Arbitration Committee proceedings

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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.

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

Clarification request: Civility enforcement

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

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

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

Statement by Isarra

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
Rschen7754: I didn't even realise he was involved. Added. -— Isarra ༆ 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber: How is an extended discussion of a candidate's grammar helpful, or telling someone their support is 'wrong' and then calling them a dishonest twat, as well as discussing various folks' ages, relevant to the candidate itself? -— Isarra ༆ 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the motion and the general direction this is going, I would ask that everyone here please consider that the incivility in question is not the purpose of this request, despite the original case it pertains to, but merely an ongoing issue - the purpose here is the topic ban. Yes, banning Malleus Fatuorum outright would resolve that same as any of the other alternatives presented by myself and MBisanz, however given what we have here I would hesitate to believe there is enough evidence in any direction if a full ban is indeed warranted considering the incivility on top of everything else. Please, take great care with such discussion; though it may well be merited I would argue that perhaps this just isn't the place for it. -— Isarra ༆ 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Courcelles - If you say it is fine for people to move Malleus's comments to the talk page, but he can then no longer reply there or move them back, you have effectively created a new vector for abuse. And to be clear, his moving them back was not a violation, it was an attempt to comply. You can argue whether or not it was required, but his actions were clearly to remain within the letter of the ban. This is my whole point: This ban is causing more problems than it is solving. Remove the ban, let the admin do their jobs by treating everyone equally. This ban only muddies the waters and has led to admin not being willing to clerk the page due to the confusing nature of this disruptive ban. I can't stress this enough, I'm at every RfA, I see it every time. At this point, it isn't even about Malleus, it is about the larger issue of how an overly targeted ban is causing disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm I agree with your assessment that the time has come to modify the ban to remove the limitation on individual pages. Leaving other restrictions is a reasonable compromise. I disagree with Silktork and SirFozzie, who seem to (for whatever reason) misunderstand the reason this was brought here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SirFozzie et. al. Someone came here for clarification. Instead, you are offering an answer to a question no one asked. This seems completely out of process, an end-around motion that isn't related to the report, or Worm's successful enforcement. It might be convenient, but it isn't proper. Most damning is that it tells new editors that the "misconceptions" about inequity in the system aren't really misconceptions at all and is a blow for editor retention. Whether it passes or not, the damage is done, as it sends the message that all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SirFozzie. And don't be surprised if there are consequences to your actions here. Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B. Where did you get the idea from that this was a thread about incivilty? One of your IRC mates? Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Yesterday had to work closely with human resources at my company as they were terminating an employee. The employee had a history of outstanding performance and skills that would be somewhat difficult to replace in the near term...however, the employee, as I later was filled in, was extremely difficult to work with, had demonstrated hostility to coworkers and was creating a difficult working environment for others. The decision to fire the employee wasn't a easy one and only determined to be the best possible resolution to all after repeated written warnings had gone unheeded. I sat for over an hour with human resources afterwards as they lamented the difficulty of their decision, none of them were happy about what they had done, even expressing feelings of guilt to a degree, but in rehashing how and why they came to the decision they did, ultimately they realized it was the only workable solution. Wikipedia is not about the money though as none of us make a dime, so its doubtful the adverse effects of a temporary "firing" of an editor will probably threaten their ability to feed and house themselves. I think back to 2006 when arbcom desysopped me. At the time, I was bitter to a degree and others joined in the chorus that the penalty was too harsh. In retrospect, I suspect that had I been willing to admit my failings and to offer concrete assurances that I would go out of my way to not repeat my mistakes, arbcom may have offered me an alternative. I think now would be an optimal opportunity for Malleus to ask for clemency, offer reassurances and make promises that he can reasonable be expected to stick to. I'm sure that if arbcom does end up site banning Malleus, it won't be because they have hurried to this decision or that any of them will feel good about it. As NY Brad laments below...it makes him sad. For the record, it would make me sad as well, for I would greatly prefer that an alternative may be possible...but I think this alternative is possible only if Malleus did what the fellow that got fired and I failed to do. We all have to be held accountable for our actions.MONGO 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Is there some reason why Worm that Turned isn't listed as a party on here? --Rs chen 7754 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmph. I've appreciated Malleus' input on forums such as WT:GAN; he has a good understanding of what quality is. But his refusal to adhere to what the rest of the community has to adhere to has unfortunately resulted in this ban motion. A bit sad. --Rs chen 7754 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Worm That Turned

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

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

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

@SirFozzie, I find your remedy disappointing. It doesn't deal with the issue, just cuts it out. Malleus may be a figurehead of incivility, but that allows him a unique pivotal role in improving it, should he decide to. I do wonder if you are trying to put forward a show of power, with the election looming. Your seat is up for renewal, isn't it? Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denunciation of hypocrisy: A statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

@The little clerk ("PenWhale") should stop his finger-poking and either retract his comments or admonish arbs who go off topic. Perhaps he should find another activity where he will do less damage? The comment that he is afraid of this "spiraling out of control" shows how little equipped he is to be a clerk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie, Your acquiescence to Malleus's being accused of paranoia and your silence regarding other personal attacks and incivility directed towards him show that you need to work on simulating an honest person. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK: Resign!

@AGK, Didn't you fail to disclose your previous accounts the last election, violating the rules. Why are you allowed a vote, particularly on the topic of "dishonest t**t"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, How dare you remove the refutation of your falsehood that Malleus is a net negative? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding of WP:Point is another reason that you should resign. You are just incompetent as an arbitrator or dishonest, and either suffices as grounds for you to resign. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky Cauldron, you are wasting time with this guy. You think that his nomination statement is worth anything? He needs to be kicked out of the committee. How does recall work? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The ed17

Okay, I'll bite.

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

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

And now another question: when did this turn into a simple question of 'can RfA discussions be moved to talk pages' to 'let's ban Malleus'? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

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

Statement by Leaky Caldron

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

This case was brought to clarify a single issue following a non-disruptive discussion at an RFA. Surely Arbcom should be focussing entirely on that issue, brought here for their consideration? Instead, we have Arbcom comments that generate far more heat than light, changing the emphasis of the case from looking at the specific case, to a broader scrutiny of the editor concerned. Comments like "I am concerned that MF is being brought before us again" are simply pre-judging the outcome. Another member providing numerous variations of potential breach of sanction, none of which actually occurred in the case brought. Nit-picking about whether the revert was in itself a breach - come on, give us a break. Material unrelated to the case ("dishonest twat") should not be admissible here, this case is about X, not Y or Z. Arbcom needs to concentrate on the case brought for clarification instead of making this look like a witch hunt. Leaky Caldron 10:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai. This request was not brought to investigate any of those questions. It was brought to examine an existing remedy which had caused problems due to lack of awareness on the part of the OP. Leaky Caldron 17:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, @Reaper Eternal, @anyone else who is interested. In your election statement Wikipedia:ACE2011/C#AGK you stated that "Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected.)" was an important issue for you. Can you explain / justify your change of position? Leaky Caldron 21:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK. Please see my post above 13 hours ago and follow-up at 17:25. It seems to be quite perverse that the remedy clarification required should lead to the current state of affairs. Tznkai informs me that is how Arbcom works. It still seems perverse, especially as the original issue at an RFA involved no disruption but merely an ill-judged pre-emptive warning not to disrupt the RFA. Leaky Caldron 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mark Arsten

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

Statement by Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

(To Malleus Fatuorum:) I take your point, but it's also true that in some instances, the types of back-and-forth RfA discussion we are talking about have been extended and turned sideways by the way you say things. In that regard, why do you think it is that you, alone of all the people who comment on RfAs (above the "RfA troll" level; you're certainly not that) have been the subject of this much criticism and this unique remedy. Although you set a higher bar for candidates than many of us, you are hardly the only oppose vote in most RfAs; frequently your oppose lines up with dozens of others, and you are not the only one who doesn't channel Caspar Milquetoast in opposing. Do you think the fact that there is concern about your RfA participate in particular is just arbitrary, or is there something untoward going on that I honestly don't know about—or might part of the issue rest with yourself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted to Malleus's talkpage, speaking to him directly in a fashion that wouldn't belong on the arbitration page. I am not unduly optimistic that this will improve the current situation, but I thought it was worthwhile at least to try. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

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

“

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

”

[15]

“

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

”

[16]

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

Statement by RegentsPark

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

@Hersfold. While "dishonest twat" is not a nice phrase, MF's use is not as gratuitous as it seems. It was made in response to an exchange that followed I knew the substance of your edits prior to seeing the post's as well. Just remember, being well-known does not imply well-regarded which, while it avoids scatological terms, is not up there as a model example of community building behavior. It is well worth bearing in mind two things (1) Malleus is not exactly talking to himself in most of these exchanges, and (2) it is only human to respond angrily to a personal attack. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie Re your motion, is it really wise? From reading the discussion here I don't see a lot of support for the original complaint and, though it is not directly addressed, suspect there will be even less support for a site ban of any duration. I'm aware that arbs don't have to pay heed to community consensus but this, even as a motion, seems more than a tad off track. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork (I'm disappointed.) You say MF is continuing to behave in an unpleasant and disruptive manner. However, the general consensus appears to be that he hasn't behaved that way. In fact, I see quite a bit of support for the views that his comments on RfA are generally useful. Also, I'd hesitate to call Malleus disruptive. Unlike some of the other editors we've seen banned over time, Malleus is almost never tendentious and absolutely never duplicitous. He's too straightforward for that. We should appreciate that honesty - "honest twat" if you will - rather than penalizing it. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbcom: The Committee has significant autonomy to address unresolvable issues among the community, but at the same time does not exist to subvert community consensus - there is ample evidence that community consensus is not to ban Malleus. This is now overreach way and beyond what is your brief and what is reasonable. SirFozzie's motion was bad enough but to see four other arbcom members go so blatantly against the wishes of the community is shocking and dangerous for the health of the project. I'm sure you can see how the community is reacting to this and I suggest you put Wikipedia ahead of your own biases and egos and rethink your votes below before it is too late. --regentspark (comment) 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jethro B

Completely uninvolved here. Reading Malleus' comments on this thread alone, I'm surprised at the heated level and incivility that he is expressing, on a thread about incivility! For example, he has violated WP:AGF regarding the editor jc37, attacked Franamax by asking if he/she could read, suggested that banning MONGO for his comment would be a splendid idea, called Courcelles a "dishonest fucker," attacked SirFozzie on multiple occasions and said not to be surprised of consequences to his actions here, attacked Wikipedia as a "heaving swell of vendettas" (if you don't like the site, why are you editing?), attacked Hersfold and violated WP:AGF, etc... All of this can be found in his comments in his thread. I find that absurd.

This level of incivility on this thread is unacceptable, and is surely only representative of comments on other threads (such as "dishonest twit"). I don't know Malleus well enough to request any particular action, and a simply remedy may suffice, but this should certainly be taken into account. --Jethro B 05:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@GFHandel - I left that as a disclosure, as I have no opinion whether he should be banned, blocked, topic banned, or whatever. I'm simply pointing out what I believe is incivil rhetoric on this thread, and this thread is regarding civility. --Jethro B 18:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Malleus - IRC? Thats the Internet chat form thing right? I've never used any Wikipedia IRC, don't know where I'd set one up, and don't know how to. Ask every editor here if they've seen me on an IRC, they'd tell you no. A little WP:AGF would be nice. --Jethro B 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GFHandel

One of the seminal books I've read is, surprisingly, "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams. You wouldn't think that a book of cartoons would have such an influence, however near the end of the book is a chapter discussing "OA5" (which stands for "Out at Five") in which Adams muses that "the key to good management is knowing what's fundamental to success and what's not". He develops the idea by asking the reader to look around their company and identify activities that are at least one level removed from the fundamentals of the company. Adams illustrates his "one level removed" point with examples: "if you are testing a better way to assemble a product, that's fundamental; but if you're working on a task force to develop a suggestion system then you're one level removed", and "if you're talking to a customer, that's fundamental; if you're talking about customers you're probably one level removed". Humorously, he speculates that "you will not be missed if you are abducted by aliens" if you are involved in activities such as "Quality Faire", "ISO 9000", "Policy improvement", "Writing vision statements", "Writing mission statements", etc. Why was the book seminal to me? Because I quickly learned to steer away from "one level removed" activities in a business, and to respect and support those who were not "one level removed". It is very easy to get caught up in "one level removed" activities at Wikipedia, however I suspect that the outside world would treat with some amazement the banning of an editor who is the antithesis of the "one level removed" phenomena. In contrast, I picked (at random) one of those who supports the ban, and wasn't surprised to find that they had made less than seventy article edits in the previous twelve months. Therefore, and with probably insufficient respect, I know whom I would be proffering to the alien abductors (in preference to Malleus) if they ever come looking around these parts. That sentiment is driven purely by the existence of the first and (in my opinion) most important pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. GFHandel ♬ 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B: You wrote "I don't know Malleus well enough...", so I'm curious how much research you did before commenting here? For example, are you aware that (as I enter this) Malleus has made 137,979 edits (including 83,578 article edits)—which places him 83rd on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, has created 112 articles (of which three are now FA and four are GA), has performed 244 GA reviews, has 321 entries at the Project quality task force, is always ready to help anyone who asks for assistance, and does his best to help maintain balance at one of the most oft-criticised processes at Wikipedia—the RfA system that has led to this ruckus? Now that you are aware, do you see any grounds for accepting that Wikipedia is a melting pot, however no matter what is postulated at pages such as this, the basis for our work is to build an encyclopaedia for our readers—and that perhaps, based on the above information, Malleus' motives are aimed primarily at that goal? GFHandel ♬ 06:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

I haven't followed much of MF's RfA work but in what I've seen, he's been forthright in his criticisms of candidates, which is usually a good thing. The absence of real scrutiny and judgment at most RfAs I've watched horrifies me. While we have this absurd broken process, we need more MFs not less. So, stop telling your interlocutors (except for the candidate, of course) what you think of them, Malleus. Because if you're going to keep doing that, you won't be welcome at RfA. For that matter, if you continue insulting people your welcome on this project will wear out soon. I respect your opinion on many things. I share your opinion of most of the people you dis - not all - and it's refreshing to hear it said out loud, but just not appropriate for a workplace. It would be ridiculous for RfA to lose your insight and scrutiny because you won't restrain yourself from calling fools and liars fools and liars. But it will, and the project will eventually lose you too, if you don't stop that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Arsten: Are you aware of this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators. This proposed ban is too soon. The only thing Malleus does that causes drama is he tells people what he thinks of them. I realise that's not appropriate and we can't tolerate it forever but it is fairly trivial compared to the genuine viciousness that goes on here. Please just give him a warning. Make it a last warning if you like. He deserves it, and so do his colleagues who will miss him; and the project will be worse off without him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by J3Mrs

I don't really understand why this was brought here, it seems extremely naive to expect anything other than the usual kangaroo court. Some comments appear to be from editors and arbitrators who have seen a name and predictably regurgitated prejudice without reading the context. That some editors do it is to be expected, that some arbitrators do is appalling. I thought (maybe mistakenly) that arbitrators would make judgments based on reasoned argument when all the comments were in, not pile in to display ignorance and prejudice. Inability to act impartially is not good in an arbitrator. Wikipedia needs more editors like Malleus Fatuorum, a lot more, who are prepared to tackle its shortcomings head on rather than those who engage in petty feuding and character assassination. Asking pertinent questions is not disruptive, banning it is. J3Mrs (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Guerillero

No, just no. If MF is banned indefinitely I will place money on the fact that is will be exactly like the OR ban that should have expired after a year. It will never come off. Sure, he can appeal but the appeal will never get off the ground. This coupled with a indefinite topic ban from speaking about adminship. This is way over the top. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by pablo

That motion is ludicrously over-the-top and just demonstrates again how far this request has been diverted onto the old familiar track of "blame bad Malleus". Seems to be the easy option for the arbs, but does the project no favours. pablo 15:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Torchiest

I wasn't going to comment here, but the motion put forward by SirFozzie is inappropriate. This clarification request is not about civility, and no civility enforcement is necessary. It is a matter of recognizing that MF's topic ban from RFA talk pages isn't working correctly, leaving tangential discussions in the RFAs themselves. The solution is restrict the ban to the main WT:RFA page, and enforce staying on topic in individual RFAs.

In the last month, MF has done more than a dozen good article reviews, greatly improving people's submissions and helping them to be better editors. He is polite when approached in like fashion, knowledgeable and willing to share that knowledge. He's busy doing all this collaboration everyone keeps making noises about. I almost said something about this a week ago because while people are talking about doing another GAN backlog drive, he's working on it every day. Forget cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is more like cutting off your head. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

Moved from the arbitrator voting section on the motion below. Many things would work better if MF would simply drop phrases like "dishonest fucker" from his vocabulary (MF - please). However this is just a witchhunt. A failure to find any useful sanction to stop MF behaving in the offensive way he keeps doing has instead led to a pitchfork chorus. That isn't productive either. A lack of outstanding Dalai Lama-like peacemaking (The Dalai Lama punched Brian Blessed, so I'm sure he could handle MF) is understandable, because that stuff's hard and I certainly don't have the answer. But nor is this it. If we, as a community, have failed to come up with anything better or more effective, that's still no reason to turn into a frustrated lynchmob. MF is a pain and his choice of language can only be seen as a deliberate taunt to the civility police. But even the Dalai Lama says "fuck it" from time to time and we shouldn't play up to MF's taunts, even if he does seem to be chasing "death by [civility] cop". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I want to remind what everyone the actual stakes are with civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to create a reliable, accurate, neutral, and wide ranging information source. There are other ways to create such information sources, but the model we have chosen is collaborative volunteer contributions. One of the core tools we have are standards of contributor behavior, ways we expect you to act so that our environment is one where we can cooperate in our work. Incivility is a problem not because civil behavior is nice with tea and crumpets, incivility is a problem because it poisons our working environment and working relationships. This is a fact, evident in the bad feelings, hostility, and sheer distraction uncivil conduct leaves in its wake. Barring secret advances in artificial intelligence, we all remain human beings, with human vulnerabilities. That means we are prone to being insulted, to demanding answers, and to making face saving and grudges more important than our chosen tasks. Unchecked, bad conduct turns a working environment into a battlefield. There are always excuses, and their always sympathetic cases, but we are here, by our choices, to work, not to get emotional and ideological satisfaction. No contributor is more worthy than another here. I believe that Wikipedia will be around long after anyone commenting on this incident have stopped contributing, but every moment we shape expectations of what behavior is acceptable, and that behavior is what we shall see now and into the future.

The questions for the Committee (and also, the community) are simple:

Is Malleus Fatuorum's behavior destructive to working environment beyond the accepted imperfections of fallible human beings?
If so, can Malleus Fatuorum's behavior be changed, by his or another's actions, or limited in some way that diminishes the problem?
Is that mechanism available for use?

Leaky Cauldron, Wikipedia's arbitration system isn't a court, (really, it isn't a system) and doesn't follow court-like rules on scope, questions presented, or anything like that. It tries to solve problems. In point of fact here, the immediate issue was that the topic ban was flawed in some way, and what was immediately demonstrated was that the underlying issue that provoked the topic ban was still a problem and was still not solved.--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads, it is more vital for volunteer projects to maintain good behavior, not less. After all, we don't offer money to the volunteers to make up for the downsides. Civility isn't about language qua language - it is about how people treat each other.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter cohen

I see a nose being cut off to spite a face.

The purpose of this project is to develop a high quality encyclopedia. The people who actually contribute high quality content are the most important here. It would be nice if they were not rude but if they don't drive away other high quality contgributors, then the rest of us should put up with their ocassional rudeness.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SassyLilNugget

(Uninvolved) How is it that a simple request for clarification and possible adjustment of MF's topic ban transform into a motion to ban him because of incivility? I cannot word my statement any better than Andy Dingley's and J3Mrs's statements. I find the site ban proposal to be too extreme as it takes the easy way out by not actually trying to work things out and instead avoids everything all together. People need to stop trying to burn others at the stake when some hands are equally as dirty with incivility and try to find other ways to resolve differences. SassyLilNugget (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Too little, too late, evidently, but: The previous ArbCom case included a remedy for Malleus to be banned from an RFA by an uninvolved admin if his participation became disruptive. That's what happened here: Malleus made a personal attack, it was removed, it was not replaced, he was topic banned from the RFA, and made no more edits to the RFA. The motion below appears to be a response to the idea that the previous sanctions failed and the community can't handle this on its own... except the previous sanction did work, and the community handled it just fine on its own. If you were planning on sitebanning Malleus the first time he "disrupted" an RFA, why in the world did you go to the trouble of creating this remedy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Epipelagic

(Uninvolved) The proposed ban by SirFozzie will have a chilling and damaging effect on Wikipedia far outweighing any benefits. Malleus comes from a place in England where the terms he uses are commonplace, and are not associated with the judgements they trigger in other places. A more constructive use of arbitrator time would be to push for the installment of an idiom translator on Wikipedia. An idiom translator would translate idioms that are offensive to certain ears to idioms that those ears do not find offensive. Thus, a user could go to his or her Preferences, and set the translator option to "American Bible Belt Idioms". Then any time "dishonest twat" appeared, it would be translated into an acceptable old testament equivalent, such as "abomination before God". An even more constructive use of arbitrator time would be to work towards reforming dysfunctions in the current administrator system, so content editors like myself could get back to content development, and Malleus would be less likely to be provoked into using one of his native idioms.

There is a lot of talk about how the standards that are appropriate to apply to a vandalising IP who has just appeared and seems wholly focused on disrupting Wikipedia are the same standards that should apply to veteran users who have shown massive constructive commitment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the bad track record of banning many of its most able and original editors. One wonders what would have happened to some of the figures from the past if they were resurrected as Wikipedia editors. How long would Shakespeare or Neitzche last before arbitrators site banned them? Wikipedia needs a sense of family amongst users who have been here for many years, and have made huge and highly competent contributions, whether they have been in content building or on administrative matters. It is not okay to use the same standards with such users you would apply to a vandalising IP. Arbitrators seem to be losing a sense of proportion. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malleus: I know you are not going to listen, but you should stop using those idioms. You know perfectly well it provokes certain people. Grow up and stop provoking them.

@ Editors in general: Until the idiom translator is installed on Wikipedia, when you notice Malleus has used one of his idioms, please replace it with an old testament equivalent.

@ Arbitrators: Instead of proceeding further down this destructive and unskilful path, please pass a motion giving editors the right to edit Malleus's idioms to comply with bible belt standards. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Arbitrators should not make important decisions based on dubious facts. It is not at all clear to me that "Malleus is a net negative". How do you justify that? When Reaper Eternal posted hundreds of counter examples, you summarily removed them, claiming it was "POINTy or distracting". The lists are highly relevant, and not a distraction since they address the central point that an important decision is being made here on the basis of a "fact" that is almost certainly not true. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

My thoughts are very much along the lines of what Floq has stated more concisely than I can. I'll also add a couple points that I've considered. Malleus is very much our own creation, and the elephant in the room is more how he was treated from day one, than how he treats others. People are not treated equally here. Policies are not enforced in a consistent manner. Honesty is not something that is respected - and more often than not the place is run on who can game the system the best. In the end, Malleus does more in article creation, improvement, referencing, and cleanup than just about any 10 other users put together. The fact that he's painfully blunt at times upsets people; but when you talk to him, rather than at him - you'll quickly see that you'll usually get as much respect in return as you offer. I've disagreed with Malleus at times - but discussion with him has always been fruitful. He explains why he thinks and feels the way he does. He also listens to anything put forward in a respectful and intelligent manner. I agree that he has a low threshold for Bullsquirt - but this project is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia; not role-playing games. The original request here as I understand it was for some clarification on how to deal with discussions being moved to a venue where he's been told he's not allowed to participate. Now we're talking about banning him. Self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps - but a witch hunt nonetheless. We are a very diverse group of people, and our cultures vary greatly. If we've created something distasteful, then we should be trying to fix it rather than throwing it out. If we're trying to build a better playground for children, perhaps you take this "ban him, block him" approach; but, if you're trying to build factual, mature, encyclopedic project - then there are times where children must be told their behavior is not acceptable. Sometimes the best way to do that is to simply call "a little shit", a little shit quite clearly. The short version is: I disagree with banning Malleus. — ChedZILLA 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection by Reaper Eternal

I try to avoid commenting on ArbCom motions as much as I can, but I happened to notice that AGK (talk · contribs) has commented below that "Malleus is a net negative." I cannot comprehend how anybody who has reviewed this many good article nominations: <collapsed list of 244 articles>

Extended content

2007 24 Hours of Le Mans

− Churche's Mansion

− Didsbury

− Danbury

− Edward Low

− BR Standard Class 6

− BR Standard Class 7

− Somerset

− Ray-Ban Wayfarer

− BR Standard Class 8

− Poh Ern Shih Temple

− Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series

− John Brunner

− Santikhiri

− IARC

− Bernt Michael Holmboe

− Robert of Melun

− Arthur Eve

− Nabulsi soap

− Robert Winchelsey

− 1915 Singapore Mutiny

− Blyth Power Station

− Bert Trautmann

− Anahim hotspot

− Steve Lukather

− Imperial War Museum North

− St. Boniface General Hospital

− The Woman's Bible

− Münchausen by Internet

− Halkett boat

− Royal Prerogative in the UK

− Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford

− Ljótólfr

− William H. Prescott

− The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle

− Green Lake (Texas)

− Jevons paradox

− Hyde F.C.

− Glastonbury

− St Margaret's Church, Ifield

− Tracing in English law

− Dongan Charter

− SECR N1 class

− Line Mode Browser

− David Watts Morgan

− George Murray

− Mike Jackson

− Capel Lligwy

− Kidwelly and Llanelly Canal

− Michael Lachanodrakon

− Thomas Jefferson Hogg

− River Don Navigation

− Phoronid

− GJ 3634 b

− Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer)

− HTTP cookie

− Medieval Merchant's House

− Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood

− Home theater PC

− Eastcote House Gardens

− St Gwenllwyfo's Church, Llanwenllwyfo

− 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

− Ariel (The Little Mermaid)

− St Llibio's Church, Llanllibio

− Coat of arms of Singapore

− Obsessed (2009 film)

− St Beuno's Church, Aberffraw

− The Time of Angels

− Prince George of Denmark

− Meermin (VOC ship)

− South Stoneham House

− New Forest pony

− Droeshout portrait

− Edward Pulsford

− Elizabeth Cresswell

− Sakib

− William Robinson Brown

− John Van Antwerp MacMurray

− Charles T. Hinde

− Stanisław Żółkiewski

− Strontian

− Constance Stokes

− Serpentine (lake)

− Albigensian Crusade

− SS Christopher Columbus

− Leeds Country Way

− ARCHER

− Isaac Newton's religious views

− Bramall Hall

− Mayslake Peabody Estate

− Nethermost Pike

− Gorgosaurus

− Oliver Typewriter Company

− Albin of Brechin

− Thomas Brassey

− Cold War

− Biglow Canyon Wind Farm

− Justus

− Laurence of Canterbury

− Ælfhelm of York

− Draining the Everglades

− Cinema of Pakistan

− Marine debris

− Horse

− PowerPoint animation

− Click4Carbon

− Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford

− United Arab Emirates

− Rochdale Town Hall

− Lady of Quality

− Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Olympics

− Burnham-on-Sea

− Randall Made Knives

− History of Trumbull, Connecticut

− Ninian Edwards

− First Crusade

− Bill of Middlesex

− The Tale of Benjamin Bunny

− Goodrich Castle

− Wood End, Atherstone

− Seven Gates of Hell

− Statute of Monopolies

− Dunston Power Station

− Eastbourne manslaughter

− London Road Fire Station, Manchester

− Park Crescent, Brighton

− Joseph Moir

− Jutland (horse)

− Temagami greenstone belt

− Edward Sainsbury

− Walter Gilbert (cricketer)

− Nailsea

− Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973

− Richard Basset (royal justice)

− The Women's March on Versailles

− Harry Bassett

− Nailsea

− Camak House

− Howard Zinn

− The Case of the Dean of St Asaph

− Turban Head eagle

− St Anne's Pier

− Moral rights in United Kingdom law

− St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth

− Louise Nevelson

− Claverton Pumping Station

− St Nicholas, Blakeney

− Golden Domes

− San Diego–Tijuana

− Worcester city walls

− Worcester Castle

− Josce de Dinan

− Hugh de Neville

− 1890–91 Sheffield United F.C. season

− Madrona Manor

− HubSpot

− Photovoltaic power station

− History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985)

− John Struthers (anatomist)

− Tanisha Thomas

− Guttorm of Norway

− Saga (comics)

− Augvald

− Kent Ridge Park

− Johan Derksen

− Manuscript culture

− Tommy Johnson

− Newcastle town wall

− Sitakunda Upazila

− Andover F.C.

− Skerryvore

− Mangalorean Catholics

− Wrought iron

− Elias Zoghby

− LNER Class A1/A3

− Ho Yuen Hoe

− Gerard

− LSWR S15 class

− Fagernes Airport

− Underwire bra

− San Juan Creek

− Process Window Index

− 1346

− T2000

− Museum of Bad Art

− Nicolo Giraud

− Sigtrygg Silkbeard

− Buncefield fire

− Bronwyn Bancroft

− Queen (band)

− Seneca Falls Convention

− Yamsay Mountain

− Radstock

− Ashokan Edicts (Delhi)

− Armero tragedy

− Brereton Jones

− The Sleeping Girl of Turville

− Sheila Varian

− Vangjel Meksi

− Sutton Wick air disaster

− Brabham BT49

− Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange

− Muckaty station

− Aberdaron

− Quistclose trusts in English law

− Rivington

− Bentworth, Hampshire

− Express trusts in English law

− Olivia Shakespear

− Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885

− St Deiniol's Church, Llanddaniel Fab

− Franklin half dollar

− Koninginnedag

− Harpy Tomb

− Golondrina point

− Soyuz TM-30

− Free and open source software

− Hadleigh Castle

− Voltage doubler

− 1893–94 Small Heath F.C. season

− Mavis Wilton

− Forth Valley Royal Hospital

− Old Church of St Gwenllwyfo, Llanwenllwyfo

− Hillingdon House

− The Vicar of Bullhampton

− Trustee Investments Act 1961

− Dunster Castle

− Walking Liberty half dollar

− Wood End, Atherstone

− Carlton Hill, Brighton

− Amy's Choice (Doctor Who)

− St Mary's Church, Llanfair-yng-Nghornwy

− All Saints' Church, Shuart

− Kingdom of the Isles

− Charles Boycott

− Bosa of York

− Carr Hill

− Sweet Tooth (novel)

− Hibiscus (restaurant)

− SM City Davao

− McEwan's

− Abuwtiyuw

− 1991 FA Charity Shield

− Team Bath F.C.

written this many featured articles: <collapsed list of 39 articles>

Extended content

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens + − Chat Moss + and this many good articles: <removed list of 22 articles> − Cotswold Olimpick Games

− Cottingley Fairies

− Donner Party

− Gilbert Foliot

− Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

− Greater Manchester

− Green children of Woolpit

− Gropecunt Lane

− Gunpowder Plot

− Guy Fawkes

− Halifax Gibbet

− Jersey Act

− Manchester

− Manchester Mark 1

− Manchester Mummy

− Manchester Ship Canal

− Melford Stevenson

− Moors murders

− Pendle witches

− Peterloo Massacre

− Poppy Meadow

− Roy of the Rovers

− Samuel Johnson

− SSEM

− Sale, Greater Manchester

− Samlesbury witches

− Stretford

− The Green Child

− Theobald of Bec

− Trafford Park

− Towns in Trafford

− Wife selling

− Wilfrid

− William Calcraft

− William de Corbeil

− William Cragh

− William Warelwast

and this many good articles: <collapsed list of 22 articles>

Extended content

1996 Manchester bombing

− Alan Turing

− Beeston Castle

− Bradford Colliery

− Chester Cathedral

− Didsbury

− Ferret legging

− Malkin Tower

− Manchester computers

− Manchester Liners

− Manchester Martyrs

− Margaret Thatcher

− MediaCityUK

− Ordsall Hall

− Paisley witches

− Robert Tatton

− Salford

− Simon Byrne

− The Coral Island

− The Princess and the Pea

− Tickle Cock Bridge

− Workhouse

and contributed copyedits innumerable could possibly be a "net negative" to the project. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without responding here to your argument, I do note that I've removed your large, icon-punctuated, bold-printed list of articles. Please do not re-add that list, though you should feel free to link to the full lists or do anything else that isn't POINTy or distracting. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection by Ceoil

Per Reaper Eternal. This has turned into a pincer movement, and the speed at which it is being executed is breathtaking. You have now backed him into a corner and know full well that 6 months will in effect be a lifelong exit. Chilling indeed. Whats being missed is that MF has a point, is typically right in what he's saying, but gets gamed into corners like this. But whatever, well done guys. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark - Yes you have stated it well, Fozzie's motion goes far beyond what the filing party was seeeking and now four editors have decided themselves to extend a clarification to a ban, imo in the face of the express and often strongly stated openion shown on this page. This maybe in their remit, who the hell care enough to dig through the verbatage on policy pages to find out, but its certainly worrying. It looks from the gutter like an extension of (leap from?) the powers entrusted. Futher, reading below Phil, 6 months, 3 months, both would have the same effect, a life long ban, but if it makes you feel better. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold - I suggest you have lost sight of the goals of the project in favour of decorum in its bywaters. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GFHandel = are you really surprised that the people so quick to enact the ban hammer are those who are interested only in the project as a ploitical area, and have pitiful content work to show for themselves. Its all show show, and nothing bnehing it. Wiki for these four specific people is power not education. There is the disconnect, which is why in a way this is so dissapointing of Fozzie. 00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Futile plea by 28bytes

Is this the spot where uninvolved observers can request ArbCom not ban one of our hardest working editors? If so, I'd like to do so, futile though it may be, given how these things tend to snowball so quickly.

My first interaction with Malleus was an acrimonious encounter during my own RfA, where he said something I didn't like, then I said something snarky back to him, and so on. I later realized my response wasn't fair, apologized for it, and long story short Malleus ended up offering, and I quote, a "group hug."

I'm so glad it transpired that way instead of a third party noticing our squabbling and taking it to a noticeboard where all sorts of people with axes to grind could take a shot at him, and all sorts of people who are tired of seeing people take a shot at him would take a shot at me. Letting arguments work their way to their natural conclusion – which is often, but not always, a better appreciation of each other's points – is a healthy thing in a collaborative environment. He's really a quite reasonable fellow if you deal with him honestly and don't try to play civility gotcha with him. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: I quite liked your statement. It was a wonderful illustration. It's a shame they redacted it. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I agree with the comments of numerous people above, the most recent of which being Ceoil, Reaper Eternal & 28bytes. There is something really, really wrong with how this Request is being handled and it does not reflect well on Arbcom. I didn't intend to sign up to a system where a small group of people could ignore a larger group and even hold a !vote that was closed to the rest of the community on a matter that was not referred to them by that community. The ban motion is an abuse of process, imo, and the manner in which the general discussion was allowed to become twisted off-topic very early on is symptomatic of a deep-rooted problem that is not Malleus but rather systemic. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Modernist

This is a bad move and a mistake. Drop the stick; count to 200 and modify the proposal. Six hours, maybe six days might suffice...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought - just drop the stick...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Truthkeeper

I've taken a bit of time to look at the specific incident. At 00:59 Malleus posts a perfectly valid and completely true comment [17]. At 1:17 a "civility" warning is issued [18] which clearly is pointy and baiting. Yesterday (10/18) Malleus posts a perfectly valid oppose based on copyright issues [19] (ironically at the time when I was fighting to keep copyvio off the main page, and the subject of multiple personal attacks, but the attacking editor didn't get blocked). The way I see it, Malleus is a., making valid opposes, b., being baited, and c., !voting in the interest of the project. We need to slow down here and look at the evidence of this specific incident. Also I'm opposed per ReaperElement and Ceoil. There's no reason to rush into this. I've only noticed it a few hours ago and only now read it. Give the community a chance to catch up. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

This should stop right now. If the Arbitration Committee is going to function the way it's supposed to function it cannot act like a bunch of terrorists. If any minor request to the committee can be escalated into a ban or some other draconian outcome then no one with any sense of decency is going to make such a request. That will leave only those without a sense of decency making requests, probably for indecent reasons. In turn that will make the Arbitration Committee useless for solving the real problems of writing a real encyclopedia. I'm not going to argue for my opinion that Malleus is by far one of the most valuable contributors to Wikipedia because others have done that better than I'd be able to. But I think that the arbitrators voting in favor of this absurd motion need to stop and consider the harm that they are doing to whatever credibility and utility the Arbitration Committee might have left after this fiasco has progressed this far.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Fundamentally, editing Wikipedia is about writing an informative encyclopedia. When talking of disruption on Wikipedia, it comes down to whose actions are disrupting this effort and whose actions are enabling this effort. Too often I see admins interpreting disruption to mean "annoys people and gets a lot of negative attention", which is basically how gossipy school girls and jocks determine who gets to be respected in their student body. Unfortunately, society at large operates like a more surreptitious and sanctimonious version of that same social system so it is not surprising this same human ailment seeps its way into our processes, but it doesn't mean we have to be just another recurring instance of this moral infestation. I am far more inclined to consider a bluntly honest and insulting individual who just wants to contribute on matters of interest to him or her to be a valuable asset to this project, than someone who treats Wikipedia as a vendetta engine while speaking soft words when the teachers are about.

Reaper provided a very long list of articles where Malleus has made critical contributions. Even as this drama-fest is going on he is continuing to make such contributions. Blocks are meant to be about prevention, not punishment. So, what are we preventing exactly? I encourage the Arbs to consider that sometimes sanctions are a source of far greater disruption to improving this encyclopedia than the conduct for which an editor is being sanctioned. Under these circumstances, a ban of six months for an editor whose longest blocks have never exceeded a week and who continuously makes valuable contributions seems more like preventishment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold, speaking from experience, what causes me distress is not some guy calling me a "dishonest fucker" or some other throw-away insult, but admins acting like it isn't a big deal. That Malleus gets repeatedly threatened with blocks, or actually gets blocked, in these situations is a pretty good indicator that his conduct is treated like it is a big deal. Unfortunately, more than a few editors seem to be capable of spewing all manner of vitriolic rhetoric at their opponents in full view of admins and engage in blatant harassment, but their conduct is left alone because the object of their vexatious commentary is not seen favorably by the wikilite. Civility and disruption are far too often used as a catch-all for vexatious actions against editors because all other policies fail to justify the actions desired by those pursuing a personal vendetta. What we have above is not really people crowing about incivility from Malleus being ignored, but him not getting the "punishment" they desire for whatever reason.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinevans123

MF's inciviltiy to me personally is the reason I have considered retirement from Wikipedia since 13 August (see my Talk Page). I have no particular interest in this latest alleged breach of ArbCom sanction, although RfA is perhaps a particularly important forum for the continued good management of the project. I do not particularly wish to see MF blocked for six months (as has now been proposed), as he is a good content contributor, and he has a keen eye for editorial hypocrisy in all its guises. But I simply wish him to see that Wikipedia content is not always necessarily more important than collaboration with other editors. I have not wasted my time in asking him for an apology, and naturally I have not expected one. While I agree with Dr Blofeld that content is really "what matters", I have come to the conclusion that no single editor can assume that the common decencies of civility need never apply to them. Even if they are from Manchester. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by someone else

Clerk notes

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

MF: There are, obviously, ways to express yourself without resorting to name calling and such. And I believe all the back and forth is actually off-topic, pertain to this request. Let's -try- to keep it on topic, without this spiraling out of control. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KW: (1) I would said I did, but consider it was via a mailing list I can provide you no proof of that. (2) I said what I said just now because MF responds with a little more hostility (for some reason), and I feel that there are better ways to state himself without having to do so. The back-and-forth off-topic comment was actually meant for all parties involved, not just MF, but considering I appended it to a comment at MF, I can see why you would think it was only directed at him. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KW (part 2): It seems I missed something in your original statement. Clerks were told to remove instances of personal attacks on here by MF, and I personally determined that it'd be better for him to self-edit, rather than me doing a (comparatively) blanket removal. And I was, in a sense, trying to make sure things aren't heated enough (to the point of a siteban being proposed, for example). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Though this looks like a crystal clear violation of the remedy... (The remedy is not that MF is not allowed to take part in WT:RFA discussions, it is he is not allowed to edit the pages, full stop.) Courcelles 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MF What in the world does that have to do with your violation of the topic ban? Especially since the record shows you were not blocked for the infraction? Courcelles 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mongo, you are mistaken. The remedy says "indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.", this includes both the main WT:RFA page, and the talk page of all individual RFA's, and any other pages that might exist with their names starting with that string. Courcelles 05:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles is correct, there is no violation if someone else moves the posts. Of course, such movement doesn't enable subsequent replies from Malleus, so it would be effectively ending his participation in the discussion. Which begs the question... if it was a "discussion" suitable for the talk page anyways, why should it ever be moved back to the main RfA page solely to enable Malleus' participation? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. See statement above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is as follows: The topic ban was placed on MF to minimize the disruption caused at RfA. As this request shows, the method we used has not removed the disruption. It is time to consider a harsher method to make sure the disruption stops. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, you have two options. A) Cease the personal attacks or B) Face the consequences (up to and including blocks/bans). I cannot say it plainer, you have been given more rope then just about any user I can remember during my time on Wikipedia. You will abide by policies against such attacks, or you will face sanctions for violating those policies. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @MF, I would say your continued presence causing these issues is inherently disruptive. Your method of collaborating with other users, as proven in this request and elsewhere, is inherently disruptive. You have been given more then enough leeway with your opinions on RfA and its processes, and working with other editors, and you've used all of it up. SirFozzie (talk)
  - @MF: This is where I disagree with you. YOU are the cause of your problems, this "Firestorm in a teacup". You have been unduly confrontational, and have stooped to attacks unworthy of someone of your ability. You are and have been disruptive in this (and other) areas. The fact that you see nothing wrong with calling other people dishonest fuckers, dishonest twats, etcetera is mind boggling. You wouldn't act that way to people's faces without people confronting you on your behavior, so why do you think that you could get away with it here? SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - $MF: In a work environment (which one could somewhat reasonably compare Wikipedia to), you have to work with people you find disagreeable. Just like in a work environment in which you would likely face termination if you called a colleague a "dishonest fucker". So yes, you can call people that if you wish, but don't be surprised that there's consequences to such actions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that MF is being brought before us again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also concerned that Malleus's name is coming up yet again, but I don't think a clarification request is the proper platform to do anything other than address the specific issue being raised. It sounds as though that could be achieved simply by banning Malleus from RFA entirely. I reject the notion that copying Malleus's - or any topic-banned editor's - posts to a page they are banned from participating in directly is appropriate, however. Firstly, it creates a loophole in the topic ban. All User:TopicBanned has to do is find User:WillingAccomplice who will transfer posts from any page over to the topic-banned page, and the restriction is rendered superfluous. Secondly, if the discussion belongs on a page where User:TopicBanned is prohibited from editing, that probably means that User:TopicBanned has no business contributing in the first place. If the discussion gets moved because it was started in the wrong place, the same still applies. Thirdly, it prevents User:TopicBanned from disengaging from the area they were previously problematic in, which I thought was the whole point of these restrictions in the first place. If copying a post in this manner were to occur, then no, User:TopicBanned cannot be faulted (unless they directly requested the copying, which is a different matter), but whoever copied the post should be subject to blocking for what amounts to aiding and abetting. The only legitimate exception I can think of is the practice of copying an appeal of some sanction (and replies to comments to the same) to the appropriate noticeboard for community comment and review. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @RegentsPark: I can think of no circumstance on Wikipedia where calling someone a "dishonest twat" would be an appropriate comment and not deserving of a block. "Dishonest twit" isn't much better, but Malleus said the former. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @RegentsPark: Sorry, but I can't see that comment as anything but an indirect way of saying "Well, I don't like you either," which isn't much of a personal attack, certainly not deserving of Malleus's retort. But YMMV, I suppose; thanks for taking the time to calmly explain your position. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Malleus: Insulting other editors is inherently disruptive, and I have no other way to describe your "dishonest twat" comment. The other diffs cited are rather similar. If you believe that insulting people is not disruptive, then I do not believe that you have a place on a collaborative project. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize there's an issue that good faith editors could move comments to a Request for Adminship talk page, and by doing so, infringe the topic ban. Similar to SirFozzie, I think we should consider modifying the remedy to prevent this issue, while still allowing Malleus to take part in the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isarra, each of those comments to Malleus you linked to were pertinent to the RfA candidate. However the hopscotching between wiki and talk page is a problem. Not sure what to do about that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum

For the purpose of this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators (not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused), so 7 votes is a majority.

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in a number of personal attacks. In Civility enforcement earlier this year, Malleus Fatuorum was sanctioned for incivility and cautioned against repeat occurrences. In light of this continuing pattern of misconduct, he is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months. Additionally, Malleus Fatuorum's indefinite topic ban from pages beginning with "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship" is extended to include pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" and related discussions elsewhere, broadly construed.

This section is for voting by arbitrators. Comments from other interested editors are welcome and should be posted in the statements section above.

Support

As I stated above, we have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to work around MF's habitually incivil behavior. However, his behavior (both in the recent request, as well as here) has shown that MF has decided that he does not need to comply with Wikipedia's norms and policies when it comes to working with other editors. Thus, this motion. We've tried to manage the situation. We've tried to work around the situation. It's become clear that these efforts have not effectively resolved the situation, and that's why we're here. In this case, I preferred a time limited ban to an indefinite with appeals every six months because this way, MF can come back and if his behavior with other editors (even those he vehemently disagrees with) improves there's no further actions that need to be taken. I'm sure that MF would consider any ban that required them to ask the Committee to edit would be indefinite as in permanent, which is not what I want. SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that matters would escalate to this point (a case request followed by another issue within a couple weeks) when we were deciding the Civility Enforcement case. I proposed a ban against Malleus at that time, but was the only one to support it, as the rest of the community felt that the issue was more localized and the community could handle any problems elsewhere. It seems clear now that they can't, however, and so no other option save a full, indefinite, site ban remains to us. To Malleus, I strongly advise you to reconsider how you interact with others on your return to the project should this motion pass, and immediately should it not. It is the nature of a collaborative project that you're not going to get on with everyone, but responding with such vitriol will only serve to further inflame issues. To those who oppose this motion, I strongly advise to you that you work with the rest of the community to form some means of properly enforcing the Fourth Pillar and establish some expected standards of decorum for this project, so that matters like this can be resolved with much less drama and more equitably in the future. To that last bit, yes, I would not be surprised if in the noise we did miss some nasty attacks directed towards Malleus which prompted some of his responses. Does that justify Malleus's actions? No, two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when you're under sanction for those same wrongs already. Do Malleus's responses justify the attacks? Same thing applies, except that I'd imagine the vast majority of those making the alleged attacks aren't under any form of sanction - thus making action on the Committee's part somewhat premature absent a full case (which we already did earlier this year). So if you don't like it, do something about it yourselves. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred a case in order for us to look at alternative solutions as I dislike having to remove a hard working and useful contributor, but as there is no stomach for a case, and as it is clear that MF is continuing to behave in an unpleasant and disruptive manner despite ArbCom sanctions, then I will support this. If someone wants to write up some kind of workable topic ban that forbids MF from ALL talkpages (other than GAN related and his own userpage) as well as adminship pages, I would prefer that. Perhaps a topic ban from all non-main space pages, except for FAC and GAN related and his own talkpage? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(General, not about Malleus) Letting people edit an article, but not that article's talk page is a recipe for disaster. That would let people get into editing disputes, but prevent them from resolving them. (The reverse, you can edit talk pages but not articles can work, but not that.) Courcelles 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and I agree with this motion. Making decisions by motion is most distasteful, unless we are merely making minor improvements or changes to an existing sanction. However, while this is a heated issue, it is also very simple (and therefore compatible with decision-making by motion). Due process aside, the only legitimate response to the issue is also very simple: as an influence on Wikipedia, Malleus is a net negative. I don't believe I've ever came across a contributor who is so disruptive and who has also lasted so long without the community or ArbCom banning them; admittedly, there have also been few other cases where a contributor is, variously, so disruptive and beneficial. More relevantly, I don't believe we can continue to accept this kind of behaviour from Malleus. It's time for him to go. If this ban passes, I hope that he will learn to conduct himself appropriately before returning. AGK [•] 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LC, you make the incorrect assumption that MF's conduct does not directly damage the willingness of editors to continue contributing. As you know, an axiom of Wikipedia policy is that helpful contributions do not excuse disruptive behaviour. Do you disagree, do you believe that Malleus has not behaved disruptively, or do you object to the motion on some other grounds? I am willing to read your rebuttal, if only you will explain it. AGK [•] 21:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, I mostly, but not entirely, agree with my colleagues above. I consider this motion to be acceptable, if a little harsh. If another motion is proposed for a lesser amount, such as 3 months, I'll support the other motion as my first choice, and make this my second. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Malleus has never been interested in upholding the fourth pillar, even if you presume that he has a differing interpretation of what constitutes civility. He has had plenty of chances to do so, and has intentionally avoided behaving in a collegial manner despite those chances. It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community. The pillars define the community and the project, and are not subject to wholesale redefinition (though refinement goes on constantly) by the community; they are our social contract with the WMF, our readership, and each other. Those who say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, conduct shouldn't matter if someone is contributing content" are guilty of promoting the first pillar over the fourth. As such, it is appropriate to recognize that it is in embracing all the pillars that an editor is truly a community member. Vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators are all eventually shown the door if they will not reform their behaviors and work with ALL the pillars ALL the time. Civility is no different, and while we can argue about whether Malleus was provoked, or justifiably upset at real wrongs, or started from a different set of cultural expectations, he's failed to self-reform even though he's clearly capable. Thus, Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The comments were pertinent and the real problem lies with RfA itself. The amendment was needless and some discussion of mechanics was required. Later exchanges can be written off after an all-round souring of the atmosphere. The net negative seems to occur after a new discussion (such as this) is opened in a venue such as here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
God no. Perhaps I'm the only Arb who has done a job where you regularly got cussed at, but we need to knock on the head the idea that the standard is a workplace, with the editors as employees who can be disciplined for inappropriate language. No-one gets paid to work here, and some people regularly rail at what they see as 'the management'. This is what started all this lot off. I hesitate to say the appropriate model is a pub (Malleus' language would certainly get him thrown out of several taprooms of my acquaintance if addressed at mine host) but swimming pools (in the Uk at least) all have signs up saying 'no petting, no bombing, no running, no ducking'. There was no need for anyone to plaster a similar notice on this RFA, or to keep going when someone said "are you looking at me sunbeam." As to sanctions, I would have said the existing one worked - other that explaining to Malleus that he can't be blocked because someone else transferred his comments to the talkpage. I dont know if anyone was actually sanctioning him for trying to 'fix' that, but if so they need to have a bit more understanding of the underlying issue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but why would anyone want to participate in a project - or anything - that's as much work as Wikipedia is, where they don't get paid, and it's apparently permissible for people to swear at you if they disagree with something you said? I'm not understanding the Britishisms, but nobody said that this has to be a workplace, and it's been long established - or so I thought - that Wikipedia was based on a collaborative environment. The sort of profanity and incivility Malleus uses whenever someone gets on his bad side (which frankly doesn't seem too difficult) is by definition corrosive to that environment and thus completely incompatible with it. This is the third time this year Malleus's conduct has been raised to this Committee - the first time we let him off with what amounted to a slap on the wrist, the second time we ignored him completely. If we continue to do nothing, we establish that this sort of conduct is perfectly acceptable. That is not the impression I got when I joined Wikipedia, nor is it the impression I'd expect one to get from reading about the pillars or our civility "policy." And if that is what we establish, that is not a project I am willing to contribute to. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

I'm recused per my statement above. I'm also very sad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Torchiest, we've tried things short of a full site ban to resolve this. Malleus's behavior has been repeatedly before the Committee, and he was sanctioned and warned to not repeat them in the Civility Enforcement case. It is just not on to refer to people you disagree with as "dishonest fuckers", "dishonest twats" etcetera. Malleus has been given every opportunity to change the behavior, and has not. This is the logicial conclusion of these steps. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]