Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification/amendment request: Malleus Fatuorum topic banned|Clarification/amendment request: Malleus Fatuorum topic banned]] | none | none | 16 October 2012 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification/amendment request: Malleus Fatuorum topic banned
Initiated by -— Isarra ༆ at 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Isarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
- Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
- Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]
- That guy
Statement by Isarra
One of the remedies of the Civility enforcement arbitration case was as follows:
Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA.
While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely, there is concern about the spirit of this given a very simple workaround: instead of using the talkpage, he discusses matters directly on the RfA, regardless of how relevant they may or may not be to the consideration of the candidate. [4], [5], [6] [7] [8]
Now I have tried moving some such discussions to the talkpages in the past as I do not believe they belong on the RfAs themselves, but with ones in which Malleus Fatuorum is involved, this has been contested and reverted due to the fact that he is banned from said talkpages and thus would be unable to continue to participate in these discussions. [9] [10], [11] Given that holding irrelevant discussion on an RfA itself can be disruptive just by being there regardless of who is doing it, however, I have to ask - is this appropriate? As he is banned from discussion on the talkpages, should that not include a ban from similar discussion on the RfAs themselves?
As it is, I would put forward that the ban is currently doing more harm than good because it encourages off-topic discussion on RfAs, and as such either the ban should be lifted entirely so that the discussion can take place where it would make more sense and less interrupt the RfAs themselves, or the explanation should be extended to cover discussion on all parts of the RfA process so as to be effective. -— Isarra ༆ 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus Fatuorum, Jc37, both of you... please stop. You've made your points; let someone else sort it out, eh? -— Isarra ༆ 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis Brown
I tend to agree that the ban is not effective. I see Malleus had to revert where someone had moved a discussion to the talk page, in order to not be guilty by someone else's doing. I actually agreed with that being moved to the talk page, and with Malleus reverting it since it violated the spirit of his ban. I ended up hatting it. From my observation, much of what is called "disruption" is just a tough question or valid points made by Malleus, and others dog pile on, in part because of this talk page ban. The ban is doing the exact opposite of what was intended. I will be the first to say Malleus can be pointed at times, but not nearly as much as others claim, who seem to just waiting for him to have an opinion so they can pounce. The best thing that we can do to help restore order is to lift the talk page ban and allow admin to simply use their judgement, like they would any other editor. If anything, we need to clerk the RfA page stronger, moving the threaded off-topic comments by anyone to the talk page, and this ban actually works against that. Drop the ban and help restore some order by re-leveling the playing field, and maybe we can start clerking the page a bit better as a bonus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Malleus Fatuorum
"While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely ..."
Talk about damning with faint praise; entirely would be the correct word to use here. And let me just note that the discussion Isarra has taken such exception to was not started by me and took place in a section of the RfA called Discussion. Dennis is quite right; I'm not the problem with RfA, it's those who refuse to police the place, or even worse, close down all discussions they disapprove of. Either RfA is a simple vote or it's a discussion. You really can't have it both ways, by attempting to eliminate all unpopular points of view. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- @jc37. I see. So this has now rather quickly deteriorated into yet another civility witch hunt. Will you people never give up? Or even begin to acknowledge the real incivility here? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- @jc37.
"... but to be fair, it's often because others' comments may be just as questionable"
If you were really being fair you'd recognise that it's always because others' comments may be just as questionable, but of course fairness is too much to ask. And still you're banging that bloody civilty drum. For Christ's sake, give it a rest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- @jc37.
"I'm seriously wondering if you're attempting to hoist yourself by your own petard."
The simple truth is that you're here to disrupt Isarra's perfectly reasonable request for clarification by turning it into yet another civility witch hunt. Now button it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Franamax. This just gets worse and worse:
"It makes zero sense that for the sake of MF and their ban from disrupting RFA talk pages ..."
In what sense am I banned from disrupting RfA talk pages any more than you are? Can you not read? Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved statement by jc37
Because RfA is a hybrid between consensus and voting (as a page where extra tools or responsibilities are requested by an individual), there is a mild ongoing tug-of-war of sorts between those who want the page to solely be a "vote" with minimal commentary, and those who note that it is a discussion page like any other Wikipedia discussion page.
The current loose consensus is that discussion is allowed, but only as long as it stays civil (with NPA), and stays on the topic of the request and the contributions of the requester. General discussions about RfA, or anything else off-topic are generally moved to the talk page.
As for Malleus, in my experience, for the most part his comments have appeared to have been on topic, but I think his "civility" could be subjectively argued at times. I'll leave that to others to determine. - jc37 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time remembering the last time (if ever) I've interacted with you malleus, so not sure what "witch hunt" I'm supposed to be a part of. I also noted that I would leave it to others to determine concerning your "civility".
- For the most part, I would be willing to chalk much of your comments up to your "forthrightness", but there have been times that I've seen your comments and cringed at the seeming harshness. So defining "civility" in this case could be considered subjective. I personally tend to align with WP:EQ. and that we should have open, collegiate discussion on Wikipedia. (I favour politeness, but accept that it's not always possible, or even always advisable.) At times, I'm not sure I would define your comments anywhere near "collegiate", but to be fair, it's often because others' comments may be just as questionable. So anyway, like I said, I think I'll leave that to others to discern. There's enough other things I can help with on Wikipedia. - jc37 02:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm reading my comments, and reading your responses. Somehow I'm not seeing the need for such responses malleus, so in at least this one instance, always would not seem to apply.
- I have no feeling of "witch hunt" or "drum beating" towards you malleus. I'm merely expressing my experience.
- Though at this stage, I'm seriously wondering if you're attempting to hoist yourself by your own petard... - jc37 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The simple truth is that you're here to disrupt Isarra's perfectly reasonable request for clarification by turning it into yet another civility witch hunt. - (re-reads my initial comments) No, if you'll re-read you'll see I was commenting about the current state of RfA. I honestly was originally attempting to stay non-committal about the civility of your comments.
- Incidentally, I'm wondering how telling someone to "button it" on a discussion page is considered open, collegiate, or civil?
- Hence why I'm wondering if you're doing this to yourself intentionally. I did nothing untowards toward you, and you jumped down my throat with both feet. - jc37 03:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Franamax
ArbCom could help by clarifying that off-topic discussion in RFAs should be moved to RFA talk pages per normal procedure without consideration for whether or not Malleus Fatuorum (or any other topic-restricted editor) was involved in the discussion. These sub-threads are moved to talk to prevent disruption to the actual RFA. It makes zero sense that for the sake of MF and their ban from disrupting RFA talk pages we should instead permit continued disruption of the RFA pages instead. Moving off-topic discussion to talk is in no way a gambit to stifle MF, it's to preserve the purpose of the RFA. The latest case where Isarra tried to move completely unrelated discussion off the RFA page only emphasizes this. And contrary to Dennis Brown's assertion, Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves. Franamax (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment by MONGO
Admin The Worm That Turned had to ban Malleus from the latest Rfa for disruption. It's nice to see some admins still have a clue. I suggest Malleus be site banned for not less than 30 days, and any of the usual cadre of aiding and abetting admins that might excessively protest such a ban be emergency desysopped. Think my suggestion is extreme? Do nothing now and that will be where this charade ends anyway, more or less.MONGO 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Statement by someone else
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Okay, awaiting more statements, but, I've got to say that Franamax has one thing absolutely right, so I'll quote that; "Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves." Someone's post can't be moved to a page they're banned from, and then blocked for violation of a topic ban, that would be a huge miscarriage of justice. Courcelles 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)