For decades, highly reliable sources such as Time Inc.'s People magazine and the Encyclopedia Britannica have given actress Demi Moore's birth name as Demetria. In 2009, she tweeted that her birth name was simply Demi. As you can see, an extraordinary amount of discussion by numerous editors has resulted, with no formal consensus reached. For some time now, the wording was to state Demi in the opening and to note that while Moore disputed it, several sources (with high-RS cites footnoted) have given her birth name as Demetria.

Two editors who variously misstate WP:BLP (see below) and use profanity, insults and name-calling to bully others have begun removing the decades-long reference Demetria. My feeling is that it is a non-controversial fact to state that major newspapers, magazines and an encyclopedia report this. ("Demi Moore Demetria" brings up over 100,000 Google hits, and 275 Google Books hits.)

One editor says that WP:BLP says, "We don't contradict a living subject." It doesn't. It says self-published material, including tweets, "may be used as a source" [emphasis mine] if it meets five standards. The policy also says, "Exercise caution in using primary sources," and confirms that "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That in fact defines "Demetria", which is "attributed to [several] reliable, published source[s] using an inline citation." Citing WP:BLP to remove this material is simply false.

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. It seems absolutely verifiable that this dispute over her birth name does, indeed, factually exist in Time Inc. publications, Encyclopedia Britannica and other high-RS publication. Ignoring this is burying our head in the sand.

Just as importantly, however, I have been subjected to horrible verbal abuse by User:AndyTheGrump. In an edit with summary calling me "moronic", he tells me to "fuck off," only redacting it after another editor, rightly, intervened. In that same edit he calls me "infantile." On the Noticeboard, he calls User:Stuart.Jamieson's perfectly calm, rational points "rubbish" simply because he disagrees, and says others who disagree with him need to "get a life."

Pretending that highly reliable-source reporting for decades simply doesn't exist is wrong, I believe. And no one in an Wikipedia editorial discussion needs to be verbally abused, subjected to childish name-calling and bullied into submission. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Yworo: I said "variously"; I didn't say "both". Also, constructive criticism of another editor's work is not a personal attack; I never told anyone to "fuck off" or called him "moronic." Additionally, the thousands and thousands of words expended in five linked discussions above were not formally called as an RfC, but they are substantively no different. In response to User:AndyTheGrump's defense: He told me to "fuck off" because he didn't like my analogy? That's not acceptable. I was referring to erasure of the historical record; is there a more common or well-known example of this one could use? Finally, we cannot call reliable sources invalid; one can't say that Time Inc.'s (People) resources, fact-checking and editorial layers aren't valid here, but valid elsewhere where one agrees with its reportage. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dweller. I would be absolutely happy to take you up on your generous offer. It's a confounding issue, and I much admire your courage and optimism in volunteering to mediate. I hope the others in this case feel that mediation is as appropriate as I do. In fact User:Stuart.Jamieson has made some good middle-ground suggestions today at Talk:Demi Moore which may go a long way to helping resolve the issue. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Dweller; I'll add this to your talk page as well. I think we can see by the fact that I'm willing to have mediation and discuss things like a grownup, while the others continue to snipe at me with, honest to God, "liar, liar, pants on fire" in an edit summary like they're six years old, that they're not interested. What do you recommend? An RfC? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Firstly, my apologies over the bad language - though I would point out that this was a response to a facile comparison between Wikipedia and Stalinist Russia.

As for the rest, this is a content dispute, and as such, outside the remit of ARBCOM etc as I understand it. If evidence to the contrary is offered, I will of course respond further, but otherwise, I consider this issue closed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yworo

I wasn't going to respond, but I must register an objection to the statement above by Tenebrae:

"Two editors who variously misstate WP:BLP (see below) and use profanity, insults and name-calling to bully others..."

That's a clear personal attack as I've done no such thing.

To echo Andy, Tenebrae has not followed any of the standard dispute resolution processes and has not even bothered to really engage himself in the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Demi Moore' birth name.

In fact, the only comment he made in that discussion was primarily a personal attack against User:Youreallycan.

This is a clear abuse of process by someone who has not bothered to join an ongoing discussion about the issue at the appropriate place, WP:BLPN. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Baseball Bugs

The problem with this issue is that the so-called "reliable sources" have no way to know for sure what her birth name is, because birth records from New Mexico are not publicly available. So her statement on the matter is the only reliable source we have. Unless someone can find a source where she directly contradicts herself, her recent comment is the only source that can be considered valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: That makes you half-involved or "demi-involved". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dweller

If ArbCom decline the case and all parties are happy to accept, I'd be happy to take on mediating this case. I have some experience in informal mediation onwiki, am a content editor and have a particular interest in BLPs. While I am also rather keen on WP:CIVIL, I'm not interested in investigating individuals' bad behaviour, but I am interested in resolving the content dispute. The way I read the case presented, it seems that's what is most desired by the initiating party, anyway. Full disclosure: I don't know or care much about Demi Moore, which I think adds to my neutrality on the subject. I do care about Demi Moore, however, as I do all BLPs. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae - I won't be making any recommendations unless and until both conditions I laid out above come to fruition. It looks as if Arbcom will decline the case, at which point I'll wait to see if the other named parties wish to accept my offer. --Dweller (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

While I understand the frustration, and do not think it's aever a good idea to tell other editors such things as said in Tenebrae's statement I don't see that an RfC has been tried yet. I'm leaning towards declining for other steps in the DR ladder to be tried, but waiting for more statements. SirFozzie (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the statements, I feel comfortable now in voting decline SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see exactly one additional effort to involve a broader audience in this dispute, so I fear this is premature. I'm going to prefer to decline this one, with advice to seek an RfC for broader community input on the policy issues involved in using RS about a BLP vs. the BLP subject's own statement, after which time an ArbCom case may be appropriate if the community intervention is unable to resolve the issue. (And for everyone to be nice to each other, even when frustrated, which we should be able to go without saying, but apparently cannot) Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
decline - can try RfC and/or accept Dweller's offer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - the debate over what Momma Moore called her lil girl is for any number of fora but not this one, and the overly aggressive behaviour of several parties can be dealt with by everyone just taking a chill pill. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incoming arb - don't count this as a vote. It looks as though this hasn't been through very many steps in dispute resolution, so even without Dweller's offer, this looks like it could be easily handled at a lower level. I'd encourage parties to take up Dweller's offer, since it is here. This also looks to be primarily a content dispute; while there are some conduct issues, they don't appear to be the focus of the statements here. Had I a vote, I'd decline this as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; this matter is not ripe for arbitration; several other venues are available and are likely to give a good result. — Coren ^(talk) 01:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the parties to accept Dweller's kind offer, and to approach mediation with a genuine receptiveness to compromise. AGK [•] 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

Initiated by Alexandria (chew out) at 14:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Alexandria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Alexandria

Alright, I think this has gone on way too long to not end up here. Malleus Fatuorum has a long history of incivility, nastiness, and other sorts of undesirable behavior, leading to an extensive block (and unblock) log. Because of his comments on WT:RFA, Thumperward blocked him indef due to this history. After a brief ANI discussion, John proceeded to unblock Malleus. After more discussion on ANI, Hawkeye7 then reblocked Malleus for a week. I am willing to unblock Malleus for discussion here only unless clear consensus arises to have him unblocked fully before the week is up. I'm requesting this case to look at A. Malleus's behavior and B. the wheel warring that occurred. I'm not aware of any RFCs at the moment but the long extensive history of this to me warrants a full ArbCom case.

Reply to Peter Cohen

Peter, I clearly stated here and on his talk I am willing to unblock for the purpose of replying here only unless there is clear consensus for a general unblock.

Add on by Alexandria

Per Wikipedia:RFAR/G#Exceptions, I urge arbcom to take this case as part of the 2nd bullet point, or "Unusually divisive disputes among administrators". Malleus is the major concern here as the other admins would not be wheel warring over his behavior if it wasn't so divisive among them. A RFC/U would accomplish very little as they are non-binding. Malleus has been told many times to tone it down, only to be met with more hostility. I don't see what a RFC/U would accomplish other than a light tap on the wrists and someone going "tone it down buddy".

Comment by Scott MacDonald

Hey, ho. Those with wiki-memories as long as mine will groan at this. This is the perennial civility blocks on committed users quagmire - I trust arbcom have the collective memory enough to remember this timesink from old Giano cases etc.

Given cultural and temperamental differences, civility cannot be objectively codified
Civility blocks will thus always be contentious - and when used on long-standing users, there will always be a friendly admin willing to unblock
The difficulty of the subject allows a few users (who should know better) to be deliberately rude with impunity (gaming the fault in the system)
Given this, civility blocks on long-standing users almost always cause more drama than what they are trying to prevent
However, a ban on civility blocks on long-standing users will be seen by most as a green-flag to rudeness, and to render WP:CIVIL impotent

Strongly advise arbcom NOT to take this case: not because there's not a underlying disruptive issue - but because there is no solution.

@AGK, soryy but your response is classic arbcom trivialising at its worst (and exactly the reason I opposed your election). On technicalities you ignore the structural issues, you ignore the long-term user conduct/civility issues which have led to this pathetic drama, and pick up on the one frustrated admin who flicked a switch. Look, if you have uncivil vested contributors, and no way to make a block stick, admins in frustration are always going to get frustrated and flick switches - if it wasn't Hawkeye it would have been someone else. Now, don't be obtuse - either reject the case, or pick up on the real issues underlying - not the wikilawering technical stuff. Get some backbone, or keep the hell away. Learn the lesson of the Giano cases - if you delay dealing with what obvious it just keeps coming back. Now, deal with it - or make it clear you won't ever deal with it. But not weeks of a case about one decision by one admin - because in two months some other frustrated admin is only going to do exactly the same thing to Malleus.--Scott Mac 02:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK - OK, I understand that. I guess what I'm saying is this. The community cannot deal with this - it never has dealt with longterm users and civility blocks. Now, I am not necessarily advocating you accept this case - but if you do it will be a timesink and cause lots of sideshow drama. If you are going to allow that - you'd better be ready do deal with the big issues head on - or it simply isn't worth the time for you or the community and will just cause mass frustration. Now, stop and ask what outcomes you could see here (I'm not advocating any in particular). But, if all you're going to do is slap an admin for a block, then do it by motion, or e-mail him and caution him, and don't put us through what will be an unpleasant case. Too often cases are taken and it quickly becomes clear nothing will really be found to help. If that's the likely outcome, don't take the case. I will think no less of you.--Scott Mac 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

This case should be titled Hawkeye7. Hawkeye7 wheelwared reinstating a block that had been undone per ANI consensus. Hawkeye7 claimed ANI consunsus to reblock when clearly none existed. This personal attack[5] by the blocker refering to the blockee demonstrates the malicious abusiveness of this block. Action is needed regarding the clear issues of abusive use of tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Toa Nidhiki05

There's a difference between a verbal altercation between users and abusing Admin Tools. If Hawkeye had made that statement with no connection to using the block button it would have been of no concern. When you combine that behavior with using the block button that's when it becomes intolerable.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

As I mentioned before, Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) wheel-warred against community consensus. As can be seen on the version of WP:ANI at the time of the weeklong block (7:17 GMT 22 Dec. 2011), consensus was strongly in favor of removing the original indefblock. Granted, Malleus's blatant personal attack was unacceptable, but given the inappropriate blocks it is understandable. (This is the reason for WP:COOLDOWN—they simply don't work.) Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

The wheel-warring also means that Malleus can't respond to this request. Now, what was that phrase that Malleus used to describe some admins?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Optimist on the run

N.B. I drafted the comment below to add to ANI while my computer was offline - when it came back the disccusion had been closed and moved here. I therefore paste my comment verbatim below.

I do not recall having any dealings with Malleus in the past, until I came across this edit yesterday, in reponse to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question. Now as we all know, most actions, both by admins and ordinary users, can be reverted without problems. The one thing that can't be undone is to drive good editors away from the project. Unless Malleus knows User:Kaldari] well, and knew that his comment wouldn't cause offense, there is a good risk that such an edit would do this. My first reaction on seeing this was to revert it and leave a template on what I assumed was a new user. I was surprised to find out that Malleus was a regular, so I left a stern rebuttal below the comment instead.

I see Malleus has had many blocks, most of which have been shortened before running to full time. In my opinion, Malleus is therefore not learning from this that such behaviour is not acceptable. My proposal is that he is given a final warning that any future outburst, whether warranted or not, will be met with an indefinite block (remembering that indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite). Malleus may make good contributions, but if he drives away other good editors, then he is making a net loss to the project. An optimist on the run! 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

It should be noted that there are probably people who would have supported the block and chose to say nothing on the grounds that they knew it would do no good, because someone would come along and undo the block regardless of what they said, because hey, it's Malleus, that's just how he is, and besides, OMGWTFCONTENTCONTRIBUTOR!!!!11!!!!!!! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Protonk's statement: Bingo, right on, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is not a single occurrence of Malleus insulting other editors -- it's the latest in a long string of insults. Is Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner one of the pillars or not? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Catfish Jim and the soapdish

This is disproportionate and counter-productive. I have had no direct dealings with Malleus, but cannot fail to recognise the vast body of work he has contributed to Wikipedia. 37 FAs, 20 GAs, 12 DYKs and 96 article creations, and we want to block him from editing for voicing his dislike of admins? Are we really that precious? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hawkeye7

I find Hawkeye7's explanation of his description of MF as a "Koala", an animal that is popularly reputed to be intoxicated at all times, somewhat odd... disingenuous even. Think of an troubled animal that is prone to outbursts... does the koala really come to mind? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

Scott MacDonald is spot on: Arbcom has historically been unwilling to take the necessary actions to handle chronically incivil editors. Unless the current group of arbitrators is more willing to do so, not much will be accomplished by a new case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I may have interacted with Malleus before, and I know I've interacted with other parties before. I implore the committee to take the case so that (short of a Jimbo Pronouncement) the question of Vested Contributors being able to violate pillars/rules/policies/guidelines because of their "content creation" is settled. If vested editors are given leniency for something that would be full stop Indeff-able for another editor, then we no longer work as a community of equals, but rather as a class system that favors those who have power Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~Response to Nobody Ent's "Community must do the work"~~

As evidenced by the vitriol (suggestions for resigning the sysop bit, demands for recall, demands for emergency de-sysoping, questioning the fitness of blocking admins) in the thread that precipitated this, a group of editors are of like mind to Malleus. Any time a conversation gets started about how to attempt to solve this (from my point of view) a lot of hand waving occurs and cries of "Content Creator" drown out the conversation or the consensus is reversed shortly after being implemented. It feels as though the community has attempted to resolve this and failed. Therefore it is being delivered back to ArbCom to take responsibility for the situation. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I strike my previous statements as this has snowballed from a specific complaint to a "No Holds Barred" brawl over Malleus/Administrators/WP:CIVIL/Wheel-warring/content-creators/and languages. I'm ashamed that we've created over 100k of wikitext in under 24 hours. Effort that could (and should) have been spent improving the wiki. Instead we've deployed effort and emotional involvement on what initially was a mildly incivil remark that is now calling for seating of the next Arb-Com to hear this case, desysopping of administrators, and driving editors away from the project entirely. Hasteur (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bali

I urge the committee to immediately ban all editors focused on quality content creation and improvement and to leave the field to the ethnonationalists, button pushing vandal fighters, and the admins more interested in playing bureaucratic games than fixing the appalling quality of this website's content. Those people apparently say "cunt" less often. So, you know, do this for the good of the project.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Hawkeye is a fucking liar, as proven by his comments on this page (the "stewed koala" lie is of such complete transparency that he also displays a fundamental contempt for the intelligence of his audience). If you really want to deal with incivility lying (on an encyclopedia project, no less) is orders of magnitude a bigger problem than using the word "cunt." And it's tolerated (practically encouraged) every day, across the website. Which leads some people that care about quality and honesty to use words like cunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

There are two separate issues to consider:

What are the standards for civility on Wikipedia?
What is the best practice for handling cases of uncivil behavior?

Unfortunately, users have often merged these two questions into one and had huge fights about whether to block uncivil users. The argument often goes that failure to block for perceived uncivil remarks is an attack on our civility standards. These fights are often more disruptive than the underlying uncivil conduct. My own view is that civility blocks do not produce the desired result for most cases. Instead, it is better to use other techniques to control uncivil conducting, such as getting a friend of the uncivil editor to intervene, pointing out uncivil comments and asking the editor to remove them, or at times, simply ignoring the uncivil editor and providing support to the target. Only when uncivil conduct becomes serious harassment is it worth blocking. The line is not hard to identify: racism, homophobia, antisemitism and the like should all be blockable, as should physical threats or attempted outing. Shouting rude words when one gets overwrought should not be a blockable offense. After being blocked, the user is only likely to shout more rude words and seek vengeance (or if indef blocked, their friends will seek vengeance).

It may be beneficial for ArbCom to investigate this case and decide whether the administrators involved have acted properly. As other users have noted, it is very difficult for the community to reach a consensus about how to handle persistent uncivil conduct by vested constributors. Since these cases are relatively few in number, it would be best for any such cases to go to ArbCom for resolution, as that is the only way to ensure we don't end up with wheel warring administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom needs to take this case and decide up or down whether Malleus needs to be banned for persistent non-collegial conduct. Likewise, any purported Malleus tormentors should be investigated and then sanctioned if warranted. Any admins who wheel warred may as well resign now to save time, because we all know that ArbCom has been desysopping everybody for everything these last few years. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

This is similar in scope to the Ottava case of awhile back, except that Malleus actually works with people to improve articles and doesn't spin out wild conspiracy theories (sorry Ottava). We either just lost or are close to losing one of the few prolific copyeditors on the site, let alone one of the more productive content creators. Let's think this through before accepting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Regardless of what you think about Malleus' contributions to mainspace (which are by no means minor), his track record of personal attacks and crass language directed at editors has given him more than 15 blocks over the past three years, which isn't minor either. Clearly this is not able to be solved among admins or even the general community, so a final decision on this long-running dispute would certainly be beneficial. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cube lurker

So it is unacceptable for Hawkeye to call Malleus a 'koala', but it is fine for Malleus to call Spitfire a 'f***ing c**t'? Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nobody Ent

Timeline: Malleus uses word "cunt" in discussion. Note that Wikipedia does not prohibit use of any word in discussion (see recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Foul_Language_In_Discussions ). He is requested to change word, declines, notes that "dick" is commonly used and indicates from his cultural background "cunt" and "dick" are equivalent. I explain the sensitivity of the word from this side of the Atlantic, and ask if will let a redaction stand; he agrees [6]. Comments are redacted. This should have been over.

"Malleus" is the symptom, not the problem: we are the problem -- please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. Note the creation date precedes this particular event by amount a month; it doesn't matter much, we keep doing the same thing over and over.

Malleus's theme is that the inconsistent standards are applied to the project. Traditionally I have spent my Wiki time at the "little cesspool" of WQA. Most issues -- maybe 95% -- (e.g. "X removed my comments on their talk page!") don't require admin intervention; about 1% are so over the top an admin WQA stalker will lay the block down before I've read the post. But about 4% of the time there's something a bit beyond what talk can accomplish -- and I have to ponder whether to refer a case to this "admin roulette wheel" called ANI. Consider the case where a 200 edit editor calls a 300 editor a "moron" -- straight out personal attack. A drive by admin warning: snark ahead "helpfully" suggests they both "shut the fuck up." Nice, huh? But well, apparently no one much cares about low edit editors, anyway.

Or consider the case of Orangemarlin -- who should have been revdel and lifetime banned for his "parting shot" comments last July -- calls another editor "sociopathic little fucktard" and more on this very noticeboard [7]. This board dithered all weekend about whether to do anything and come Monday morning the thread is actually temporarily closed [8] with comment "No immediate administrator intervention is warranted." To be fair, the thread was a long tangled mess (which I regret I helped contribute to -- not my best weekend) and the admin did reopen it when requested. And later -- Risker came by and finally just indeffed with the whole sorry lot -- two days after the fact.

While I don't agree with Malleus approach by any means, he is right on content. We are Dysfunctional. The fact of the matter is there are far too many editors eager to ~~gossip~~ comment on a Malleus, or an Orangemarlin or whoever the 'villian du jour' is and few too few willing to do the hard work of hashing out a consensus at WT:Civility or WT:TPG.

Lift the block

Civility is important but so is consensus. As indicated by the volume of comments at ANI, there is no a clear consensus here; Malleus has been blocked for violating a standard which does not actually exist; it is a bad block.

Maintain good faith

The admins who have blocked Malleus did so in order in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Mudslinging and calls for desysoping are neither necessary nor helpful. The exact same lack of standards that make Malleus's block inappropriate make starting an admin witch hunt the wrong thing to do.

Community must do the work

The last "Malleus seeded" ArbCom case request was declined but included the notion this community start addressing the issue [9] but, as far as I'm aware, no significant work was done. Lacking a consensus, there is no decision ArbCom can make that will resolve the issue, which is not whether "Malleus was a bad boy" but that this community doesn't actually know what it thinks about civility and to date does not seem terribly interested in figuring it out. Overturn or uphold this will happen again and again, if not with Malleus then with the next "push the envelope" editor. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hasteur

What I'm suggesting is that the historic approach of building a policy based on individual decisions on individual editors has failed, and the community needs to first determine principles in the abstract, then determine how to achieve those principles (i.e. what sequence of interventions is appropriate to achieve those principles), and only then apply the interventions to individuals.

Reply to AGK et. al.

I keep reading how "there was no prior dispute resolution" -- in fact there was. I saw the cunt comments, got Malleus's consent to redact them, and redacted them. This was the talk page at the time of the block [10]. Is there something additional content I should have redacted? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SoWhy

I'd advise the Committee to accept this request. While CBM might be correct that ArbCom has been in the past reluctant to solve this or similar conflicts, the amount of problematic behavior not only by this editor in question but also by those acting whenever he (seems to) misbehave has reached a limit that really needs a group of previously uninvolved editors looking into it. The events of the last day with blocks and wheel-warring show that MF manages to cause problematic behavior even if his own behavior is not clearly disruptive or at least might not have been intended to be (for example, while "cunts" is certainly not a nice word, he did not use it to attack anyone specific). As such, this case should be accepted but not limited to MF's behavior and instead also focusing on related problematic behavior as well, such as wheel-warring by involved admins. Although, as some pointed out, civility as a policy has been inconsistently interpreted by the community, sometimes varying based on an editor's status or contributions, ArbCom has, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent the right and ability to interpret policies and guidelines with regards to a certain case; I think this case, as Jehochman says above, is a good case for ArbCom to decide. Even if MF is not sanctioned, the Committee is able to rule how administrators should behave in such circumstances, thus maybe reducing the amount of wheel-warring and/or ANI threads caused by such behavior. Regards So Why 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Balloonman

I've said it before, I'll say it again... Malleus can be an ~~ass~~ arse. He can be rude and pointed, but generally he is brought up for the most begign matters. Thumper over reacted on this case. His indef block was unwarranted and beyond the pale.

That being said, this is ridiculous. If you are going to accept a case against him, then it needs to be a meta case... not over specific incidents like this. So what he called some unnamed admins cunts. Is that a vulgar word in the US? Yes, but was it directed at any specific person(s) no. If he had said, some admins are asses/dicks would it have raised any eyebrows? Probably, but why? Because it is untrue? No, some admins are asses/dicks/cunts. It would have invoked a ban because we are talking about Malleus. Can it be argued that while he made the comment generic, that he was really targetting a specific user? No---he's railed against Admin abuse for years. Some people just spaz out whenever they see him make any comment that isn't toeing the line perfectly.

Had the issue been discussed on MF's page? Yes. Malleus explained himself... pointed out what he considers to be a double standard (dick/ass/cunt) which is a legitimate position. He also explained that the word cunt is less offensive in England than it is in the U.S. I don't know that for a fact, but several other users have supported him in that position. I used a word above to make a point. Did you get offended when I used the phrase "spaz out"? If not, then you are probably familiar with it's use in America. In the U.S. that word means almost nothing. We use it to describe ourselves when we are out of control or clumsy---many products use it in their name. Our view of the term is shaped by Steve Martin "Chad the Spazz" or Animal House's Spaz. In England, it has a completely different meaning and is considered highly offensive. So if you consider cunt to be highly offensive, but not spaz, then consider the possibility that others might see spaz as highly offensive, but not cunt.

Personally, I am more appalled at Hawkeye's reblock of Malleus than I am at Malleus himself. Hawkeye claims that he was reblocking for 1 week per consensus at ANI. I failed to see consensus for that. I also have problems with blocking people while there is an ongoing ANI case against them. How can they respond if they are blocked? That goes against the principle of being able to address your accusers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when it comes to civility blocks, the default when discussing civility blocks should be to "unblock" unless a clear consensus exist to block. Frivilous, unnnecessary, punative blocks for civility, when consensus is not present, is detrimental to the project as it may drive off valued members of the community.

For the record, I was going to unblock Malleus but was beaten to it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sowhy... sowhy makes a good point and has convinced me that this case should be accepted... not necessarily to investigate Malleus, but rather how he is treated by admins. Does he invite some of it upon himself? Yes. But he gets blocked if he sneezes in the wrong tone. Sheesh an indef block for stating a fact in a little more colorful language than is necessary? Not the word I would use, but face it some admins are [use your choice of vulgarity here]. If you can't admit that...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk, the problem is that because some admins jump on every single infringement/transgression, it has become comical. It is a circular pattern. Does MF invite it? I think so, I think he sometimes goes out of his way to provoke knowing what the outcome will be. (Which is unacceptable.) But I also think that because some admins are constantly blocking him for frilous issues, that it has become like the kid who cried wolf. If you think Malleus should be blocked, don't run out and block him for every little transgression knowing that it will be unblocked an hour or two later. Build a case and take the case to the community/RFCU or even here. Frankly, I suspect that building such a case against MF would not be overly difficult... pick the examples that best eximplify a continued pattern. Half the cases brought to ANI are shere utter jokes. Some have a modicum of merit, but the one's that have merit are scorned at because we've been there, seen that, bought the shirt. If somebody wants to block MF, then they should be proactive and write up a solid rationale citing examples and justifying the actions... instead, you get blocks like Thumper's. Thumper is upset that his block has been mischaracterized by others... well, guess what, when your block essentially says "per a long discussion" you open that door. If you know your action is going to be controversial, you either need to refrain from the action or take the offensive in justifying it. The case against MF is undermined by those who block him every time he turns around for comments that would not invoke a block for anybody else. Thumper in his statement at WP:RFA wrote, "No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this." No, that is not true... if it was anybody but Malleus, it would have gotten a warning like this or opened an ANI case at most. Jumping straight to Indef Block? Nah. Hell indefing a user without detailed rationale, when you know that it will be overturned and create much consternation is....---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fluffernutter

Rather than take a stance on who was wrong in doing what in this particular flare-up, I just want to point out that this case is the definition of the sort of intractable dispute Arbcom was created for. No amount of community discussion is going to fix the issue of Malleus and other vested contributors. No RFC/U is going to bring about a "come to Jesus" moment where the uncivil editors agree to behave, or a moment where the block-unblock cycle participants agree to cease fire, because every single person involved in this dispute is 100% convinced that they are in the right and that their preferred method of handling is the only one that will save Wikipedia. If the committee chooses to refuse this case now, they are simply declining to do what we elected them to do - namely, solve behavioral disputes which the community is unable to handle. We've tried, guys. For years. We can't do it. We need a body of last resort, and you're it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvoled GoodDay

Please do take this case, arbitrators. IMHO, all editors should be treated equally. If your ruling states that editors can be obnoxious, whether they're big time contributors or not, fine. If your ruling states that editors can't be obnoxious, no matter their status as contributors, that too is fine. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parrot of Doom

If I was allowed to say only one thing about Malleus it would be that he's honest, a lot more so than can be said for many of those who'd like to see his back. The rude words thing is just a smokescreen created by people more interested in playing silly power games than actually creating decent content that our readers can rely on. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched Davis

see here for comment from Malleus.

Note: If any of the arbs wish a statement from me I'd be more than happy to draft one. — Ched : ? 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:ADMIN#Accountability: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I am withholding any comment until this has been done; however, I find it oddly disconcerting that there have no statements made so far. — Ched : ? 04:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

never mind ... I can see now where this is headed — Ched : ? 12:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Senra

Background

I am an uninvolved plebby with poor English writing skills who nevertheless, at times, has been able to firmly defend a content position within this encyclopaedia (sic). In general, I would classify my style as conciliatory 1 though I can be robust when necessary such as2 and3. I first interacted with Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) in Jun 2010 4 in a discussion which followed his edit5 to an article I was working on; I have always found him incredibly courteous both then and now 6. On request7, Malleus has always applied his considerable knowledge of the English language to correct my poor grasp of my own native tongue to ~~my articles~~the articles I help edit such as: 8 and9.

Comment

It does seem to me that, by almost immediately unblocking him on this as on many previous occasions, friends of Malleus are not doing him any favours. They are not upholding others to a process that they have not adhered to (even more rigidly) themselves. Even so, I suggest that the initial sanctions are being carried out by, at best, editors misunderstanding cross-cultural political correctness and, at worst, editors with stick-wielding power hungry hubris (as per Zimbardo 1972).

In this particular case, if the initial sanction on Malleus and the subsequent processes, including this one, lead to the loss of Malleus, self-sanctioned or otherwise, it will be an incredible loss to the project.

Recommendation

Arbitrators should stamp on this cyclic nonsense once and for all by aggressively sanctioning the first block by thumperward (talk · contribs).

Reply to Nobody Ent

In Maintain good faith you said "The exact same lack of standards that make Malleus's block inappropriate make starting an admin witch hunt the wrong thing to do." Enormous no. This actually is the very point. I, and I am certain many other editors, hold admins to a higher standard than ourselves, just as we hold our country's politicians to a high standard.

--Senra (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WFCforLife

It is an undeniable fact that many admins, to varying degrees and with varying frequencies, seek latitude to do things with the tools that are in line with what they want to do. One example being the series of events that led to WP:BLPPROD. Another being admins that threaten or actually block users with whom they are unquestionably WP:INVOLVED. Malleus was blocked for having the temerity to point out in no uncertain terms that there are a large number of admins like this. He also inferred in the same discussion that there are a lot of admins that mean well but lack competence, and so end up coming across as being in the same boat, and indeed that there are a lot of very good admins.

Whether or not "cunts" and "wankers" are blockable words is not a matter for Arbcom, but for community consensus to determine.

Malleus writes more than the vast majority, to a better standard than the vast majority. For better or worse he says things as he sees them, and from what I've seen is always prepared to back up his opinion if challenged. If that merits a long term block or ban we may as well shut down our featured processes, because you'll find relatively few editors there that aren't in that mould. —WFC— 17:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, my statement is not intended to imply deliberate wrongdoing on Thumperward's part, and I can see that it could be interpreted in that way. My point is that had Malleus used the language he had in the context he had on a page other than WT:RFA, he probably wouldn't have been blocked. I say that having used such language on high profile pages myself, and never having been blocked. Maybe I should have been blocked on one or more of those occasions, but again that specific element of this case is a matter for community consensus to determine, not Arbcom to dictate. —WFC— 18:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren: "The very reason we exist at all in the first place" is to build the definitive encyclopaedia. The pillars, RfA and indeed Arbcom exist purely because they are (or once was, in the case of RfA) considered helpful in achieving that goal. Your statement troubles me, not because of the emphasis it places on civility, but because it demonstrates the extent to which Wikipedia places its rules above its raison d'être nowadays. —WFC— 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Part of the reason Malleus tends to get unblocked after being blocked for the things he says is that he has this annoying habit of being right, even if he is rude about it, and it seems there is always at least one other party involved who has acted as badly or worse than he has, whether they used "bad words" or not. In this particular case I am more concerned with the edit warring and wheel warring between parties who certainly should have known better, and hope that if the committee accepts this case they consider those factors as well and take appropriate actions regarding them. Wheeel warring in particular is very troubling. I would also note that despite many saying this is a longstanding problem, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum is still a redlink. Looks like it was created once in 2009 but never certified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Edinburgh Wanderer

Its important Arbcom take the case. Thumperward's block was well intentioned and if had been a short block then would of been fine but Hawkeye should not of re blocked without consensus. The problem here is what is perceived as incivility i believe it pushes the boundaries but probably does stay just with in it most od the time. Apart from his personal attack on Spitfire[11] and repeated ANI's over this always seems to result in an unblock because Malleus is productive. Of that there is no doubt but a final line needs determines as if this was any other editor they would be most likely be blocked. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

Please accept this case. We have become incredibly experienced at generating excuses for behavior which isn't merely impolitic or rude but rather is nasty, mean-spirited and petty. Each time the issue comes up we rush to defend this editor (it happens to be MF but most of these complaints apply mutatis mutandis to other vested contributors), insisting that punishing someone for "just one outburst" or "just for swearing" or "becoming justifiably frustrated with Randy in Boise" (my personal favorite) is unfair. In doing so we engage in what seems to be collective amnesia or willful ignorance of every single past incident.

This isn't just one or two admins who have gone power mad or who can't take the criticism of the admin system from MF. It is a string of admins and editors who see comment after comment meant to belittle other editors (willfully, by the way), immiserate the discussion and raise the level of hostility. Near as I can tell most of us look the other way because none of us can write like MF. I can't. My bet is no one on Arbcom can. There are probably a handful of editors who write like he does and with the same determination. But we aren't making a cost-benefit analysis (the two elements are incommensurable, but I digress). We are shying away from punishing our betters. And years of doing so has carved a long and deep furrow in MF's incentives and our response to his behavior. As it stands right now no block of MF for civility issues (construed however broadly) will last more than a few hours. He knows it. Most admins know it. Most of the highly active community members know it. And the situation is untenable. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK

If this isn't ripe for arbitration, nothing is. The mere presence or absence of an RFCU doesn't indicate lack of community discussion on the matter, certainly. Further a cursory review of any of these discussions shows two sides talking past each other repeatedly. There is no room for consensus with such wildly different frames of mind. And if the committee has issued its guidance on vested contributors than that has clearly not helped (in either direction). At the very minimum arbcom can look at the issue of admins warring over blocks (w/ chris, john and hawkeye) though I think such a narrow scope would miss the point entirely. In a broader sense does it not concern the committee that either one editor is hounded continually by a rotating band of admins over one issue or that one editor is immune from any remedy for repeated incivility?

Statement by Cusop Dingle

I hope that the Arbitration Committee will make a ruling that supports Wikipedia:Civility in letter and spirit. The object of that policy is to create a collegial atmosphere so that we can all get on with building the encyclopaedia. Frankly the rude word thing is not the most important part of it. Some people are put off or upset by some words more than others: the issue is as much about intention as effect. There is at least a prima facie case that MF either intends to put other people off editing, or at the very least is consciously reckless about whether his words will have that effect. In a short discussion I happened to be part of a few days ago, MF's sole contributions, addressed to other users, not myself, were "I'm a strong advocate of the fact that you talk bollocks much of the time" and "Then you're also talking bollocks. It's not up to administrators, or anyone else here, to forgive". The incivility here is not the use of the word "bollocks", although this is not language I would wish to hear in my own drawing-room: it is the deliberate use of the word in a context which displays a clear intention to discourage another user from taking part in the discussion; a clear expression of personal contempt; and no interest whatsoever in advancing a rational debate. The two sentences containing the word "bollocks" could have been deleted without any effect whatsoever on the logical argument, and serve only to upset or discourage other users. This is incivility, and is an -- admittedly minor -- example of the sort of behaviour we need to discourage. It is clear that this is conscious and deliberate behaviour on MF's part and that he intends it to have the effect that it does indeed have. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. It has been suggested that MF should be allowed a greater degree of incivility than usual because of his contributions to the encyclopaedia. That seems wrong to me. We do not, of course, maintain a civil atmosphere for the sake of it, but because maintaining politeness and collegiality is the best way of bulding the encyclopaedia. If MF intends to flout community norms in this area, then he will have to lave the community. However, we should look to ArbComm to find a way of keeping MF as a valuable contributor and a civil and collegial co-worker. Perhaps a good first step would be to require him to explicitly acknowledge and agree to adhere to the community norms in this area. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polite/ness request

Since the immediate focus for this case is MF's use of specific bad language, I suppose it's inevitable that those words would have to be repeated occasionally. However, would the people who want to proclaim how un-offended they are by those words please refrain from bandying them about in their comments? I for one do not like to have to read through pages of foul language here. It makes it harder for me, and for others, to concetrate on the issues involved. If that makes me sound like your grandmother, so be it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Art LaPella

"Malleus Fatuorum" means "Hammer of Fools", and most of us are considered fools. So why isn't he "Teacher of Fools"? Even "Hammer of Evildoers" would be better than "Hammer of Fools". Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ItsZippy

I really hope that ArbCom choose to take this case to resolve a long running dispute. I've not really come into contact with Malleus before, but my observations of his behaviour, both at the RfA talk page [12] [13] and then the ANI thread [14] [15], would indicate that he has strayed beyond mere incivility. His content contributions should be inconsequential - the dispute is not about content, but how Malleus conducts himself. The ensuing wheel war also needs investigation, with numerous admins claiming different consensus, allegations of involvement and the like. A nasty mess, really. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

Arbcom must take the case; it is fully covered by their remit. The discussion about the admin’s involvement in the associated ANI report is a sideshow here. Without the trigger of gross & persistent abusive behaviour no admin. need have become involved – which is where we should aim to be. What is required is a clear way forward on the situation regarding a high quality content contributor and the coterie of supporting Admins. and editors who obstruct what would otherwise be a straightforward breach of WP:Civility. Do not be distracted by the specific derogatory phrase used and the argument that it is more acceptable in the UK. It is an offence under the Public Order Act to use words intended to cause alarm, harassment or distress. IT might be fine among a group of mates down the pub, for example describing a friend as “a daft xxxx” or “where is the miserable xxxx?”. Using it here is not the same as jawing down the pub with your mates. In any event, it was preceded by “dishonest” which is an aggravating accusation against admins in general. Also remember for that every block of this particular contributor there are many more instances which have not come to that ultimate conclusion, due to the group of supporters who protect content creators, or particular editors with a large personal following. Finally, if there are any Arbcom members who’s own interpretation of the civility policy is, by recent example lacking in temperance, they should recuse themselves. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@risker RFC/U doesn't work; the involved go there, the uninvolved don't, so we'll just get more of the same. Please deal with it now.

@AGK – Your lack of enthusiasm to consider the underlying issues here is disappointing in light of your Arbcom election statement “important issues”[16]

1. Effective resolutions to disputes: I see little use in recycling the same principles endlessly, when more time could be afforded to creating meaningful remedies.
In view of the final "important issue": 5. Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected), maybe you should recuse when the time comes in January. Leaky Caldron 20:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kaldari

I also believe this is an important issue for the ArbCom to address. The tendency of some admins to act as enablers for abusive editors has become a serious problem which undermines both the health of our community and the ability of other admins to do their job. Malleus's block history is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Malleus, though often productive in content work, is caustic and abusive towards other editors. His incivility is so well known, it has become a running joke on AN/I.[17] He has been blocked 14 times for personal attacks or incivility, and in 9 of those cases he was subsequently unblocked by a different administrator, typically in less than an hour.[18] Malleus personally attacks other editors on a regular basis, and is typically incivil to most editors he disagrees with. He has not only expressed an unwillingness to change his behavior, but also contempt for those who think that civility is important.[19][20][21][22]

The fact that we have many admins willing to excuse this sort of blatantly abusive behavior is disturbing. What's even more disturbing is that many of them feel entitled to override those who don't excuse it. The free pass that is given to Malleus is an unacceptable double standard that has eroded the good will of editors and admins alike. It should not be allowed to continue. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Binksternet

We should not have such thin skins that crude words needle us into admin action. Give Malleus some slack. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amatulic

I have had occasional encounters with Malleus Fatuorum in the past. I consider him a curmudgeon worthy of respect. So what? I daresay being on Wikipedia to the extent that Malleus has might make anyone curmudgeonly. He isn't tendentious, he doesn't engage in WP:IDHT, or any of the typical faults that would result in sanctions. He's just a curmudgeon. I don't see why ArbCom should be interested in taking action on a productive editor whose personality and behavior may reside out on the tail of the distribution of personalities.

Malleus has dedicated many hours of his life to improving this project, more so than most admins here. I echo Binksternet's sentiments above: for those who are bothered by Malleus's brusque behavior, grow a thicker skin. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mark Arsten

I think that Arbcom should accept this case. In my view, what needs to be dealt with here is admin conduct more than Malleus' incivility. The issue with Malleus that bothers people (incivility, in the views of many) is not particularly hard to solve, and I do not think it requires arbitration. There have been incivility issues on this site for some time, and they are either tolerated or dealt with by coming to a consensus on ANI or RFCU. I think that concerns about Malleus' conduct this week should have been handled on ANI, and if Malleus returns to editing and makes similar comments, an RFCU or discussion of some sort of topic ban could probably solve the issue. (Though likely not to everyone's satisfaction). The problem to me seems to be that some admins rejected the idea of having a discussion and gaining consensus about how to deal with him. I do think that it is sometimes necessary for admins to block or unblock contributors without discussion or against numerical consensus, but most of the time it is a bad idea. This is the type of behavior that I think Arbcom should examine and deal with. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SarahStierch

Arbcom should accept this case. The history of incivility shown by Malleus is disappointing and atrocious - both on his part as a contributor and the community's lack of "civility" in dealing with it in a mature, appropriate manner. This has went on too long, and Arbcom needs to step up! To have a healthy environment, to make a better encyclopedia, and to improve the landscape I think this case needs to be examined in an un-biased manner and should set precedence for dealing with other incivil people - regardless of edit count. I'm also tired of his blatant rudeness and downtalk to people who ask for civility, and that's just not cool. Who wants to hang out in an environment when calling someone a "cunt" and being excessively rude is acceptable? If I wanted that I'd go hang out on 4Chan. SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Johnbod

Image removed by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatent censorship (of my comment I mean). Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Modernist

In my opinion Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) acted inappropriately in blocking Malleus in the first place; John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appropriately unblocked Malleus - and Thumperward then began to question John's credentials as an admin, threatening him with further action. Firstly Thumperward should not be an administrator he should be desysopped. He promised when he passed his RFA - by the skin of his nose to drop his double name - Chris or Thumperward - which he has not done and his expertise is templates but now he is all over how other editors behave - a serious area in which he has little expertise; To make matters worse Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) steps in way after the fact and reblocks Malleus seemingly in spite of a clear consensus backing John's unblock and then comes Alexandria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also seems to want to teach everyone a lesson concerning the power of administrators - and the uselessness of rude productive editors like Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In my opinion - don't take the case, remove Thumperward from the admin rosters and desysop him; and unblock Malleus, and ~~thank~~ desysop Hawkeye and thank Alexandria for their efforts, most of all thank John for a very good call...Modernist (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkativerata

This should be a straightforward desysopping for Hawkeye's wheel-warring and involved (also [23], [24]) restoration of a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye says "Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked." Which is a lie. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Feyd Huxtable

An excessively aggressive environment hurts our chances of seeing each others points of view, and working collaboratively to improve the encyclopaedia. And the C word is commonly considered to be the most offensive in the English language, including here in GB.

I think its admirable Chris and Hawkeye had the balls to take a stand for those who don't like to see the gratuitous use of offensive language. As a regular editor the wheel warring seems trivial, and I think it would be outrageous if Hawk is sanctioned for it.

On the other hand, MF is an outstanding editor. Further sanctions against him would also demoralise a large section of our best content builders. Suggest maybe not taking the case as it will be damaging, divisive and a massive time sink. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hurricanefan25

In short, opening an arbitration case for incivility is extreme, even if it is long-term. If any case is opened, it should be opened under Hawkeye for wheel-warring by re-blocking Malleus against the claimed consensus at the ANI. Malleus is a net positive to Wikipedia. HurricaneFan 25 — 19:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chzz

Well, what a mess.

I'm no fan of MF, and I frequently express that we need to clamp down on incivility - see [25].

However, there is a massive difference between incivility, personal attacks, and swearing. The initial edit [26] was not a personal attack. I would like to know if, instead of writing "I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts", he had written "I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest idiots" - would the matter have been treated differently? It shouldn't be.

I realise there is a cultural aspect here. I'm English, and I use the word "cunt" pretty much every single day. I regularly call my friends and colleagues cunts - for example, if someone beats me at a game of pool.

Thumperwad said, in the explanation of the block, "The language used was, in isolation, wholly unacceptable as far as any collegial editing environment is concerned.". I can assure you, that is not universally true. I have worked in English newspaper offices, and I can absolutely assure you that the air is constantly blue, yet it certainly remains a collegial editing environment. I have also worked in schools and universities, and similarly the word is commonplace enough.

Indeed, Shakespeare was known to use the term - I wonder if we'd block him from editing, too.

That's not to say I'm excusing the long-term pattern of disruption. I'm not; that's a problem that needs addressing. However, making an indef block, at that specific point in time, was well over the top.

The problem was compounded by the usual, inevitable DRAMA. The subsequent changes to the block, whilst discussion was ongoing, were entirely inappropriate. It's unprofessional; conduct unbecoming of administrators.

And yes, double standards certainly are applied. Shortly after Hawkeye7's block, xe wrote, I blocked a user called User:Malleus Fatuorum who's apparently some sort of koala (ie a protected species who is stewed most of the time)[27] - that looks very much like a clear personal attack upon the character of the user xe had just blocked, implying he's frequently intoxicated. I would like Hawkeye7 to respond to that point. Chzz ► 20:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hawkeye7

Please sign and date your posts on this page. If possible, please could you look back at the diffs of your previous posts on this page, and add a signature date/timestamp. Alternatively, perhaps a clerk could do so.
Below, you responded [28] "I greatly regret a misunderstanding here. "Stewed" has another meaning here, of someone who is troubled ("near boiling") and prone to outbursts ("boiling over"). I deeply regret any misunderstanding or offence caused." - Hawkeye7 06:36, 23 December 2011

It is stretching my AGF quite a long way, but I can accept that there is a different meaning from 'intoxicated'. However, I believe that means that you were actually saying, I blocked a user called User:Malleus Fatuorum who's apparently some sort of koala (ie a protected species who is boiling over most of the time).

That is still a personal attack, and still I highly inappropriate thing to say about someone you have just blocked.

If you are so contrite about it, why have you not struck it yet ([29]), despite others making you aware of it?
I am concerned about the seeming inconsistency in your reasons for the block - you've said it was "solely for actions after being unblocked" here - and that is your own emphasis. However that flat-out contradicts the reasons you provided to MF here, viz "You have a long term pattern of abuse", and you refer to the alleged consensus which was all, of course, about the events prior to the block. Indeed, the thread had been closed (by Jayron32) at 05:48, 22 December 2011 [30] as "He's been blocked. He's been unblocked. No further benefit to the encyclopedia can happen in this discussion". So how can you possibly use that alleged "consensus" as justification, whilst saying you blocked solely for the events later, which the ANI discussion did not even touch upon? Chzz ► 17:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

I think things have gotten - sadly - sidetracked by Hawkeye's actions, whether they were justifiable or wheel-warring (and I'm not going to opine on that position). The main issue here is whether or not being A++ on content excuses a F on civility. WP:Civility is a policy and is one of the WP:Five pillars. Being a perfectly civil vandal is, of course, a no-go zone; but, from my observations of the goings-on on AN/I and elsewhere, there seems to be a distressingly widely-held opinion that prolific, productive editors can get away with anything, because They Produce Content. Both proper content creation and civility are required to be a productive Wikipeida contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Sorry to bloat it up even more! There are so many statements already! But I don't see anybody engaging with the vital issue of previous dispute resolution, so it may be useful to point to how this request falls short in that area. The request is for the committee to deal with two issues:

Wheel-warring: The ArbCom will see as easily as everybody else that Hawkeye7's re-block was textbook wheel-warring, so I won't waste words on that part. I don't personally think the RFAR process is proportionate to a single not-very-notorious act of wheel-warring, but I actually wouldn't expect the committee to agree.

The conduct of Malleus: The Malleus issue is premature, at least in the form presented here, and the request regarding it should be declined, since the "other steps in dispute resolution" offered are ridiculous. I'll describe them here chronologically for greater convenience; i.e. it's not the same order as above. They consist of:

A highly polarized ANI review of a block by Georgewilliamherbert, from November 2009., veering a good deal into restatements of the classic much-rehearsed positions taken on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by different factions in the community. Malleus takes no part.
An also highly polarized ANI thread on Malleus' incivility from October 2010, brought by Cirt (since then desysopped by ArbCom) and featuring, on the "defenstrate him" side, Rodhullandemu (since then indefinitely blocked by ArbCom) with many confrontational posts including some very pretty personal attacks on Malleus [31], and with, halfway through, the occurrence of another of Georgewilliamherbert's somewhat notorious blocks of Malleus. Malleus takes some part in the discussion, but as for calling it dispute resolution.. well, just take a look at it. (Does dispute resolution ever happen on ANI, anyway? No. It's not expected, and it doesn't come about.)
An ANI review of a block of Malleus by Geni from February 2011, with quite notable consensus that the block was unjustified and untimely. Brisk unblocking of Malleus by Nikkimaria. Malleus takes no part.

None of these ANI discussions has the slightest tendency to be "dispute resolution". There is no WP:RFC/Malleus Fatuorum. I don't know whether there might possibly be some reasonable attempt — through formal mediation or on some user talk page or the like — to resolve (?) in dialogue with Malleus himself what is described above as Malleus' "long history of incivility, nastiness, and other sorts of undesirable behaviour". (I know I'm putting that oddly — how are such matters to be "resolved"? — but that's the nomination as far as I can see. No suggestion is made of any desired outcome; that's left to the imagination, which seems (to me) to default to a hope for a lengthy or indefinite ArbCom block.) I'm not aware of any such attempt, and the nominator doesn't seem to be, either, or s/he would presumably have listed it. Perhaps the nominator took the requirement for previous dispute resolution to be more of a formality. That's not so. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Response to Casliber's offer to recuse

Casliber, you know Malleus from WP:FAC and have interacted with him about such matters, and therefore you're offering to recuse if people want you to. IMO those things make you well informed about all aspects of Malleus' editing, rather than at risk of being too "lenient", or whatever type of bias it is you foresee being suspected of. As a strong content contributor and writer of featured articles yourself, you will pretty much automatically have more experience of, and insight into, the frustrations of such editing (for instance, Randy-type situations) than do arbs who mostly breathe the rarefied air of Wikipedia space and on talkpages. That experience surely won't necessarily mean you'll be more kindly disposed to Malleus's lapses — it could work the other way, too, since you never seem to lose your own temper under the same kind of stress. (As far as I've seen. I don't stalk you — you could be having flamefests in obscure corners of the project, I suppose.) You and David Fuchs are the two people on the committee (that I'm aware of) who contribute lots of high quality content. The two of you are neck and neck as regards your edits to mainspace in proportion to your other editing; in absolute numbers, you're ahead of David (all per soxred's edit counter). Your own experience of the not-that-common kind of editing Malleus so largely does is especially valuable for this case. Please don't withdraw your expertise by recusing on some superfine scruple. I'd say the same to David if he too was threatening to recuse. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by (mostly) uninvolved Melicans

Quite frankly, the revolving saga regarding Malleus beggars belief. My contact with him in the past has been almost exclusively at FAC, and I found him incredibly helpful. I subsequently became a talk page stalker and have spent the last... two years or so I think following the drama that seems to occur with his every edit, and have read (though not often commented) on a goodly number of AN/I threads that occur each time he is blocked.

Malleus is open to a fault. He does not mince words, he speaks his mind exactly so that there is no possibility of confusion over his opinions. Frankly, I believe his disdain for softening cold, hard truths with euphamisms is a trait that should be emulated more often by others. Is he incivil? I think he would be the first to admit that on occassion, absolutely he is. So is the blocking admin. So am I. So are every single one of you, editors, admins, or arbs. I would drop out of school if a single person here could honestly say that they have never, ever, in all of their lives (Wikipedia or otherwise) uttered a harsh word against another person.

As noted above Malleus undoubtedly has his friends/defenders, both admins and editors, who rush to his defence at AN/I each time he is blocked. Though he has his friends, he also has numerous enemies who goad him, taunt him, treat his every edit with bad faith, and gladly block him at the drop of a hat. I will not name names; those who follow AN/I know who they are. I've often shook my head in silent disbelief when I see them utter in disgust that Malleus's friends have overturned his block again; frankly, I find it slightly amusing that they decry this so called "cabal" while at the same time using the slightest provocation (most of which I believe are entirely unintentional due to his straightforward style of speaking) to attempt to oust him from the encyclopedia.

As Kaldari thoughtfully provided above, on 9 of 14 occassions that Malleus has been blocked it was swiftly overturned. I would counter his assertion that it is indicative of "abusiveness", however, by suggesting that the real reason most of these blocks were overturned is because they never should have been given in the first place. If you search the AN/I archives I firmly believe the records will show that community consensus determined that Malleus was not in the wrong; rather, they were laid by overzealous administrators who finally saw a chance to get rid of the hated Malleus. I can think of several occasions where the perceived slight was almost non-existant, the result of a misreading of his words or an overreaction by the blocking administrator. Simply reading a sample of the numberous unblock rationales in his block log is a perfect example of this:

block inappropriately applied ... Blocking admin is involved (he/she interacted with Malleus and Malleus was brusque with him/her), the length was excessive, and no block notice was posted (this was overturned and he was reblocked just 8 minutes later) ... consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants (same admin who blocked him in the first place an hour previous) ... per discussion at ANI and elsewhere, block was excessive ... ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served. ... Per consensus at AN/I; disproportionate block contravenes policy. Also worthy of note is the number of AN/I threads discussing Malleus without being stimulated by somebody jumping the gun; and of those, often initiated by one of his detractors, the community consensus has almost always determined that there is no reason for action to be taken.

I do not by any means intend to suggest that Malleus is in some way perfect. That several of his blocks have not been overturned are proof enough of that. What I do suggest is that Malleus's blunt, straightforward speaking manner and unwillingness to twist the truth to sound polite, have led multiple editors and administrators with surprisingly thin skins to become his Wikienemies. As a result an astonishingly large segment of the community, both Malleus supporters and Malleus detractors, have become embroiled in a slow-moving "block war" that has now lasted for more than 3 years. Things now seem to have finally reached a head. If ArbCom decide to take this case, I sincerely hope that they

Thoroughly investigate the full history behind Malleus's block log;
Take a look at the most recent blocks that set the match against the fuse: the indefinite block applied to a prolific editor with no discussion after another administrator had already decided against it, and the block of a week citing WP:LTA and AN/I consensus when a) Malleus is not listed on LTA and b) the only AN/I consensus was for him to be unblocked;
Examine whether administrators who have had bad blood with an editor in the past are capable of levying fair and justified blocks against them in the future, and whether they should recuse themselves if it is found that they are incapable of assuming good faith.

Malleus can be caustic, rude, pig-headed and, well, to use own words, a "fucking cunt". So can I. So can you. The crowd of editors and admins that constantly assume bad faith on his part is simply mind-boggling. Franly I believe the length of his block log, filled mostly with unjustified blocks and the resultant quick unblocks, has contributed to this. It is too bad that such bad blocks cannot simply be expunged, for to a casual browser unfamiliar with the exact history it would appear that Malleus is nothing more than a deliberate troublemaker, when in fact the opposite is true. That such bad blocks, constantly overturned, are permanently kept on record is indicative of the inevitability of the comic farce that we see before us today. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Only one thing to discuss here, and that's how quickly to remove Hawkeye7's bit for aggravated wheel warring; y'know , I'd sort of guess that if I wheel-warred to reblock someone against consensus, was obviously involved and threw in some gratuitous insults that my bit wouldn't last very long. And least, I'd hope so. The rest is the usual stuff to do with encyclopedia building versus over-zealous policing that will be thrown around for ages and no actual useful decision made on it because it's a basic social construct and not something that ArbCom can really dictate, although I'm sure they'll try. Enwiki in a nutshell, really, which is why I can't be bothered with it any more. Black Kite (t) 20:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snottywong

WP:CIVIL is a policy, and one of the five pillars. It states, "...editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect... editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." If habitual violators of this policy cannot blocked for violating it, then it should no longer be a policy or a pillar. The talent of the editor and/or their contribution history doesn't enter into it. Policy is policy. If you're going to argue that telling someone they're a "fucking cunt" is not uncivil, then there's no hope for you.

Some people lament that there is no practical, objective way to codify what is civil or uncivil. I agree, that is true. Civility is a continuum, and with all the gray area in the middle it is very difficult to draw a bright line. Some comments, however, are far enough out of the gray area that there is no question that they are uncivil. I like to think about it this way:

We are all volunteers here, no different than if we were volunteers at an animal shelter or a homeless shelter. If you were volunteering at an animal shelter and you called a fellow volunteer a "fucking cunt", you would be asked to leave immediately, no matter how talented you were at scooping up dog shit. The fact that we're all anonymous and not talking face-to-face doesn't change the situation one bit.

Regardless of whether or not Malleus' behavior has recently worsened, or if it has always been this bad, I think it's safe to say that he has a history of violating WP:CIVIL, and certainly in this particular case it would be difficult to argue that the "fucking cunt" comment was civil. It's up to us to choose whether or not our policies are enforced. As far as I'm concerned, the wheel warring (while it is concerning) is just a side effect of the larger problem with enforcing one of our pillars. Hopefully Arbcom can give us some guidance on this. —SW— ^prattle 20:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SL93

I remember awhile back that Malleus told another editor to fuck off so I reported him to ANI. All of the editors in the discussion found no problems with it although Malleus ended up telling me to fuck off as well. While this was going on, I saw a a nice thank you from another editor on Malleus' talk page. Malleus attacked the editor because he didn't consider it a good enough thank you because he did more work than the thanker said that he did. Of course, other editors piled on even though the barnstar giver tried to defend himself. Malleus has not changed and his block log is crazy. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

Quite often in discussions on Wikipedia I can be rather verbose. This is not one of those occasions. I echo what Fluffernutter said above. Perhaps Malleus was in the wrong and should have been blocked. Perhaps what he did wasn't blockable, and the block was OTT. However, as a community, we cannot decide. This is a textbook situation that the Arbitration Committee was designed to tackle. That said, I fear that so many arbitrators would recuse as to have very little arbs active on the case, if indeed one is accepted. But a case definitely is necessary here, 1) To address how to deal with vested contributors that are at times uncivil and 2) Whether Hawkeye's re-block at the time constituited wheel-warring. I haven't read the overnight discussions closely enough to form an opinion either way, but I do know that you guys are the ones that need to help the community figure out these answers, as we haven't been able to. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Master&Expert

I urge the ArbCom to promptly accept this case. This has gone on for far too long without a lasting resolution. I've seen Malleus around RfA many times and have never had any particularly negative interactions with him, but I would certainly hate to be on the receiving end of his sarcastic jibes and harsh remarks. He is quite frankly rude and dismissive when there's no need for it. It's OK to be blunt every now and then, but Malleus takes it to extremes and it's part of what makes RfA such a toxic environment.

I will say this, though — I disagree with both Thumperward's initial indefinite block and Hawkeye's subsequent reblock. An indefinite block? There's no consensus for that, not even close. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's those kinds of admin actions that divide the community and create unnecessary drama. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wizardman

There's no question that this is an extremely heated issue, and no matter which way arbcom rules on it, everyone will complain that they were wrong. That being said, it will have to be accepted. Let's forget the word "civility" for a minute and look at the outlying issue, as you only need to ask one question about an editor: does their attitude, whether it's a civility problem or something else, make them incapable of working together with others? If so, that person has no place on Wikipedia. If not, then that's a different issue, and that issue is what we have to deal with now. That leads to another question: if one does good work, how much longer of a leash do they get? I'm sure that if a new editor said the types of things Malleus said to others, they would be swiftly indef-blocked, so that argument, often used by defenders, is invalid. My advice would have been for Malleus just to tone down his remarks; one can be critical and frustrated without being attacking, but if that was an option it would have already happened.

Of course, the fact that Malleus has big armies both in support and against him make this issue far worse than it should be, and that's where the problems come in; it makes it impossible to make a sound judgment on his actions since you'll be attacked by one camp or the other. In short, my sympathies to Arbcom for having to deal with this, it's going to be ugly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

I am reminded of that old joke about the doctor and the man whose arm hurt. A man goes to the doctor and says "Doctor, every time I call people fucking cunts on Wikipedia, I get blocked." "Well, then," says the doctor, "don't calling people fucking cunts on Wikipedia."

If Malleus didn't want to get blocked, he wouldn't have posted it. If you disbelieve me, well, just read his edit summmary. I'm disappointed by the whole turn of events and hope he realizes that his work is valued by many, but I also hope other editors who support him will have the good sense not to turn what was obviously a frustrated moment into a call for the inalienable right to call people fucking cunts in the name of "sensitivity to cultural differences", of all things. 28bytes (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Epbr123

The current situation is untenable and community is clearly unable to solve the problem, so an Arbcom decision on this is long overdue.

Hawkeye7's re-block was not straightforward wheel-warring as it was made in response this additional blatant attack. Epbr123 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I urge arbcom to take this case. This is a textbook case wheelwarring and of a long going dispute that the community can't fix. I am a personal believer that the indef block was over the top and that the reblock was against consensus. I echo Steven's statement above, there may be a very small panel of arbs working on this case. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has requested to be relocked --Guerillero | My Talk 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Risker

A RFC/U on malleus would be yet another pointless waste of everyone's time. Arbcom needs to look over the fact that we have not skipped through the hoops in the right order and the fact that we have skipped a few of them. This issue has hit AN/I so many times that a RFC/U would only create more drama. We are nearing WP:100 for this RFARB. I think that this speaks strongly enough of how divisive this issue is. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Thorncrag

While not taking either side of this dispute, I just have to say that this kind of vitriol (again, on both sides, not just Malleus) scares people (like me) away from wanting to contribute to Wikipedia for fear of making enemies simply by sharing opinions or happening to disagree, even if not acting on those disagreements. It is clearly in order that the community take a look at how we handle civility matters, and not forgetting to also look at how we should be reviewing actions of administrators, since that is clearly a bone of contention, and contributory of Malleus' behavior towards administrators. If we continue to scare people away who dislike this kind of conflict, we will eventually end up with nothing more than constant caustic disputes among those who enjoy this kind of conflict and it will eventually irrevocably harm the project. Thorncrag 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved TParis

I have only one thing to say here. I've never talked to Malleus, but I'll admit I don't particularly care for him much. He is in fact a net positive for the project. However, I think it is better for the project if someone is a positive instead of a net positive. It shouldn't be a matter of weighing the good with the bad.--v/r - T P 21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plaintive urgings from Moni3

Figure out what you really want to do here, Arbs. If you want to look at this narrowly, reject the case and go for procedure and have an RfC/U for Malleus. I don't think that will solve anything--certainly none of the larger overarching issues this is based in.
I think you should treat this broadly and carpe diem, recognize that the intersection between policy that explains what excellent content should be and how editors should communicate with each other is a muddy morass and these conflicts will continue to arise unless someone in charge (har!) sets a tone for improvement. Define Wikipedia's Social Contract. Rename the ArbCom case "Social Contract" if you want to go nuts, and define the rights and privileges of editors. Editors who use the word "fuck" or "cunt" in any way, if you so choose, get blocked. Or whatever--just make it clear what admins need to do to enforce a collaborative atmosphere here. There it will be in black and white and no more confusion. However, please times infinity make it just as clear that the high standards for adding and maintaining content are also in black and white and they are the most neglected and abused rules on the site. Admins don't get involved in most content issues because it's too much work to dig through the finer points involved. It's much easier to block editors at their peak frustration when communication has completely broken down than jump in earlier to enforce the standards the site has already set.

Was the instigating incident in this case about content? Not necessarily. It was about Malleus pushing buttons at RfA. But Malleus' block log and both blocks leading to this incident are about "long term abuse", which is itself founded in content.
A basic level of respect has to be in place for editors to be constructive. Most editors build their foundations of respect in civility. I don't. Neither do a small group of others who build their foundations in building content. Without respect for the work that goes into articles, civility is meaningless: impotent efforts toward being nice for its own sake and bolstering the low self-esteems of superficial people while the reason Wikipedia exists suffers from embarrassing lapses in policy enforcement and policy itself allows articles to be shamefully abused by lazy editors who spend no time and don't care about what they're doing. I also recognize, however, that calling each other dickheads every day doesn't foster a constructive atmosphere either.
I've seen the argument before that some editors get off easily, special editors who get special treatment. They're allowed to use foul language while everyone else must suffer quietly in civility, because the special ones create content. This is a polemic and I don't quite understand the rationale for this view. There do seem to be attitudes that polarize editors into camps of civility-based and content-based, obvious in my comments here. If you want to do a mensch, Arbs, make it clear and make a statement. Build an encyclopedia. Do some work. Collaborate. Go to the damn library once in a while you lazy slob, and stop calling each other dickheads. Arbs, set the tone for the site. Look at the horizon and see that people shy away from this site because it has no credibility, the majority of people here do no meaningful work, and editors here are the nicest people on the Internet, which is to say, they call each other dickheads only when it gets really bad--not right off the cuff like at YouTube or 4Chan.

I can't watch or keep up with this page. If anyone needs clarification in anything I posted here, please ask on my talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Chaosdruid

(ec x 2) If I am correct in reading the events chronology; a comment was made, acted upon, discussion ensued, redaction took place, the matter was discussed by admins, a decision was made to take no further action, a over-zealous admin made an "out-of-time" over-reactionary block of an excessive period of time, another admin overturned it, the case got bumped up to arbcom.

I must say, there is no reason for this to have gone any further, apart from the issue of admins who made an original assessment were overturned by one with what seems to be a grudge. This needs to be taken care of - in much the same way as consensus for editorial additions and removals, there needs to be a method to prevent this sort of behaviour in future. Is it not possible to:

Make some sort of definitive ruling that after X amount of time the matter is closed and admins must not then act?
If 3 admins say "do not block" and one says "block", how can it be productive that the one takes precedence?
Once an incorrect block has been made, how is it right that it can be used as data for a "this user has been blocked 15 times"?

Something needs to be done to show us humble editors that the admins are capable of policing themselves along similar guidelines to us. Consensus on a block should the same as consensus on edits.

(If anything is incorrect in my statements I will gladly change the details, though if I am incorrect in my timeline a correct version would be appreciated) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tryptofish

Oh, holiday fun! Yes, you really should accept this case, nonetheless. The very fact of so many different views above shows that some things need to be resolved. If you decline it, it will just pop up again in another month. It would be beneficial to address the administrative wheel-warring, as well as just how involved or uninvolved administrators should be – today, not a couple of years ago – in matters related to WP:CIVIL. It would also be beneficial, and not premature (definitely not premature!), to address the balance between "editor contributes so much good content" with "editor disrupts a professional working environment". I have never heard anyone claim credibly that Malleus has done featured article quality work at WT:RFA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Milowent

Malleus called someone a "fucking cunt", now he has to face the fucking consequences of intentionally being uncivil many many times, and knowing he was doing it. His edit summary was "Farewell Wikipedia" when he called someone a "fucking cunt" so he fucking well expected to be blocked. I don't give a fuck about his gutter mouth, and rather enjoy his antics, which often reveal many sage nuggets of wisdom. If you get to know him, you wouldn't be offended. But if you're going to be uncivil, you take the random unpredictable consequences like a fucking man. As Snottywong said above, WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars and can't just be ignored. ArbCom must take the case to make clear that if you are going to fuck around on wikipedia, you'll risk being blocked and you'll have to fucking take some random lashes when you are a fuckwit. You can't expect perfect justice meted out from our demented social network site when our real purpose is writing an encyclopedia. Do you really want wikipedia to devolve to where every fucking cunt uses words like fuck in every fucking sentence? I think the fuck not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BarkingFish

While I have nothing indeed to do with this particular issue, a couple of years ago I happened to (quite stupidly) warn MF for a personal attack on someone, and the response I got lead me to open a WQA. It was, without question, the biggest single mistake I've ever made on WP - I was promptly savaged by several of Malleus's followers, and it was made quite clear to me that apparently, I was the one in the wrong. I don't agree with the way MF operates on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't agree with the fact that he appears to be immune from any action because nobody has the balls to deal with him. I strongly urge the arbcom to take this case, and we get one ruling which is final, so everybody knows where they stand from now on. BarkingFish 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fetchcomms: So just because he gets things done, means he's immune from process? no no no no no... NO. BarkingFish 01:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

The committee must step in now and take this case. That an "editor" here, unrepentantly and repeatedly, calls his peers things like "fucking cunt"[32] (or worse) over many years is reason enough to show them the door for good is self-evident. That administrators would even consider to unblock someone who is that disruptive or to argue that "it's allright" or claim some sort of immunity for putative good contents is astounding, and calls for bits to fall.

Civility isn't a suggestion, it's one of our effing pillars. Remember those? The very reason we exist at all in the first place? Worried about losing editors? You don't have to look further than the viciousness of some users, and the astounding irresponsibility of administrators who enable them by making excuses for such malice. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

I think Malleus was admin-baiting with this post and Thumperwad carelessly grabbed the bait, hours later, with no warning and an indef block which was beyond the pale, stirring up needless and harmful kerfluffle on ANI and elsewhere. Given the long and wearisome background on this, a 24 hour block would have been ok and might even have stuck. Meanwhile, I would have unblocked Malleus from indef myself had someone else not done (and I said as much at ANI), not because I like rudeness, but because an indef block would have no consensus and only further disrupt the project. Then, again without warning, Hawkeye7 wheel-warred and blocked Malleus for a week, claiming consensus where there was none. All of this was done in good faith so far as I can tell. When Malleus now and then posts rude things, he knows what he's doing. There can be a bit of leeway when good faith, longstanding editors slap up a rude post from time to time (though perhaps somewhat less for admins and such). Does Malleus go beyond this? Might the project break down into a USENET-like, flaming wasteland of spam, from which most folks have fled, if some threshold of other editors behaving like Malleus were to be reached? I think Arbcom could helpfully have a look at this, to settle through some straightforward means how breaches of WP:Civil (whatever the consensus policy there may be at a given time) are to be handled on this website by admins, maybe even through arbitration enforcement. By far most folks who edit here are friendly in their sundry ways, don't want to be rude (or even be taken as being rude) and want to get along, somehow, even when their outlooks don't match editorially or otherwise. But like anywhere else, there will always be a very few who have other things weighing on their minds. I was thinking yesterday, in all my life, I have never been so harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed as I've been on this website. Not even nearly. I've put up with it because I knew the slurs were never about me as such, but about other stuff only a dozen or so editors (out of thousands) were flogging and thrashing away at towards their own utterly selfish, narrow, thwarted goals and outlooks as to editorial and policy outcomes (and I dare say much worse sometimes). I've learned much in almost eight years of editing here, about so many things. Taken altogether, has it been worth it? Dunno, it's a mixed bag like lots of things we do. As it happens, I have my bounds as to what I'm willing to go through in giving my free time (which is not a lot) to this encyclopedic hobby. I nudged up hard against those bounds yesterday. How I deal with that is my worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

I'm pleased to see that it looks likely that the committee is going to accept this case. In addition to the issues around Malleus Fatuorum's prolonged incivility (and I agree completely with Coren's post above), I'd like to suggest two things which ArbCom may wish to consider:

Malleus Fatuorum's block log is genuinely concerning: [33] In particular, I note several instances where he or she was blocked for incivility and then unblocked within an hour or a few hour. Either he or she has been subject to unbelievably bad admin actions on multiple occasions, or, and more likely, other admins are being much too lenient. Whatever the exact situation, unblocking within such a short period after the block was instituted on several occasions is extraordinary - there's no way that there could have been a proper discussion of the block within those timeframes. I note that Thumperward's recent block was lifted before they had time to respond to the ANI post on it, for instance.
The amount of abuse which is being directed at the blocking admins is highly concerning. Just a handful of examples are: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. These kind of comments have well and truly crossed the line from fair criticism to outright harassment. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jezhotwells

This case is about unwarranted blocks made by User:Thumperward and User:Hawkeye7 over a minor spat. The fact that people with such short fuses erxercise their powers with such incomptence is worrying. If they won't resign their powers forthwith, they should be removed.

Reply to Nick-D

Calling on admins to resign after such despicable behaviour is perfectly proper, Categorizing it as harassment is as stupid as the actions of these admins, who need to be reminded of that fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fetchcomms

There are plenty of people in the world that I'd like to call cunts. The only reason I don't is because of backlash like this ArbCom case (or getting slapped in the face). Malleus has insulted more than one person. OK, let's move on. Plenty of people have called me worse things in real life, but wasting time trying to prove their wrongness is exactly that: a waste of time. Some people just tend to call others cunts. How is that relevant in building an encyclopedia? The Internet is not a nice place. The notion of civility on Wikipedia is silly because when you get attacked on the Internet, you don't even know who's attacking you, so it's not as if it really accomplishes anything to "bring them to justice" or something like that. (Bullying and harassment is something else, of course.)

I don't think Malleus should have called anything a cunt because it only provokes drama like this and wastes time. But it's not like he calls someone a cunt every day. And I shouldn't be desysopped for having this opinion, as Coren states above. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't even have to treat everyone the same. If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 00:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Two dumb blocks accompanied by personal attacks on Malleus may merit your attention; they may merit even your action, e.g. removing administrative bits---in view of the egregiousness of the errors and the refusal to acknowledge errors in administrative action.

The best ArbCom decisions involve important cases/issues that attract thoughtful and perspicacious editors who write succinctly. A serious case involving Malleus deserves preparation by GeorgeWilliamHerbert or others of similar empathy and principle, not clumsy administrators impulsively writing in anger.

A case about Malleus should not be held during the holiday season (when many of us cannot participate).

A case and an ArbCom decision should not be one-sided. In the diffs presented above (by others), several administrators and their familiars make personal attacks on Malleus. This pattern of multiple attacks or provocations against Malleus is typical, at least in my experience.

It might be useful to have ArbCom to place sanctions on the abuse of Malleus or the mention of the MF account: For exammple,

as an alleged bad example of an WP editor (or as having other failings), which often occur at RfAs.

Certainly, an honest appraisal of the extent of the attacks on MF should accompany a discussion of the account MF, including both his human-failing of occasional incivility, usually in response to multiple attacks and stupidities.

A discussion of Malleus should of course note his writing and help to other editors; this week particularly, Malleus was selflessly helping many, many apprentice editors.

Finally, you should just ignore or criticize the mantra that "some complain that content contributions excuse incivility or personal attacks", often made by the more clueless of the RfA Reformers. I am unaware of Malleus ever claiming such an exemption, yet this Big Lie continues to be repeated here, with fatuous impunity.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John

John's statemen is honest and accurate. The comparison of Malleus to Lenny Bruce is particularly apt.

Reply to Elonka

I criticized both of Elonka's comments on MF's talk page, because they commented on old news and they did no conceivable good. I was not endorsing MF's earlier comments in those cases, but recognizing that Elonka was violating

The fundamental law of coaching: Deal with people where they're at.

In comparison, John's discussions with Malleus are more effective.

Reply to Risker

I agree with Risker's comments and suggestions. I would suggest that instead of banning MF from the page RfA (or the RfA candidacies), that the entire community be placed on discretionary sanctions there. Violations of AGF/NPA can be dealt with by any administrator with short (escalating blocks).

In particular, nobody is to engage in personal attacks or scape goating of Malleus or anybody else.
In particular, MF also cannot engage in PA or AGF violations, regardless of provocation or prior violations of NPA, AGF, or civility (e.g. by baiting).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Surturz

Indef blocking over this diff is a clear misuse of admin tools and the admin that made that decision should have their admin rights suspended for a period. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the comment did not single anyone out. --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Scott MacDonald makes an interesting point about the differences in cultures. For example, I think many of us understand that "cunt" may not be viewed as harshly amongst the British than amongst North Americans. On the flip side, however, I have no doubt at all (especially given his history) that MF understands that such a word will cause a great deal of offence to North Americans. As such, he knows that his choice of words will generate a high level of offence, and he goes out of his way to encourage it. In my view, the issue here is not one of "OMGZ! He said something mean!" so much as it is a pattern of behaviour that inevitably results in a great deal of dispute and drama. And one has to ask, is the frequent time sinks his provocative behaviour creates worth it? That is the question ArbCom needs to answer. Reso lute 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick response to Fetchcomms: I wonder how many people MF has driven away with his attitude, and I wonder how much time he has wasted by provoking these drama fests? I wonder how much shit isn't getting done as a result. The answer, I suspect, is that we are losing more than MF offers. Reso lute 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OohBunnies!

I'm sick of seeing the "Malleus drives away editors" spiel. Who does he drive away? He helps anyone who goes to him with a genuine request, including newbies. Anyway, in this case the two blocks were shit. One admin blocked him for a little spat that happened hours ago and was already over. The other blocked him citing what appeared to be made-up consensus. I have no doubt that those admins won't suffer any consequence for their actions because that's how it works here. They can be as trigger-happy as they please with their block buttons, but Malleus throws out a few curses and he's Public Enemy No. 1? Yeah, totally fair. We all have different interpretations of the civility policy and we, as people, all have different standards of civility which some of us unrealistically expect everyone else to adhere to, all the time. Are you so naive that you would go into a workplace in real life and stand around bleating righteously about what a nasty person so-and-so is because they used a word you don't like? I bloody hope not. We all need to learn to be a little more tolerant and a lot less over-sensitive.

Edit: Hawkeye7, as pointed out by EdChem, is now trying to say that his block was for actions committed AFTER the original block.

"I did not impose a block as a form of punishment or "cooling off". The consensus was that a block should be imposed, but that an indefinite block was too severe. A week was chosen as a period sufficient for the purpose of preventing further disruption to the RfA process.

There was no wheel warring. Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked."

Those two statements directly contradict each other. "A week was chosen as a period sufficient for the purpose of preventing further disruption to the RfA process" directly implies that the block was to stop Malleus from posting further comments at the RFA talkpage. Then the next line says that "Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked", which implies that it was actually for a completely different reason. Which is it and why is his explanation so inconsistent? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 07:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buddy431

I would like to echo the comments by Fluffernutter: the community has failed with regards to civility policy (especially with respect to otherwise good contributors). This is what Arbcom is for. Declining this request would be shirking your duties. I remind everyone (to paraphrase something once said about the U.S. supreme court) that Arbcom is the final say not because they are always right, but because there is no one else to appeal to. This project needs a decision on this issue that cannot be over-ruled, except by the same body that imposes it.

I am sympathetic to Scott MacDonald's argument. I agree with all of his points - civility is subject to cultural and temporal differences, blocks will be contentious and do more harm than good, and a ban on civility blocks would be seen by some as a green-light for rudeness. However, I disagree with his conclusion - Arbcom does have the power to impose a ruling that is better than the current situation.

In the two extreme cases, Arbcom would either publish a list of naughty words that anyone who says gets blocked immediately, no questions asked (much less than ideal), or that we don't enforce civility with blocks at all, unless it becomes a personal attack (also less than ideal, but somewhat better, in my opinion). Hopefully there are better solutions than these two, but either of these would be better than the current situation. Buddy431 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JCScaliger

I comment only because nobody has yet quoted our WP:Blocking policy: blocks are preventative, not punitive. Is this still policy? If so, what did Thumperward believe he was preventing? JCScaliger (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that there is an intrusive comment, now being revert-warred over, asking whether Malleus is immune from process - a good question. The questioner repeats his answer five or six times. But the question whether admins are immune from process, whether they are expected to follow policy, whether they can wheel-war, is much more important. I don't know the answer, but I may at the end of this. JCScaliger (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Buster7

Take the case! What editors seem to be missing and leaving out of their recaps of the incident is that Malleus was asked to cease and desist [39] by a fellow editor and responded with a cold matter-of-fact No! [40]. When reminded, by me, [41] of common courtesy and to be a gentleman and retract his crude remark he again refused [42]. To me that is where his incivility lies and why this case should go forward. This is not about friends and foes lining up to take sides. His utterances of cunt, fuck, etc. are secondary. This is about coming to grips with our existence as a community and our commitment and requirement to be respectful toward each other. Malleus crossed the line. When asked to be a gentleman and conform to civility standards, he flatly refused. Buster Seven Talk 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Administrator John

Perhaps you might reconsider whether or not "the community feels Administrator:thumperward got it wildly wrong on this occasion" after the community makes a decision. Editors waving placards in the street is not a valid sign of community support, one way or the other. Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seb az86556

Since I am not allowed to endorse statements, I have to write this out:

ArbCom needs to figure out what this case is about; if it is only to be about Malleus, then drop, and have an RfC/U.
If ArbCom takes this chances and makes it about the wider issue, it will have to set strict rules and see to it that they will be enforced promptly, equally, unapologetically, and radically. It won't even matter what those rules are. Whatever they may be, the gray zones have to go. These rules must set for both content and behavior.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I believe I'm person number 75 to make a statement; I'll save your time and say that I basically endorse Coren's statement. I don't necessarily advocate for an indefinite block of Malleus, but it needs to be made clear that everyone is to be civil; textbook example of a vested contributor. Hence one of the reasons I asked all 2011 ArbCom candidates question number 3.

That being said, I'd like to mention Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket, where Hawkeye7 took some admin actions that were not appropriate. Am I saying that he should be desysopped? Not necessarily. That's for ArbCom to decide. But, I thought it was worth mentioning. --Rs chen 7754 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating

The admins at ANI openly admit that they have been ignoring WP:CIVIL since 2009. I think that North8000 was correct when he/she referred to the Wikipedia government as being the same as in Somalia. At AfD, incivility is a tactic.

MF can be removed from the list of involved users—a fixed-length block of seven days has been imposed, the long length of which seems entirely correct given the repeated violations, and MF has accepted the block. Arbcom's role here is to bring the admins back into alignment with the community's WP:CIVIL standard. Arbcom needs to empower the admins to respond to open uncivil aggression, as well as bad language. Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

The facts of this case has been stated by others. I appreciate the understanding that all the admins involved acted in good faith and did what they believed to be correct and proper.

I did not impose a block as a form of punishment or "cooling off". The consensus was that a block should be imposed, but that an indefinite block was too severe. A week was chosen as a period sufficient for the purpose of preventing further disruption to the RfA process.

There was no wheel warring. Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked.

I do not accept that Malleus is my "superior", nor that his work is worth more than mine.

I do accept that the use of hateful and misogynist language is acceptable where Malleus comes from (but do not really believe it). He did not seem playful and misunderstanding, but angry and aggressive.

I do not understand why an RfC is not in order. I thought that ArbCom preferred conciliation to arbitration. I do not see how ANI amounts to such efforts.

I cam in as an uninvolved editor. I have no history with this person.

Reply to Chzz

I greatly regret a misunderstanding here. "Stewed" has another meaning here, of someone who is troubled ("near boiling") and prone to outbursts ("boiling over"). I deeply regret any misunderstanding or offence caused.

Reply to OohBunnies

I do not see the contradiction here. An editor was blocked and unblocked. If an editor then he editor then proceeds to continue with what got them blocked then they can be re-blocked. I do not believe that this in itself constitutes a WP:WHEEL. However it is appropriate to consider the reasons for the original block (were they valid?) and those for lifting the block (an assumption that further trouble will not occur?). In this case, the editor went well beyond the the actions that got the editor blocked in the first place (disrupting processes and intimidating other editors) by making a shocking personal attack on another editor as well. The editor can then be blocked again. I do not believe that a block for another offence constitutes a WP:WHEEL. It is for a different transgression. In determining the block, one takes into consideration what one expects to achieve. That is because blocks are not punitive. They are not punishment for what has been done. I do not take long and impressive block logs into account either. In this case the editor was clearly bent on continuing what they were doing in the first place, and that was my sole consideration in assigning an appropriate block.

Statement by EdChem

AGK's comments are exceptionally insightful, I hope everyone considers them carefully
On "issue 3", the need to deal with Hawkeye7's actions is only increasing - there was not only the re-block and the taunt, there was also the egregious assessment that consensus supported the action and the statement immediately above continues to defend this remarkable claim. The judgement Hawkeye7 has made makes me doubt his ability to assess any consensus and goes directly to whether he can retain sufficient community / ArbCom trust to retain the sysop tools. The notion that the blocking policy supports claiming that a sanction is preventative when the "offensive" comments have been struck with MF's consent and an unblock has occurred is absurd; this fact indicates Hawkeye7's understanding of policies including BLOCK and WHEEL are deficient - hardly an acceptable situation in an admnin. Note this could be dealt with by asking Hawkeye7 some questions and passing a motion or by a limited-in-scope case.
I advise staying away from the vested contributor issue because it is really a community issue and any ArbCom pronouncement that is beyond a restatement of the obvious risks being a declaration of policy that just stirs up a huge mess.
If you do take on the vested contributor issue, be certain that it will expand from just MF. Expect a hornet's nest sitting on top of a barrel of multi-headed poisonous snakes, etc, and my condolences to the incoming Arbitrators if the 2011 Committee chooses to take a case with the breadth of scope to invite the shit-storn that could evetuate here.

EdChem (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Hawkeye7 has just added the claim that the re-block was solely for post unblock actions, a claim fundamentally inconsistent with the prior claim that consensus at the ANI discussion supported a re-block with a defined period to replace the indefinite block. Consequently, my confidence in Hawkeye7's competence to hold sysop tools is continuing to fall. Competent administrators, when they make mistakes (as is inevitable), step back, reconsider their actions and apologise. Incompetent administrators defend their actions without any hint of reconsideration / reflection and shift their explanations without ever admitting to error. Unfortunately, Hawkeye7's actions to me appear to be falling more and more into this second category and I believe ArbCom needs to do something about this aspect of the affair. EdChem (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ErrantX

Last night I was all for just dropping this and moving on. But Hawkeye7's response here is utterly inadequate and bringing the admin corps into disrepute. He claimed consensus at AN/I for the block - something I struggle to see myself. He then claims the block was for actions after the unblock, which suspiciously aren't mentioned in the original block notification. But what really goes beyond the pale is outright lying to cover his arse above; Koala bears are a) a protected species, b) colloquially known for getting drunk and falling out of trees and c) well known for being relaxed, laid-back and harmless. The claim that the meaning intended was of anger, not drunkenness, is simple dishonesty. Disgusting. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Alarbus

This is not about cunts. It is only partially about dishonesty. It is mostly about hostility. But what do I know, I'm just a severe judgemental prick who is dangerously stupid. I might even get gonorrhea if I stick around this site too long. I could not give a shit about being sworn at. But the endless political games, the dishonesty, and the collecting of battle scars is worrisome, as is the mantra that only content matters. Of course content is very important. Malleus and Maunus seem good at that, and should do more of it. But others are good at other things and contribute in their own ways, as this is supposed to be an open project. But it's not; it is a project in a death spiral. That explains the ambient rancour.

The Wikimedia projects are about the commons, and to properly tend that "It takes a village [to raise a child]". It is not just about the creation of content, it is about proper structure, about building a community. But much of this community is horrible. It has a hide like an armadillo and the temperament of a Tasmanian devil. Some have a bunker mentality, seeing all but an elite few as bottom dwellers. People are concerned. To be honest I don't see this getting fixed here, or anywhere internal. The whole place needs a major shake up and that has got to come from the top. Alarbus (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's a pdf: File:WMF StrategicPlan2011 24pp.pdf. Alarbus (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved ThatPeskyCommoner

I am absolutely not going to take either a pro-Malleus or anti-Malleus side in this case. In my view, what the Arbs really need to be looking at, here, is the root of all these civility problems. Meta-civility stuff.

First: we need some real clarification of what we mean, wiki-wide, by incivility. What is OK, what is definitely not OK, what is "borderline" (and how many times within a set period can one risk impinging on that borderline). We need to know where we stand.
Second: Whatever we decide upon, it has to be the same standards for everyone. If it's "not OK" for a raw noob to say it, then it's "not OK" for our biggest content contributor, our most-respected Arb, or even Jimbo to say it. And whoever says it, the community should back up whoever complains about it. A community which has different laws for different classes is not a community - it's a tyranny. And it will never, never get away from huge clashes between opposing camps to whom different rules apply. Lord Denning put this extremely well: "Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved RegentsPark

I have no comment on whether there is a long term civility issue or not but this incident has been taken way out of proportion. Malleus used a word which is, in my opinion, unacceptable in ordinary discourse. However, he then acquiesced to its redaction and the matter should have ended there. The initial block by Thumperward was unwarranted as is the subsequent drama. I urge the arbitrators to refuse this case because there is no underlying cause for an incivility investigation in this particular incident. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I believe that Thumperward's initial block was against policy since he did not block for this specific incident. Blocks for long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds should only be made by consensus at ANI, through an RfC, or through some other consensus seeking venue. --regentspark (comment) 15:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from John

I'll try to keep this short. I've been aware of Malleus for a couple of years now. At first I had the view of him that (seemingly) User:Thumperward, User:Hawkeye7 and some others have. You can see that from my comments here, in October 2010. On reflection and on a closer examination of Malleus's contributions, something I strongly encourage his detractors carefully to do, I afterwards modified my stance that civility could be easily summed up with a list of "words to avoid". I tried here in January 2011 to throw down an olive branch to this editor, and later that month I worked closely with Malleus to raise the article on Margaret Thatcher to GA status. As a result of that experience I have since tried to coach him occasionally in his interactions with others and with the community norms we have. Here is the most recent example, from earlier this month.

I regard Malleus as one of the most positive contributors overall to our project of writing an encyclopaedia, and also one of the most misunderstood. In some ways he reminds me of the tragic genius Lenny Bruce, an American comedian who was hounded to his death by the civility police of his day, in a case which afterwards caused a collective re-examination of contemporary obscenity laws. I unblocked Malleus in full knowledge that our background of occasionally working together might cause me to be considered as involved; I did so however mindful of the provision in policy that "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I regarded Thumperward's unilateral indefinite block of a long-term contributor as being as egregious (if well-meaning) an error as deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo, and as being equally straightforward to undo. We do not indef-block established editors without warning or central discussion. My reading of the discussion at AN/I seemed to support this; at the time I made the unblock there was zero support for an indef, no rationale had been posted for the block, and several other admins were talking about imminently undoing the block. Since the action several respected admins and at least one current Arbcom member have spoken in support of what I did.

I nevertheless regret any contribution I have made to the unfortunate drama and would welcome any clarification that may come about regarding this sort of block and who may unblock on what occasions. I particularly regret any offence I caused to Thumperward who is, as far as I know, a good admin and was undoubtedly acting with good intentions even if the community feels he got it wildly wrong on this occasion. I am also confident that my action did not contravene WP:WHEEL, contrary to Thumperward's assertion in the immediate aftermath of the events. I would welcome any further clarification the committee may be able to make regarding the nature of civility; my own view is and has long been that blocking for breaches of civility is as productive as fighting for peace or fucking for virginity. The best way to enforce civility is to model it in one's own interactions. Blocks should be reserved for egregious and unwarranted personal attacks. It would be interesting and useful to see further clarification of the general principles involved. As regards this particular user, I think Bishonen has put it very well, that the steps in WP:DR have not been exhausted and that this would typically require a RFCU before Arbcom sanctions were warranted against an individual user. --John (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Boing! said Zebedee

Don't know if I'm considered involved or not - I commented once at the AN/I. Anyway, here's a few thoughts that come to my mind, which may or may not make sense taken together, and don't really lead to any conclusion, but whatever...

I do support the ethos of civility, but everything has to be seen in its context - there can't really be prescriptive rules about what specifically can and cannot be said. It's cultural too, and for example, my experience suggests that American culture is considerably less forgiving of swear words than on the British side of the pond.
Malleus's initial comment was really not that bad, IMO. It would have been better without the word "cunt", but it wasn't directed at anyone specifically. As a general comment on "some admins", I wasn't offended as an admin - if things like that upset me, I wouldn't have run for admin.
Malleus is rude to admins, yes, but he is very helpful to content-creating newcomers, and that's a far better combination than the opposite approach of kowtowing to admins and biting newbies.
The initial block was way too late to be considered preventative, and the indefinite duration was excessive and possibly pointy - the comment had happened many hours prior to the block.
The second block was not necessarily wheel-warring, as Malleus had made a later comment that was specifically targeted at an individual, calling them a "fucking cunt". That comment was not acceptable (although, in the circumstances, had he made it to me I would not be offended and would not have wanted him blocked for it).
By the time Malleus made that second comment, I think he had good reason to be upset - just look at the ridiculous length of the AN/I discussion, and the number of people just jumping on. With what had already happened, I really don't think an emotional reaction was either surprising or unforgivable - and I do think there are people watching his every move and just waiting to jump on anything he does wrong.
Malleus is one of the best content creators we have, and is extremely helpful to people finding their feet and needing direction. I'm not saying that is an IAR justification, just that we really need to consider the full context here. There is more potential damage done every day by scaring off newcomers than by Malleus saying "cunt" to an admin.
Overall, yes, Malleus does push the civility envelope - but at the same time, there are plenty of people who will jump on any chance to goad him into the kind of reaction they know they can provoke -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional...

Hawkeye7 says there was a consensus at AN/I for a reblock, but I don't see it - and it does rather speak against the suggestion that it was a new block for the second comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I am mostly uninvolved in this, though over the last year I believe I have warned Malleus twice for incivility, in July[43] and November.[44] For the November comments, I probably would have blocked, but on reviewing his block log,[45] I realized that MF was going to be one of those "difficult to block" editors. Meaning no matter how inappropriate their behavior, they'd immediately have a host of supporters, and whatever block I placed would probably get immediately overturned on the flimsiest of reasons (10 minutes of "consensus" by his supporters, hair-splitting about whether the block was “punitive”, or whether the block was about a comment that was “stale” or not, etc). So I chose to warn rather than block, and still got abuse even for that. The double-standard is sad. If a new editor said something like this towards an established editor,[46] they would be blocked immediately, and it would stick. But if a longterm contributor says the same thing, suddenly the wiki-lawyers come crawling out of the woodwork, and it’s the warning admin that gets attacked, saying that they’re trying to “provoke” or “stalk” the uncivil editor.

It is my opinion that ArbCom should take this case. I don't think that bouncing it back out to the community for an RfC will do any good: As is obvious by the number of statements here, it will just cause even more chaos, and then land back on ArbCom's doorstep again anyway. So why waste hundreds of hours of community time? The specific flashpoint for the case (MF's use of the word "cunt", and an admin's indef block), may not be the strongest rationale in the world, but the longterm pattern of behavior is something that should be addressed, since it is obviously toxic to the community. --El on ka 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

Take this case. It’s probably a poisoned apple, as you will be slammed no matter what you do. I guess you could duck it, but you’d be slammed for that too and you’d have to deal with it next month anyway. More to say after acceptance.

@John. I hear what you are saying, and appreciate it. I admire Malleus too. But if I had used the bits to help Mattisse, whose work I admired, like we admire Malleus’s, I would have been justly slammed. If you did an article with Malleus, as I did with Mattisse, I guess I'd let another admin make the call. I’ve had the great privilege of working with a number of the project’s top editors on various articles, really top editors like Malleus (though never him even though I seem to remember suggesting we work on absinthe together) and I could never use the bits in disputes involving any of them. YMMV, I’m not talking policy here, just my approach to things. And I haven’t blocked an autoconfirmed user in years, so my advice is probably not worth very much.

@Jclemens: I agree with your supplemental comment of 12/23 8:21. It’s simplistic to call this textbook wheel warring and look no further when the second move advantage has given an overwhelming advantage to one side in a dispute. There’s nothing special or magic about the second move except we don’t want admins using the bits in opposition to each other, and make a guarded exception here in the interest of editor freedom. In general, it works. But in this matter, the second move problem has so skewed the advantage to one side that they don’t have any incentive for any real dialogue. ArbCom could have stepped in, in November on the Enabling case. Brad’s statement sounded like ArbCom’s last word on the subject, so no further guidance from there. So you got a situation where one side is prevailing and the other side can do nothing about it, but are convinced they are right. The community’s divided, so no hope of consensus, and the only non-consensus body has declined the case. I can easily see the admins who perceive Malleus as a problem looking at what’s left in the toolbox and coming up with IAR.

@AGK. Your community-wide RFC. If you would see it, look around you. If it is done as an ArbCom case, that is, with structure and guidance, it may work. Obviously you are the only voters, but the community may buy in through discussion and at least grudgingly accept the result. Even though there will be a lot of heat regardless.

@Casliber. Just recuse. You would add to the discussion, but you would feel torn as a regular FAC participant. There are enough arbs to hear this case, even if half the Committee recuses. I’m behind you whatever you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazen reminder from Hans Adler

[47] Hans Adler 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hydroxonium

This issue, civility, has been tearing apart Wikipedia for years. A quick look at the length of this request will confirm that fact. There have been numerous studies about civility on Wikipedia and the media write about it all the time. It has gotten to the point where the WMF is so concerned about Wikipedia driving away contributors that they are putting financial resources and man-hours in to helping us solve the problem.

ArbCom may not take on meta issues like civility, but it does take cases. And thier ruling on these cases help shape our laws (i.e. policies and guidelines). This is one of the last major issues to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Therefore I have two questions that I ask of each arbitrator.

If not ArbCom, then who?
If not now, when?

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serpent's Choice

When my coworker said that there was something I just had to see here, I assumed it was some action related to the case I filed last year. Instead, there's a special place in hell for him for getting me to read an RFAR on Malleus Fatuorum. Frankly, I'm a retired editor. So I don't care what you do on this case. But I'm here, and I've wasted my time anyway, so...

Civility is a pillar, yes. And it is an important pillar. It means that MF really ought to be a little less bristly when people ask him to tone it down a bit. But it is not a mandate to be super-human, to never let ire or frustration show, and to never risk causing offense. So the other side of the civility coin is this: it's simply inappropriate to run to ANI ever time he -- or anyone -- says a bad word, or makes an intemperate comment. Even if there have been a lot of them.

But more than that. It gets said in the context of the blocking policy more than anything, but the whole of Wikipedia's dispute process is supposed to be rehabilitation. That's why blocks are preventative, not punitive. That's why the court of last appeals here isn't a court at all, but a venue for arbitration. MF is unquestionably a contributor of excellence, in quality and volume. Anyone who claims to the contrary has not looked at the clear record of his contributions. And, much of the time, MF is a perfectly reasonable cooperative contributor. So, even if we stipulate that the dispute resolution process should sanction him in some manner, where is the measured response? He's not disruptive everywhere. Where are the topic restrictions? The bulk of the problems are with clearly definable groups of editors (on each side). Where are the mutual non-interaction agreements? My disdain for RFC/U wasn't secret, but where was even the pretense of one? MedCab? Mediation? Anything? No, there's just an endless serious of niggardly little blocks, almost all of which are overruled by consensus, not because of some vaunted second-mover advantage, but because they've become a political football, not a serious attempt to resolve a conflict, if there's even a real conflict to resolve at all. And of course, every time there's one of those blocks, and an unblock, that block log gets two lines longer, and that political football game becomes a little easier to play. Admins who are overeager to jump on the pitch and play that game -- on either side -- are at least as much to blame for the situation being where it is now as MF is. And I don't just mean whoever is involved in whatever Wheel War today's headline talks about.

As an aside, I'd just like to take a moment to comment on the comment above me by Coren, who is, at least for a little while, still a sitting member of ArbCom. In talking about MF, Coren, you fucking scare-quoted "editor" and suggested that "show[ing him] the door for good is self-evident"? Civility is one of our "effing pillars". And Wikipedia should be worried about losing editors; specifically, it should be worried about losing editors who have the skill and desire to actually write a high-quality encyclopedia, even if they call a nebulous collection of administrators "fucking cunts" from time to time. Wikipedia lost me as an editor, and the reasons for that have way more to do with this sort of response from an Arbitrator than any naughty four-letter word that MF might have uttered. It's tempting to make a comment that I'd consider a personal attack here, but I once helped build a compromise wording at WP:NPA, so in the interests of consistency, I won't. Rather, I'll just say this: I'm sorry I ever voted for you, Coren, and I hope the current Committee does not share in your temperament. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker et al.: Oh, and for goodness sakes, if you're going to do something with this debacle, don't do it by motion. According to the policy regarding cases-by-motion, the Committee can handle cases that way "[w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed". I don't think a substantially undisputed fact can be seen within 1Gb of Wikitext from here. Frankly, at some point, I'd expect someone to claim that referring to Malleus as MF is a personal attack rather than an abbreviation ... or employ it as one. Any case you open about any of this is going to be a Biblical clusterfuck, but that's why it's here in the first place, and that's why ArbCom gets paid the big bucks (zero, of course, but in a very large font). Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Snowolf

I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case, and review the whole situation, its precedents and the unavoidable future incidents of this sort. A Malleus RfC as proposed, will solve nothing, seems a pointless exercise in futility to me. Some things, RfC just can't solve. I'm not sure the Arbitration Committee can solve them either, as this seems a lose-lose situation to me, but nevertheless this is precisely the dispute the Arbitration Committee exists for. It is a divisive issue among administrators, as shown by the blocks and unblocks and the past history on this very specific subject and yes, this is clearly a "unusually divisive dispute among administrators" or at least part of it is. It is not going to get "solved" any other way than here, and even here, it's not an easy task to get to a definitive conclusion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Clerk note: Malleus has been unblocked to allow him to participate to this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Malleus was reblocked per his request by 28bytes Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/1/3/2)

Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. This is a long running dispute, highly divisive even amongs administrators, and thus it behooves us to accept this case. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so it's clear, I'm planning on looking at the whole package, (MF-Civility, the second mover/third mover wheel war issue, all nine yards. This is not going to be a quick, easy case (as evidenced by the sheer amount of people commenting). SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Per SirFozzie, I'm less inclined to look closely at Malleus' own behavior (unless someone provides credible evidence that it's recently changed for the worse), but rather how admins are dealing with each other over a matter of good-faith disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The outpouring of opinion here is quite large. I'd caution folks to avoid investing large amounts of time arguing over whether a case should be opened or not, and instead save some of that energy to compile and present evidence appropriately if and when a case is opened. That, more than many electrons expended here, will help us come to the best conclusions. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While what Hawkeye7 did has every appearance of a wheel war, Malleus has repeatedly been helped by the second-mover advantage, which has historically given him a free ride as long as someone, anyone, is willing to unblock him. If we sanction Hawkeye by motion, and leave the second-mover advantage issue untouched, we will have done nothing to address the community's concerns. Anyone can block Malleus, but no one can make it stick, because of the second-mover advantage. Perhaps it's time to admit that "wheel war", like "edit war" is not limited to a specific bright-line, but can take place in an initial reversal of an admin action? For these reasons, I do not believe this morass can be untangled by simply pounding down the most convenient nail, Risker. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely recused. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse; even were it not uncomfortably close to the end of my term, I intend to submit comments. — Coren ^(talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: it was suggested that the incoming arbitrators comment on matters that could be on our agenda after our terms begin, although until 1 January we do not accept or reject requests. With respect to the request as framed, I see three issues: first, Malleus' incivility; second, dealing with problematic "vested contributors" (which is not to say I characterise Malleus as such); and third, the ostensible wheel war.
On issue one, I do not see how the issue is ripe for arbitration: other than disparate discussions, no prior dispute-resolution was sought for Malleus' conduct. (However, I could be convinced at a later date that we must arbitrate the issue, if these steps are sought in future but do not succeed.) On issue two, I do not think we can be of assistance: the committee has already issued guidance on vested contributors, and policy is clear that the merits of one's contributions does not mitigate unprofessional conduct. On issue three, I think we must open a case to consider whether Hawkeye7 was correct to reverse John's unblock. If a wheel-war did take place and there was no consensus to re-block, then there has been administrative misconduct - of which we should and always have taken a dim view. AGK [•] 02:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott MacDonald, I reject the idea of opening a case to talk about vested contributors because the resulting decision would be waffle. We would just re-state what everybody knows: that experience does not mitigate unprofessionalism. We could offset the apparent gulf in policy with practice by sanctioning Malleus, but my additional worry is that the community hasn't really tackled the issue except with pitchforks-and-torches threads here and there: where's the community-wide RFC? Arbitration would be messy and the issue should go to the whole community first (which has not happened yet). Regarding Hawkeye7, you misunderstand me: I'm not saying he did wheel-war, and I wouldn't judge that in a preliminary thread like this. However, if he did reverse the unblock without waiting for a consensus, then that's wrong: we don't allow wheel-warring because it's a slippery slope, not just because "policy says so". AGK [•] 03:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given queries about other people and whether they can be considered "involved", I've interacted fairly regularly with Malleus. Am happy to recuse if folks think I I should do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a case. With respect to Malleus Fatuorum, there is no valid reason to skip the RfC phase. With respect to the so-called wheel war, there were intervening edits by Malleus which an administrator may have considered sanctionable (indeed, I do wonder about the speed of the unblock to some extent, it could easily have waited longer while further consensus was developed and the blocking admin's indepth rationale was posted). I am also concerned that any administrator would make a comment like this about someone he has just blocked; it did more to inflame the situation than to calm it. I would consider some motions in respect of this request: 1) Banning Malleus from WT:RFA until the completion of a community RfC and 2) a suitable sanction on Hawkeye7. Risker (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]