Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Extending the date for evidence

I put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gathered the answer to this query by the actions of recent edits. I do believe an extension would have been a fair and proper way to handle the late submissions but accept the decision to allow some and not others. In fact it makes sense. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

An observation per IAR

Yes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

30 Jan

tick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Target deadline... this is a controversial topic... I'm certain something will be coming within the next few days...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer. I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair analogy, but who is in Kirk's role here? My76Strat (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone's ... a Captain Kirk, with orders to clarify, to classify, to pacify."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I call it dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BUTT. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A potentially interesting analogy that somewhat misses the point. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it absolutely right. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework right than I do for handing it in on time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of x days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, speaking as someone who tried about a dozen of them, nothing is worse than the feeling when the jury's out. Even a note from them is a relief. You just don't know, and there is nothing you can do about it and you don't know how long it is going to continue for. It is no great trial for us as spectators; I feel for those with a more personal interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates would certainly seem appropriate here, even if it's just something like "discussion is ongoing."Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom incivility

It does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil.

• Arbcom did not have to accept the case -- it's actually a pretty crappy test case due to the particular fact pattern. But they did.
• It's been 40 days. [2]
• Arbcom itself set the 29 January decision date.

To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. ArbCom decisions are never posted on time. Here's the update: they are working on it, nd a decision will be posted when it is ready. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm If we are going to call not meeting a deadline incivility or as Malleus did above "dishonesty" theh Malleus has no hope of avoiding the eternal flames of hell. This is not incivility or a lie... I know everybody is interested in what they have to say on this case, but they continue to be volunteers and real life does get in the way. Yes, this is an impossible situation that needs Capt Kirk to resolve, but let's hold off on the vindictives---unless you are intentionally trying to piss the Arbitrators off to get them to vote vindictively.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I once waited 3 hours for the Stones to show up. When they did, the wait was worthwhile.```Buster Seven Talk 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its just a proposed decision...the final decision will take another month.MONGO 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From the department of offering an opinion unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts... (in that I have no knowledge of what the Committee is discussing): I can certainly understand that parties in the case would wish that this was over already, but I have a feeling that what may be the most difficult part of the case may be how to deal with aspects of administrator activities, such as the second mover issue, rather than with civility or those editors accused of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it must be a hell of a job to deal with. A bit like trying to re-build Spaghetti Junction while there's still traffic on it ... I know it's hard waiting, Malleus and others, but fretting about it doesn't make it any easier, or make their job and simpler to do, or, really, change anything apart from making you feel .. well ... fretty. They're only human, and the complexity of these issues is very much out of the normal Arb comfort zone. Or anyone's, probably. Have another beer while you wait. And a mandatory hug (>**)>. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing. Windows Vista took 5 years, Duke Nukem Forever took 13 and Chinese Democracy 15, and all three sucked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oh FGS they are all falling out and squabling with each other over this. The intelligent one told them not to accpept the case, the new percentage wanted to show balls of steel and comprehension and the other half are away with the fairies. There will be no sound result in the near future - if ever. We must resign ourselves for a very long wait - and the ultmate result being dispointment for all. Anyone with a gram of intelligence knows that. Giacomo Returned 21:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing about disappointment, I suspect that some will be disappointed (not surprised, disappointed) if there is an intelligent result. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Party A's "intelligent result" is party B's "lynch mob"; party B's "intelligent result" is party A's "endorsing grossly unacceptable conduct". Since there's never been an RFC to determine what "the community" actually want here, the only intelligent solution would b for Arbcom to have refused to accept this case, and for individual Arbitrators to refuse to take part once it was accepted. Since that didn't happen, someone is going to be shocked and upset by whatever the committee come up with. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well stated. While I disagree on the RFC part, which would have been lost in shouting, I think you've stated the rest of it quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(re Wehwalt) Sure, an RFC would have been a screaming match, but it would have got the issues out in the open. Half the problem with this case is that everyone has a different idea of what "the issues" are - things that some people see as key points, other people see as irrelevant and genuinely don't understand why people are getting upset. (That cuts both ways; there are people, particularly in Australia and the north of England, who genuinely can't understand why other people see language which to them is part of everyday speech as offensive. There are also people, particularly among the long-standing admins from the vandal-fighting tendency who are used to dealing out blocks, who genuinely don't understand why blocks, template warnings and so on can look like outright aggression to others.) I dare say you remember the problems around Mattisse, which to a large degree were a case of two blocks of users who weren't explicitly trying to upset each other, but who sincerely didn't understand why their actions were aggravating each other. (That's not to endorse what Mattisse became, but her becoming such a problem editor might well have been avoided if early on, someone had presented a list of what was and was not acceptable, as a take-it-or-leave-it offer with no room for argument.) Wikipedia desperately needs a group, separate from Arbcom, with a mandate to draw up binding policies when requested in situations like this - imagine the unlamented WP:ACPD without the "self-appointed provision government" thing. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sommelier....More wine and cheese and be quick, the crowd grows surly."

What about party C? Or am I in a party of just one? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the look of party C. Especially as this party could be a long one: 40 days from incident to result would be remarkably fast for Arbcom; from case opening to case closure, a month or two is quite common in my experience. Pass the wine and chicken drumsticks please, Pesky. Geometry guy 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An observation: If the party of the first part would only agree with the party of the second part there would be no party of the third part and the parties of the first and second parts could all have a party [Paraphrasing Pratchett (2007) Making Money p. 9] --Senra (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea if we can start seeing what way the committee is going to take with this? Perhaps the committee doesn't have enough evidence or proposals to formulate the decision from. If only there were a place where members of the community could provide focused evidence and proposals to get this jalopy out of neutral and moving forward. *cough* Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On a matter of practicality, ArbCom could have reasonably anticipated that failing to meet their deadline would not be met positively. They could have simply posted an updated estimate. Most people are patient. It's the lack of knowing what's going on that's the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, and would not be surprised if Arbcom members were trying to agree upon such a post as we write. Geometry guy 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the image of them "trying to agree" on this that troubles me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Being troubled by such things is the recipe for premature heart disorder. I read the leaks of last summer, and no doubt you did too. There were revelations that were potentially more troubling to me than the idea that Arbcom members frequently find it difficult to agree on a course of action. Am I troubled? Not really: I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and if one aspect becomes stressful, there are plenty of others worth engaging with. Geometry guy 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no fire, so take your time Arbcom. Better to have it right, then have it fast. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a gander at WP:WQA, WP:AN, WP:ANI or many other venues. The fire's been smoldering a long time. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be apparent that a editor with my username is eponymously patient; it should also be eponymously apparent that it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. What is important is that if ArbCom routinely fails to update the targets they provide the community, then they are routinely rude. The first rule of leadership is example. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to put this missed deadline in perspective, I remember a case that ran on for four-plus months. We are nowhere near that point yet.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss

Extended content

I think the prudent thing would actually be to dismiss the case. It was poorly prosecuted, and no party has emerged in clear need of sanction. As an asset, ArbCom can better serve Wikipedia without the burden of creating a solution for this case. The most justifiable sanction for any party is an admonition and to that effect, all parties have been admonished extensively by the community. An ArbCom admonition serves no practical benefit beyond aesthetics when remediation has already been achieved. I ask all who participated in this case to consider endorsing this summary. My76Strat (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) per propsed motion to close --Senra (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Uh, I think not. The case has gone this far and will conclude, and the fact it is 'running' over is not uncommon, as many ArbCom cases do the same. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Amnesty for all involved; I'm in agreement with My76Strat on that one – they've all suffered more than enough here. And a mandate to re-write the civility policy really clearly and on a principle-centred basis, with is being equally enforcible for everyone. Oh, and community sanction stuff at RfA and RfA talk; same standards, same sanctions, for any and every offender. That would do it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I have no great problem with an amnesty; the important thing is what happens going forward. The thing is, ArbCom is no doubt struggling with a way to reduce the second move advantage without being allowed to rewrite the policy handbook. They can accomplish much if they make admins nervous about unblocks without consensus or discussion. That's the simplest way I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yes; the simplest way to deal with that issue is to separate it from the immediate case. Implement what I;ve suggested above (simple, fair and effective), and once having got the poor sods out of suspense and misery, then address the first-mover / second-mover / infinite mover (?) advantage / disadvantage. But if the rules are clear, and equally applied, then that in itself would get rid of most of the block-> unblock -> block again warring. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Pesky, you might as well believe that the flying spagetti monster will buy you pizza tonight. I tried once to clarify what the self-contradictory WP:PA page says, which should be narrower/easier topic than civility in general. There is no consensus however what even that means. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11. And according to some, there is no consensus that there is no consensus. Most uncivil editors are much more astute than throwing four-letter words at their targets anyway. Guilt by comparison with an action of >insert villains/deficients here< is a favorite technique in some circles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Concur, terms like "disruption" and "battlefield mentality" can be tossed around and used by some with as much pretense at fairness as in civility cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I didn't participate in this case, but I strongly agree with the comments made by My76Strat, Pesky and Wehwalt. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I too would advocate that the case be dismissed, but I can tell you for certain that it won't be. There's an expression involving a flock of stupid sheep and a precipice - I forget the wording, but this is it. There will be no dismissal; we shall have to endure this right to the bitter end - regardless of sense. Giacomo Returned 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Meanwhile in my universe, Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima, and it's hard to take Wikijustice too seriously when so many are willing to unblock Malleus or make unsupportable excuses for him. Art LaPella (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC) How very lonely you must find your universe. Thank heavens the rest of us are not sharing it. Giacomo Returned 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Oh forgive me, I have just seen "I live near Seattle, U.S." Enough said. Giacomo Returned 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima---So Art, are you proposing that we unblock Ottava?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC) No, and I don't think my complete sentence could be interpreted that way. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC) @Art, I can kinda understand where you're coming from, but it would be a good mental exercise for you to imagine yourself as being "the investigated party" here, and think what effect this kind of emotional trauma would be having on you. Until / unless you;ve actually been in this kind of situation, it's very, very hard to try and work out how you would be reacting to it yourself. A certain amount of empathy is really needed here. Imagine, for example, that you'd been accused of a serious crime in real life, and had been given bail "until asked to return to the police station". During all that time, you would be on edge, hyper-vigilant, sleepless, lost appetite, irritable, miserable and frustrated. It's the being in limbo thing which is hardest to bear. Adding: I'm trying to think of a good real-life comparison here, which is tricky. Umm, imagine that you'd got a home video of your toddlers playing on a nudist beach, and loads of other beach-goers also had similar vids or photos of their own. Imagine that some of those other pics were on display in an art exhibition in your local town, there had been a bit of hoo-ha, and it had been decided that there was "no case to answer" in respect of those pics. And imagine that you, yourself, were still on bail, awaiting the decision whether you were going to be charged with something in respect of your own pics, while knowing that more graphic pics had been passed as OK. It's a similar scenario. And imagine, too, that you knew darned well that the reason your case hadn't been classified as "no case to answer" was because someone on the prosecuting team wanted to "make an example of you". Does that scenario change your views on this? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Empathizing with another person's position is a good exercise in moral reasoning. So is being honest with oneself. Do you really think all of Malleus's outbursts were reactions to persecution? Often they occur the first time someone disagrees with him; do you need more examples? Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Any evidence for that Art? Or are you simply operating on the basis that if you throw enough shit some of it is bound to stick? You had the opportunity to say your piece during the evidence collection phase, time for you to put your open hostility behind you now; it's unseemly coming from an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC) In addition to my talk page's Modest Genius example, the evidence page shows Kaldari summarizing thusly: "Note that some of these attacks are replies to polite inquiries or requests rather than escalating arguments." Sorry about my open hostility; next time I'll include some f words to make it OK. Art LaPella (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Genteel editors, please focus on the intent of this thread. Other discussions are more proper under their own heading in an effort to keep this thread germane to the topic. I appreciate your understanding. My76Strat (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I do tend to forget the germane-ness issue. I haven't said much about specific sanctions because my main point is that people like Malleus should shape up or ship out; it isn't about how many chances they should get. But I don't think dismissing the case would achieve that result. Malleus has often been warned, so I don't think stopping here would change anything. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC) @Art, Rather than admitting forgetfulness, your admitting obsessiveness and nastiness would be the first step on changing your behavior. Shape up or ship out, indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This is the comment to which Art took such exception after I called him on it on his talk page. Clearly he's labouring under the impression that he gets to make up the civility rules as he goes, a not untypical trait for an administrator. And I very much doubt that any neutral observer could believe for one second that Kaldari is an unbiased commentator. But once again, he's an administrator, so he can claim pretty much whatever he likes. The unpalatable truth for those like Art, who seems to actually add very little if any content indeed, is that Wikipedia would be infinitely better off with 100 more like me and 100 fewer like them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Not germane at all, but since you keep bringing it up: I think readers benefit more from Main Page edits they might actually see than from Featured Article grammatical obscurities that please editors. Art LaPella (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) First of all I have not kept bring up anything at all about your self-confessed gnomish pattern of editing, which I happen to think is valuable work. Secondly, I have fixed incalculably more problems with FAs, GAs, and even DYKs than you've had hot dinners, but mostly at FAC or GAN rather than once they've hit the main page. All I'm asking you to do is put away your axe, at least until this charade is over. You don't like me, I don't like you, but there's no rule that says we all have to love each other ... yet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) OK. Art LaPella (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This discussion thread is utter nonsense. I'm reminded of children saying "are we there yet?". So, it takes longer than some people's limited attention span to post a decision, and therefore we're going to hold our breath until either we turn blue or the case is thrown out. Utterly laughable. (Incivil enough for you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) On second thought, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings with that. But, really, this proposal to dismiss makes me feel like my head is going to explode. If it wasn't dismissed during the evidence and workshop stages, it makes zero sense to dismiss it now, just because some people think it's taking too long to post a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The issue isn't that it's taking too long, but that a commitment was made, not kept to, and there's been no explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, I think you are right about that, but the solution to the problem would be either an explanation or a proposed decision, not a dismissal or a change in the decision based only on the fact that there was a delay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Tryptofish I often find wisdom in your prose and mostly agree with your counsel. I agree with what you say here except it doesn't describe my motives. I suggested this for consideration not because of any delay, but because I believe it would be an amicable resolution. Otherwise I feel this case is left entirely to ArbCom to create a solution because we didn't reach much agreement at the workshop. My76Strat (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (Blush) Thanks! Well, there isn't any expectation that the community come to a consensus at the workshop, because it's ArbCom's remit to arbitrate a solution when the community is unable to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC) What I find interesting is that Malleus has shown great magnanimity throughout this grotesque charade, which can't be said of everyone on these pages.J3Mrs (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Indeed he has, which leaves one wondering why such dull, mundane and tedious little people bought and accepted the case in the first place, doesn't it? Giacomo Returned 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you mean magnanimity since yesterday. Art LaPella (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Your behaviour continues to be well beyond the pale Art, especially for an administrator; it's about time you woke up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC) This is a classic example of the 'upbraiding administrators' behaviour that I commented on earlier in the case. I'm referring specifically to the 'especially for an administrator' bit and the 'unseemly' bit in the edit summary. Malleus is not the only editor to hold administrators to a higher standard of conduct (and that principle is enshrined in various places around here), but I've manage to pin down what makes me uneasy about this. To put not too fine a point on it, those holding others to a higher standard of conduct should hold themselves to that same standard of conduct (note: not everyone, just those holding others to those higher standards, self-appointed or otherwise). So my question to Malleus is simple: do you hold yourself to the same standard that you hold administrators to? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) It's actually a classic example your misunderstanding, but not just yours to be fair. The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. I would on the other hand be quite happy to be held to same standard that administrators ought to be held to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) (ec) Sorry to intrude, but isn't he just expecting everyone to engage in civil discourse, especially admins since they're expected to recognise it and encourage it? I haven't read this case but I've watched this farce unfold over the last couple of years and the "problem" is, Malleus recognises polite cruelty and bullying, and doesn't tolerate it, while others stand around saying, "But they didn't say 'fuck', Malleus; you said 'fuck', tsk, tsk." How have we come to this place, where most of the civility police are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between polite cruelty and genuine civility, and between bullying and frankness? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) There is a fine line between frankness and being brusque. I do think that there is such a thing as being too frank and forthright when that can cause more problems than it solves. I also think that telling someone who in good-faith is trying to be diplomatic and restrained, that they should be frank and say "what they are really thinking", is something that isn't always a good idea. The converse holds as well, for those who would say to those being frank and forthright that they should be polite and proper. In practice, though, most people try and steer a course between the two extremes, or take an approach suitable to the context. Some situations require frankness, some don't. Some situations require restraint, some don't I would hope everyone could agree on those points at least. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I definitely agree with the two points outlined. The larger problem which has emerged is "who decides". My76Strat (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC) That is beautifully put, Carcharoth. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Whatever, I suspect that this delay is a planned example of the new arbcom trying to flex its pale, limp muscles and say: "we are in charge and make our decisions in our time not that of some lowly non admin editor." From what I have seen of them so far, there's more life, fun and sparkling dialogue to be had in a mortuary. Giacomo Returned 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Would "boring" not be a positive trait? As far as I can see, a lot of the problems with the previous Arbcoms have been that the members have altogether too much character. 78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC) One can forgive people for being unavoidably dead (so long as they go quietly), but to be dull shows a lack of respect and thought for others. Giacomo Returned 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) There we have it: civility is optional, but dullness is unforgivable. And going quietly (from this talk page, perhaps?) is not a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Guys, this was an incredibly long case in terms of evidence and workshop material to sort through. We are working on it, though I think the 29 Jan target was overly optimistic when set. I think we can get a PD posted over the weekend, and have updated the page to reflect that. Courcelles 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Oh deep joy! There's a murmering from the vault, shall we all hold our breath as well? Personally, I think we shoul just take over the decision page, that would be far more fun and doubtless elicit some better responses from the living dead. Giacomo Returned 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Like "bans all 'round"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) GiacomoReturned I resent that you saw fit to disrupt this discussion. Your actions are serving to stifle the very discussion I had hoped to see, and you are flouting policy to serve that end. I'll thank you kindly to show some respect in this thread, or start your own level 2 header and rant till you are fully content. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the update. Nobody Ent 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, thank you ' celles :o) It was always going to be a real pickle to sort through, and I'm sure you've hit the nail on the head with the "overly optimistic" thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC) "Are we there yet?"...```Buster Seven Talk 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC) We will get there when we GET there! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC) On a case like this, I'd like them to deliberate for as long as they need. I voted for all but two of this committee because I respect them. I heed their advice, as many editors do. This is about more than Malleus' future here, it's an opportunity for the committee to offer meaningful guidance to the community concerning how we treat one another. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC) My future here is not for ArbCom to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Your future here is as much in their hands as it is in yours. I hope you decide to stay, and they recognise your worth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC) "To be honest my dear, I don't give a damn". I wouldn't even have taken part in the ArbCom charade if SandyG hadn't persuaded me that it might just change things for those who come after me. Fat chance. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC) She's right. It might. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) It's quite easy, just don't use foul langauge in ones posts. I personally don't mind, but if enough editors do mind, then there's a problem for the foul language user. Remember, none of us have rights to be on Wikipedia, just privellages. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Look, I know how edgy everyone is; but gently, guys, gently. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not edgy, but rather calm. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC) You're also rather ill-informed; this meme about "foul language" needs to be knocked on the head. In what way is "sycophantic" or "wikilaywer", the use of both of which resulted in blocks, "foul language"? And I already linked above to this exchange, which Art LaPella absurdly characterised as "uncivil". What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "foul language". Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) of course it does Nobody Ent 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC) No, it doesn't. It's an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Have you wronged ArbCom, that they seek revenge on you?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I wasn't referring to ArbCom, but to those who chose to present what can only laughingly be called "evidence", which in reality was evidence only for their own malice. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Certainly, you make a fair point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Some of the "Laughable evidence" you allude to was appended by users who ardently support your actions. Others perhaps a bit misguided or overly optimistic, and certainly some for malicious spite. The problem is that our disagreement, seeming intractable, falls upon ArbCom to mediate. I had hoped we could reach much more agreement than we were able. My76Strat (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC) You and I quite probably could, and I think to some degree at least have probably done so. But this case should not have focused on me, as its very name suggests. That it did reflects the malice involved. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC) "Civlity enforcement" suggests you? Nobody Ent 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) That's exactly the point, it doesn't. Yet so much of the "evidence" has focused on me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC) It focused on the involved parties; I wouldn't expect otherwise. Nobody Ent 18:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC) You may continue to misrepresent all you like, but I am not one of the parties with the authority to enforce anything. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Civil participation is a choice, encouraged by pillar, policy, and guideline. In truth, the ultimate authority to moderate one's behavior towards compliance rests with the user themselves. To that end, MF, you have all authority. My76Strat (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Do you know Strat, I don't think in my entire long history of Wikipedia, I have never read such pompous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and irritating drivel as some of the comments on this page. Your and GoodDay's posts being foremost in that category. "Let him who is without sin cast etc etc etc." Obviously, you are better than all of us. Why Malleus and others chose to remain here in such company is a complete mystery to me. Giacomo Returned 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC) This is not the first time I've ever been misunderstood, and likely not the last. I do think you've misunderstood some comment of mine for your conclusion is by far a misnomer of my intent. My76Strat (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rant-o-matic

Crowds anxiously await admittance to the Great Hall of ArbCom to hear the decree from On High. A Clerk is seen, directing traffic.

I can only hope the readers of this letter section are as outraged as I am at ArbCom. By way of introduction, let me just say that ArbCom is devoid of all social conscience. But there is a further-reaching implication: While it's out using "pressure tactics"—that's a euphemism for "torture"—to coerce ordinary people into irrationalizing thinking on every issue, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about ArbCom's attempts to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of antidisestablishmentarianism. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that ArbCom's loyalists remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame inerudite fugitives for the problems besetting society. [3] --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrink, you can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant *walks out* Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just hope they don't reach the same sort of impasse that seems to have happened over at Betacommand 3. — Ched :  ?  23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Angry1.gif A crowd gathers at ArbCom's door to demand a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add one of these to every arbcom case talk page. Y'know, just to get things rolling. --Conti|✉ 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Emoticons?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

D'oh, I've been one-upped by Wehwalt... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm enjoying reading all the pro & con Arbcom posts by editors here. They won't change Arbcom's ruling, but they're entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Floq is complaining about specifically, but I will say that I don't understand what ArbCom imagines itself to be. They obviously don't arbitrate, despite the name: they refuse to deal with content (defined in a peculiarly broad way), and they don't make any effort to mediate between parties. They won't interpret policy or foundation principles. They won't even make more than token efforts to control the presentation of evidence or discussion, so case pages are effectively useless for anything other than slander and rhetoric. Is ArbCom supposed to be a purely punitive body? Because if so, there's no real need for ArbCom except (maybe) in wheel-warring cases - admins are perfectly capable of imposing any sanction that arbcom might impose, and having this big 'case' process creates a huge mess without providing anything of particular value in terms of justice or breadth of vision. heck, they're headed that way anyways with discretionary sanction, so they might as well hand over the reins completely and restrict themselves to dealing with sysop issues. Not that I'd want that, mind you - the project would become even more of a political nightmare, if only because there'd be none of these case messes slowing down normal summary justice - but if that's what they're going to do they should do it.

Don't get me wrong, I no longer have an iron in this fire: the project is apparently not ready to be what I'd like it to be (a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system). All I'm saying is that it should stop pretending that's what it is if it doesn't have the cojones to actually be that. So long as it pretends to be a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system it will attract editors who expect that kind of a system, and all sorts of crap will happen as they each in turn learn the hard way that it isn't. It is just creating endless headaches out of misguided loyalty to ideals it doesn't practice. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, something tells me you didn't follow Floquenbeam's link. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't (and now that I see that, it's kind of cute); if he's going to be sarcastic he should advertise it more clearly. But I don't really care; I have honest complaints about the system here. If you guys want to joke around about it, that's… part of the problem, actually, but only a small part, so it's fine. But it doesn't make what I said any less right.

And since I'm on my way out the door, and pissed off at the stupidity of it, I don't see a lot of reason not to express the point while I still can.

You really have no idea what a low assessment I have of the political community on project. "Screwed the pooch" hardly covers it. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up a Family Guy episode? That show is highly uncivil. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only seen that show a couple of times - enough to know the characters, and that it's not really my kind of humor. Was that a good episode? --Ludwigs2 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I only watch Futurama. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That one I like better; at least, it's less based on random absurdity. nothing like the early Simpsons, though… Groening lost inspiration over the years (or else passed the writing task off to people with less talent). --Ludwigs2 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about it guys? Accurate? ;) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's administrators has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth."? What kind of grammar is that? Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Arbcom simply came out and said that it keeps stating over and over again that it's okay if its treatises initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that unlike the usual, self-indulgent, garden-variety simpletons, Arbcom claims to be supportive of my plan to confront and reject all manifestations of vigilantism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll do everything possible to keep sullen dumbbells flighty and power-hungry. Not only that, but there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Arbcom announcing some obstreperous thing every few weeks. Manning (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) (Flo's right, that website is freakin' hilarious.)

PumpkinSky's personal attack at KW's RfC/U

Evidence on the case was closed some time ago, please do not add further
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:PumpkinSky's has admitted to being a sock puppet of resigned ArbCom member User:Rlevse or another alter-ego, and so Special:Contributions/PumpkinSky is indefinitely blocked.  User:PumpkinSky made the following personal attack at my RfC/U: "Producing good content in NO WAY gives one the right to be an arrogant jackass--this attitude is at the core of many of wiki's problems. PumpkinSky talk 1:56 am, 15 October 2011, Saturday (3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+2)" (emboldening added) In my RfC, I repeatedly requested that administrators, particularly WTT and an ArbCom member Elen of the Roads, stop personal attacks and incivility directed towards me. Their response (most clearly Elen's response) was that I regarded every criticism as a personal attack. Throughout the RfC, they failed to address a single incivility or personal attack directed at me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC) In the light of a new day, much similar hilarity is to be found throughout the Wikipedia. Except it's not very funny ... that there was so clearly an agenda there should have been picked up much earlier, but even as some of us were appealing for help, we never got it ... and I mean basically from the admin corp, not the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Elen remains perhaps my favorite Arb, and since I do sometimes behave like an arrogant jackass after which I have to forgive myself, I can do no less than forgive her. The point is that the culture at ANI and RfCs must change from that of a criminal trial to group work led by outstanding facilitators...! Forward looking,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Well, methinks this entire case resolves to the problem with the culture at ANI, where legitimate grievances are sometimes ignored, messengers are sometimes shot, and enforcement is unequal depending on who you are and who your friends are. Not an arb issue, but I'm still unsure how they can change the culture at ANI or RFA by accepting this case. I know had the Rlevse socking not come to light, we'd still be dealing with the disruption at FAC, and we got no help by bringing it to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Nor is it the only case that does so, by far. there was there was the case over discretionary sanctions (where I was blocked merely for reporting a favored editor), the ongoing Muhammad case (which is apparently going to be resolved by reinforcing the right to be mindlessly obnoxious so long as you're on the right side), a new case up for consideration in which admins actively close complaint threads because an editor has been cast as a T.M. supporter. Apparently, wikiculture has come around to the point where 'personal attack' is defined in reference to how much the editor is challenging the status quo. --Ludwigs2 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) "Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Malleus, just as an aside, I'm not really in your corner: there's a difference between being assertive and being foul-mouthed that you seem to miss, and that's unfortunate. However, I suspect you're getting administratively tarred and feathered much the way I am, so I have that much sympathy for you. That aside, you're right: civility has somehow stopped being about civility and become a mob tool for silencing people who disagree with the status quo. very sad. --Ludwigs2 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC) It never crossed my mind that you might be "in my corner", as I don't consider that I have a corner at all. What I have is a point of view that's misunderstood and misrepresented by certain elements of what's risibly misnamed "the community" here, and too often maliciously. Your implicit suggestion that I am "foul-mouthed" is but one example among many. If you want to introduce censorship of the words that are allowed to be used here then the correct thing to do is to start an RFC, not berate me for conforming to a policy with which you apparently do not agree. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Malleus, I don't believe I've ever called someone a c*nt in my life; you have. Not a huge evil in any realistic regard, but not pleasant behavior. own it to get past it. The real problem that you and I both face is that fact that Wikipedia indulges exaggeration and hysteria: The project coddles pissy little trolls who spend all their time trying to make small errors in judgement look like major flaws in character; it loves editors who rend their clothes and the gnash their teeth in excessive displays of angst (or at least, it gives them everything they want - whether that constitutes 'love' is an open question). I sympathize with your plight, because you are on the wrong of that stick, as am I. Accept that for what it is. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC) I certainly have called someone a cunt in my life, and no doubt will do so again to anyone who shows themselves to be a cunt. Whether it's "pleasant" or not isn't the issue, as it's not intended to be pleasant. I think of it more like a bit of ECT appropriate to those otherwise unable to escape from the constraints of their stupidity or dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC) I think such ECT discourages them from the thinking it would take to overcome their constraints. If they are stupid, I would explain more slowly and completely, as to a child. If they are dishonest, the same patient explanation technique often works at Wikipedia, where people's vanity often prevents them from appearing to be stupid. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Another example of administrative bullying and double standards with no concern for civility or personal attacks by administrators against plebes at RfCs Bishonen's talk page, where she repeats her accusation that I support the anti-immigrant party, Sweden Democrats. (Compare the civility police coming out in force, with Roux's partisan administrative bullying and georgewilliamherbet waiving his blocking billyclub when the administrator Bishonon was mentioned here.) " Good honest God fearin' folks and their corner for evil toxic critters all the other SD supporters roll in for a group hug, naturally. If you care for further colourful material on that particular complainer versus Bishonen, check out his talkpage — sorry, I mean the History of his talkpage — because only happy things get to stay on the front of the page. Here comes the relevant history—RexxS has taught me a wonderful trick for permanently linking to a particular part of a page history — how's that for useful? Great guy, isn't he?" On the same discussion, Bishonen complains about being labeled as "toxic personality" by Jimbo Wales. Monkey see, monkey do.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC) "L'enfer, c'est les Autres". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on progress for proposed decision

Thank you all for giving us some breathing space to try to get through all of the evidence and the mass of workshop proposals. Courcelles, Hersfold and I have been working hard on a proposed decision that addresses both the specific and broad-based issues, and we plan to have this posted within the week. Please continue to bear with the Committee on this; we will be closing one currently open case over this weekend, are doing our best to sort out some remedies on another, and are workshopping a third (very complex) case, which is likely to have its proposed decision posted next week as well. Rather than posting two decisions at once, and overloading the remainder of the Committee with two complex cases for voting, we are likely to stagger the two proposed decisions a few days apart. That doesn't mean one is more important than the other; whichever one is ready for voting first will be posted first. Risker (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather you than me! I'm so glad I don't want even to be an admin, even less an Arb! This must have been horrendous for y'all! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Pesky. That doesn't get acknowledged enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why they get the and all that "bling-bling".```Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I got a "Wikipedia" pencil and a "globe" button once when I went to a wiki-conference, does that count as "bling"? It's a scary thought if it is... Risker (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Coolness; I went to the National Archives meetup and we got National Archives chocolates, which if you've never heard of them, it's probably because of pre-marketing analysis. In other words, you didn't even get good-tasting chocolate with the calories.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what happens when the chocolate has been archived for too long without refrigeration. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The NA is mainly stuff well over a century old -- which means they had to use very stale chocolate? Collect (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Think of it as real-life linkrot.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

...probably leading to real-life gutrot ... ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

... or expanded operations ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Shall we raise a glass of rot-gut? Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got a Blue Peter badge, please may I have a Wikipedia hoodie? (Dark green, ideally ;P) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a really bizarre question: if the globe image is copyright, what would the Foundation do if somebody had it tattoo'd onto them? It could be a bit hard to insist on its removal ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rumor has it that's how some people got their jobs with WMF. Reminds me of this girl who had this band she liked autograph her, er, front with a Sharpie, and then went to the tattoo artist ... I hope her taste in music never changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Or that her... um front... never starts to sag.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This has actually gone to court in the case of Rasheed Wallace, who had a copyrighted image tattooed on his arm and was taken to court to prevent him from displaying the tattoo on TV. Sadly, it was settled out of court so there's no legal precedent in the US. 78.149.157.58 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a queue forming

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