So, Sandy, can we cease comments such as you used on the evidence talk page in the last 48 hours:

• "I doubt that it has as much to do with to or from an admin, as it does with how much time one spends on IRC and how many IRC friends one has. That's where most blocks are cooked up, and I can fersure tell you that some editors who have lots of IRC friends can talk to me or others however they want, while if I say "boo", they'll dig up a newbie friend to come over and have a "friendly chat" with me. It's all about IRC and a social game"
• "If those admins want to chase off one of our top contributors, can we get them to either stop, or do the same to the unhelpful idiots-- just apply sanctions equally, and get in the Wiki and off of IRC chat rooms?"
• "meaning, Malleus gives up, admins continue doing what they do, some good, some bad, and rude editors with friends on IRC continue to get away with it, while editors with enemies on IRC get targetted"
• "as long as admins avert their eyes when they or their friends do it, while going after content contributors who don't suck up on IRC"
• "because he drew the wrath of the IRC-chatting admin corp by highlighting this double standard"

Again, if there's evidence of any significant level of people discussing stuff, related to this case, on IRC rather than on wiki, then it could be presented, and might be relevant. But if not?--Scott Mac 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think accusing admins of coordinating by IRC (in which case they are doing a very poor job) is just as bad as accusing Malleus's supporters of doing the same. Evidence should be presented simultaneously with the accusation. Isn't AGF still at least in theory not a dead letter here? Yet much of what I see is that sort of finger pointing, as well as settling personal grudges. I am also concerned about TCO being dragged into this, without it being mentioned that a number of editors have grudges against him for in his report dubbing certain writers "star collectors" and for calling for elections at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth strongly suggesting that officially supported IRC channels may need to be officially logged if they enter into territory noted under the sections of the EEML principles I restated above. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In which case any nefarious conspirators would take care to avoid using those particular channels.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have difficulty believing any administrator would have the time or bother to conspire nefariously. If any conduct existed that was unacceptable, I would expect that it came about from accidental discussions on IRC that were misread by users on IRC to form "consensus," outside of exposure to the general community of the encyclopaedia. But knowing if any logs of admin heavy official or unofficial public IRC channels existed would be the first step in determining if any evidence worth discussing existed. And logs aren't officially kept. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a grudge at TCO so much as disgust and anger at this community which indef blocks a user for an already redacted insult while ignoring and essentially endorsing another. Nobody Ent 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not about an insult, as in singular. Not really. It is about a persistent pattern of abuse directed at admins and non-admins alike. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of GRuben's evidence re: New editors and women leaving the project

GRuben cites this article in the New York Times, stating, "High among the reasons women do not participate as much, as stated in that article, are the openness to high conflict and misogyny."

The full quote including direct quotes from Joseph Reagle: "[B]ecause of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd. ... This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women. ... "I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.” Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists ... so you have to have a huge argument about whether there is the problem.”"

First, this article doesn't make the claim that misogynists "drive off" female editors. That is synthesis from GRuben.

Second, the article also goes into detail about how the percentages of female contributors on Wikipedia follows trends of females participating in real world projects. The reason discussed in the article has to do with women being less confident in themselves and less willing to express their minority views.

Thus, the drawn conclusion, "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was working hard to cause the specific strife and misogyny that drives off new, and especially female, editors," doesn't follow. Without any evidence to support the claim that Malleus has "driven off" any new or female editors, this evidence should be struck. Lara 06:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Clearly that statement is not evidence, it's analysis. Additionally we don't know 1. What Malleus's intent was, and 2. that he was working hard. Nobody Ent 06:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lara is absolutely correct. It is not hard to avoid GRuban's conclusion at all since there is no evidence (as has been stated before) that Malleus has driven any editors away, male or female, old or new. The evidence seems to be just this: Malleus uses a bad word, an ostensibly female editor complains,* and Malleus refuses to redact. Ergo--Malleus drove away female contributors, giving the finger to the Foundation, and causing us to be written up in the NYT as misogynists? Indeed, "this evidence should be struck." *On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. For all we know, Malleus is a girl and Deb is actually the President of the United States. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Darn it! I'll have to have a word with those secret service guys. :-) Deb (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Its Official. You have been moved up seven pay-grades. Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seven hour delay

Thumperward commented on the dishonest cunt at 9:57, but blocked for long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds at 17:34. The seven hour delay would seem to indicate the block was not considered urgent to prevent ongoing disruption -- Malleus had allowed the redaction of "cunt" to stand and made no further use of the word. So why no consensus building before imposing the block? Nobody Ent 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The explanation for the 7 hour delay is that the goal or game was to block Malleus, not to resolve a dispute. The incident was a pretense to place a much sought after block. If the goal were to prevent future disruption from Malleus of the same nature, the concerned parties should have started an RFC or a community discussion to generate a consensus that Malleus had been crossing accepted boundaries. It is obvious from Malleus' block log, replete with reversed blocks, that yet another civility block would be controversial. ArbCom has said over and over again not to make contentious blocks, except in emergencies, which this was not, as evidenced by the 7 hour delay. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Nobody Ent's point is a significant one. I'd be very interested in what reply Thumperward might have to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the community as a whole is at much at fault as any individual admin: we play lip service to the idea that blocks are preventative not punitive, but in practice encourage punishments for infractions of community norms. Geometry guy 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(Popping temporarily out of light-editing mode as I've been summoned: I'm not planning on providing much in the way of further input unless absolutely necessary.) At the time of my 14:57 "you must be new here" comment I was prepared to simply chalk said thread off as another wasted day of drama. However, the trouble continued after that comment with Malleus's repeated refusal to redact a comment that had been construed as "offensive and sexist", coupled with an additional followup at said user's talk page and leading into additional drama including full-scale edit warring over the removal of the entire problematic section. This subsequent disruption was what made me conclude that a block was the most effective preventative step that could be taken to end the long-term disharmony of which that day's drama was symptomatic. So rather than making my mind up at 14:57 and then acting on it seven hours later, I rather changed my mind upon a later inspection of what had happened following my original comment. (and so back to light-editing mode.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Deb's evidence

In her first bullet, Deb claims to know Malleus' intentions, claiming they were "to be offensive" and that this is "apparent from the context". First, no one can ever know the intentions of another. Only the acting person truly knows. Second, I find that reading the conversation in its entirety leads to the conclusion that Malleus' tone was more jovial—surely meant as an insult to a large number of admins, but not meant to offend those he was in discussion with. Thus, his intent is not apparent.

In her second bullet, Deb states that Malleus has "unwittingly become a focus for discontent", but then calls him a "ringleader", a word with very specific and negative connotations that seems to contradict the "unwittingly" part. And considering the definition is "A person who initiates or leads an illicit or illegal activity,"[16] I would consider this bordering on a personal attack. And it, once again, presupposes ill intent. Lara 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I may inadvertently have become a focus for discontent at the uneven application of the poorly written and widely abused civility policy but a "ringleader" of anything I am not. The use of that term implies that I have recruited others to my side for some nefarious purpose. Does Deb have any evidence that's what I've done? Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the fact that I said "if you like" that it was not my preferred word but I couldn't think of a better one - and I withdraw it. If you should state, in all honesty, that you did not intend your comments to be offensive to administrators, then I would also withdraw that interpretation of your words. Deb (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was stating my opinion of some administrators. How could it have been offensive to anyone when no administrators were named? Or is it your opinion that all administrators are beyond criticism and entitled to deference, as I just saw another editor claim somewhere in this labyrinth of pages? Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was asking if you intended your wording, regardless of whom it was directed at, to be offensive. Deb (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Who would I have been trying to offend? Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

One imperfect word choice ought not to obscure the fact that Deb's take on this has been very reasonable right from the start; looks like her earlier comments on the general offensiveness of the C word were in line with the solid evidence just posted by Slp1. Accepting this does not mean Malleus intended to cause serious offence or deserves further sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But not evidenced community standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Feyd, your comment seems to suggest that my only objection is to her use of "ringleader". That is not the case. I also object to her claims on his intentions, which she cannot know. Both points of her evidence presuppose ill intent that is not "apparent" by the exchanges in question. Lara 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree in general that discussion of an editor's presumed intentions is analysis, not evidence. Geometry guy 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Geometry guy's evidence

As I tried to avoid any substantial analysis in the evidence I presented, I'd like to clarify my view on a couple of matters related to it.

First of all, the issue as to what amounts to acceptable language on Wikipedia, is not, for me, the central question, but rather:

how should we deal with occasional disruptive behavior from experienced editors?

There has been much discussion on the evidence and evidence talk page about the profanity Malleus used, whether there is a double standard, whether it was sexist/misogynistic/offensive, whether UK and US norms are different and so on. Editors have asked whether MF's "intent was to shock and/or offend those he was in discussion with" or commented that "MF may not have been aware of how offensive the use of the C word would be". This misses a key point, which my evidence highlights:

After MF became aware of the furore surrounding his remark, he made no attempt to deescalate the situation, quite the opposite: he initially refused to accept any redaction (see comments below) and made no apology, but instead continued to press his point more vigorously, leading ultimately to him making an offensive personal attack twice (and then forgetting he had made it!).

Secondly, it is not my aim here to enter into the "blame game": quite the opposite. In my view, blocks should be preventative, not punitive: editors do not deserve to be blocked as punishment for bad behavior, but sometimes they need to be blocked to prevent or reduce further disruption. The question my evidence asks (with the 20-20 benefit of hindsight, of course) is whether the unblock might better have been a reblock, with a more preventative justification.

Malleus is an editor I greatly respect: I sympathise with the frustrations he faces on a regular basis and support his right to speak about the injustices and double standards he believes Wikipedia is plagued by. While compiling the timeline in my evidence, it became even more clear to me how much faults in the system contributed to the disruption: for instance, without the initial civility block and ANI discussion, the subsequent disruption may well have been largely confined to MF's user talk page, where we traditionally give editors more latitude. What I hope this case will do is clarify how blocks and bans might be used in a more intelligent way to support the goal of maintaining an environment conducive to writing a free encyclopedia, with all the stresses and disagreements such an endeavor inherently involves. Geometry guy 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MF accepted redaction of the remark. Nobody Ent 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right that he did eventually: can you find diffs so that I can add this to my evidence (I've still got 50 words to play with!) and modify my above comments accordingly? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in my evidence section. Nobody Ent 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is not completely clear to me whether "I don't give a flying fuck" was meant as acceptance of (or indeed indifference to) your redaction. In the edit war that followed a few hours later, MF restored an unredacted version. Anyway, I've updated my evidence accordingly - thanks again. Geometry guy 21:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying 'I don't care,' even in colorful language, is acceptance. The redaction was undone by MZMcBride[17]. MONGO violate WP:TPG by reverting MF's entire edit [18], and MF reverts that. If restoration of the redaction is inappropriate, isn't that on MZMcBride? Nobody Ent 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first point: I could answer "you can say whatever the fuck you like" and it wouldn't mean I accept what you say. It is not even completely clear to me that the "I don't care" was responding to your redaction proposal, but Malleus himself can surely answer that. The history here is complicated, and a lot took place in the heat of the moment: no one can be expected to behave perfectly, logically or even consistently in the middle of an edit war. I agree that it wasn't MF's responsibility to restore the redaction, but his action here is consistent with the evidence in general that he did not give a "flying fuck" about redaction or deescalation. Indifference cuts both ways. Geometry guy 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: