User:Razr Nation/Civility enforcement case

{| align="center" style="font-family:Tahoma; background-color: #FFFFF; border: 2px solid #CCCCCC; width:95%" cellpadding="5"

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

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=518217944]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard&diff=prev&oldid=518217499]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=518217269]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worm_That_Turned&diff=518260421&oldid=518252266]

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

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. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bagumba#Oppose], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518072117&oldid=518070969], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516719316&oldid=516719167] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516704810&oldid=516704724] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516739185&oldid=516738695]

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. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150898&oldid=518149802] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150724&oldid=518149572], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516742093&oldid=516741881] Given that holding irrelevant discussion on an RfA itself can be disruptive just by being there regardless of who is doing it, however, I have to ask - is this appropriate? As he is banned from discussion on the talkpages, should that not include a ban from similar discussion on the RfAs themselves?

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


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

Comment. As a newish editor, I feel I must mention that I find the sort of thing as has unfolded here to be far more off-putting than any one user's lack of decorum. With one person it is easily written off as just them, doesn't really mean much, but with many users involved, it speaks ill of the project as a whole regardless of what a small fraction is actually represented. A true conflict takes more than one, and that is where the real damage is done.

Something to consider, perhaps? I don't know. Regardless, thank you to those of you who have not added to the unfortunateness and have tried to keep matters civil and productive, and as for those who have inadvertently added to the heat, well, it happens. We can all try to do better in the future. -— Isarra ༆ 03:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I tend to agree that the ban is not effective. I see Malleus had to revert where someone had moved a discussion to the talk page, in order to not be guilty by someone else's doing. I actually agreed with that being moved to the talk page, and with Malleus reverting it since it violated the spirit of his ban. I ended up hatting it. From my observation, much of what is called "disruption" is just a tough question or valid points made by Malleus, and others dog pile on, in part because of this talk page ban. The ban is doing the exact opposite of what was intended. I will be the first to say Malleus can be pointed at times, but not nearly as much as others claim, who seem to just waiting for him to have an opinion so they can pounce. The best thing that we can do to help restore order is to lift the talk page ban and allow admin to simply use their judgement, like they would any other editor. If anything, we need to clerk the RfA page stronger, moving the threaded off-topic comments by anyone to the talk page, and this ban actually works against that. Drop the ban and help restore some order by re-leveling the playing field, and maybe we can start clerking the page a bit better as a bonus. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Courcelles - If you say it is fine for people to move Malleus's comments to the talk page, but he can then no longer reply there or move them back, you have effectively created a new vector for abuse. And to be clear, his moving them back was not a violation, it was an attempt to comply.  You can argue whether or not it was required, but his actions were clearly to remain within the letter of the ban.  This is my whole point: This ban is causing more problems than it is solving. Remove the ban, let the admin do their jobs by treating everyone equally.  This ban only muddies the waters and has led to admin not being willing to clerk the page due to the confusing nature of this disruptive ban.  I can't stress this enough, I'm at every RfA, I see it every time.  At this point, it isn't even about Malleus, it is about the larger issue of how an overly targeted ban is causing disruption.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Worm I agree with your assessment that the time has come to modify the ban to remove the limitation on individual pages. Leaving other restrictions is a reasonable compromise.  I disagree with Silktork and SirFozzie, who seem to (for whatever reason) misunderstand the reason this was brought here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @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&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens - The damage is done. The honorable thing to do here is admit you have a bias, an emotion investment in the outcome here, and recuse yourself.  I can forgive the utterly incivil remark about Malleus, but that doesn't solve the conflict of interest in this case.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum
"While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely ..." Talk about damning with faint praise; entirely would be the correct word to use here. And let me just note that the discussion Isarra has taken such exception to was not started by me and took place in a section of the RfA called Discussion. Dennis is quite right; I'm not the problem with RfA, it's those who refuse to police the place, or even worse, close down all discussions they disapprove of. Either RfA is a simple vote or it's a discussion. You really can't have it both ways, by attempting to eliminate all unpopular points of view. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @jc37. I see. So this has now rather quickly deteriorated into yet another civility witch hunt. Will you people never give up? Or even begin to acknowledge the  real incivility here? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * @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)

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)


 * @MF - 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)
 * @MF - 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)
 * @MF - 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)

@Arbcom - To continue with Kirill's concern, how is a 6 month ban in this case preventative and not punitive? The way it's framed, it really sounds punitive, and almost reminds me of a "cool-down block". Wouldn't adding unblock (un-ban?) criteria/requirements be closer to existing policy? And to be clear, this is a request for clarification, not an "attack" in anyway. (It's a shame I should feel I have to clarify that.) - jc37 18:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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. --Rschen7754 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I find myself reluctantly agreeing with the supporting arbs of the ban, but I think "It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community." and related statements are just insulting. --Rschen7754 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: You know all that's going to do is piss him off, right? I agree that if he can't behave, a ban is the "least worst" option, but for someone who has contributed so much to the site, that's unfairly harsh. --Rschen7754 02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions - there, ArbCom at least had the dignity to recognize his contributions to the encyclopedia, even though his conduct was quite damaging. Again, I'll say it again - I agree with what Newyorkbrad has said and hope Malleus agrees to improve, and agree with Hersfold and SirFozzie's rationale in voting completely if that fails, but the fact that you can't see what you wrote as entirely unhelpful to the situation is quite worrying. Are you trying to piss Malleus off so he rejects Newyorkbrad's advice and so you can get him banned? --Rschen7754 02:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I think you raise a good point, but the question I have is, what if he doesn't change? --Rschen7754 04:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I think you have your answer. :( --Rschen7754 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

@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)
 * for clarification, SirFozzie has confirmed that he does not intend to stand for re-election. This doesn't change my statement, the "show of power" can be just as relevant for an arb who knows his term is up. I find the remedy disappointing, just as I find the supports disappointing. Jclemens, your comment regarding Malleus status as a Wikipedian is uncivil and verging on a personal attack. Just because it did not use swearwords does not make it pleasant. It is unbecoming of an arb, an admin and even a wikipedian, and I endorse the entry in your blocklog referring to it. Worm TT( talk ) 07:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

@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)

@Dianna, Those who can disconnect JClemens from ArbCom would do better to view "The Ultimate Computer". Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

@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)

I've proposed that ArbCom members be removed at the next election by a plurality.
 * Removal of ArbCom members

I've further proposed the removal of JClemens, AGK, and Hersfeld, as soon as the votes are counted. This would limit the damage done by them in 2012. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  17:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions from The ed17
Okay, I'll bite. JClemens, you should recuse. While I'm not going to go as far as others and say you need to resign, that's conduct unbecoming of a person in your position(s).

@Courcelles: are we really going to call [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150724&oldid=518149572 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)

@Arbcom, would any of you consider proposing an interaction ban between Malleus, et al., and Mongo? That would help address the other major source of vitriol currently swirling around the wiki. (not sure if that's in the purview of a 'clarification request', but if bans are, then I'd think this is) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * 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)


 * @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)


 * @AGK, @Reaper Eternal, @anyone else who is interested. In your election statement ACE2011/C 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)


 * @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)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best solution here is really not to have a lengthy of discussion of whether and how Malleus's restriction should be expanded or tweaked or modified. It is for Malleus to eliminate the need for this debate, and the need for any continued restriction on his participation, by expressing his opinions about the candidates, whatever they may be, in a much less shrill, less hostile, and less argumentative fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (To Malleus Fatuorum:) I take your point, but it's also true that in some instances, the types of back-and-forth RfA discussion we are talking about have been extended and turned sideways by the way you say things. In that regard, why do you think it is that you, alone of all the people who comment on RfAs (above the "RfA troll" level; you're certainly not that ) have been the subject of this much criticism and this unique remedy. Although you set a higher bar for candidates than many of us, you are hardly the only oppose vote in most RfAs; frequently your oppose lines up with dozens of others, and you are not the only one who doesn't channel Caspar Milquetoast in opposing. Do you think the fact that there is concern about your RfA participate in particular is just arbitrary, or is there something untoward going on that I honestly don't know about&mdash;or might part of the issue rest with yourself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Without in any way retreating from the concerns I have posted on this page, on previous installments of this page, or on Malleus's page, I specifically disagree with one of my colleague's comments below that "it's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community" and that "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian...." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was offline for the past few hours and am catching up on the discussion. I want to express my disagreement with the suggestion that a couple of editors have offered, to the effect that some arbitrators' comments or votes on this matter may have been influenced somehow by the fact that there is an arbitrator election coming up, meaning that some arbitrators may be running for reelection while others know they will be leaving the Committee at the end of the year. There is no basis known to me for reaching any such conclusion. Whether or not one agrees with how any specific arbitrator has commented or voted on this request (and there is obviously quite a lot of disagreement), I am sure each arbitrator has done what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the encyclopedia and its community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole saga has become genuinely strange and I hope it ends soon. Quite a number of people need to take deep breaths at this point. I approve of the new direction the motions have taken, but I urge in the strongest possible terms that if it's motion 2 that passes, everying please use your very best efforts so that we don't all wind up bac on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of Information by TheRedPenOfDoom
@Newyorkbrad "I want to express my disagreement with the suggestion that a couple of editors have offered, to the effect that some arbitrators' comments or votes on this matter may have been influenced somehow by the fact that there is an arbitrator election coming up"

I would like to point out that it appears to have been an ArbCom Member who first brought up the upcoming election's potential impact "I understand your desire, Newyorkbrad; however, the level of inactivity in several of our members, the distaste almost everyone on the committee has for even so much as reading the internecine warfare on workshop pages, and the fact that half the committee is about to be distracted by the community's discussion of the next Arbcom elections, leads me to believe that two months may be a conservative estimate. Risker (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC) " back when the ArbCom in their wisdom decided to punt the issue earlier this month. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
Even in his comments here, MF can't help but violate the Fourth Pillar:

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

Do what the fuck you like, I'm past caring what dishonest fuckers like you think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
The simplest solution is to lift the talk page ban on Malleus. Not only is the current ban ineffective, I don't see his comments as particularly problematic. On the contrary, he often asks questions that are pertinent and worth asking and which no one else appears to ask. Pointing out the vacuous nature of a comment, challenging a support !vote to explain itself better, these are all useful things. Granted he could phrase himself better ("dishonest twit 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)
 * @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)


 * @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)


 * @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)


 * @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)


 * @Vote by Jclemens It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community. I give up. Doesn't look like arbs are reading this page at all or perhaps they inhabit a different universe. Or, and I suppose this is a reasonable conclusion to draw, I and the many others protesting here don't belong to the Wikipedia community. The only response that comes to mind is a two word phrase patented by Malleus. I'm off on a wikibreak before I use it. --regentspark (comment) 01:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Arbs: I posted the following motion below in the hope that you all would see light (I suspect a phrase of Malleus involving heads and nether regions would have expressed this more aptly). A clerk removed it. That's fine, that's the definition of clerical work after all. The clerk suggested I post it up here so here it is in its entirety. Show some courage arbs, some of you are better than this and it's time to show the community that you can step up to the plate when called upon to do so. SirFozzie's initial motion was destructive in effect if not in intent, and you should all vote it down immediately. The second motion is a weak attempt at face saving one that should have no place on an august committee such as yours. Do the right thing and close this clarification request with a clarification rather than with drama. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Motion2: Arbs, you need to be aware that this motion is unclear and it a'int gonna work. All you're going to see is more drama on arb pages when this comes back here for clarification or amendment. The text of the motion says As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections). That's all very fine but then it adds but may not engage in threaded discussions at RFA, or in a specific RFA. What happens if Malleus !votes oppose with a minimal explanation and another editor asks for an elaboration. Is Malleus barred from responding to the question because that would be the start of a 'threaded discussion' at a 'specific RfA'? Is he allowed one response? What if that leads to another question? What if the question is not framed as a question? Sliding down a slippery slope, that's what's going to happen. Bottom line, this is just the kind of half-baked motion that should not even be under consideration. The only plus point I can see in it is that it lets some of you switch away from the ban in Motion 1 and is that really a good reason?--regentspark (comment) 23:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (3)
(Non-arb proposed motion)

This entire affair is doing an incredible amount of damage to the Wikipedia community with battles breaking out all over the place and several prolific content contributors as well as several active administrators indicating their intention to retire. Given that the purpose of arbcom is not to add to drama but to reduce it, this entire clarification request is closed with the following reply: "Malleus is not allowed to post on RfA talk pages. Editors are requested not to move any threads in which he has commented to an RfA talk page without his permission or without community consensus."
 * Brilliant. Cuts to the chase. Hey, clerk? There's a really good proposed motion for you to remove down here. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Sure, the clerks will delete but this is spot on: addresses the original concern exactly. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Everyone Looks like the face saving - twit for twat - motion is going to pass here. Depressing. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

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 &#9836; 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@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 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 &#9836; 06:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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 &#124;  My Talk  15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

@JClemens — with absolutely no remaining respect — it is time you resigned. pablo

@Drmies — yup. Unbelievable, but true. pablo 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Arbs — there is absolutely no (scientists estimate < 0.1% of fuck-all) clarification emerging here. pablo 23:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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 talkedits 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I find it pretty incredible that someone who has received support from almost fifty editors here can be a net negative, not a member of the community, and banned. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 01:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I read this article about the writer's experiences on a commune in the 1960s almost twenty years ago, and I keep being reminded of as I watch this unfold. In particular, I find this section quite fascinating: "Each time we could not reach consensus agreement in a reasonably short time, someone either left in disgust or was expelled (in disgust), for every group has a least cooperative member. Let's read that again. EVERY GROUP HAS A LEAST COOPERATIVE MEMBER. Also, every group has a smartest member, a stupidest member, a fattest member, a thinnest member, etc. If you keep expelling "trouble makers" who will not or can not agree with the majority, you quickly end up with a rather homogeneous group. For each time the least of something departs, he or she promotes the next least to the hot seat of being least.

And we did this. Over and over again.

Another curious thing happened. As time went on, our consensus decision process came to be dominated by fewer and fewer people. Not only were our overall numbers decreasing, but the number who wished to participate in the political decision making process of the commune was decreasing even faster. It soon became clear that we were becoming a dictatorship! And it all happened so "naturally.""

What's that line about the lessons of history? —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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:


 * 1) Is Malleus Fatuorum's behavior destructive to working environment beyond the accepted imperfections of fallible human beings?
 * 2) If so, can Malleus Fatuorum's behavior be changed, by his or another's actions, or limited in some way that diminishes the problem?
 * 3) 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)
 * 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)
 * JClemens, saying that a fellow contributor "has never been a Wikipedian" is at least, if not more insulting and destructive to collaborative editing environment as anything that Malleus has said here. It is the kind of language reserved for stalkers, child molesters, and other predators. I'm also astounded that you're willing to brazenly declare what Malleus is or is not interested in. Its also a deep irony that your excursion into political theory ends with you saying that a ban is the result of "self-selection." While of course Malleus is most responsible for his behavior, the arbitration committee is still accountable for its actions and decisions. If a ban is justified, take full ownership of that decision.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, even including "vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators" Malleus still is not one of those people. He is someone who has both tried and succeeded at improving Wikipedia. Even if we believe that he is not a good fit because of how he treats others, there is no joy to be had here, and any such a decision should be made with a heavy heart. Please see MONGO's eloquent statement on this point. I am not and never had been a believer that "content creation trumped, excused, or otherwise made up for chronic incivility" which you can see in my comment above, my blocks, my comments here, especially here and here. I am however, a believer that civility is essentially treating others with respect, and that you cannot help but teach by example. You are not treating Malleus (among others) with respect, and you, as an Arbitrator, are enabling disrespectful behavior at least as much as those you have drawn battlelines against.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

On the recent admin actions
We've had two blocks related to this case that were swiftly undone. One of Jclemens by Floquenbeam ("Personal attacks or harassment: He's more a "Wikipedian" than you are)" and undone by Alexandria "(Vindictive block)" and one of Malleus Fatuorum by Stephan Shulz "(Personal attacks or harassment)" undone by Boing! said Zebedee "(Malicious block)."

I am very disappointed with all four of you.

All four of these actions, block or unblock and their justifications pass the laugh test, but upon a minute's consideration its obvious that they were all terrible ideas. So yes, I get the reasons why Floquenbeam found Jclemens' comments to be personal attacks, and why Alexnadria found them to be vindictive, and while Stephan Shulz thought Malleus Fatourum was making personal attacks (N.B. Malleus Fatourum is not an administrator, so his actions are besides the point I am trying to make) and why Boing! said Zebedee thought they were malicious. This is all entirely besides the point. Administrators, among other things, are supposed to have the good judgement and respect of each other not to use their technical access and status to wage battle. We are supposed to, at the very least try talking to each other, and settling things like reasonable people. Your first instinct in a situation like this should not be to push buttons, but to make peace. And if it isn't your first instinct, you need to have enough self control that you can fake it! Is it hard? You bet! But being an administrator means you volunteered to do that hard thing, and that we trusted you to try your damnedest.

We're in the middle of a situation where emotions are running high, and people are frustrated. And we are frustrated because people we care about as fellow contributors and human beings, on a project we all love and pour many hours into improving, are getting hurt. I'm not expecting us to all sing Kumbaya and get along, but the occasional attempt at treating people as loyal opposition instead of the enemy would help a lot! Wikipedia, for most of us, is going to be one of our best chances at making a lasting impact, in making the world a better place. Here, we can collect the sum of human knowledge and make it cheaper and freer for all to access. Do not throw that dream away just to turn this into another place to be petty. We have the rest of our lives for that.

--Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested to me that I've misused the term "wheel war," and rather run further down the rabbit hole on that, I've re-titled the section. I still think that all four of these actions display both poor judgement and disrespect; thus this call to account.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ 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)


 * @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)

Well, there it is. An unnecessary, deeply destructive and unskilled decision by arbitrators who totally disregarded the community will clearly expressed on this page. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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. —  Ched  ZILLA  20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Jclemens. I fully agree with many others here that your statement is one of the most ill-considered things I've seen from any member of the community.  That you are unable to be self-aware of the obvious subjectivity of "civility" while you spew such nonsense boggles the mind.  The really scary part is that you have a voice in the judgment of others.  —   Ched  ZILLA  04:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Sir Fozzie: While I greatly appreciated your efforts to reach across the isle and find a common ground - I strongly disagree with the "My way or the highway" approach. I ask you to reconsider the impact to the project rather than to one's own ego here.  Thank you. —   Ched  ZILLA  04:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection by Reaper Eternal
I try to avoid commenting on ArbCom motions as much as I can, but I happened to notice that 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>

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>

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens + 	− 	 Chat Moss + 	and this many good 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>

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)


 * 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)
 * Of course! We can't have anything like actually significant content contributions get in the way of banning somebody, can we? Bloody hell, I'm so pissed now I can hardly type coherently. I'd best step away from this before I type something I regret. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In one final statement, I have to ask: Is this an edit that somebody not dedicated to the project would ever make? Malleus is (was) far more committed to improving the quality of Wikipedia than many in the Arbitration Committee.

In the end, then, I can only echo : I'm deeply, deeply saddened. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Caslibur: The articles that Malleus has brought to featured or good article status since March 1, 2012 are:

Melford Stevenson Poppy Meadow Roy of the Rovers Malkin Tower


 * He has reviewed many more articles per the good article criteria:

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 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 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.
 * This doesn't include all the copyediting he has done for various editors. Hope this helps. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Jclemens, with all due respect, get bent. This all reeks of the communities sensiblities being important than the content being delivered, and once again we are faced with the problem that that the loudest voices arguing for the sake of the community are those that contribute the least to the actual you know, words any end users reads. Long as we have rules and stuff. Navel gaze ad reductum. 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As JClems was so wanton and free with his thoughs here, I went and and asked him on his talk, what in the hell he was thinking. This was the response;
 * person) (is || is not) (status), where status is an abstract concept with a non-trivial definition, is fundamentally a statement of an idea, even though a person is the subject of the sentence. Or, if you like, the proposition could be phrased as a proof: "Wikipedians follow all five pillars; Malleus does not follow pillar 4; therefore, Malleus is not a Wikipedian".* 
 * This is an elected arb that has the ability to block an editor with MF'S form and histotry? Or maybe Im just a fucktard in the trenchs that deserves nothing more than a joke answear to my conserns about a friend being blocked. I dont think thats how the arbs views the community in general, but is that civil? No, its insulting to my intelligence. Its not on, at all. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 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)

@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)

@Jclemens, with all due respect, I must join Rschen7754, Newyorkbrad, regentspark and the other editors who find your comment ("It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community") beyond the pale. 28bytes (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * Seven people can over-rule consensus? Fucking shit, is all I can say. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark - your proposed motion is sensible. It addresses exactly the clarification that was sought in the request. I hope that one of the arbs spots it. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise that I am repeating myself here but have people actually seen the proposal made by RegentsPark in his statement? In particular, have any arbs seen it, given the noise going on here? Has any clerk mentioned it to them? If not, could they? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * Second thought - just drop the stick...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per TK - MF is an intelligent, important, productive and valuable asset to Wikipedia and he does not inspire copycats and a band of apologists like a recently banned editor did. Wikipedia should protect the valuable assets it still has before all are lost. The pettiness and the backwater dramatics need to be placed in context with the creative power that Malleus has generously delivered to all through his hard worked article writing...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @JClemens - staggeringly off the mark; counter productive and plain wrong...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold - Something I don't understand here - concerning who has standing in this project and why - this arb/editor has only a grand total of 2877 edits in 18 months? And went missing from this project for something like an entire year, and who really didn't have that many edits to begin with. This editor's article contributions are slim to nearly none, and he's passing judgement on an important, prolific contributor who not only creates article work but who also inter-relates with scores of other editors; no-holds barred...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite - Right on!...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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. At 1:17 a "civility" warning is issued which clearly is pointy and baiting. Yesterday (10/18) Malleus posts a perfectly valid oppose based on copyright issues (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)


 * @ IP31.193.138.225 - no not funny at all. In my view there's a great movement away from the sight of what the encyclopedia is about and about the readers on the other side of the page. On this side of the page, or rather on the back pages, it's generally about stirring up drama. And let's not forget, it's almost election season in Wikipedia. The truth is that non-content contributor outweigh (outvote) foul-mouthed content contributors. (Will probably get warned for this, but whatever). Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At JClemens, I'll have to have a look at the RfAR for the TFA business that came before the committee in August and balance that against you've said here (it seems to me there might be an inconsistency, and pardon me if I'm wrong). There was a good case to be brought there but it was shrugged away. I for one am not necessarily saying that bad behavior can be always be negated by good contributions, but on the other hand, looking at the specific incident that sparked this, I didn't not see an egregious behavioral issue until Malleus was baited. I also need to look at the initial finding for this case because I believe it contained something in regard to baiting. This is moving much too fast in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ JClemens - I'm still stumbling around trying to find diffs. I only found out about this myself, and noticed on Malleus' talk at a time when I'm here and not being the subject the endless personal attacks that have come my way in the past few days (for keeping copyvio off the main page! for which no one is blocked!) I want to look at why the other case, was passed over, when clearly enough is enough in that regards and what's currently happening at TFAR is beyond acceptable, but this is being jumped on so quickly. I want good solid evidence and haven't found it yet in this specific incident. What I can find is that the incident began by what clearly can be construed as baiting and from the findings in the civility case I see this finding about baiting. I do believe that saying that someone who has contributed such a large amount of content to an online encyclopedia that's read daily by millions of people worldwide is not part of the community is quite insulting. Whichever side of the fence you stand on. Furthermore, I've spent a bit of time tonight trying to convince Malleus to take NYB's advice - which he's considering. But, after what I've had to endure (but never from Malleus who has only been a gentleman to me), and then to be told that my objections ring hollow, is just plain wrong. Some of us are trying to salvage this mess. If that's at all possible. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ SirFozzie. I'm willing to be a buddy or something to him. If he feels he needs to rant, he can come to my page and rant all he likes. I've had lots of ranting and insults I haven't invited and I don't mind Malleus' brand of incivility. Frankly I find it refreshing over the drip drip of sniping that's being overlooked project wide. Anyway, if I can do anything to help, I will. I like writing with him too. Btw - I'm a woman. But, still I find his brand of honesty refreshing. I've been subjected to real incivility here and no one cared. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ SilkTork - you might be interested in how that very same editor treated me recently. It's two way street and but with double standards. Will provide diffs later. On my way out the door. Suffice to say that personal attacks had to be redacted from Iridescent's page. Because of this redacted comment I get this this. Is this acceptable? There's much more to this story and in my view very not very civil behavior was involved and this for keeping copyvio off the main page. So if this is the editor that's to be used as a hammer against Malleus, give it good long thought is my suggestion. Now everyone knows my personal business and I'm the one out of here. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection 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.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@AGK, @Martinevans123, @everybody who argues that so-called incivility drives editors away. This kind of process-hijacking and arrogance drives people from Wikipedia just as surely as anything else anyone's accused of here. "When a man concludes that any stick is good enough to beat his foe with, that is when he picks up a boomerang." - GK Chesterton &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: You say "Comments above where people are responding as though this motion is about one incident are perhaps either not aware of MF's profile or are wishing to only focus on that incident to make this motion appear unreasonable." No, I'm responding as though this motion is about one incident because this case is about one incident. It's not even really about an incident. It's about a request for clarification. If arbitrators want to ban Malleus for persistent incivility, let them open an RfC/U or a community ban proposal like any editor is able to do. Allowing a minor request for clarification to escalate into a ban by motion is immensely destructive of the process of running this community. It's perfectly consistent to be in favor of banning Malleus (although I am not) and yet be opposed to banning him by motion of the Arbitration Committee in the course of a request for clarification. Please, I beg you, address the case that is before you with remedies that are appropriate to the case. If there is are good enough reasons to ban Malleus, do it through an appropriate process. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@AGK, Arbitrators are expected to respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles. Will you respond to Kiefer Wolfowitz's question? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry it's come to this. I will be proud, in the future, to call myself a net negative to the project. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get the memo. When did ANI and RFAR get merged?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Sun Creator
Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * MF is being normal for someone from a certain social class. You can't say it's an Encyclopedia that anyone can edit and also be intolerant of those from a different social class.
 * The ongoing coercion appears to be bullying. It's not pretty at all and many people involved should seriously consider this point.
 * A community intent on real change would not point the finger at an individual but deal with the underlying problem.
 * In the same way that vandal fighters have to be able to take some inappropriate behavior, if admins and other in positions of responsibility can't take some difficult behavior aimed at them then are they suitable?
 * On RFA: I believe there should be no discussion at RFA that is subjective and personal - which frequently turns to drama and RFA requires a lot of time to make a well researched informed comment that few have. Instead candidates should be held to a predefined community approved objective standard and the discussion should focus on whether a candidate complies with the predefined standard or not and if the standard itself should be modified. Such a standard does NOT require any 'AdminCom' (which I know many oppose) and would make the RFA process more straight forward. None reform of RFA will continue to create division between editors.

Statement by 31.193.138.225
Isn't this strange that power-hungry users who produce very little encyclopedic content are supporting the ban of one of the best contributor. 31.193.138.225 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cyberpower678
I usually lurk around ArbCom but choose not to get involved in the cases because I am neither a clerk, an ArbCom member, or having something constructive to contribute. To possibly see this motion go through disgusts and angers me. Has ArbCom gone fucking insane? Ban someone for being uncivil? Really? Malleus is a net negaitive? After all of the articles he wrote? AGK, what the hell is wrong with you? I am here to echo Reaper Eternal's statements. I am not going to write any more because I fear I may write something I may regret or become disruptive.— cyber power <sub style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline <sup style="margin-left:-6.6ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Trick or Treat 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Indignant statement by Leontopodium alpinum
Is this a joke? You people worry about editor retention, and then in the next moment want to railroad out one of the best and hardest working editors here on Wikipedia? Malleus is the guy who will help you with an article the day after they shit all over his talk page. Malleus is that committed to creating content here. And you people have the guts to pull this crap?

Sorry, but "civility" as a pillar is patently ridiculous and extremely subjective. You all cannot possibly wish to remove such a valuable resource as Malleus because some editors whine about hurt feelings. We are here to build and encyclopedia, and your feelings are of minimal importance toward that goal. Nothing he's said has even been very extreme. Who the hell can't deal with being called a "twat"? Anyone who has feelings hurt by this valuable editor has the option of simply not interacting with him. It's their problem if they can't drop the stick. MF is worth 100 of any spineless editors who can't deal with him and choose not to disengage.

The real twats are the members of ArbCom if they seriously believe they can pass such a ridiculous motion without it hurting the real goal of this project. Don't be surprised if a lot of editors leave in solidarity if this passes. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Heim
Everybody here: There's no better time to fork. The rot at Wikipedia has set in strongly, and the current motion clarifies this. People care more about nice behaviour than content. FORK. DITCH THE HELLHOLE. Make a better one somewhere else. One where content is valued above conduct. And please let me know when you do so I can join it and scramble my password at this shitsite. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'm here, Arbcom: REMOVE JCLEMENS. He is making attacks on contributors. His behaviour in incompatible with sitting on the committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SpacemanSpiff
It's probably long overdue that we should have content take a back seat to having tea and crumpets, after all the marketing ploy of "an encyclopedia that..." couldn't continue for long. So, true to the "anyone can edit" bit, we will continue to drive away good contributors in favor of the anyones, partly because of the laziness of some of us other editors and partly because of the power grabs by others. This ban is just one symptom of the larger malaise that affects Wikipedia. Of course Malleus would be missed far more than many of those that voted for this ban -- as a reader, I can remember far too many articles written by him that I've enjoyed, especially in topics that I have no interest in, but can't recall reading a single such contribution by any of those in support of this ban -- and it leaves no doubt in my mind about who is a "Wikipedian" or a "net negative". When this ban does pass, I would encourage all editors to re-evaluate their participation in this farce of a project, for we have given our approval to this witch-hunt and pitchforking with our silence so far. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @SilkTork: You say "We would be sending out a very bad message if we let this go without some kind of response." Yet, you think that saying someone is "not a wikipedian" or a "net negative" as part of this decision making process to run someone out of the project should have as much bearing in this as your own vote. Quite hypocritical to have to require these votes to drive someone out on the basis of their incivility. Sorry, but I expected better of you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @SirFozzie: "I've tried one more time on Malleus's page, asking that he ignore JClemens's statement, which again, for the record, I will say is flat out wrong." And yet, you have no qualms in using that vote to enact a civility site ban, would anyone in their right mind blame MF or any other for not responding the way you wish? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Youreallycan
The wiki has become a bit out of control, cliques of users attacking each other - demanding bans - poking and provoking the users in the opposing groups - rather than focusing on content improvement - this is what needs addressing. Malleus is one of the most magnificent wikipedians and I salute him for all his content creations, banning him for speaking out at the problems here is not the solution it is more a part of the problem - please stop all this us and them focus of groups here at en wiki -  ... for his, you are not and have never been a wikipedian - comment, diff - I predict User:Jclemens will either stand down or be voted off any committee he is on in the very near future, and I fully support his removal or resignation. User:AGK and User:Hersfold comments here seem undue also - I support Malleus staying even though Hersfold says he will leave if Malleus stays, in fact I support Malleus more because of that. You really  can  05:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Six month ban now(not) passing
A sad day for en wikpedia - User:David Fuchs (Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), User:Jclemens, User:PhilKnight, User:AGK, User:SilkTork , User:Hersfold, User:SirFozzie are the seven users supporting a six month en project ban for User:Malleus Fatuorum - diff of their terms - Clemens and Fuchs and Fozzie and Phil Knight's terms are expiring as we speak, the others are Arbiters for another year. - You  really  can  04:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not passing anymore- User:SilkTork has stepped back from support at present diff and is looking for other options - You  really  can  16:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC) User:PhilKnight has also now stepped back for support for the six month project ban diff leaving only five supporters. You really  can  18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still laughing in support of User:Floquenbeam's block of Clemens. diff - You  really  can  16:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by wctaiwan

 * 1) What benefit will sitebanning Malleus serve beyond what would be gained by banning him from RfA? I'm not saying the latter is a good solution, but if his participation at RfA is problematic, wouldn't a topic ban from RfA as a whole resolve the issue, given that there has been no recent pattern of incivility in other areas?
 * 2) If the committee is trying to enforce the civility policy (as interpreted by individual arbs), how is this helpful? Banning Malleus at this point would do very little to dissuade incivility. In fact, as Malleus is often used as a poster child for incivility, it would likely lead to more heated arguments, with people who do not support the committee's view taking it to the extreme.
 * 3) Given the widely varying interpretations of the civility policy and the axiom that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, the arbs should examine whether they're voting on the motion based on their own opinions, as opposed to enforcing the policy as dictated by current community practices.
 * 4) Any action on Wikipedia should be taken with the bigger picture in mind. In this case, interpreting the civility policy and previous decisions literally and sitebanning Malleus would likely be more harmful (widening the divide in the community, depriving Wikipedia of one or more prolific contributors) than helpful (...setting a precedent of the civility policy being enforced?). wctaiwan (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RAHB
I don't know what ARBCOM is but Wikipedia has a great deal of information about Major League Baseball. I'd like to Express my desire that this trend will continue in the future. - RA  HB  04:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ghmyrtle
It seems to be accepted that MF is a great content contributor, but that the manner of his interaction with other editors is sometimes objectionable. A solution would be to allow him to continue to edit article content as much as he wants, but to block him indefinitely and completely from any participation in any talk pages or discussions, loosely construed. Editors would then judge him solely on the basis of his edits to content. If he demonstrated civility in edit summaries, the block could later be reviewed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cunard
, who filed the initial request, asked for clarification about Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, which prevented Malleus from posting on RfA talk pages. Malleus has participated in several robust discussions at RfAs, as have I. There have been attempts to move these lengthy discussions to the talk page. Participating in lengthy discussions that are moved to the talk page is not disruptive. However, some of his intemperate language has been found to be problematic.

At a recent RfA, he called an editor a "dishonest twat" after the editor made a baiting remark. Malleus' response was too intemperate, however, and he was banned from the RfA by uninvolved administrator.

As wrote (my bolding): "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?"

I echo Floquenbeam's words: The previous sanction worked. A topic ban from RfA altogether or a siteban seems disproportionate and cruel to an editor who has devoted so many hours to helping other users with their articles.


 * Editors like, a non-native English speaker, who Lecen thanked him for making numerous improvements during his featured article nomination. Editors like , another non-native English speaker, who thanked Malleus for his indefatigable work on Jivesh's articles.


 * Editors like high school biology teacher 's students; see "Perspectives from this side of the screen."


 * Feel the gratitude and glee in Mr. Butler's student, Savannah, as she writes, "I am absolutely bursting with excitement! I will make that change ASAP! Thank you sooooo much for helping me reach my goal! :)"


 * Feel the pure ecstasy and joy in Mr. Butler's student, Marissa, as she tells Malleus, "Thank you so much for your help on Spotted eagle ray. It wouldn't have passed without your help!"


 * Feel the appreciation and gratitude in, as he gives Malleus a beer for his work on Chrisye.

These are but a few of the instances where Malleus has helped other editors in need. Non-native English speakers. High school students. Experienced editors.

Malleus has immeasurably improved the encyclopedia with his presence: his willingness to help others on a multitude of topics, many of which he has no interest in.

To call him a "net negative" or to say "he has never been a Wikipedian" cannot be farther from the truth.

The sanction from the Arbitration case has "worked" per my bolding of Floquenbeam's comment above. To ban Malleus Fatuorum would be a travesty of justice.

I will be very disappointed and saddened if Malleus is banned, as will innumerable other editors who will have lost his beautiful gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and altruism.

Cunard (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Motion #2: "Hi Courcelles. Thank you for your alternative motion. Would you also add that Malleus can discuss RfA at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum? This would allow for discussions such as this one so interested users can understand more about the thought process behind his votes. This happened at a recent RfA, where Malleus felt uncomfortable with further discussion there. Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)"
 * Courcelles replied: "I'd have no objection one way or another. As a 'keeping order' issue, anyone that goes to Malleus' talk page to talk RFA should know the possibility of incivility or drama or whatnot. Maybe ask this on the page and see if anyone can think of a reason its a bad idea? I'm dead tired, and may be missing something... Courcelles 05:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
We elect our Arbitration Committee to be the backstop for decisions that the Community has been unable to take. We do not elect our Arbitration Committee to search around for problems and then try to enforce solutions on them - they are not the wiki police force. A problem was brought here which was arguably of ArbCom's making: a poorly crafted sanction that was causing more problems in itself. It was not a request for ArbCom to deal with a different problem that the community cannot handle. Nevertheless ArbCom has now taken a lazy route out by attempting to pass a quick resolution which does not address the problem they were asked to examine. The community, I submit, is not asking ArbCom dealing with some different problem, because they would rather have Malleus as he is than not at all.

As a result of this poor decision-making, I have to reluctantly conclude:

I have no confidence in the current Arbitration Committee

I invite those who share my view, and those who hold the opposite view to make that known on the talk page --RexxS (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mrmatiko
I didn't want to comment on this at all, but it is just not possible to remain silent. I'd be willing to bet that most regular editors "know of" Malleus, and there appear to be two views on him: Malleus the uncivil (or "incivil") and Malleus the helpful content contributor. Through my vague awareness of what goes on within the Wikipedia community, I've come to the conclusion that while Malleus is very blunt (sometimes to the point of, yes, incivility), he is always willing to help those who ask him for it, regardless of whether there is any "history" between them. Malleus has given a huge amount of his time to this project and many of its editors, so it disturbs me that a request for clarification has somehow led to a motion relating to a "ban", without the "topic" prefix.

Since it is almost a month until this year's arbcom elections, and only two (as of the time of writing) of the arbs whose current term is about to expire have voted in sync with the views of the community, I can only assume that the others are not going to be standing for re-election and intend to use the power that we have given them one last time. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion by Johnuniq
Banning MF would remove a source of incivility. However, it would bring unresolvable bitterness to the community—the cure would be worse than the disease.

The actual problem has two parts:
 * MF is very good at needling some people and won't take advice on being more moderate.
 * Civility blocks on a good editor have no effect because someone always overturns them (which reinforces the unwanted behavior).

What is needed is a special solution to handle this special case. A possibility would be to rule that civility blocks on MF cannot be overturned, except by appeal to Arbcom. However, that would not be satisfactory as it allows too much scope for gaming or mistakes (provocations of MF by opponents or passing trolls, or unwise blocks by over-compensating admins). Instead, there needs to be something like WP:AE to handle this case. Perhaps those arbitrators who support the banning motion would instead consider acting as a subcommittee to quickly resolve future problems: someone would post a claim of incivility; there would be 24 hours for responses; then appropriate action would be taken. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hamiltonstone
Numerous editors have above made the points that I would make, including Floquenbeam, Ceoil, Truthkeeper and others. I have interacted with Malleus occasionally for around five years here. I have found his turn of phrase to be occasionally colourful, and I sometimes wish he'd pull his head in, but I cannot believe that this discussion is taking place. I can only agree with Elen of the roads: where do these arbitrators come from, that they think sporadic bad language warrants getting one of the team's best performers sacked? I suggest the arbs take a long look at the depth of support for MF in this thread, the depth of editing experience that that support represents, and consider whether they really want to step that far out of line with where this community's at. I am bewildered by the disjunct between editors views and the arbs; I am appalled at the hammer being used to crack this walnut. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Johnbod
This ban would be a huge pity, perhaps leading to the permanent loss of yet another of our most useful content editors, and one of the very few who is time & again prepared to help others improve their articles. The case against the motion has been well put by many above, and the opposers below. I never understand why Malleus has to use such hostile language around issues re admins, and sometimes to editors he has not encountered before, but apparently "it's just the way I'm wired". He certainly gets plenty of provocation. He may not be able to change much, but coping with him as he is is greatly preferable to losing him. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rivertorch
I frequently flinch at the rampant incivility I see around the project, but I'm positively recoiling at the motion I'm seeing on this page. To say I think it would not be in the best interests of the community is putting it mildly. This is an overreaction and a draconian measure, akin to using dynamite to weed one's garden. If a problem exists in one discrete area, take measures in that area, and if those measures need to be adjusted because they don't achieve the desired result, then refine them; don't go nuclear. If passed, this motion will set an unfortunate precedent concerning the scope of the committee's remit and quite possibly have a chilling effect on the free and open discourse that is essential to maintaining a successful collaborative environment. (Note: I have interacted with MF rarely, and then only superficially, and I seldom participate in RfA discussions. As such, I am completely uninvolved in this matter.) Rivertorch (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
An asinine overreaction. That's really about all that needs to be said. Lynch mobbers will lynch mob... Carrite (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@TParis. Dennis really does need to be voted King of Wikipedia, doesn't he? Carrite (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ihardlythinkso
I say get off Malleus's back, stop whining, and grow some skin! There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy at WP re "enforcing pillars". What an absurd forum. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is a Myers-Briggs xxTx attribute/type. His head rules his heart. For xxFx attributes/types, their hearts rule their heads. Both types are "valid" personality attributes/types, one is not "defective". The intelligent (and difficult) solution is for each type to learn to appreciate what the other type has to offer, even though the way the other type operates may not be easy or even possible to understand. (Because, there's no other choice: investing in seeing the other as "defective" and trying to change or "correct" them, is as fruitless as it is damaging. [That's 50 years of Jungian phychology talking.]) I haven't seen Malleus ever attempt to change or "correct" anyone from xxFx to xxTx behavior. But I see others trying to change and "correct" Malleus. (Not smart! Unfruitful! Damaging! Yes?) "Malleus is uncivil sometimes." Malleus never initiates incivility, only responds to it. (One of the things the Community can be proud of in being lucky to have a "Malleus", is that he is not only a great writer & commensurate thinker, he is ... consistent. [And, for a human being, that is getting a lot.] If he weren't so consistent [e.g. if he were an alcoholic or otherwise unstable] then there might be a *real* problem, and not made-up ones.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil
I withdraw my comment. The arbs are fine, Jclemens is fine, but contributing to the mad house that has become Wikipedia on these issues is not fine for me. My comments were intended to ask for thought not to persecute or condemn. I feel sadly, that they may have supported both persecution and condemnation. (olive (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

In case its not clear the below unsigned comment, Question, is not mine.(olive (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

Question from 216.119.157.155
If members of the Arbitration Committee cannot even agree on what being a Wikipedian means, what kind of the Arbitration Committee it is? How could such Committee be trusted with anything at all leave alone governing Wikipedia? Such Committee should resign because it not only useless, it is harmful for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.157.155 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf
I have read most of the statements here and based on my limited knowledge of prior issues involving MF I think the following should be enacted to reduce the heat of the issue so that in a couple of months the situation may be looked at calmly:
 * 1) user:Malleus Fatuorum and user:MONGO are placed on an indefinite mutual interaction ban. Neither user may comment on or about the other or their actions in any namespace. Neither user may contribute to any discussion thread initiated by the other in any namespace. After a minimum of 6 months this may be appealed at WP:AE. In the event of such an appeal by one party, the other may be invited to comment by email to an un-recused arbitrator only. Any breach of this ban will be subject to 24-hour block for each offence, rising to 1 week per offence after three such blocks. These blocks are to be treated as arbitration enforcement blocks for all purposes.
 * 2) user:Malleus Fatuorum and user:Jc37 are placed on an indefinite mutual interaction ban. Neither user may comment on or about the other or their actions in any namespace. Neither user may contribute to any discussion thread initiated by the other in any namespace. After a minimum of 6 months this may be appealed at WP:AE. In the event of such an appeal by one party, the other may be invited to comment by email to an un-recused arbitrator only. Any breach of this ban will be subject to 24-hour block for each offence, rising to 1 week per offence after three such blocks. These blocks are to be treated as arbitration enforcement blocks for all purposes.
 * 3) user:Malleus Fatuorum and user:Hersfold are placed on an indefinite mutual interaction ban. Neither user may comment on or about the other or their actions in any namespace. Neither user may contribute to any discussion thread initiated by the other in any namespace. After a minimum of 6 months this may be appealed at WP:AE. In the event of such an appeal by one party, the other may be invited to comment by email to an un-recused arbitrator only. Any breach of this ban will be subject to 24-hour block for each offence, rising to 1 week per offence after three such blocks. These blocks are to be treated as arbitration enforcement blocks for all purposes.
 * 4) user:Malleus Fatuorum agrees to work with one or more mentors to be mutually agreed by MF and the Arbitration Committee. A list of the moderators is to be placed on MF's arbitrator case page, on MF's user page and in edit notice on MF's user talk page.
 * 5) MF's mentor(s) may, at their sole discretion, edit any of MF's talk page contributions for civility.
 * 6) All other users wishing to complain about any perceived incivility by MF are to be directed to MF's mentor(s), e.g. by an edit notice at MF's user talk page. Any discussion or complaints about MF's civility on any page except those listed below should be hatted by MF mentor(s) or an uninvolved administrator. The excepted pages are:
 * 7) *The talk page of MF's mentor(s)
 * 8) *WP:AE
 * 9) *Any Arbitration page containing a request concerning MF's civility.
 * 10) *Any other page explicitly noted by MF's mentor(s).
 * 11) The restriction above shall not prevent MF's mentor(s) responding to any complaints regarding MF's civility or responding to any user making such a complaint.
 * 12) MF's mentor(s) must be explicitly informed of, and invited to comment on, any dispute resolution request or community discussion concerning MF.
 * 13) MF's mentor(s) may, after 1 warning (which may be given by any uninvolved administrator and must explicitly reference the problematic conduct), impose an interaction ban identical to that in remedy 1 above on any other editor (including MF). Such a ban may be appealed only at WP:AE or by email to the arbitration committee. MF's moderator(s) must be informed of any such appeal (not withstanding any privacy issues).
 * 14) MF's mentor(s) should impose the above topic bans on anyone "baiting" MF (although they may do so for other reasons too), and other users should report such actions to MF's moderators.
 * 15) user:Malleus Fatuorum's topic ban is clarified to state that it relates only to MF making any comment on pages beginning Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and that comments he made elsewhere but which are moved to such a page may remain there without infringing his topic ban. i.e. an infraction has only taken place if evidenced by an edit to a page starting Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship appearing in MF's contribution history.
 * 16) user:Malleus Fatuorum's topic ban is amended to allow MF's mentor(s) to, at their discretion, comment on his behalf to any such moved discussion he commented on before it was moved.
 * 17) MF's mentor(s) may, at their discretion, require all MF's contributions to a specific RFA to be made through them and at their discretion. This may not be invoked premptively.
 * 18) The Arbitration Committee issue a statement that all users who have requested or actively encouraged a site-ban for MF, explicitly including, user:AGK and user:SirFozzie, within the six months prior to the date of the statement are considered to be involved for all admin actions and all dispute resolution proceedings concerning MF.

Yes this is a lot, and yes some of it may be considered harsh, but the intention is throw a very large bucket of very cold water on all sources of heat and likely sources of heat concerning MF. Without something like this I fear we will never see any light. In the long term, it might (or equally might not) be that MF needs restricting further, but until we remove from the equation all those desperately trying to light a bonfire under him at every opportunity we cannot know. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Parrot of Doom
I see the usual suspects are out arguing in force for their beloved civility policy. I wasn't going to bother commenting until I saw Jclemens diatribe, specifically his comment that Malleus is not a part of this community. In that typical display of contempt lies everything that's wrong with the clique making itself evident here. At the very least he should withdraw from this discussion. Personally, I think Jclemens should resign. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ MathewTownsend - I think I should link anyone interested in your words to the original conversation. Rather than cherry-picking quotes to make Malleus look like some kind of villain, you should allow people the opportunity to decide for themselves just who the "diva" is. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by someone else [Drmies]
Did all this just happen? A claim is made that someone disrupted the RfA process, it was disputed by a slew of editors, and someone finds it acceptable and convenient to propose a six-month ban--which is passed? On one of the best content contributors this project has? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A thought by Ks0stm
You know, it's really not a fun feeling to watch all this happening and feeling like I've got a choice between taking a wikibreak or buying a bag of popcorn, sitting back, and watching the project descend into hell until the shockwaves from this dissipate. Can't we all just get along? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement/question by uninvolved Reyk
It seems to me that this ban is deeply unpopular. Nearly everyone who's commented here has opposed it. If that's the case then why don't we, as a community, simply declare that the ban is invalid? Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Stephan Schultz: Rubbish block. Baiting people on their talk page and then blocking them when they snap at you is dodgy as all fuck. Undo the block. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nvm. I see a sensible admin has already done that. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gimmetoo
I have to say I am a bit sad to see how the AC is working here. The first motion is too much, and it's odd to see it "passing" without on-wiki work to split it up. I suppose after years of weak measures, perhaps some on AC feel a need to be seen to "do something". At least a ban from RfA would make some sense as an extension of previous remedies, but a site ban is too much when other things have not been tried. With "anyone can edit", we get volunteers who occasionally demean other volunteers, and this has been a problem for ages. Past approaches seem to be ignoring it, short blocks that get overturned right away, and site bans. Surely at least a few of those elected to AC have the imagination to come up with something else? I think I could. What options were discussed? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Observation by Black Kite
Since all else seems to be futile, I'd merely point out that three of the five Arbs who are voting to ban Malleus are up for re-election shortly. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there will shortly be an opportunity for the community to comment on this fiasco. And I'm still chuckling at Floquenbeam's (completely logical, given what has been written below) block of JClemens.

I further note that of the six Arbs voting for this to pass;
 * One has made 194 articlespace edits in the last three years, and a total of 12 (twelve) in 2012.
 * One has made 42 articlespace edits in 2012.
 * One has made 290 articlespace edits in 2012.
 * One has made 198 non-automated articlespace edits in 2012.
 * And one has made 365 articlespace edits in 2012.

In other words, even assuming that all their edits have been useful (I'm in a generous mood, and have even included things like protections and moves that add to their totals), that's a total of 897 edits in 2012. Malleus, on his own, has made 9,291 articlespace edits in 2012.

I would suggest to those arbs that if you cannot engage with the encyclopedia, you should not be opining on the perceived shortcomings of others. I would also suggest that Arbs posting personal attacks on the editor in question be required to recuse. And finally I would suggest this is one of the reasons why ArbCom is in danger of having the community start to lean towards no confidence in it as a whole, as can be seen from the majority of comments above. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Belated statement by Peridon
I suppose I should spend more time in these areas, but I prefer to get on with the work. While Malleus is creating content (and some discontent...), I'm carting out the rubbish (and often spending time with newcomers explaining why). Malleus and I, so far as I am aware, come from the same general area of the UK. Where I am, a spade is called a spade. In other nearby parts, it's called a bloody shovel. (It is never called a 'portable entrenching tool'...) I'm usually on the opposite side to Malleus at most of the RfAs we are seen in. Despite this, I regard him as a net positive for Wikipedia. As to the criticisms of ArbCom, isn't it always the case that the brilliant prospect that is hailed and elected very soon becomes known as another of the not-fit-to-burn corrupt elitist bastards like those that were there before? Put Malleus on ArbCom.... Peridon (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Belated Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
I've only just seen this, and it appears to be almost done and dusted - and I am appalled. There has been a concerted effort to hound Malleus and shut him up on the topic of admins and RfA, despite many of his concerns being valid and shared by many of us. The fault here was ArbCom's initial incompetent ban, compounded by the move of Malleus's comments from an RfA to a Talk page in the full knowledge that that would prevent him from answering. Since the original ban, Malleus has commented on a number of RfAs, and in my opinion his comments have been fine. They have sometimes been forthright, but not personally offensive towards the candidates - unlike many !voters who are skilled in the art of attacking candidates without saying "fuck". I'm also appalled by how quickly this was rushed through to motions, without giving the wider community enough time to offer their opinions - our servants have abused their power and have chosen to appoint themselves our masters. This is Wikipedia. This is not America. We are not here to enforce American sensitivities. ArbCom has become a cultural dictatorship and, as such, I am forced to withdraw my support for the current committee. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) @Stephan Schulz. I've just unblocked Malleus - this it *not* the time for cowboy admins to be taking it upon themselves to issue civility blocks! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional: JClemens' attack on Malleus is disgraceful, and his voting on an issue where he clearly has a deep emotive attachment is an abuse - he is not fit to be an admin, never mind a member of ArbCom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Motion #2, "he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own !vote on a specific RFA, but may not engage in threaded discussions on RFA, or in a specific RFA". That should apply to everybody or nobody - Malleus is far more civil to candidates and to !voters than are those who are prepared to game the "civility" rules and make personal attacks without using swear words. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Colonel Warden
I see references to the pillars above and some dispute as to whether civility is mandatory here. As no-one else seems to have mentioned it, please note that this obligation is now written quite plainly in the Terms of Use: "Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users."

Note also the following term: "Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws." There have been several recent cases where people have punished by the law for making intemperate remarks on the internet. For example, see Troll which states, "In the United Kingdom, contributions made to the Internet are covered by the Communications Act 2003. Sending messages which are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is an offense whether they are received by the intended recipient or not. As of September 2011, two persons have been imprisoned in the UK for trolling." As the consequences can be serious, this indicates that we should be as careful about this as we are about copyright, say.

Warden (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Observing the follies at WP:ANI, it seems apparent that appeasement has failed and so we now have open warfare in which the admin corps quite fail to support a civil and collegiate environment. Arbcom seem like the League of Nations or UN wringing its hands while the matter is settled by force majeure.  It's embarrassing to watch.  Warden (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Joefromrandb
If JClemens doesn't have the decency to recuse, then emergency measures should be taken to disallow his vote. How can he, as a supposedly neutral arbitrator, vote to ban a user that he already considers to not be a part of the community? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: "Malleus has decided he would rather be banned than meet us halfway." Given the amount of puerile baiting that Malleus already deals with on a regular basis, picture the way they would come crawling out of the woodwork if he agreed to any kind of civility restrictions. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@Arbs: This witchhunt is turning into a war of attrition. One by one, we are losing long-standing valued contributors because of this egregious abuse of power. When even Pesky is moved to lash out with obscenities, do you think that there may just possibly be something wrong with what you're doing? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Belated statement by Bbb23
I have not made a statement before this because I don't have the knowledge many of the players have, about each other and about Malleus. However, I have watched the request unravel and fear the damage caused will far outlast the result. One can insult another person, apologize, and there usually is no lasting harm. However, some comments are so hurtful you can't undo them. Perhaps I'm overdramatizing, but that seems to be happening here.

Putting aside whether this request was even a good idea, it started as a fairly simple one. The current RfA talk page ban wasn't working well, and the requester wanted to know if it should be extended to include the RfA itself or dropped completely as unworkable. Somehow it mushroomed into a motion for a full ban. I won't probe the rationales of some of the members who thought such a transformation to be supportable, but clearly the community does not agree.

Assuming Malleus is even half as good as his supporters say he is with article content and assisting others with article content, he must be one hell of an editor. His writing on this page is more lucid - and more entertaining - than everyone else's. His intemperate remarks and his view that he only says bluntly what is true are, as far as I can tell, deeply imbedded in his psyche. We're not going to be able to remove that part of him, and we should stop trying to do so. What is banning him for 6 months going to accomplish? Is he going to return a "reformed" man? Is a temporary ban just a set-up to a permanent one because those who support the ban know he can't change?

Malleus should not be banned. If the committee does so, we damage him, each other, and the project. We need to pull out of this as quickly as possible to prevent further harm.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
This is what was to be expected from the existing ArbCom system. I warned about that some years ago. The current ArbCom system is not able to deal with editors who make good contributions, but who also have some problems that can be dealt with short of a ban. Arguing with ArbCom about Malleus is at this state pointless, it's better to join WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party and make sure we get a better ArbCom system after the elections. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by PamD
I don't generally frequent the drama boards and only today saw something on a talk page I watchlist which led me to this. I admit I haven't read every word of the above, but am shocked at the suggestion that MF be lost to the project for 6 months. (With every likelihood that he'd find something interesting to do in that time and not come back.) This editor builds the encyclopedia. My first encounter with him was this very civilised discussion: I queried his use of a template, others chipped in, he changed his mind, all very calm and constructive. There is no evidence, as far as I can see, that he's upsetting constructive new editors: his rows seem to be with people who hang around the boards, rather than with those who build the encyclopedia. Please try and work something out which will retain this useful editor. Pam D  17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong
Malleus' poor attitude shows itself most frequently at RfA. I would recommend a motion that simply extends the current topic ban to restrict Malleus from participating in anything having to do with RfA. A 6-month site ban, while arguably deserved, is fixing the problem with a hatchet rather than a scalpel. Perhaps the best way to deal with good content writers who are otherwise dysfunctional is to disallow them from participating in the areas that reliably trigger their dysfunction. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#777722;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#777722;">| communicate _ 17:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Arbs: I'm not sure why motion 2 still allows for Malleus to ask questions and vote at RfA's. This would only leave open loopholes that could be exploited to continue disrupting the process with uncivil comments. Nip it in the bud, and simply disallow any editing whatsoever on pages that start with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" or "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship". This will allow Malleus the opportunity to continue editing articles (if he so chooses) while reducing his ability to get stuck in areas where he feels the need to be disruptive. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">| verbalize _ 17:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
I've just blocked User:Malleus Fatuorum for the following edits:. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JohnCD
There has been a lot of talk about the fourth pillar: I think it is time to invoke the fifth. This suggestion may seem frivolous, but I mean it seriously. Let us therefore announce, in the spirit of WP:IAR, that henceforth the civility policy does not apply to Malleus, and any complaints about him at ANI or elsewhere will be speedily closed. This would require a formal notice to which complainants could be referred, making clear that it gives no license to anyone else except that, in the spirit of reciprocity, complaints of incivility to Malleus would also not be considered.
 * Malleus Fatuorum has made and continues to make content contributions of inestimable value.
 * He is unable or unwilling to conform to the standards of civility expected of all contributors.
 * It has proved impossible to enforce them; with tedious regularity he is taken to ANI, where much heat is generated but no light. If blocked, he is invariably unblocked in a short time - e.g., the block above lasted just 5 minutes. Whether we like it or not, he has in practice become a vested contributor.
 * All this is a waste of time and causes unnecessary dissension and ill-feeling.

The situation is exceptional enough that I do not think we need worry about setting a precedent. I do not see how this could make things any worse than they are; it might even be that, with the boundaries declared open, Malleus would feel less need to push at them. JohnCD (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Steven Zhang. Yes, my suggestion implies a judgement that MF's content contributions outweigh the damage to the project he causes by driving away contributors who do not like a hostile environment. That is a judgement that Arbcom has to make.


 * In fact, I think my proposal might help to limit the damage, if people who have encountered the rough side of MF understand that this is an exceptional case, the rest of the project is (generally) welcoming and civil, and there is plenty of scope to contribute without interacting with him.


 * It is not a desirable situation, but the present endless cycle of ANI complaint, block, unblock, Arbcom and inconclusive wrangle is going nowhere, and attempts to set boundaries seem only to result in more wrangling about the boundaries. I think my proposal is better than the alternatives of (a) total ban or (b) carry on squabbling. Temporary bans and topic bans will not solve anything. JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dank
I think we all agree that some questions about behavior and sanctions aren't best handled at Arbcom. This now seems like one of those questions, to me. The results speak for themselves. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MathewTownsend
I am an American editor of less than a year and I'm trying to figure wikipedia out.

Comment made to Malleus by one of his supporters: "I think we need you so the spotty teenagers from the US can learn something of the world outside their suburban walls; in that sense I think you serve a purpose that's perhaps more important than your writing." Malleus has made it clear that he thinks Americans are stupid.

Perhaps this explains why Malleus has viciously attacked me on talk pages, after I'd apologized and explained that my accidental misformatting of his Tickle Cock Bridge was a mistake. He called me Puritanical and accused me of never having written a FA, and when someone pointed out that actually I had, he said my contributions were worthless: "you've never written anything worth spit". Then he picked at random a two sentence article I had started and made fun of the fact it had received less than 200 page views and contrasted it with his high view FA articles that had appeared on the main page. He said,

He brought up the same facts about me on the GA talk page, contrasting his important contributions with my puny endeavors. He ridiculed my contributions to wikipedia. Thus I have decided to refrain from reviewing any more GA since, as he points out, his more that 400 reviews dwarf my 194 reviews and I'm fearful of provoking his rage again.

He also posted on my talk page after someone awarded me a barnstar for my GA contributions. (Malleus reverted the barnstar when the poster had changed it.) Perhaps the real problem is know-it-all schoolkids like you, who in reality can't even tell their arses from their elbows. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I won't be contributing anything important to wikipedia in the future, unless some steps towards enforcing the civility pillar are taken, I'd like to know why it's not enforced. None if his personal attacks on me have been [redacted], but rather supported by his personal followers.

Could the Arbitration Committee offer an explanation? (I'd like to continue contributing but I don't understand how the rules are enforced.)

Statement by Steven Zhang
My statement is directed at JohnCD. John, the notion of giving anyone a free pass because they produce high quality content. Malleus produces content of an exceptional quality, that has never been in dispute. He is at times uncivilised in his interactions with other editors, few would dispute this. What is unclear (and in dispute) is whether one outweighs the other, and what (if anything) should be done about it. On the broader scale, I worry about the impact of incivility on newer editors. Long-time Wikipedians often develop a thick skin, but newer editors may be burned by incivility. While it may be said that these newer editors produced little to no high quality content, it's more a question of what may have happened. They may have been an excellent writer and produced 10 FAs if they remained - we never will know. A survey on former contributors found that 24% left because of unpleasant interactions with other editors. Unpleasant is obviously broad, but I think it shows that how we interact with others definitely has an impact on editor retention.

@ArbCom, For this specific case, I am unable to provide any ideas on how to proceed. I do think that you should all tread carefully, though I do have some sympathy for you all. This really is a no-win situation. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump
What a load of bollocks. This is an online encyclopaedia. It is written by whoever can get onto the internet, and sourced (sometimes questionably) to whatever else we can get our hands on. The less clued-up of our readers probably believe whatever hogwash we feed them. The more clued-up don't. Precious few of them either know nor care what goes on behind the scenes. The most clued-up will realise that what goes on behind the scenes actually makes little difference anyway. Everyone here should find something better to do - like writing an encyclopaedia. Or looking for misplaced em-dashes in an encyclopaedia. Or arguing about whether the Beatles should be The Beatles, or deleted entirely as trivia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
Incivility breeds incivility. From : A rude, disrespectful, uncivil climate at work can make workers miserable, resulting in higher turnover, lower productivity, and lost customers. “Revenge,” agreed our experts, is probably “too strong a word” to describe the behaviors enacted by targets of incivility, who are often questioning the instigator’s intent and are, therefore, less likely to react with a vengeful objective. But reciprocating with “general ill will” (as cited by one manager), displacing that ill will on another colleague, or directing that ill will toward nobody in particular were very common responses of participants in all workplace settings. In some cases, participants believed that in their organizations, leaders often appeared to hope that incivility would go away, rather than taking action to correct it. Some voiced concern about the apparent tolerance of incivility by organizations, by managers, and by senior executives. Many saw senior managers as unwilling or ill equipped to deal with the phenomenon and, therefore, unlikely to intervene on the target’s behalf: "People seem to watch it and accept it. Management is slow to respond to “personal” issues or unwilling to enter into such discussions. (Manager)"

Others inferred incompetence and distrust to non-responsive leaders: "When these incidents occur and no one is brought to task for their behavior, how do we find respect for our leaders, let alone enthusiasm for our organization? (Employee)"

Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage
I don't remember coming to any of the 'drama boards' before, certainly not this one. I'm not an admin, or a FA author. I'm just a guy. Mostly, I bail crappy article out of the hock at AFD by finding sources that nobody bothered to look for. My first real article development project is months in labor, and still isn't done yet. My only interactions with Malleus have been basing the templating of my user page off of his because it looked really slick (and I'm still inexpert at template formatting), and wishing I could churn out content at the rate he does it. I'm really only here to say two things.

First, a lot of the comments here have been about who is a net positive or what might drive editors away. Someone apparently did a study that found that we hemorrhage a lot of people to bad interactions with other editors. I don't know how often admins or arbitrators get to go down in the trenches on articles that aren't GAs and FAs, but let me tell you, the bad interactions with other editors on this project aren't reading someone use the word "fuck" or being called a "twat". Or whatever other profanity was apparently used at some point. Below all the shiny bits with the gold stars and the green circles and the A-list contributions is a sea of SEO operatives, people warring and often sockpuppetting to keep themselves or their band on the project without any manner of sources, cultural warriors with minimal English skills, and outright hoaxers. Those are bad interactions with other editors. Those are what drive people away from the project. It'd be novel if someone swore at me on a talk page while reverting my edits, because that would indicate that I'm in a disagreement with a human being, instead of someone frequently indistinguishable from a bot. Combine that with the fact that anyone new who takes the time to learn how to report people to AIV or ANI, or to submit an article to AFD, is suspicious because they might be the returning incarnation of a banned editor. Between those two pincers, I almost didn't bother ever becoming an editor here (not that I've accomplished half of what I'd hoped). I almost wasn't a Wikipedian.

And so second, I'm going to speak above my pay grade and urge the committee to close this thing without action. Maybe Malleus needs to be sanctioned. Maybe he doesn't. I don't know, I'm not really familiar with any of the background here, and I've got better things to do with what little time I can devote to this project. Writing articles, for example, albeit slowly. Sourcing stuff. But I believe that a statement has been made by a sitting arbitrator that poisons the well. This is supposed to be a community. Everyone talks about community standards, community consensus. It's always easier to keep someone out of a community than to kick them out once they are in. One of the people elected -- by this community -- to enforce our standards on our behalf leveled a finger and said that an editor here -- a very prolific and successful editor -- isn't part of the community. Never was. And all the strikethrough in the world won't make that statement go away. Poisoning the well uses unfavorable information to force an implicit conclusion. "He's been in jail, so we can't trust him." "That's made in China, so it's junk." "He was never one of us, and we should ban him." I don't have any personal interest in what happens to Malleus. I don't know him, and I don't really know his work except by summary. But make a stand for the quality of argument here, and show that this sort of thing isn't acceptable, now or ever. If that means you're back here a month from now, so be it; arbitration is what you were elected to do, anyway. But at least there won't be any question that everyone involved is a Wikipedian. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
The community has been charged with writing policy to define incivility and define what sanctions are for violating it. Some members of the editing corps have been requested, reminded, warned, and sanctioned in regards to their communication with other members. That individual members who are beyond a shadow of doubt in respect to people finding their communications offensive at times are unable to restrain themselves is also telling. Regardless of an individual editors contributions to the project, the chorus of supporters chanting "More good than harm", and their previous soft treatment, it is the community's responsibility to deal with editors who are disruptive of the project. While the debate of "What is Civility?" rages across various RfCs, we have more perceived infractions of the policy (replete with hasty blocks and even hastier unblocks). As I suggested in the previous RfArb, it is time for the committee to take this in hand and deal with the intransigent issues presented by members the community. Hasteur (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Adjwilley
I have no involvement in this case, but it has spilled over onto my watchlist a few times now. I've never interacted directly with Malleus, but from what I've read he is an excellent contributor who has a knack for offending people. While I'm a big fan of civility, I think the 6 month ban is a hamfisted approach to solving the problem. As an alternative to the 6-month ban, I'd suggest this simple approach: I haven't put a ton of thought into this, but I'm sure similar creative solutions can be found that will address the problem without costing us a good editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If Malleus makes a personal attack he will be open to a simple 24-hour block by an uninvolved administrator. This is not to say that he should be blocked, but if an offended party comes complaining he can be blocked. (Administrators should obviously try to use their best judgement.)
 * Talk page access will be removed, and there will be no appeals or unblocks. This will cut down on the drama and wheel warring.
 * The "civility block" length will not be increased or escalated for repeated offenses. This ensures that Malleus won't be blocked for ridiculous lengths of time.
 * The block length will not be decreased either. It needs to be enough of an annoyance to Malleus so that he will be motivated to change his behavior.

Observations by Dianna
Please have a look at these user pages when you have a minute. JClemens in particular needs to view them:
 * User talk:John
 * User:Floquenbeam
 * User:Boing! said Zebedee
 * User talk:Drmies
 * User:Pablo X
 * User talk:Sitush
 * User talk:RegentsPark
 * User talk:SpacemanSpiff
 * User talk:Black Kite
 * User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner
 * User:Nortonius
 * User talk:Beetstra
 * User talk:Giano

— Dianna (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disgust from Pesky
Just adding: nothing that MF has ever done is as fucking objectionable as this blinkered, narrow-minded, hypocritical bigotry masquerading as a "due process". This is an abuse of process. It is absolutely disgusting. If any of the arbs who seem to condone this abuse of process were asked to take an examination where actually understanding the question was important, they would fail. Abysmally. What was the question again? Oh, yes, it was about clarification. FAIL. Mega-fail. One of the vilest abuses of a position of power, trust and influence that I have ever seen. Arbs who consider that the small group of them can over-ride community consensus on an issue which they weren't even asked to consider at the time should be bullwhipped at the cart-tail. I'd be happy to oblige. And for any Arb who sees themselves as being part of that subset, I'd like to add that I'm saying this with all due respect. Block me if you like why would I care about the opinions of people who pervert the course of WikiJustice in this way? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Oh, yes ... and someone can email me when Wikipedia comes up with a process for a vote of no confidence in ArbCom. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I'm copying this over here from the talk, just for those who haven't read / don't want to read over there: Just for clarification: the reason I have "no confidence" in ArbCom as a whole doesn't in any way diminish my respect for those of them who are capable of showing honesty, integrity, and an ability to look at the question which was actually asked as opposed to leaping onto a witch-hunt bandwagon. For those Arbs (and we can see who they are), I would have no hesitation in re-electing them. It's when ArbCom can be infiltrated by enough of the other sort, the power-grabbing, axe-wielding, incompetent, vindictive morons who apparently lack the ability to understand and respond to the question which was actually asked, to affect their decisions ... that's when I lose faith in it. When the incompetent can outvote the intelligent, we have a problem. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Calling someone a twat, or the anatomical descriptor of your choice, is uncivil, but perverting the course of justice is just fine? Really? I know which one of the two would get someone a hefty jail term in Real Life™, and it's not the name-calling. I wish someone could do the normally-accepted thing, and just hat the off-topic comments (called "motions", here). I've been told (possibly wrongly) that only Nadmins should use the hat template. I suggest that one or more of the more-intelligent Arbs could do this. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can add me to that list User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner I can't be arsed with this shitty place right now.  It stinks.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreement with Pesky

 * What Pesky said (except about an email, I'll keep an eye on things while they're still in motion). Nortonius (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not withdrawing, but I have a note on my user page that might also be considered. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Bencherlite
@Arbcom, re motion 2 (which is now passing) - just to try and get some clarification for the community (including Malleus) as to what would and would not be permitted by the topic ban. I set out what I would understand the ban to cover - if I'm wrong, please correct me. I would humbly suggest that the wording of the topic ban and the wording of any exceptions to it be water-tight, because if not we'll have further blocks or requests for clarification/banning before long.

The wording is currently this: "Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own !vote on a specific RFA, but may not engage in threaded discussions on RFA, or in a specific RFA."
 * 1) Somebody launches Requests for adminship reform 2013. Malleus cannot participate either directly or by expressing his views at (e.g.) his talk page because of his topic ban.  So far, so good (in terms of interpretation of the topic ban).
 * 2) An editor asks Malleus on his talk page (specifically or in passing) about his views on RFA in general. Presumably he cannot reply, apart from saying that he cannot reply on the topic of RFA because of this topic ban. Again, so far, so good.
 * 3) An editor asks Malleus on his talk page about a question that Malleus has posted on a particular RFA (as the motion allows him to do). Presumably he cannot reply to this editor at all (either on his talk page, the questioner's talk page or at the RFA), apart from saying at his/the questioner's talk page that he cannot reply because of this topic ban.
 * 4) Malleus posts a question on an RFA (as the motion allows him to do) and another user (whether the candidate or not) asks for clarification either on the RFA or (as in example 3) at Malleus's talk page. Presumably he cannot reply to this editor at all (either on his talk page, the questioner's talk page or at the RFA), apart from saying at his/the questioner's talk page that he cannot reply because of this topic ban, because he would otherwise be engaged in threaded discussions in a specific RFA. (Is this a necessary restriction?)
 * 5) Malleus posts a question on an RFA and receives an answer. Presumably he cannot post a follow-up question, either as part of the same question section or as a new section, because he would otherwise be engaged in threaded discussions in a specific RFA.
 * 6) Malleus is mentioned by another editor (fairly or unfairly) during an RFA in which Malleus has not participated. Presumably Malleus cannot reply anywhere, either at the RFA or at someone's talk page or at (e.g.) ANI, because he would then be breached his topic ban about making edits concerning the RFA process or engaging in a threaded discussion on RFA or a specific RFA.  His only remedy is to leave a !vote or question for the candidate. (Is that fair?)
 * 7) An editor takes exception to the views expressed by Malleus when !voting at an RFA and leaves a comment under his !vote. Presumably, whatever the wording used by the editor (however inaccurate or impolite), Malleus cannot reply at the RFA because he would be engaging in threaded discussion at an RFA, which is not permitted by this topic ban, and he cannot reply at the editor's talk page apart from saying that he cannot reply at the RFA because of this topic ban.  In other words, he cannot address any criticisms made of him or his views/edits/behaviour/etc during an RFA, whatever the provocation. (Is that fair?)

If these are the results in each case that the committee intend, that's fine, and everyone will know where they stand. If not, but you can see how I've reached the conclusions I have given the current wording, please clarify the wording as much as possible in fairness to participants at RFA, those "policing" such discussions, those who might be asked to enforce alleged breaches of the topic ban with a block, yourselves or your successors, and (of course) Malleus. BencherliteTalk 21:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Richwales
I'm a very, very strong believer in civility — and until a short time ago, I was leaning toward throwing the book at MF unless he cleaned up his act immediately. What I think caused me to moderate my view was something that happened with me recently on an article's talk page, where another editor started accusing me of incivility because of a term I was using (in reference to third parties, and not even directed at the objecting editor). As it turns out, there is virtually no evidence that the word in question is in fact widely considered offensive (I'm not going to mention the word or provide a link to the article in question here, BTW, so as not to inappropriately distract the discussion here) — but the other editor continued to insist it was an uncouth word and that our using it betrayed bias in our editing of the article in question. Although I thought, and still think, that the word this one editor was arguing with me over is not even close to being in the same class as the words MF often uses, the experience did get me thinking about where we should draw the line. So, now, I'm surprised to find myself more inclined than before — where civility questions are involved — to "be conservative in what I do and be liberal in what I accept from others".

That's how I feel for now regarding the civility issue. Off-topic tirades are another matter, and I see no problem with discretionary sanctions allowing any uninvolved admin to nip inappropriate trolling, baiting, or off-topic material posted at an RfA by anyone (not just by MF). I think this would be far more constructive in the long run than any additional sanctions directed specifically at MF would be. Whatever some people (maybe including myself) may think of MF's coarser side, it seems clear to me that there is not a true consensus for lowering the boom on him. If I were an arb, I might possibly support the current motion #2, but nothing stronger than this for the time being. — Rich wales 06:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by TParis
@Ihardlythinkso: In response to the "Malleus never initiates incivility, only responds to it", I disagree. On April 4, I made this edit to which Malleus accused me of a personal attack. It's not all that incriminating, but last I checked calling something a personal attack that's not is in itself a personal attack. I'm not saying it's block worthy and I certainly didn't go run off to WP:ANI about it, but I do want to point out that Malleus can be sensitive to personal attacks himself while at the same time expecting insensitivity in others.--v/r - TP 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no accusation in the link you offered. Also, how can you claim to know what Mallues expects in others? (Perhaps he doesn't expect "insensivity" if leveling an incivility for an incivility, perhaps he even means for it to *sting*. Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you want to stick up for your friend, but "And you are now getting perilously close to a personal attack yourself" is an accusation (and chilling) and insisting it's not is another example of how his friends will stretch reality as far as necessary to protect him. I was no where in the realm of personal attacks in my discussion with him.  No other way to put it.  Yes, we all know he means for it to *sting*, that's the problem.  He wants to hurt others so they take him seriously.  "how can you claim to know what Mallues expects in others" Again, worthless argument.  How do you know OJ didn't do it?  How do you know Reagan isn't an alien from Mars?  How do you know Albert Einstein wasn't from the future?  How do you know your parents aren't secret agents?  It's not necessary to prove something beyond the most insane doubt.  Only that we make reasonable inferences based on his actions.  That's how someone "claim to know" thing about Malleus.--v/r - TP 13:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole this is a clarification request that concerns Malleus' participation in RFAs. In that respect, I have nothing to add to this conversation and am backing out.--v/r - TP 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

...I just want to add that there needs to be a lot more Cookies and a lot less Trouts here. Way too much blood being spilled. It's disappointing seeing over 100 editors going at each other with thermonuclear warheads, a number of administrators and editors storming off in a huff, and poor Dennis trying to clean the lower 9th ward with his swiffer.--v/r - TP 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Tryptofish
This whole business just makes me sad. I don't think that a six-month ban is a good idea. I've seen at least some of the RfA interactions between Malleus and NYB, and I don't think they were really that bad. We need to allow for editors who try to speak truth to power. On the other hand, I have a lot of sympathy for what MatthewTownsend said above, and I had the misfortune of being there when some related discussion took place: please see and the accompanying discussion. It had nothing to do with RfA, but plenty to do with civility, as it applies to the editing environment in which we all (try to) work. I also think that the discussion on this page has included way too much over-the-top invective directed at the Arbitrators, and I hope that they won't be disheartened by it. At this point, I think that it may be worth opening a full case, instead of trying to deal with it by motions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass
The problem of valued contributors who also engage in incivility is one that has been around for a long time now, but it seems that Wikipedia still hasn't managed to find an effective solution.

In lieue of these endless moots in which bans may or may not be handed out but the underlying problem is not addressed, perhaps it's time we at least tried to come up with a simple and clear procedure for dealing with such issues that won't disrupt the project, waste huge amounts of the community's time and energy, or cause us to needlessly lose the contributions of otherwise useful editors. Surely it couldn't be that difficult? Gatoclass (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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 &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush: It has been brought up at clerks-l. However, the motion suggested doesn't quite address the original remedy (i.e. needs much copy-edit). Granted copy-editing is done many, many times by ArbCom, even to a passing motion... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am beginning the process of enacting Motion #2. Please limit changes to this request to avoid edit conflicts. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Okay, awaiting more statements, but, I've got to say that Franamax has one thing absolutely right, so I'll quote that; "Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves." Someone's post can't be moved to a page they're banned from, and then blocked for violation of a topic ban, that would be a huge miscarriage of justice. Courcelles 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Though this looks like a crystal clear violation of the remedy... (The remedy is not that MF is not allowed to take part in WT:RFA discussions, it is he is not allowed to edit the pages, full stop.) Courcelles 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF What in the world does that have to do with your violation of the topic ban? Especially since the record shows you were not blocked for the infraction? Courcelles 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mongo, you are mistaken. The remedy says "indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.", this includes both the main WT:RFA page, and the talk page of all individual RFA's, and any other pages that might exist with their names starting with that string. Courcelles 05:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754... if he doesn't change, at all? I suspect there will be a motion much like SirFozzie's below, and it won't have any trouble gathering the votes to go through.  We can debate if it should pass in this scenario, but it almost surely would. I feel totally confident saying we won't sit here and keep on carving places on the project Malleus is banned from, because, after a while we won't do that for anyone. Courcelles 04:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles is correct, there is no violation if someone else moves the posts. Of course, such movement doesn't enable subsequent replies from Malleus, so it would be effectively ending his participation in the discussion.  Which begs the question... if it was a "discussion" suitable for the talk page anyways, why should it ever be moved back to the main RfA page solely to enable Malleus' participation? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Truthkeeper, baiting someone else into incivility is inappropriate, but ultimately, it is the "baitee" who is responsible for his or her own conduct. I think the committee and the community in general have been appropriately lenient, if not perhaps a bit too much so, when people have veered into incivility for understandable reasons... however, there comes a point when such excuses, levied on another user's behalf, ring hollow. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @NYB, you're of course welcome to disagree with me, and you certainly won't be the only arbitrator to do so, but I've said what I did for a very specific reason: Policy-based consensus needs to take into account the policies that the community is simply not allowed to challenge. BLP, Copyvio, CHILDPROTECT... these are all not subject to community consensus, and I think it's high time we recognized, out loud and in public, that all the pillars are just as non-negotiable.  Fact is, the reason we've had such a hard time as a committee is that there are a handful of arbitrators who don't see things this way.  I would challenge you or any of the others to articulate an ethical and internally consistent argument explaining why editors can be allowed to ignore the fourth pillar in isolation, but  anyone ignoring any other pillar is quickly banned without much fanfare.  Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754, the intent is not to insult Malleus; he has made plenty of positive contributions here, and the point is to actually acknowledge them... while at the same time noting their insufficiency in the absence of fourth pillar-upholding behavior. Believe me, this is not simply about Malleus in my mind, but he's the one guy who's contributed enough such that the differences of opinion over civility vs. content contributions have placed him in the spotlight... again, and again, and again.  I'm not sure how many times I've said I wished that Malleus would simply stop being rude and continue his positive contributions, and I've been far from alone in that desire.  BUT, given that he hasn't ever really responded to such encouragements, admonishments, or the like... my statement stands, as much as I wish I had never actually needed to make it. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754, the target of my statement is not Malleus; it would have been entirely possible, and a lot less hassle, to simply sign my name in support of the motion. The "not a Wikipedian" comment is a statement of reality as I see it, articulating my pillars-centric view of the expectations of Wikipedians. It's more important, in my mind, for discussion to be framed in such a manner than it is to ban Malleus. The community has banned plenty of other editors in the past; the committee's role in actually banning people should continue to wane as the community continues expanding its tools to do so. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai, While you might limit the ranks of non-Wikipedians to "stalkers, child molesters, and other predators", I think I was pretty clear that I included in that category "Vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators"--that is, anyone who fails to follow one or more pillars flagrantly. As far as comments "destructive to collaborative editing environment", I personally believe those who have supported Malleus on the basis that content creation trumped, excused, or otherwise made up for chronic incivility have contributed far more to the sitewide neglect of the fourth pillar than Malleus himself ever could have. Malleus, after all, is just one editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Recuse. See statement above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My first thought is as follows: The topic ban was placed on MF to minimize the disruption caused at RfA. As this request shows, the method we used has not removed the disruption. It is time to consider a harsher method to make sure the disruption stops. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, you have two options. A) Cease the personal attacks or B) Face the consequences (up to and including blocks/bans). I cannot say it plainer, you have been given more rope then just about any user I can remember during my time on Wikipedia. You will abide by policies against such attacks, or you will face sanctions for violating those policies. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF, I would say your continued presence causing these issues is inherently disruptive. Your method of collaborating with other users, as proven in this request and elsewhere, is inherently disruptive. You have been given more then enough leeway with your opinions on RfA and its processes, and working with other editors, and you've used all of it up. SirFozzie (talk)
 * @MF: This is where I disagree with you. YOU are the cause of your problems, this "Firestorm in a teacup". You have been unduly confrontational, and have stooped to attacks unworthy of someone of your ability. You are and have been disruptive in this (and other) areas. The fact that you see nothing wrong with calling other people dishonest fuckers, dishonest twats, etcetera is mind boggling. You wouldn't act that way to people's faces without people confronting you on your behavior, so why do you think that you could get away with it here? SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * $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)
 * I am concerned that MF is being brought before us again.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also concerned that Malleus's name is coming up yet again, but I don't think a clarification request is the proper platform to do anything other than address the specific issue being raised. It sounds as though that could be achieved simply by banning Malleus from RFA entirely. I reject the notion that copying Malleus's - or any topic-banned editor's - posts to a page they are banned from participating in directly is appropriate, however. Firstly, it creates a loophole in the topic ban. All User:TopicBanned has to do is find User:WillingAccomplice who will transfer posts from any page over to the topic-banned page, and the restriction is rendered superfluous. Secondly, if the discussion belongs on a page where User:TopicBanned is prohibited from editing, that probably means that User:TopicBanned has no business contributing in the first place. If the discussion gets moved because it was started in the wrong place, the same still applies. Thirdly, it prevents User:TopicBanned from disengaging from the area they were previously problematic in, which I thought was the whole point of these restrictions in the first place. If copying a post in this manner were to occur, then no, User:TopicBanned cannot be faulted (unless they directly requested the copying, which is a different matter), but whoever copied the post should be subject to blocking for what amounts to aiding and abetting. The only legitimate exception I can think of is the practice of copying an appeal of some sanction (and replies to comments to the same) to the appropriate noticeboard for community comment and review. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark: I can think of no circumstance on Wikipedia where calling someone a "dishonest twat" would be an appropriate comment and not deserving of a block. "Dishonest twit" isn't much better, but Malleus said the former. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus: Insulting other editors is inherently disruptive, and I have no other way to describe your "dishonest twat" comment. The other diffs cited are rather similar. If you believe that insulting people is not disruptive, then I do not believe that you have a place on a collaborative project. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum

 * For the purpose of this motion, there are 12 active arbitrators (not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

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)
 * Before things get out of hand, I disagree vehemently with JClemens's "Never was a Wikipedian". I will state flat out that Malleus has done a LOT for Wikipedia. My thoughts on his behavior (and what might be required to curtail this behavior) do not in any way denigrate what he's done on the content side. I think the best reaction possible is that MF listens to Brad, myself and the other people who have urged him to correct the behavioral issues, and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I will go so far as to say here what I said on his page. If he promises to try, I would fight any efforts to put him under "Zero tolerance" or any such remedies. I know it can be very hard to maintain one's temper when angered, and I am fully willing to forgive occasional lapses as long as it's not a continuing pattern. But that's contingent on him meeting us halfway.
 * Unfortunately, Malleus has decided that he would rather be banned then meet us halfway, and thus, I have to reluctantly un-strike my vote. We gave Malleus every chance here, all he would have to do is soften his edges a bit. That apparently is not possible, and thus, we have to move on. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * This is why I would have preferred a case, so we could discuss and fine tune solutions, and research aspects of MF's behaviour; see if claims that he is "baited" are true; examine the behaviour of others toward MF. Does anyone know off-hand if he engages in disruptive behaviour on article talkpages? I know he can be abrupt to the point of hostility at times, but does this occur (at all? - much?) on article talkpages? If not, then perhaps allow participation on article talkpages? When the sanction to topic ban MF from RfA talkpages was proposed I was not in favour as when I researched into his conduct there it was robust, but not excessively so - and his conduct did not seem to be inordinately inappropriate to the level and flavour of the discussions taking place. What is clear, though, is that disruption is in attendance with MF when he has the space to give his personal opinions - particularly of other users. I have been disappointed that a user who has such wide respect (and there is a lot of support on this page), should - even when sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility - continue to be needlessly hostile to other users. None of us are here to be insulted - each person adds their own contribution in their own way, and when a user makes a mistake there is an appropriate way to advise them of that so that they remain motivated, on task, and learn from the experience. Making a mistake is never a problem - it is how we and others react to the mistake that matters. I recently became aware of this discussion in which an experienced and respected GA reviewer felt so intimated by MF's comments that he was talking about giving up reviewing completely. It would be worth examining this incident to see what had led to that decision. There are other such moments regarding MF. Comments above where people are responding as though this motion is about one incident are perhaps either not aware of MF's profile or are wishing to only focus on that incident to make this motion appear unreasonable. I have a lot of respect for MF, and have never had any problems with him. I have recommended him a number of times to other users for conducting GA reviews or doing copy-editing, particularly where some thought, care and intelligence were needed. I would much rather we find a solution which allowed MF to contribute, but which encouraged him to avoid areas which get him into trouble. Failing that, a six month ban is preferable than to allow matters to go on after he has been brought to ArbCom for the third time this year. We would be sending out a very bad message if we let this go without some kind of response.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pausing to look at other options.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If Malleus promises to interact with other editors in a proper manner, I would be minded to pursue some remedy other than a site-ban. For Malleus' benefit, this is the sort of thing that has broken my patience (and, I presume, that of my colleagues who support this motion). Whether or not an editor's challenge of your changes or comments is correct, you owe it to less incisive or experienced editors to phrase your responses in such a way that the interaction is not made disgustingly unpleasant. You know how to speak to other editors; we only want you to make a credible effort to do so. AGK  [•] 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Following discussion on the mailing list, and on my talk page, I'm indenting my vote in the hope we can agree on a less harsh remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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, at some point in the past abandoned whatever commitment he had to the fourth pillar, and ceased to be 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 since ceased to be a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I'm not voting at this point, because I would like to see what comes from the discussion initiated by Newyorkbrad first. However, I take serious exception to your statement that "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian", and that we are acknowledging such a statement. You are making that statement personally in your individual role; the Committee as a whole is not. Risker (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Amended the statement based on comments on my talk page. Risker, I'd extend my invite to Newyorkbrad to you as well... If you think my statement is incorrect, feel free to articulating a basis for differentiating among the pillars. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I have already asked you to post the views you have expressed to the Committee on your talk page or in the current RFC. Feel free to edit them, however, I believe that given you are now acting as if the community agrees with your undisclosed position on civility, that the community has the right to know what those views are. Risker (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've articulated my views--that the civility pillar is as non-negotiable as copyright--in the above vote. Since the pillars define the community, it is not up to the community to agree with the pillars or not, any more than it is up to the community to agree with copyright issues. The assertion that I have some "undisclosed" position with respect to civility is simply not true--I've articulated on-wiki the same reasoning I articulated on the list. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we will disagree then on whether or not you have really disclosed your position. The community gets to interpret the pillars, and they're edited on a regular basis as interpretation changes over time. None of the pillars say "you're not part of the community unless you unfailingly follow all of these rules at all times"; keep in mind that the fifth pillar is also part of the foundation. Risker (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I know what you're referencing, but you're mischaracterizing it: my position is entirely public; the thought experiment on its implications is not, just like the rest of ArbCom internal deliberations. The fact that you'd call for disclosing such is curious and problematic, especially given some of your own comments in the discussion.  On the specific question of rules vs. principles, however, Malleus still loses.  One pillar can't usurp another, and while good editors can differ over the particulars of what is uncivil, Malleus' conduct over time is sufficiently consistent that WP:PACT applies, and the only substantial disagreement seems to be whether his admitted incivility is excused by his admittedly top-notch content work. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It stopped being a thought experiment when you started using this formulation in your voting. Risker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fozzie articulates my point of view fairly well. There's the canard thrown around that "competence is required", and that extends handily to conduct. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's quite a common situation. Because if you are relying on volunteers you sometimes have to put up with the idiosyncracies of said volunteers. Because in Malleus's case, he doesn't go off at everybody - he doesn't go off at genuine content creators, at well meaning newbies, at people who ask for his help. He doesn't engage in random abuse, he doesn't target people for being black/gay/female/young/welsh or whatever. What he reacts badly to is being 'handled' by 'the management' (as he perceives it) - this is much, much less of a problem for the encyclopaedia than civil POV pushers skewing articles by eliminating their more forthright correctors, spammers, advertisers, political censors, sly vandals, Randy in Boise and anything that affects the continued creation and maintenance of accurate content. Do I wish MF would avoid taproom language - yes. Do I think editors are leaving the project in droves because he uses it - no.  If the cuss words are really such a problem, then go to the community with a swear box solution - 24hr block for every word on the list - and see if there's any support for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I might add that on most volunteer projects, you don't get to tell someone who has worked on it for years that they've never been a real part of it because they use foul language. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I commend to all the statements made by User:Littleolive oil above. I do wish certain parties (it's by no means just Malleus) didn't use quite so much bar-room language, because some people are genuinely upset by it. But I still believe that bullying is more of a problem than cussing, and something that we deal with very poorly, because it's much harder to identify and prove someone is bullying than it is just to point to the swears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While concerns have been raised regarding Malleus' ongoing participation at RFA, I have seen no evidence that these concerns extend to his participation elsewhere in the project. In light of that, a full ban seems unnecessary; if Malleus' participation at RFA is disruptive to the point where the existing remedy is insufficient—and I'm not yet convinced that this is indeed the case—then it should be sufficient to simply bar him from participating at RFA at all.  Certainly, it would be unfortunate to lose his valuable contributions in other areas because of a dispute in what is very much a non-essential area of the project. More generally, I'm not in favor of fixed-duration bans as a remedy in cases of this sort.  The subject of the ban is unlikely to undergo a dramatic change of heart merely due to the passage of X months—particularly as the ban expires automatically, without any requirement that the subject demonstrate a change in behavior either prior to or upon his return.  If someone's conduct is so bad as to warrant a long-term ban, then the ban should be indefinite, and should require that the subject demonstrate that the problem which led to it has been resolved prior to returning; otherwise, all we're doing is giving someone a few months to stew over how the evil Arbitration Committee is oppressing them. And, finally, to address the point raised by Jclemens: Malleus is a Wikipedian; he has always been a Wikipedian; and he will continue to be a Wikipedian even if we ban him.  We cannot strip away someone's identity by motion, nor declare them an unperson because they no longer follow our party line. Kirill [talk] 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This does not in any way address the issue that was brought to us. The answer to the original question is "Yes, Worm That Turned did it right". It is a pitiful shame that we on the Committee do not regularly prune out irrelevant commentary from requests like this; it leads to bad outcomes on a regular basis. I agree wholeheartedly with Kirill's last paragraph. Risker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, no matter which way this goes, Kirill's last paragraph is dead on. Labels are... I sort of think a waste of time, at least in trying to deny someone else a label they desire to claim when there is no harm in just letting it rest. Whether Malleus wants to wear this label of "Wikipedian" is for him to decide, not for us to take away, even if we vote to ban him. We can disagree on whether he should continue to enjoy editing privileges without ever going down that road again.  My mind on all of this is very, very conflicted.  If Malleus continued with his conduct at the level it was at, I feel like this was an inevitable happening.  But this, in this manner, at this time... I can't support it.  Lets do something about the problem presented in the request and make the last clause of this motion a separate vote.  See if that solves things. I think I realized on my last drive today (I'm moving house at the moment) that expecting Malleus to say he would change was not likely to happen.  What I think will happen if this motion fails is that he will silently work on his conduct and use of language.  If he does, we all win here.  If he doesn't, then there will be people who can point out my naivety.  Whatever. I'll propose something I think might work and solve the question asked of us in a few moments. Courcelles 04:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

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


 * 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)
 * Noting the motion, but I really would like to see where this conversation goes before voting. Malleus clearly values this project very highly (anyone who puts in the time he has here has to), so the question is not, and can not be, is he a Wikipedian; of course he is. What we need to decide is whether he is willing to work to conform his behaviour to the standards of the project.  The Civility Enforcement case should have been a clarion call to do this, but this motion right here is the last one.  You can, and so often do, work in an excellent manner without insults.  This isn't a witch-hunt, of the six Arbs in support at this time, three of them voted against banning Malleus earlier this year when they had the chance, none of us want to do it.  That said, we need a thoughtful commitment to really work on these issues -- not perfection, just better -- and we can move on. (Perhaps with just the second part of this motion, extending the RFA topic ban actually going through)  As this sits at 6-2, and 7 supports passes it, perhaps anyone who hasn't voted yet should just wait, sleep on this, and see where the talk page comments go.  If we have to do this, pass this motion, we can do it over, or even after, the weekend... (not that anyone wastes time reading the "Courcelles is about to go to bed" ramblings anyway ;) ) Courcelles 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also noting the motion and awaiting the outcome of the discussion on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page before voting. Risker (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal - I wish you'd done that list since February. Anyone have a stopwatch or calendar to determine what actual percentage of Malleus' edits could be considered incivil (let's for the sake of the civility folks say this should include those provoked). I reckon it'd come in as miniscule - maybe under 3%? Shall we look at time editing constructively vs these trainwrecks. A lot of Article Building and Article Review water goes under the bridge between each one of these flareups. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Everybody - I formally dissociate myself from any such discussion of any editor as "not a wikipedian". I could explain...do I need to explain that one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)

 * For the purpose of this motion, there are 12 active arbitrators (not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

"Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary."


 * Support
 * Lets TRY and find something that works without tossing Malleus to the curb. Maybe this will, maybe it won't, but lets slow down and THINK about this.  Other ideas, lets talk about them; and feel free to copy-edit the heck out of this idea. Courcelles 04:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with this, and I think Malleus could probably do so as well. Risker (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At least it clarifies the situation at RFA - threaded comments should be removed altogether rather than removed to the talkage - which was what got us here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This addresses the original concern, at least. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the best we can do, but I accept that the Committee have no stomach for a full case, and this is something that we can try. If it doesn't work then the new Committee can have another go next year. (And if someone else offers something better in the next few days I'll go for that instead).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, although I shudder to see that "!vote" has now entered the Committee's official lexicon. Kirill [talk] 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Worth trying to address it in less drastic steps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This will succeed only if Malleus voluntarily improves how he interacts with other editors. I'm willing to try this motion out, on the understanding that we are giving Malleus a "final final chance". AGK  [•] 12:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * No. Malleus was offered a free ride. No sanctions, no anything, as long as he TRIED to change his behavior. I'm sorry, but we've gone the extra mile here and he has said that he would rather quit/retire/be banned then stop violating one of Wikipedia's core pillars. Even now, with the motion above passing, if Malleus would agree to work on his behavior, I'd be willing to strike my vote permanently, but without such assurances, I'm sorry, I cannot support anything short. SirFozzie (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I've tried one more time on Malleus's page, asking that he ignore JClemens's statement, which again, for the record, I will say is flat out wrong. If Malleus is willing to bend even a bit, I'm willing to strike my support for the ban, so we can work something out. SirFozzie (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * If I'd known that this was going to turn into Civility enforcement 2 I might not have recused, since the focus of the concern that led me to recuse was more narrow. But this motion is at the heart of that concern, and so I stay recused here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I think we require time to look at MF's conduct in RfA to see exactly how bad it is; we need time to consider MF's behaviour in other areas of Wikipedia to see if the flares up occur just in RfA; we need time to look at when and why MF flares up, to see how much truth there is that MF only responds when he has been unjustly provoked; we need time to work out appropriate solutions. And if it is decided that MF is topic banned or site banned or has a language restriction imposed, then we need to have the rationale for our actions because without that rationale there may well be some disaffection.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I understand the thinking behind banning MF from RfA, the recent case request did not emerge from RfA. We know that MF is occasionally hostile, and we know that on some of those occasions there is extended drama and conflict. We also know that MF is under sanction and has been admonished for incivility. We also know that despite this, he has continued the conduct that has caused concern for some parts of the community. As such a total siteban makes some kind of sense. I'm not sure a ban on just one part of the site when detailed research has not been carried out as to how much of his incivility relates to this part of the site in comparison to other parts, is satisfactory. I can see that this current incident has arisen from RfA, but that's only because the case earlier this year emerged from RfA, and a sanction applicable to RfA was drawn up. But if the case had resulted from the recent case request rather than the one earlier in the year, then would we have applied an ANI topic ban instead? I don't have the time at the moment to conduct the research, but my feeling is that the situation is a little more complex than just RfA.
 * I am however considering accepting this motion as I don't want Wikipedia to lose a valued contributor if it can be avoided. I am concerned about the impact of incivility on parts of the community, as that is a serious issue - but we really don't know who is driven away (if any), and who are not joining (if any). There is strong support on this page for MF, that cannot be ignored. And at the same time, a curious low level of participation from those who are concerned about incivility. It may have something to do with some of the comments that some of my fellow Committee members have made, and people not wishing to be associated with those comments; but that is speculation. The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want. And the emails I have got have not been clear.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Following Kirill's comment, and discussion on the talk page, I've rephrased the motion to remove the use of !vote. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * }