Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Civility enforcement	none	none	16 October 2012

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Clarification request: Civility enforcement

Initiated by -— Isarra ༆ at 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Isarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
• Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [4]
• That guy

Statement by Isarra

One of the remedies of the Civility enforcement arbitration case was as follows:

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA.

While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely, there is concern about the spirit of this given a very simple workaround: instead of using the talkpage, he discusses matters directly on the RfA, regardless of how relevant they may or may not be to the consideration of the candidate. [5], [6], [7] [8] [9]

Now I have tried moving some such discussions to the talkpages in the past as I do not believe they belong on the RfAs themselves, but with ones in which Malleus Fatuorum is involved, this has been contested and reverted due to the fact that he is banned from said talkpages and thus would be unable to continue to participate in these discussions. [10] [11], [12] Given that holding irrelevant discussion on an RfA itself can be disruptive just by being there regardless of who is doing it, however, I have to ask - is this appropriate? As he is banned from discussion on the talkpages, should that not include a ban from similar discussion on the RfAs themselves?

As it is, I would put forward that the ban is currently doing more harm than good because it encourages off-topic discussion on RfAs, and as such either the ban should be lifted entirely so that the discussion can take place where it would make more sense and less interrupt the RfAs themselves, or the explanation should be extended to cover discussion on all parts of the RfA process so as to be effective. -— Isarra ༆ 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus Fatuorum, Jc37, both of you... please stop. You've made your points; let someone else sort it out, eh? -— Isarra ༆ 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Rschen7754: I didn't even realise he was involved. Added. -— Isarra ༆ 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I tend to agree that the ban is not effective. I see Malleus had to revert where someone had moved a discussion to the talk page, in order to not be guilty by someone else's doing. I actually agreed with that being moved to the talk page, and with Malleus reverting it since it violated the spirit of his ban. I ended up hatting it. From my observation, much of what is called "disruption" is just a tough question or valid points made by Malleus, and others dog pile on, in part because of this talk page ban. The ban is doing the exact opposite of what was intended. I will be the first to say Malleus can be pointed at times, but not nearly as much as others claim, who seem to just waiting for him to have an opinion so they can pounce. The best thing that we can do to help restore order is to lift the talk page ban and allow admin to simply use their judgement, like they would any other editor. If anything, we need to clerk the RfA page stronger, moving the threaded off-topic comments by anyone to the talk page, and this ban actually works against that. Drop the ban and help restore some order by re-leveling the playing field, and maybe we can start clerking the page a bit better as a bonus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• @Courcelles - If you say it is fine for people to move Malleus's comments to the talk page, but he can then no longer reply there or move them back, you have effectively created a new vector for abuse. And to be clear, his moving them back was not a violation, it was an attempt to comply. You can argue whether or not it was required, but his actions were clearly to remain within the letter of the ban. This is my whole point: This ban is causing more problems than it is solving. Remove the ban, let the admin do their jobs by treating everyone equally. This ban only muddies the waters and has led to admin not being willing to clerk the page due to the confusing nature of this disruptive ban. I can't stress this enough, I'm at every RfA, I see it every time. At this point, it isn't even about Malleus, it is about the larger issue of how an overly targeted ban is causing disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• @Worm I agree with your assessment that the time has come to modify the ban to remove the limitation on individual pages. Leaving other restrictions is a reasonable compromise. I disagree with Silktork and SirFozzie, who seem to (for whatever reason) misunderstand the reason this was brought here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

"While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely ..." Talk about damning with faint praise; entirely would be the correct word to use here. And let me just note that the discussion Isarra has taken such exception to was not started by me and took place in a section of the RfA called Discussion. Dennis is quite right; I'm not the problem with RfA, it's those who refuse to police the place, or even worse, close down all discussions they disapprove of. Either RfA is a simple vote or it's a discussion. You really can't have it both ways, by attempting to eliminate all unpopular points of view. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@jc37. I see. So this has now rather quickly deteriorated into yet another civility witch hunt. Will you people never give up? Or even begin to acknowledge the real incivility here? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@jc37. "... but to be fair, it's often because others' comments may be just as questionable" If you were really being fair you'd recognise that it's always because others' comments may be just as questionable, but of course fairness is too much to ask. And still you're banging that bloody civilty drum. For Christ's sake, give it a rest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@jc37. "I'm seriously wondering if you're attempting to hoist yourself by your own petard." The simple truth is that you're here to disrupt Isarra's perfectly reasonable request for clarification by turning it into yet another civility witch hunt. Now button it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Franamax. This just gets worse and worse: "It makes zero sense that for the sake of MF and their ban from disrupting RFA talk pages ..." In what sense am I banned from disrupting RfA talk pages any more than you are? Can you not read? Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles. You have no idea how stupid some administrators can be, and blocks are never expunged no matter how undeserved. Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@MONGO. WTT didn't have to do anything, there was no disruption, and banning you for a good long time might help to improve the smell around this place. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles. "The remedy is not that MF is not allowed to take part in WT:RFA discussions, it is he is not allowed to edit the pages, full stop." Oh I give up. Do what the fuck you like, I'm past caring what dishonest fuckers like you think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. You clearly once again come here with your usual "Burn the witch" lynch mob mentality. There was no disruption, and that's not what this request is about, as you ought to have realised if you'd taken the trouble to read it. But of course you didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. I thank you for your observation that I have not gone out of my way to disagree with you over your support of certain candidates with any any kind of agenda in mind other than I disagreed with your support of those candidates. But there's still some confusion evident in your statement; the discussion that prompted Isarra's request for clarification (which is what this supposed to be isn't it, not another witch hunt?) had absolutely nothing to do with the candidate, but about a comment made by one of the supporters, so could quite properly have been moved to the talk page were it not for this ridiculous topic ban. I realise that ArbCom had to be seen to do something about the awful Malleus Fatuorum, and that was something, but it was ill-considered and ill-conceived. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. Wikipedia is a heaving swell of vendettas. Upset someone and they lie in wait for their chance to have their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes. How else would you explain the number of watchers that this page has?[13] And you can see quite a few examples on this very page if you care to look. How long did it take for a simple clarification request to become yet another ban Malleus fuckfest? RfA is bad, but the truth is that ArbCom pages are way worse. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold. I really fail to see why this is so hard for you and several of your colleagues to understand, so let me try writing this slowly for you. There was no disruption in the RfA that triggered this request for clarification from Isarra. And in fact the discussion that was moved specifically took place in the section called Discussion. Have you actually looked at the RfA in question? No? I thought not. Much more fun to pontificate based on you own self-evident prejudices. And I note your disreputable implication that I may have guilty of the behaviour you describe, which says a lot more about you than it does about me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the phrase "dishonest twat", but where in the RfA that prompted this request for clarification does anyone use that phrase? As you still clearly haven't bothered to read the discussion that took place at the RfA here's a link for you.[14] And your comments about collaboration are quite simply risible, once again displaying your own vindictive prejudices. Just compare your own contributions with mine to see who understands collaboration, because it sure as Hell ain't you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. This is a dishonest and hypocritical kangaroo court, and if that truth offends you then so be it. A simple request for clarification turns into a firestorm of abuse, unchecked by either arbitrators or the conspicuously absent clerks. I hope you feel proud of yourself. Point, if you can, to any "disruption" at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. It was you arbitrators caused this ridiculous firestorm in a teacup with your ill-considered topic ban, not me. If you would take the trouble to check your facts you would see that this is a request about moving discussions to and from an RfA's talk page, nothing else. And I suggest that you refresh your memory about the reason for the topic ban, which was nothing to do with disrupting individual RfAs. BTW. your threats and hostile posturing don't impress me one little bit; I suggest you save them for more impressionable editors who give a damn what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. You completely misjudge me if you really believe that I wouldn't call you a "dishonest fucker" to your face, if I thought you were. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved statement by jc37

Because RfA is a hybrid between consensus and voting (as a page where extra tools or responsibilities are requested by an individual), there is a mild ongoing tug-of-war of sorts between those who want the page to solely be a "vote" with minimal commentary, and those who note that it is a discussion page like any other Wikipedia discussion page.

The current loose consensus is that discussion is allowed, but only as long as it stays civil (with NPA), and stays on the topic of the request and the contributions of the requester. General discussions about RfA, or anything else off-topic are generally moved to the talk page.

As for Malleus, in my experience, for the most part his comments have appeared to have been on topic, but I think his "civility" could be subjectively argued at times. I'll leave that to others to determine. - jc37 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time remembering the last time (if ever) I've interacted with you malleus, so not sure what "witch hunt" I'm supposed to be a part of. I also noted that I would leave it to others to determine concerning your "civility".

For the most part, I would be willing to chalk much of your comments up to your "forthrightness", but there have been times that I've seen your comments and cringed at the seeming harshness. So defining "civility" in this case could be considered subjective. I personally tend to align with WP:EQ. and that we should have open, collegiate discussion on Wikipedia. (I favour politeness, but accept that it's not always possible, or even always advisable.) At times, I'm not sure I would define your comments anywhere near "collegiate", but to be fair, it's often because others' comments may be just as questionable. So anyway, like I said, I think I'll leave that to others to discern. There's enough other things I can help with on Wikipedia. - jc37 02:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading my comments, and reading your responses. Somehow I'm not seeing the need for such responses malleus, so in at least this one instance, always would not seem to apply.

I have no feeling of "witch hunt" or "drum beating" towards you malleus. I'm merely expressing my experience.

Though at this stage, I'm seriously wondering if you're attempting to hoist yourself by your own petard... - jc37 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple truth is that you're here to disrupt Isarra's perfectly reasonable request for clarification by turning it into yet another civility witch hunt. - (re-reads my initial comments) No, if you'll re-read you'll see I was commenting about the current state of RfA. I honestly was originally attempting to stay non-committal about the civility of your comments.

Incidentally, I'm wondering how telling someone to "button it" on a discussion page is considered open, collegiate, or civil?

Hence why I'm wondering if you're doing this to yourself intentionally. I did nothing untowards toward you, and you jumped down my throat with both feet. - jc37 03:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax

ArbCom could help by clarifying that off-topic discussion in RFAs should be moved to RFA talk pages per normal procedure without consideration for whether or not Malleus Fatuorum (or any other topic-restricted editor) was involved in the discussion. These sub-threads are moved to talk to prevent disruption to the actual RFA. It makes zero sense that for the sake of MF and their ban from disrupting RFA talk pages we should instead permit continued disruption of the RFA pages instead. Moving off-topic discussion to talk is in no way a gambit to stifle MF, it's to preserve the purpose of the RFA. The latest case where Isarra tried to move completely unrelated discussion off the RFA page only emphasizes this. And contrary to Dennis Brown's assertion, Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves. Franamax (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

Admin The Worm That Turned had to ban Malleus from the latest Rfa for disruption. It's nice to see some admins still have a clue. I suggest Malleus be site banned for not less than 30 days, and any of the usual cadre of aiding and abetting admins that might excessively protest such a ban be emergency desysopped. Think my suggestion is extreme? Do nothing now and that will be where this charade ends anyway, more or less.MONGO 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus...what shall we do? Are you suggesting this pattern continue forever? Why isn't it reasonable to ask you to make your vote! with whatever reasoning you're entitled to and then walk away? What purpose is served by you posting twice as many comments to an Rfa as the candidate does? I think WTT explained the reasoning for their enforcement of a prior arbcom remedy against you with clarity.MONGO 04:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators...my understanding was that Malleus is banned from the Rfa project pages, not from individual Rfa's or the associated talkpage of individual Rfa's. Moving unrelated commentary from the Rfa page to its talkpage shouldn't eliminate Malleus from participating in further discussion about that Rfa. Correct me if I'm mistaken...Malleus is only banned from the Rfa project/policy page and associated talkpage...right?MONGO 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles...okay, thanks. Whatever...that doesn't make sense. I could see either banning him from the project pages or from everything related to Rfa...but the remedy imposed has proven to be more problematic than no remedy at all. I have a lot of respect for arbcom and I know all of you put a lot of time into your decisions, but this remedy is a misfire.MONGO 05:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Ed17...yes, I am serious. It is ever amusing to continue to see others act like this is a singular incident, when it surely isn't. What, we're at 1-2 or more AN/I or other noticeboards a week complaints about Malleus, repeat examples of Malleus disrupting Rfa's, repeat examples of administrators wikilawyering about how Malleus was provoked, or that the complaint is without merit or that Malleus wasn't uncivil...on and on...yes, serious, but I am pragmatic. The powers that be continue to do nothing, so by doing nothing, the status quo remains the same, and we can be ensured of further excesses.MONGO 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Is there some reason why Worm that Turned isn't listed as a party on here? --Rschen7754 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

Morning all. I absolutely agree that the current remedy on Malleus Fatuorum is not fit for purpose. I said as much back in July, before the whole thing degraded into a civility fight. I'm afraid I expect this request to do exactly the same. In any case, I fully support Malleus Fatuorum's topic ban being reduced to just WT:RFA, and not talk pages of RfAs. He's completely adhered to that topic ban and I believe this should be recognised. The only change in my statement is that now I believe an admin has invoked a discretionary sanction - I did. I would prefer to see discretionary sanctions available on all editors at RfA, but I don't see that happening without a case on the RfA process, if that's even possible.

I see above that there has been some discussion of the discretionary sanction I invoked. I would like to make it clear that I did it to nip any disruption in the bud, not to stop past disruption. Malleus' comments were, in my opinion, only verging on disruption though the volume appeared excessive. Despite a little grumbling, Malleus confirmed that he didn't intend to edit the RfA further anyway, and the candidate withdrew soon after at my suggestion. Indeed, in adding me to this request, Isarra pointed out she hadn't even noticed I'd done it. In other words, a good outcome, Malleus could not do something he didn't intend to do anyway and the world didn't end. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Malleus is not "banned from editting the pages", he's topic banned. If someone moves his comments to that page, it could also be seen as a violation of the topic ban. Malleus did the right thing by removing that violation. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Denunciation of hypocrisy: A statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

This is a disgusting case of one-sided hypocrisy. This RfA saw an administrator attack Malleus as suffering from paranoia, yet none of you did anything in protest.

(Worm That Turned did make good comments at ANI.)

MONGO, in particular, you did nothing. Yet here you are again, continuing to hound Malleus.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is time for ArbCom to admit that its decision was based on an everyday meaning of "disruptive", as in a "phone call disrupted my dinner", rather than in the meaning of WP:Disruptive Editing. You should nullify the parts of your decision that were improperly based on your whims, rather than on your authority as implementers of WP policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus, just ignore JC37 and Hersfold, like the rest of us do. Nobody cares about Hersfold's opinions about who has a place on this project, and arbitrators with sense will continue to stop those without sense from implementing their punishment fantasies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions from The ed17

Okay, I'll bite.

@Courcelles: are we really going to call this undo (read: no content added) a "crystal clear violation of the remedy" when MF obviously did it to ensure he wouldn't be in violation of said remedy?

@Mongo: ... really? Ban Malleus for some borderline comments, and then emergency desysop any admin who disagrees with the ban? That's utterly ridiculous and serves only as fodder for others to ask what your intentions are. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

Focus on content only folks!! The readers of wikipedia couldn't give a monkey's right testicle about this and any act wiki legal act. Get writing instead, nobody cares! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron

Claiming that Malleus's revert of the RFA thread move was a violation of his talk page ban demonstrates all the policy-wonkery and determined "rules are more important" approach that gives this place a bad name. Above all, for as long as Admin remains a job for life and is a highly prized position by some editors, it is essential that honest opinions can be honestly expressed. That is what Malleus offers and his ban should be lifted. Leaky Caldron 11:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

I haven't looked at MF's latest comments or even bothered to read in detail the basis for Arbcom's page ban; I frankly am uninterested in either. However, I am intimately interested in the functioning of RFA and those things that affect the process. MF's current page ban is faulty for reasons already enumerated above. It's well known that threaded discussions from WP:RFA/* are moved to WT:RFA/*. Also, the goal of the ban was to stop there from being controversy regarding MF's editing. That this request was filed and the referenced threads occurred, the page ban is also faulty. That isn't to say any page ban was necessarily the best option, merely that this formulation of a page ban is particularly defective. Alternatives Arbcom could have, and should now, consider are:

1. Removing the page ban and ability of admins to ban MF;
2. Banning MF from editing any page in WP:RFA/WT:RFA;
3. Restricting MF from making any edit to WP:RFA/WT:RFA besides a single, bolded word;
4. Removing the specific sanctions on MF and replacing them with general discretionary sanctions on RFA.

That the situation in RFA has devolved to the point where general discretionary sanctions are a valid alternative has many causes that cannot be blamed on MF. As LC notes above, RFA is an unusual venue on the project in that consensus cannot change once an RFA is closed. For this reason, historically commenters have been given a wide latitude under the theory that it is better to permit all conceivable material when making an irreversible decision than to preclude any piece of information that could end up being determinative. However, as is well documented in other forums to the extent that reference is unnecessary, RFA is viewed as a particularly unpleasant process for the subject and is also an unhappy place for the commenters. I was reading a different RFA thread earlier today involving users who have been editing since 2003, 2006, and 2007 where the discussion had turned so unpleasant that I was prepared to block them, but for the fact they stopped bickering yesterday.

Part of this can be blamed on the crats, including myself. While the RFA procedures state that crats will separate the wheat from the chaff at closing, we have generally avoided performing substantive analysis on the comments in favor of a procedural analysis. For example, in a recent RFA, I see several opposes praising the user for their editing, but stating it is of an insufficient length and urging them to return in some period of time. A comment that states a person has shown good judgment and has no undesirable qualities is a support or at least a neutral, not an oppose. That it is in the oppose section is problematic and were I to perform a substantive analysis of each comment, it would be found wanting. On the other hand, I frequently see support comments without explanation or that are done to spite the opposition; these are also without merit.

Beyond the enumerated role of the crats, there is a broader sense of crats as having special authority in the RFA domain (reflected poorly in the preamble to the crat policy). As stated above, we have generally exercised a light touch in the use of that authority and preferred to shift the bulk of our action to the closure process. This results in problems, such as those that triggered this clarification request. Were we to recognize that the unpleasantness of RFA is from the process itself and not the result, we should take a more active role to nip/hat discussions earlier, block more readily, and strike faulty comments/!votes quicker. Lacking the crat staff/will to do this, discretionary sanctions enforced by administrators could serve as a supplementary aid. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Arsten

The problem here isn't Malleus, it's Rfa itself. I encourage everyone involved to work toward a consensus about how to reform Rfa in general instead of focusing on individual editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Many times over the past few months, Malleus Fatuorum has severely criticized my !voting on RfAs. He does so both in individual RfAs and in discussing the overall process. It seems I have become his canonical example of someone who supposedly gives ill-informed support to unqualified candidates. (As it happens, I cast a lot more RfA supports than opposes, partly because most RfAs that I would oppose are already failing and I skip unnecessary pile-on opposes.) I think it's best that as an arbitrator, I recuse on this request.

(Editors may not deliberately force arbitrator recusals by making lots of loud, hostile comments about an arbitrator and then suggesting that such comments must induce bias. If I believed that Malleus had tried to bait me into recusing on a future arbitration request, for that very reason I would not do so. But I know Malleus was not remotely thinking along those lines; I've added this paragraph simply so that my comments here won't be quoted out of context and set a bad precedent.)

My thoughts about Malleus Fatuorum are well-known by now. He writes good content, and he is helpful and friendly and collaborative when he wants to be. But he also has a notorious habit of making shrill and hostile comments toward editors he disagrees with. I believe most people would prefer if he would express his views much more temperately. I am confident that given his undoubted rhetorical skills he would have no trouble doing this if he chose to. (See also my comments on the current RfC/Civility.)

I don't have an opinion on whether or how the current restriction on Malleus should be changed. I can say that I was involved in at least one instance when it became problematic. I had supported an RfA, and Malleus disagreed with me, and we got into a dialog that grew somewhat off-topic. I suggested that we should take it to the talkpage. Malleus replied with frustration to the effect that "you know perfectly well that I'm not allowed on the talkpage." I had forgotten that; it was an awkward moment.

The best solution here is really not to have a lengthy of discussion of whether and how Malleus's restriction should be expanded or tweaked or modified. It is for Malleus to eliminate the need for this debate, and the need for any continued restriction on his participation, by expressing his opinions about the candidates, whatever they may be, in a much less shrill, less hostile, and less argumentative fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• (To Malleus Fatuorum:) I take your point, but it's also true that in some instances, the types of back-and-forth RfA discussion we are talking about have been extended and turned sideways by the way you say things. In that regard, why do you think it is that you, alone of all the people who comment on RfAs (above the "RfA troll" level; you're certainly not that) have been the subject of this much criticism and this unique remedy. Although you set a higher bar for candidates than many of us, you are hardly the only oppose vote in most RfAs; frequently your oppose lines up with dozens of others, and you are not the only one who doesn't channel Caspar Milquetoast in opposing. Do you think the fact that there is concern about your RfA participate in particular is just arbitrary, or is there something untoward going on that I honestly don't know about—or might part of the issue rest with yourself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Even in his comments here, MF can't help but violate the Fourth Pillar:

“ ...banning you for a good long time might help to improve the smell around this place. ”

[15]

“ Do what the fuck you like, I'm past caring what dishonest fuckers like you think. ”

[16]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

The simplest solution is to lift the talk page ban on Malleus. Not only is the current ban ineffective, I don't see his comments as particularly problematic. On the contrary, he often asks questions that are pertinent and worth asking and which no one else appears to ask. Pointing out the vacuous nature of a comment, challenging a support !vote to explain itself better, these are all useful things. Granted he could phrase himself better ("dishonest twit" is not exactly a relationship building comment) but these comments are made on Wikispace where, hopefully, editors are more experienced and are, or should be anyway, less likely to run away just because someone was mean to them. Barring examples of rude or crude remarks on article space, I think we should recognize that the occasional editor who pushes the limits on Wikispace is an asset to the project because he or she forces us to think a bit more and to be just that extra careful about what we say or how we !vote. When that editor also happens to be a prodigious content builder, we should count our blessings and move on. No sense in cutting our collective noses to spite our own face. --regentspark (comment) 02:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Okay, awaiting more statements, but, I've got to say that Franamax has one thing absolutely right, so I'll quote that; "Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves." Someone's post can't be moved to a page they're banned from, and then blocked for violation of a topic ban, that would be a huge miscarriage of justice. Courcelles 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Though this looks like a crystal clear violation of the remedy... (The remedy is not that MF is not allowed to take part in WT:RFA discussions, it is he is not allowed to edit the pages, full stop.) Courcelles 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • @MF What in the world does that have to do with your violation of the topic ban? Especially since the record shows you were not blocked for the infraction? Courcelles 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Mongo, you are mistaken. The remedy says "indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.", this includes both the main WT:RFA page, and the talk page of all individual RFA's, and any other pages that might exist with their names starting with that string. Courcelles 05:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Courcelles is correct, there is no violation if someone else moves the posts. Of course, such movement doesn't enable subsequent replies from Malleus, so it would be effectively ending his participation in the discussion. Which begs the question... if it was a "discussion" suitable for the talk page anyways, why should it ever be moved back to the main RfA page solely to enable Malleus' participation? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• My first thought is as follows: The topic ban was placed on MF to minimize the disruption caused at RfA. As this request shows, the method we used has not removed the disruption. It is time to consider a harsher method to make sure the disruption stops. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Malleus, you have two options. A) Cease the personal attacks or B) Face the consequences (up to and including blocks/bans). I cannot say it plainer, you have been given more rope then just about any user I can remember during my time on Wikipedia. You will abide by policies against such attacks, or you will face sanctions for violating those policies. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @MF, I would say your continued presence causing these issues is inherently disruptive. Your method of collaborating with other users, as proven in this request and elsewhere, is inherently disruptive. You have been given more then enough leeway with your opinions on RfA and its processes, and working with other editors, and you've used all of it up. SirFozzie (talk)
    • @MF: This is where I disagree with you. YOU are the cause of your problems, this "Firestorm in a teacup". You have been unduly confrontational, and have stooped to attacks unworthy of someone of your ability. You are and have been disruptive in this (and other) areas. The fact that you see nothing wrong with calling other people dishonest fuckers, dishonest twats, etcetera is mind boggling. You wouldn't act that way to people's faces without people confronting you on your behavior, so why do you think that you could get away with it here? SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am concerned that MF is being brought before us again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Also concerned that Malleus's name is coming up yet again, but I don't think a clarification request is the proper platform to do anything other than address the specific issue being raised. It sounds as though that could be achieved simply by banning Malleus from RFA entirely. I reject the notion that copying Malleus's - or any topic-banned editor's - posts to a page they are banned from participating in directly is appropriate, however. Firstly, it creates a loophole in the topic ban. All User:TopicBanned has to do is find User:WillingAccomplice who will transfer posts from any page over to the topic-banned page, and the restriction is rendered superfluous. Secondly, if the discussion belongs on a page where User:TopicBanned is prohibited from editing, that probably means that User:TopicBanned has no business contributing in the first place. If the discussion gets moved because it was started in the wrong place, the same still applies. Thirdly, it prevents User:TopicBanned from disengaging from the area they were previously problematic in, which I thought was the whole point of these restrictions in the first place. If copying a post in this manner were to occur, then no, User:TopicBanned cannot be faulted (unless they directly requested the copying, which is a different matter), but whoever copied the post should be subject to blocking for what amounts to aiding and abetting. The only legitimate exception I can think of is the practice of copying an appeal of some sanction (and replies to comments to the same) to the appropriate noticeboard for community comment and review. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @RegentsPark: I can think of no circumstance on Wikipedia where calling someone a "dishonest twat" would be an appropriate comment and not deserving of a block. "Dishonest twit" isn't much better, but Malleus said the former. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Malleus: Insulting other editors is inherently disruptive, and I have no other way to describe your "dishonest twat" comment. The other diffs cited are rather similar. If you believe that insulting people is not disruptive, then I do not believe that you have a place on a collaborative project. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• I recognize there's a issue that good faith editors could move comments to a Request for Adminship talk page, and by doing so, infringe the topic ban. Similar to SirFozzie, I think we should consider modifying the remedy to prevent this issue, while still allowing Malleus to take part in the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)