Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Request that Arbitrators use their power to gain access to relevant official IRC channel logs to determine if they are evidentiary
1) One element of complaint in the underlying disputes over civility has been that administrative actions may have been discussed on official IRC channels maintained by wikimedia for the purposes of discussing and improving wikipedias, en.wikipedia, cross wikipedia administration, and en.wikipedia administration. The guidelines provided at wikimedia for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel repeatedly refers to the potential for conduct issues of improper formation of consensus off wikipedia, and, arbitrator oversight is assumed in the channel's userlist.  Separate from the complaint in the underlying dispute, the explicit and repeated prohibition on using the IRC channels for off-encyclopaedia formation of administrative action is a reasonable cause to believe that such behaviour may occur in that space. Obviously evidence would be required for claiming such a thing.

But evidence is not available, by design. None of these channels keep public logs, and so users cannot submit evidence based on official logs. These channels prohibit the taking and use of private logs without permission from all involved parties. Some of these channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins keep private logs that they claim are accessible on arbitrator order for the use of arbitrators. Some of these channels are not accessible to non-administrators, and so members of the community cannot even have viewed them "live" as WP:AN/I or WP:AN may be viewed live in order to bear witness from experience without the benefit of logs.

Given that members of the community are restricted from accessing these logs to determine if they have any evidentiary value in relation to the formation of consensus or the development of decisions regarding administrative action, I request that Arbitrators use what powers they have to:

1a) Obtain such logs for a suitably deep time period in relation to the underlying dispute of failure to administer and conduct civilly (this may be months, I do not know the time scope arbitrators believe holds for their case)

1b) Examine such logs for their evidentiary benefit in relation to this case

1c) Where possible and appropriate, make such logs, or redactions of such logs, or summaries of such logs available for viewing by members of the wikipedia community. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I have no idea what you're talking about, Fifelfoo. There is no ability of the Arbitration Committee to "subpoena" IRC channel logs. There are also literally hundreds of IRC channels where Wikipedia is discussed that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and they aren't even under the nominal control of the Wikimedia IRC channel contacts. Further, I cannot imagine any arbitrator voluntarily reading through thousands of hours of IRC drivel. Risker (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Jehochman, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a "duty" of the Arbitration Committee to supervise the proper use of official IRC channels. That is the responsibility of the channel operators and channel contacts. If you look at the link provided by Fifelfoo, you will see that not a single arbitrator is a channel contact or channel operator. In fact, most arbitrators do not use IRC at all.  Risker (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman, please feel free to make your proposal here. The Arbitration Committee does not control IRC channels. Risker (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Fifelfoo, not happening. The channel is not centrally logged; some users may have logs for portions of the period between March 2007 (when Malleus Fatuorum started editing) and present, but they are not compellable and there is no way to be certain they are unmodified. I am not aware of any time that the Arbitration Committee has ever requested copies of channel logs during the entire time I have been on the Committee, and it will not be happening this time. You're proposing a fishing expedition. Risker (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Fifelfoo, "the people at Meta" most certainly do not claim to keep copies of logs specifically for Arbcom review. That paragraph hasn't been updated since it was written by FT2 in 2008, as far as I can see, but it does not claim in any way that a set of logs is maintained for Arbcom review. Risker (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @GiacomoReturned: That was in 2007. In June 2011, the Arbitration Policy was ratified by the community and does not include any authority in relation to IRC channels. What Jimmy Wales said four years ago has been superceded. Risker (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * -sigh- Of the four admins involved in the case (Alexandria, Thumperward, John, and Hawkeye7), only one of those idles -admins. Me.  I don't see how releasing the logs will accomplish anything. Alexandria (chew out) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems impractical; we're talking about pages and pages of logs here. --Rschen7754 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fishing; and it's fishy. My76Strat (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not fishing for ArbCom to perform their duty to supervise proper use of the official IRC channels. There is no public scrutiny of the channel, so this is the only way to make sure the channels are not being misused.  Have any arbitrators have been watching that channel regularly?  It is also not impractical to download the logs and perform a text search to look for a unique keyword like "Malleus", a word not used in everyday conversion, and see if any admins were improperly plotting to block an editor.  Given access to the logs, I could do this in a few minutes.  There are several people on the committee with sufficient skills to to do the job. Jehochman Talk 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Risker, why then is there an official en-wikipedia-admins channel? If ArbCom can't supervise the admins convening there, it ought to be shut down for the sake of transarency. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're paranoid beyond even my paranoia Jehochman. Impressive. Who sent you? Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I am not mentally ill as far as I know, and nobody sent me. Are you sure you want to keep talking about me?  For some reason you seem to lose all perspective when commenting about me. If you strike your offensive comments, I will strike the injunction I requested below. Jehochman Talk 03:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * |Exhibiting extreme....distrust of others. No, I can't see how that meets WP:NPA so I'm afraid I'll not be striking my comments; further your bully boy attitude asking me to be "dealt with" probably needs a look at by ARBCOM too, and your unfounded accusations that I "lose perspective" strike me as verging into an attack yourself. I'd suggest you should be the one striking things. Pedro :  Chat  07:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I am sick and tired of you hounding me. (diffs below) Don't talk smack about me anywhere on Wikipedia.  I want nothing to do with you. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Risker:
 * "Arbcom may also have access to confirmed copies of the private channel logs allowing them to check what may have actually happened in case of dispute." (meta).
 * Since the early 1970s string based text searching has been available. I am assuming that at least one drafter has access to a computer with grep, spotlight, emacs, vi or a modern text editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedia-en-admins claim at meta to keep logs specifically for people in your role. The other 3 relevant channels don't necessarily do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I have a reading comprehension issue, but I checked this repeatedly before asking for this, and "Arbcom may also have access to confirmed copies of the private channel logs allowing them to check what may have actually happened in case of dispute." is clear to my reading. "confirmed copies" indicates that they have some method of maintaining logs that are good.  "private channel logs" reads to me in relation to the privacy of the channel, not the privacy of the logs.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom and J Wales have complete control over wikipedia-en-admins per this official announcement from Jimbo himself: J Wales announcing his and the Arbcom's control of wikipedia-en-admins. Ther Arbcom only have t ask the opperators for the relevant logs or information, allthough I expect some of them are in the channel a lot of the time anyway. Giacomo Returned 08:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom has no authority over the admin IRC channel, then I think the community needs to have a discussion about shutting that channel down. Wikipedia should not have a backchannel with no regulation, or regulation by a few self-selected individuals. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile this assertion of authority over IRC behavior with your (Risker) statement that ArbCom has no authority over the official en-Wikipedia IRC channels? Jehochman Talk 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No blocking or unblocking
1) The two most divisive things administrators can do are: Therefore all administrators who are not sitting members of ArbCom are enjoined from taking either action.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * blocking MF
 * unblocking MF


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Arbitrators are not meant to be super-admins, and should have no additional authority outside ArbCom matters. It is true that some Arbs are widely respected and their views are accorded disproportionate weight, but I suggest that this is because of their reputations and not their status as Arbitrator - for example, NewYorkBrad had already earned subsantial community respect before he joined ArbCom, and I believe he will continue to be influential and respected after he retires from ArbCom. It is unfortunately also the case that some members of ArbCom have provoked considerable controversy in acting in a de facto super-admin manner.  One simple example was Coren's blocking of Giano during the Randy / alleged outing incident, a block that was divisive and reversed almost immediately.  That incident is significant to this motion in two regards: firstly, it shows an Arbitrator whose judgement was not up to the sort of authority this motion contemplates granting in a particular case.  Secondly, that incident led almost immediately to an RfAr request in which it was clear that internal ArbCom disagreements were going to be a factor.  ArbCom declined to take the case, which makes me concerned that a proposal such as this could result in unilateral super-admin action which ArbCom would decline to review.  ArbCom is meant to be a review body and there are good reasons for Arbitrators to avoid acting in areas which are likely to become cases.  Consequently, Arbitrators should not be directed to act as first responders in the case of potentially highly contentious blocks.  EdChem (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you come with five to ten non ArbCom administrators with absolutely stunning judgement? Nothing Malleus has ever done has triggered as much disruption as hese last two wheel wars. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * However well intended, this is a bad idea. My76Strat (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Malleus should not be untouchable. However, I would certainly consider " Malleus Regular editors should not be blocked or unblocked for a pattern of generally uncivil behaviour without clear community consensus". Civility blocks are too subjective and causes too many issues. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see already 10 different ways this could go wrong, and Administrators *should* know how to behave. If you want to single out one or two admins who are wheel-warring, then we might be able to look into that. Otherwise, were asking for trouble. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a break from pissing people off
2) Malleus has been around long enough to know the type of things that aggravate his detractors (justified or not). Malleus is enjoined from, broadly construed, pissing people off until this case is resolved. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * All editors are expected to avoid pissing people off at all times. Is Malleus so out of control that this needs to be specified? Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary. Malleus may be right now, excluding the God-King, the most watched editor in the history of Wikipedia.  Arbcom will be told by many of anything deemed out of line.  Also, all of his good deeds will be presented to the Committee.  This is the least of our concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Malleus's block expired, he seems to be right back to unhelpful comments. My recommendation is that, to minimize disruption, ArbCom pass a motion that Malleus be restricted solely to commenting at the case, and nowhere else. --Elonka 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Help me understand your proposal. Once this case is resolved, Malleus can return to pissing people off?--Buster Seven   Talk  10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redundant to current policy WP:CIVIL My76Strat (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with My76Strat here, but also Elonka's idea has one flaw in that we might have to give a block to enforce that, impeding the case. If it's bad enough, issue a timed block. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP is neither a totalitarian police-state nor a womb nor a warm salinated meditation bath. On the contrary, WP is a world-wide community of editors (like universities, disproprotionately populated with persons with various obsessive-compulsive traits), with unusually diverse backgrounds. Some editors will piss off others regularly. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Intentionally? Because that's kind of the point here. --Conti|✉ 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Question from Wehwalt to Hawkeye7
Hawkeye7, can you demonstrate that you were aware of Malleus's subsequent comment (the one with "Goodbye Wikipedia" on it) prior to your block of him?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I do not know how to do this. My browser logs show the date and visit count. I distinctly remember the "suicide by admin" comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question from My76Strat to Malleus Fatuorum
Malleus Fatuorum, Please consider wp:npa where it states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Upon reflection, do you believe you remain fully compliant with this policy each time you edit on Wikipedia? My76Strat (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that you or anyone else here does? The policy is so floppily worded in any event as to be a bit of a joke. Is it really always a "personal attack" to comment on an editor? (Hint: think carefully before you answer.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Question to Alexandria
Did you ever discuss via IRC, or other off-wiki channel, the blocking, unblocking or sanctioning of Malleus? Are you aware of any other parties to this case participating in such off-wiki discussions? I'm not asking you to reveal any irrelevant confidences, but if there were discussions about how to handle an ostensibly disruptive editor, those discussions are relevant to this proceeding. The existence of such conversations should be disclosed, or you can go on the record saying there were no discussions. Sunlight is a good way to dispel suspicions. Jehochman Talk 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like every big on-wiki event that causes mass drama, there's bound to be off-wiki discussion and not just limited to IRC discussions. This is nothing new and not exclusive to the -admins channel, you know that.  I have not had any interaction on IRC with any of the other parties to my knowledge.  As I said above, Thumperward, John, and Hawkeye7 do not idle -admins.  Additionally, if any of the other parties, aside from myself, idle in any irc channels on freenode, I'm not in those channels.  As you are an admin yourself, you are welcome to idle the -admins channel as well if you're wondering personally what goes on. Alexandria (chew out) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question from Casliber to anyone who has claimed Malleus has driven off new editors
I notice that the only segment referring to the driving off of new editors has been stricken. I have seen this claimed somewhere that Malleus' incivility has driven off new editors. Can anyone produce any evidence to support this claim? Or not, in which case it can be stricken. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Previously addressed . That fact that we cannot produce a list of names of children not born due to birth control isn't evidence it doesn't work. Note: I have no opinion as to whether Malleus specifically has driven off editors, but am merely pointing out the unreasonableness of the request to produce a list of names. We assert axiomatically that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAU yet don't demand a list of pages proving it. Nobody Ent 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the emphasis on an alleged negative here, for which no evidence has been produced? I could give lots of examples where I've encouraged and helped new editors to continue with Wikipedia despite their initially discouraging experiences. But of course nobody's interested in that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lack of interest claim not supported by evidence:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence Nobody Ent 23:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Nobody Ent (or anyone who has asserted this), arb cases follow a pattern of principles, findings and remedies, hence if there is no evidence for an assertion, it can't be a finding and remedies can't be applied to it. Hence my question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assertion: If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. Evidence: WP:NOTBUREAU.
 * Wikipedia terms of service, especially respect for editor's privacy, precludes collecting data on why people choose to start and why they choose to stop participating. Sometimes life requires making choices in the presence of uncertainty.
 * Personally, I neither assert nor care whether Malleus personally has discouraged editors; it's my axiomatic belief that the innuendo - snark - "slap this guy with a trout - ha ha ha" low level incivility that is routinely tolerated in dispute resolution is an important factor in limiting the growth of both the number and diversity of editors contributing to Wikipedia.
 * While the five have been efficacious in developing content, the civility-consensus-iar triangle has failed to achieve coherent state regarding incivility. The general community, having itself failed, has arm-twisted ArbCom into accepting this case. (My own failed "finger-in-the-dike" retraction was partially intended to avoid the disruption evidenced here.) No decision ArbCom make will not result in many dissatisfied editors; having opened Pandora's Box, this is the time for ArbCom to take action which is concurrently both bold and nuanced; overly rigid adherence to old ways is not the right path to take. Nobody Ent 14:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, you made a mistake and accused Malleus of something you have no evidence for, but instead of admitting it you are making up excuses. (A few examples of Malleus interacting with a new editor and the new editor quitting shortly afterwards should be sufficient to keep this accusation alive, even though it would probably not be a conclusive proof.) Malleus and Giano are clearly being singled out for mobbing by editors who envy them for their content production skills. Participation in such a mob is a prime example of incivility. Hans Adler 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So... if I object to Malleus' incivility I'm clearly jealous, which is evidence of my incivility? Whatever.  Although it's true that we cannot specifically state in this case that Malleus has driven off an editor without conclusive evidence of the same, it is axiomatic that our civility pillar exists to create an environment conducive to participation and productive editing.  We don't need to justify the existence of the civility pillar every time there is a civility case by establishing cause-and-effect specific to the instance.  It's enough that a person was uncivil and another person complained.  If there were demonstrable harm, the behavior is that much more troublesome, but if not it is still counter to our fundamental principles.  Here's an analogy. It's illegal in most cities to discharge a firearm except at a target range because it creates a disturbances and endangers people.  If someone does discharge a firearm, a neighbor calling the police need not prove that there is an actual disturbance or a specific person in danger, nor is it a relevant concern whether the neighbor is jealous, uncivil, or trying to hound the person.  They're breaking a fundamental rule and need to stop. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe in your case it's for another reason than jealousy, but Wikipedia is full of editors with more problematic behaviour than that of Malleus and Giano, and who are not being treated in this way. Here are the more obvious points that distinguish these two from most of the others:
 * They are a lot more active.
 * (Almost) nobody would dream of holding the total number of blocks against an editor without taking into account the period over which they were accumulated. 3 weeks or 10 years? Yet for some reason an editor who spends many hours every day producing and reviewing high quality content and helping other editors with difficult tasks (in Malleus' case amounting to 60 edits per day as averaged over the full 5.5 years of his account (75/day in 2011) ) is held to the same or higher standards of disruption involvement per unit of time as recent Arbcom candidate (I would have said joke candidate, but according to Bishonen the candidacy was serious) User:NWA.Rep with his 2 edits per day as averaged over 6 years (0.5/day in 2011).
 * They have a much higher reputation.
 * Again, NWA.Rep seems a good example.
 * Add to this the constant assertions that these two are being treated more leniently, supposedly because their content production makes them immune, and what I said is just a matter of common sense. Hans Adler 16:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar allegations against Kiefer.Wolfowitz and BadgerDrink
My evidence submission notes that Administrator and former Jimbo/Kirillesque wiseman DGG accused me of driving off new editors, but never bothered to respond to my request that he either back up the accusation or withdraw it.

The same accusation (or was it a non-accusation accusation?) was made against me by non-administrator Demiurge1000. His example of a new editor was a fellow who has been editing in 3 accounts for years, making a habit of outing his political opponents as he promotes his party---perhaps not the best poster child.

As Casliber knows, similar allegations were made against BadgerDrink. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Civility
1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace.

1.1) Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to the academic project of writing an encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would change the last few words: "....are expected to maintain decorum appropriate to building an encyclopedia." SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While the nature of the project we're working on is one that tends to be considered professional, we are volunteers scattered all across the globe. I'd suggest something along the lines of "maintain decorum appropriate to a collaborative environment," as in order for the project to function at all we have to be able to work with one another. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would prefer to simply quote the pillar rather than make up new paraphrasing. None of the proposed wordings (particularly the use of the word "decorum") is suitable. Risker (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, just quote the pillar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Risker, just quote verbatim, instead of paraphrasing here. Courcelles 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wikipedia is a professional environment. Not all editors are volunteers. Some do work here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Something like this is obviously needed. Jehochman Talk 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "are expected to maintain decorum appropriate for a professional workspace" is a strongly classed sociolectical imposition. Editors are actually expected to maintain decorum appropriate for an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All editors, whether experienced or new, should not use language that is defamatory, racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive. Leaky  Caldron  23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Introducing policy via Arbitration are we? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, there is a logical flaw in the argument that because Wikipedia is not a professional environment, but a volunteer environment, then professional standards are not needed. There are plenty of volunteer organisations that maintain professional standards of civility despite not being professional organisations. Whether it is possible for Wikipedia to do that is another matter. My view is that it is the public and enduring (written) nature of the edits made on Wikipedia that means people need to hold themselves to a really high standard. Some of the comments made on Wikipedia will be around and still retrievable and readable long after any indiscreet comment made verbally to someone is forgotten. People can post to Wikipedia in a 'verbal' style as if they are talking, but they are actually writing (technically: publishing in a persistently archived online environment). If you were writing a pen-and-ink letter, would you litter that with expletives and chatty comments? Maybe all posts on Wikipedia could start "Dear Sir" and end "Yours sincerely" (as if writing to the letters page of The Times) - I am being slightly facetious here. The point is that there is a vast range of possible communication styles, some specific to online interactions. Where does that fit in with your remarks about 'sociolectical imposition'? Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be fallacious to argue that all volunteer organisations do not use "professional" standards. However, that isn't what has been argued.  Most organisations don't use "professional" standards.  Most organisations use business or religious standards that involve subordination.  Wikipedia doesn't formally subordinate its volunteers.  Moreover, the standards of professionals that I've seen involve high levels of coded backbiting—and we're back to a civility problem but with ten dollar words.  If we tour the archives of the volunteer based productive elements of USENET, we'll observe both things that would be personal attacks here and people using the words fuck and cunt as emphatics.  People are happy to treat discursive writing moments as spoken writing moments, some as USENET demonstrates are less formal than colloquial spoken.  From my experience of RS/N we get newer editors transitioning to full membership of the encyclopaedic community.  They write in sociolects that aren't "professional."  They write in sociolects that are highly colloquial in the sense of closely related to their spoken forms.  If arbitrators ignore the perennial policy consensus against imposing a language gag, then, we are going to lose a large body of potential editors and editors whose natural sociolects involve occasional and civil swearing.  Editors begin writing in their spoken sociolects, even as they transition towards a wikipedia "code" (NPA! V! Dispute Resolution, etc...) they still retain much of their sociolect. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. If you haven't written an essay on this, you should. And then tell more people about it. I had been thinking of USENET (or the various flavours of bulletin boards) as the closest thing to a persistently archived environment similar to Wikipedia, but you've brought in your experience at RS/N, which is invaluable. Have you looked at other areas of Wikipedia to see if similar 'transitioning' behaviour is seen? Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Getting a bit off-topic now, maybe best continued somewhere else?
 * It might be interesting but I'm struggling with its applicability in this case. MF does not need to transition in the way described. He is extremely intelligent, articulate and erudite and chooses the style he wishes to use as fitting the circumstances he encounters. I am certain his "sociolect" does not influence him and I think he would be appalled at the suggestion. We do not allow patois in article space, even though its use is increasing in street language among certain "sociolects". Regardless of "sociolect", it is asking little in a project than anyone can contribute to abide by simple civility guidelines in which racist, vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive interactions are not tolerated.(Incidentally, that list is taken from the T&C of a moderated forum inhabited by English speaking members from all "sociolects").  Leaky  Caldron  13:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we hold you to my normative values system that's fine; if you attempt to hold me to yours that's not fine. Your slander is my emphatic; your analysis is my hateful. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have almost no idea what you mean. If you are saying that anyone can say anything to anyone using any expression they choose because that is their "shtick" then I totally disagree. Leaky  Caldron  13:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that a particular moral code is adequate for wikipedia is fundamentally offensive. It is fundamentalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are implying but I'll tell you what, I've not had the pleasure of working with you and I will be delighted to keep it that way. Leaky  Caldron  18:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Meaningless by itself, please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. While civility is a pillar, so is consensus, and that's what's consistently lacking in these discussions.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * SirFozzi's articulation is understandable, but quite meaningless. The whole point is: what level of decorum is "appropriate to building an encyclopedia"? Some people think that level is the same as a bunch of guys down the pub, some as a bunch of women in a church. If you make a comparison here to a workplace or something, you take us somewhere. But the only place where many users are "building an encyclopedia" is Wikipedia - so all you are saying is "Wikipedia expects a decorum appropriate to Wikipedia" which is to say precisely nothing.--Scott Mac 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A lack of decorum creates social tension and that is what it's like to edit with and around editors like Edito Fatoreum. Is he irratible today? Will his bully tactics surface? There is always tension; always hoping that no-one says anything to upset him. Hoping that he is in a playful mood. Hoping he and his minions don't take over the discussion and it crashes and burns. Buster Seven   Talk  09:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you personally edited "with and around editors like Edito Fatoreum"? I have, and it is an excellent learning experience and one of the few reasons I enjoy editing here. I will AGF and assume I am not one of his "minions" whoever they are.J3Mrs (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this principle by both manners shown. My76Strat (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversing administrative decisions
2) Administrators are required to respect the decisions of other administrators, including the decision to issue or not issue a block. When administrators disagree they must discuss the matter. If disagreements cannot be resolved informally, a community discussion in an appropriate forum should be started and continue until there is a clear consensus.

2.1) Administrators should not unilaterally reverse the decisions of other administrators when those decisions are published at the conclusion of a community discussion, such as AfD or a notice board discussion, except in the case of obvious error or emergencies. To reverse an administrative action, an appeal is made in the appropriate forum, and a discussion continues until there is a consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Prefer 2.1 here, it's a bit clearer. I believe similar statements on wheel warring have been used in past cases, though, it may be best to take from those. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 is unworkable--how am I supposed to know someone else has intentionally not issued a block? 2.1 is better, but perhaps overly broad. If we simply restricted administrators from undoing any other administrator's civility blocks, the problem would have been resolved long ago. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Such a proposal has been long needed, and turns on "until there is a clear consensus". While we have not wholly departed from the days when sysops routinely reversed one another, the primary issue today is that people jump the gun at ANI too easily, and reverse a decision before consensus has became clear or more than a handful of editors have had time to comment. AGK   [• ]  00:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget 2 (too nebulous), 2.1 good as it is more practical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps this needs to be broken into a few pieces. Jehochman Talk 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Decisions to issue a block or otherwise take action should be respected. Decisions not to do anything are not entitled to the same deference, unless announced as a clear judgment on the situation as opposed to an exercise in "I don't see the problem here."  In practice that often means that the first administrator to arrive simply does not see the entire picture.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Only if a decision is communicated would it be binding. Jehochman Talk 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I'd just suggest changing the "must" in the second sentence to "should". That will align it properly with WP:BLOCK. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "including the decision to issue or not issue a block". Nice in theory, unworkable in practice. A decision to take a positive admin action is a decision to flip a switch - a decision not to is entirely different. An admin action is logged in a central place (block log, deletion log etc). It is impossible (or certainly incompetence) for any admin to undo it without being aware he's undoing it. A decision not to act is not so easily logged. It may be noted on a user talk page, ANI, AN, or various other places (and it may be burried in a long discussion) - it is quite possible to miss it altogether. It may also be less than clear in its wording (unlike a blocking decision which is binary). Further whereas any admin blocking is duty bound to know he's taking a serious decision (weighing all the facts) an admin deciding not to block is not under any such requirement. So someone saying "I won't block for this" may be be taking a serious decision or may be expressing an ill-researched personal opinion (with no personal comeback expected) in passing from the peanut gallery. Further, does that mean that an admin declining a block request is taking a first order decision, and may be desysopped if be issues such a judgement while "involved"? Equating a decision not to block with a decision to block just will not work.--Scott Mac 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, priority should not rest on first/second mover advantage, but rather on the circumstances/issues. Most blocks are not contentious.  A block for 3RR/Vandalism/etc are pretty much up or down.  Civility/NPA are more subjective.  One person may feel that a civility block is warranted but another might disagree.  Civility blocks should only remain if there is a clear consensus that the actions were egregious enough to warrant such a block.  If the block is contentious, then imposing such a block while people deliberate at ANI is reprehensible.  A user should have the ability to address those who are discussing sanctions.  If there is no consensus to block, then the default should be to leave a user unblocked---not dictated by some random "first/second mover" advantage.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be technically possible if developers made it possible to annotate block logs (or a new log was set up for this purpose). Essentially, you would be recording the decisions not to do something, as well as the decisions to do something. Anyone who has studied theories about processes and safety protocols will know that obtaining a fuller picture about a process is not just about recording decisions to do something, but also recording decisions not to do something. The same applies to articles, where decisions to leave something out of an article, or drop a source, are often done silently in the mind of the editor, and not recorded anywhere. This can cause problems when a later editor comes along and adds the material. Recording more details (from administrative decisions to article editing), though, generally founders on cries of bureaucracy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the words "or not issue a block" are appropriate. That is not in the policy, and it is a radical change.  And it is all too much wedded to this one case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth. Logging is one issue. The other is the sense of gravity by which the decision is taken. If I decide to block, I am expected to be uninvolved, thoughtful, have informed myself, and by fully responsible/accountable for my action. If I decline a block, it could be anything from having carefully reviewed and colluded, to personally deciding I don't want the grief, to knee-jerk without reviewing anything. There's no consequences to me throwing a peanut opinion.--Scott Mac 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But if the decision not to block had to be recorded in a logged way, people would (hopefully) take that more seriously. What I think the standards should be are: (a) if you are the first admin taking action and there is no obvious discussion, take the action and leave a note in the obvious place explaining your action. (b) If an admin has taken a prior logged action and you disagree, discuss it with them and/or start a discussion. (c) If there is an ongoing discussion either state your opinion or, if you think you are objective enough to judge consensus and take any action needed, state that you are willing to close the discussion and action it both after a minimum amount of time and when consensus has stabilised, and hope that no-one else is rude enough to jump in ahead of you. It is this uncertainty in ANI discussion about when someone will jump in to 'judge consensus' that frequently leads to either premature action or dithering. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor X complains about editor Y. Administrator Foo comes along and posts a note, "I have reviewed this complaint and find no reason to take action.  This matter is closed.".  If admin Bar nexts comes along and posts a note, " I disagree and am blocking Y," would that be good practice?  What if X had gone to another forum, repeated the same complain, failing to mention the prior thread, and admin Bar came along and decided to block without knowing Foo's decision?   I think that in both cases somebody has done something wrong.  Jehochman Talk 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you are just asking for people not to contribute to the discussion, block the offender, and then deny knowing there was any discussion until afterwards. And you can't differentiate that from the admin who simply sees the original incivility and decides to block, unaware of the discussion.--Scott Mac 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't work, will it. Let's say somebody tried to play that game, I would unblock and point to the community discussion, now closed, with an ample consensus for no block, and say that there had been a clear mistake: acting agaist the consensus, ignorant of the consensus.  Before blocking an admin needs to look at the user's talk page and see if there are any recent ANI notices or the like, and ascertain all the relevant facts, or else they risk making an ass of themselves. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a clear community consensus on ANI, then there's not going to be a problem in the fist place. But that's not what you are talking about. You are talking about a case where admin A reviews the facts and then declines a block. Admin B sees the facts and (unaware of admin A, or not seeing admin's A's statement as anything but an opinion, or views admin A as heavily involved, or seeing the four admins who have since said "but I would have blocked", or notices that admin A has only commented on bit on incivility one, and perhaps hasn't noticed bit of incivility two, and then blocks). The possibilities are endless. The idea that one admin making a decision no to block can be seen as the equivalent of an admin deciding to block isn't going to fly.)--Scott Mac 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "... and continue until there is a clear consensus". Some stronger and clearer wording to this effect is much needed.  ANI threads are closed mere hours after they started, sometimes with issues unaddressed and consensus ignored.  Admins can silence participants with the threat to block even in the absence of any consensus to do so, derail consensus forming in progress, involved participants can suggest (and get) thread closing (knowing that if a non-admin reopens it so consensus building can continue, they will be blocked), and then ANI threads are closed (sometimes by involved participants) before issue are addressed and consensus is formed.  The whole pattern contributes to escalation of matters that should have/could have been handled at ANI; stronger language is needed.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring
2) Administrators must not repeat a disputed administrative action. Neither false claims of changed circumstances nor premature declaration of a new consensus can should be used to justify wheel warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * And here below we have one of the core issues at hand here. I can see problems with both first mover and second mover advantage. With the first mover requiring active consensus to undo, you run the risk of not being able to correct unsound administrator judgements quickly and easily. Second mover we have seen the issue where someone does an action, someone else comes in and undoes it and then it all dissolves into chaos. It is my PERSONAL opinion that we have seen the second mover advantage turn into chaos and gridlock too many times in recent memory. Whether putting in tighter restrictions on undoing administrators actions would alleviate the problem, make it worse, or just present a whole different set of problems entirely is another thing whatsoever, but again in my personal opinion only, I'd rather see administrators play things (with regards to undoing the action taken by another administrator) a LOT less loosey-goosey. If it's a bad decision, take time to establish that it indeed IS a bad decision before undoing. SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has indeed weakened the definition of wheel warring by turning a blind eye to wheel warring that has been brought or come to our attention on at least two occasions over the past year. Wheel warring without consequences obscures its former status as a "bright line" offense. Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it is reality. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The key of the definition is the repeat of a disputed action. There was actually an extreme example of this that occurred only a few months ago on a policy page, but which was not brought to the Committee for action, unfortunately; if it had been, this issue probably would have already been resolved. I also have concerns about administrators imposing additional or stronger sanctions when a dispute appears to have been resolved, without any further discussion. Risker (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * @SirFozzie: Nullifying another administrator's decision without discussion and consensus is wrong, but it is not wheel warring. Wheel warring is currently defined as repeating a disputed action.  ArbCom cannot change the definition. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a bit of elaboration on the standard definition of wheel warring. The second mover advantage should remain.  Either we have first or second mover advantage.  Second is better because it restores the status quo ante. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Change it from "new concensus can be used" to "new consensus should be used". I can see Can being wikilawyered into a different meaning. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The harm is in undoing actions, not reinforcing them. Why should a "second mover advantage" remain?  Status quo and second-guessing attempts to deal with problems is not a preferred outcome.  First and second-mover advantages are a matter of gamesmanship by parties seeking a preferred outcome, and that's not supposed to be what administrative action is all about.  Rather, administrators are entrusted with discretion to deal with things dispassionately and need some room to exercise that discretion if we're going to keep an orderly editing environment.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The prior principle states that decisions are to be respected. The second mover might be wrong, but they are not wheel warring.  The block review process considers that there will be an independent review of blocks and that a user may be unblocked based upon new information, such as an undertaking not to repeat the offense. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A careful decision to block made by a neutral uninvolved editor is not an "advantage" for any side, it's a simple carrying out of administrative duties. A decision to unblock after new information or due administrative review is likewise not an advantage to anyone, it's a correct decision made upon reconsideration.  But the latter does not seem to be the case here, as there was no new information and no block review, just a brief (<30 minute) series of gripes by the usual suspects who show up to the administrator's noticeboard.  Whether that fits a technical definition of wheel warring or not, it's the same in substance, and not an process to favor.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a dangerous and unprecedented change to the long-established Wheel Warning definition, which arbcom has previously stated to be "undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue" or "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute" see, , , , , etc. While it may be tempting on the back of this particular dispute to make such a change, I would simply draw arbcom's attention to the law of unintended consequences. The current definition was largely worked out in BLP disputes, and granting a "second mover advantage" could have disastrous possibilities in such an area,. We trust admins to make good decisions. We assume the decisions are good until it is established otherwise, through discussion. If some admins make bad decisions, then deal with the bad admins, don't weaken the position of the majority of good decisions. Had MF remained blocked for a few hours, until consensus established the block was improper, no great harm would have been done. Complaints against the blocker could be dealt with by arbcom/RFC later. At any rate, don't weaken the BLP balance as a knee-jerk to this horrible but relatively harmless civility shitstorm.--Scott Mac 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what I wrote seems to summarize the current policy stated here. Jehochman Talk 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's a question as to whether that statement is indeed current policy. I've always viewed it as wrong, and the arbcom findings bare me out. It is certainly contentious - although perhaps BLP issues simply need to be seen as a special case, where we must err on the side of the admin who is taking preventative action (whether first or second mover) until or unless that admin is shown to be wrong.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Improper blocks have a demoralizing affect on a user.  If a block is improper, it needs to be lifted sooner rather than later.  Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper.  This is necessary for several reasons: 1) The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a standard in the US where Wikipedia is located.  2) A person has the right to confront his accusers and to defend him/herself; by allowing a block to stand while the case is being reviewed is improper as it conveys a sense of guilt.  3) Ethically it is wrong to leave a contentious block in place.  If the persons behavior is so egregious as needing an immediate block, then consensus will bear that out pretty quickly.  If not, then it should be removed.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Civility/NPA blocks that are contentious need to be lifted until consensus says the block is proper" - well not quite. Civility blocks that are widely contentious need lifted - period. However, if admin has blocked, you don't know whether it is contentious until there's been a challenge and some discussion. What we don't want is a cycle of block, unblock, discussion, reblock - that simply promotes drama (as here). If someone is over-the-line uncivil, and gets blocked - we need to swiftly review and either unblock (and deal with the admin if he's out of line) or endorse. The notion that someone who gets a civility block gets unblocked to contest it, isn't going to fly. We don't do that with any other type of short block. That's what unblock templates are for. This is not a jail term that you get bail, then tried, then sentenced.--Scott Mac 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that somebody get unblocked to contest it, but if another admin comes along and says, "I think this block isn't warranted" and feels strongly enough to unblock. Then it is a contentious block and needs to be reviewed.  The pattern you say you don't want is EXACTLY the "BRD" principle upon which Wikipedia is built.  It is exactly how it should work.  Somebody Boldly blocks, it is reverted, and then discussed.  The verdict from the discussion is followed.  That is core Wikipedia.  What we don't want is somebody blocks, gets reverted, incomplete discussion, somebody decides to block again, sombody undoes the reblock, etc... which is what happened here.  Note John did not unblock until a consensus was emerging that the block was unjustified.  In all honesty, I think Malleus' defenders would have been hard pressed to object to a block after he called a specific user a "fucking cunt" during a civility case.  That just shows poor self control/judgment on the part of the person taken to ANI.  I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye).  But I would have had a hard time opposing a block for that comment.  Hawkeye's reblock appeared unjustified and abusive based upon the detailed reasoning he provided.
 * As for this pattern not existing in other types of blocks... you are right. But that is because vandalism/3RR blocks are less contentious.  There is less grey area in what constitutes a 3RR/Vandalism block than there is in a Civility Block.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Above, you (Balloonman) say: "I defended Malleus against the initial block and was about to undo the reblock (based upon the rationale provided by Hawkeye)." Would that have been wheel-warring (and would you do that in the future in a similar situation)? Is there a reason you didn't undo Hawkeye's block? If no administrator was willing to undo the block, even given this supposed "consensus" at ANI to unblock, why is that? Was it maybe because all those administrators who looked into it saw the 'farewell Wikipedia' edit made by Malleus and shrugged and thought, "hmm, not worth unblocking after he said that". What if Hawkeye had unblocked - would someone else have reblocked for the Spitfire edit? I keep asking this question and no-one seems prepared to answer. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes I would have undone Hawkeye's reblock because it was so egregiously wrong (based upon his stated rationale) and I would have done so knowing the potential ramifications.  Hawkeye's reblock, based upon his rationale, was completely indefensible.  And I didn't reach that conclusion hastily or knee jerk---if I was going to engage in "wheel warring" I wanted to make sure that I was on solid footing and that the rationale provided was totally indefensible.  I read his statement twice looking for some indication that something new had occured that justified the reblock.  His statement did not make any allusion to subsequent behavior only to past behavior.  His statement claimed that he reblocked "per consensus" at ANI---so I reread the discussion at ANI twice and failed to see any indication of consensus to reblock.  His statement even said (contrary to what he had previously said at ANI) that there was a consensus at ANI that John hadn't acted inappropriately---thus he couldn't hide behind a notion that John's act was improper.  Thus, per his statement, there was zero valid justification for the reblock---it appeared abusive and completely unjustified.  So yes, I was willing to face the music as I firmly believe that when there is a contentious block, the default should be unblock unless consensus says otherwise.  If he had argued, like he did at ANI, that John acted against COI, then I could might accepted it.  But instead, he acknowledged that ANI participants were siding with John---so he can't hide behind that cover.  Now, if somebody blocked due to the Spitfire comment, I would not have unblocked.  That comment, especially during an ongoing civility dispute, clearly crosses the boundary of propreity.  I've said it elsewhere, had he cited that example, it would have been hard for "Defenders of Malleus" to object to a block.  But Hawkeye gave no impression that he was aware of said comment, only that he was blocking "per consensus" which clearly did not exist.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)  NOTE: The fact that I am willing to state that I was about to undue Hawkeye's reblock should speak volumes about how poorly thought out and justified I felt that his rationale was.  I am not one of those admins who blocks/unblocks on a regular basis or reverses other admin actions.  My history as an admin will show relatively few admin actions, so the fact that *I* was going to act speaks valumes.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that there was consensus. Consensus is not measured in twenty minute segments.  At least one editor (Protonk) had warned against a unilateral unblock.  And the subsequent debate shows that there was, in fact, no consensus.  Please stop saying "consensus had formed", consensus forms, if it does at all, after considerable more discussion than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, you are getting your arguments confused. Whether you agree or disagree whether or not consensus had formed, there CLEARLY WAS NOT CONSENSUS to reblock.  Hawkeye claimed "Per consensus" and it didn't exist---if anything the opposite would have been true at that point in time.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that responding to that would oblige me to comment on Malleus's actions, which I am determined not to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's time to think outside the first mover/second mover box -- it just doesn't work. You need a temporally independent protocol. I wrote one for ya'll Block protocol. If you don't like that one, write another one, but stop thinking in terms of ambiguous, impossible to define "first" et. al. Thoughtful is way better than quick. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker's concerns about additional sanctions in apparently resolved disputes requiring discussion would make an excellent general point regarding administrator behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Baiting
2) Editors may not goad or bait another editor to provoke an uncivil response, and then seek a block.

2.1) Editors may not goad or bait another editor to provoke an uncivil response.  When reviewing a conflict between editors, administrators should consider the behavior of all parties and apply an appropriate sanction to each party who has behaved poorly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Actually, I'd encourage them to seek a block, such that the party who behaved poorly is sanctioned appropriately and the party who provoked the response through their poor behavior is also sanctioned appropriately. Note that the provoking party's sanction could well exceed that of the party they provoked, depending on the circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The behavior of all parties will be considered. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations of baiting made by disruptive editors and their supporters are entitled to a hearing, but are due a great deal of skepticism and in some cases reproach. Baiting is a deliberate act intended to cause someone to become so angry they disadvantage themselves, and as such is almost by definition an act of bad faith.  That accusation should not be made on speculation or as a defensive game, as it seems to be in most cases of excusing long-term problematic behavior.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for evidence on the "admins baiting Malleus" issue, with diffs. Can someone please accommodate this?  Until there is evidence, this is premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Wehwalt here. While you might be able to find proof, it will be hard to prove motive.  Does Malleus' comments have the affect of baiting admins?  Yes.  But just because an admin is baited, does not necessarily mean that they were baited.  (E.g. Motive of the accused baiter is hard to substantiate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)
 * Also with Wehwait. If admins bait Malleus, then that is a serious issue. But first we need to see evidence that this is the case --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse this. Baiting should not be acceptable in any form here. Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Try 2.1. Not sure if this will come into operation in the present case.  Depends how you view the evidence. Jehochman Talk 03:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens, if the behaviour of all parties will be considered is going to happen, then any consideration has to be done entirely on the true evidence of what actually happened - and not on a pile-on agreement by the uninformed based on a false accusation which may bear some superficial similarity to the truth. A hundred people all telling the same lie - whether deliberately or just piling-on - doesn't make it true. Slapdash and shoddy work in investigation is at least as much a violation of natural principles of justice as unequally-applied enforcement is. I personally came within a hair's-breadth of quitting Wikipedia altogether recently because of something like this.  Details available on request. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, as the link is now elsewhere in this set of pages; I was falsely accused of baiting / hounding, and almost quit as a result of the uninformed pile-on and aftermath. Details here.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Missing from this is some wording that speaks to this case (the Hawkeye7 block, mentioning his FAs) that admins may not goad, flaunt or taunt while blocking, nor while threatening a block, nor after threatening a block-- another problem that contributes to esclation of matters and ill will among editors on the receiving end. I realize that this should already be encompassed in our understanding of admin behavior, but it can be reinforced in this case's findings.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding in kind
3) Improper behavior by other editors, such as baiting, does not justify an uncivil response. Such a response may even encourage further baiting.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proper behavior is even MORE necessary when dealing with improper behavior. Or as mom would say "If they jumped off a bridge, would you jump as well?" SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Why is baiting on the table here? When did I claim to have been baited? Baiting implies to me that an editor posts in a deliberate attempt to elicit a particular response, but how can anyone be certain of another's motivation? Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Worth noting. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re my baiting comment, as I would say in court "assumes facts not in evidence".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is the other side of the coin. This is addressing the response a person has when they feel like another person is baiting them.  Person A says something.  Person B interprets A's actions as baiting.  Person B may or may not be correct in their interpretation of A's actions, but even if correct person B is not justified in an uncivil response.  This point thus, IMO, goes almost without saying as true.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You still need to show evidence, otherwise this is an irrelevancy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What evidence? This is common sense.  If I feel slighted, that does not justify my acting incivility.  If somebody feels attacked/baited, that does not justify their acting in appropriately.  Basic decorum dictates that.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentioning baiting in the final decision is ill-advised unless there is evidence of baiting. Still waiting for diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the previous issue, I agree. The previous one does need more evidence.  This one stands on it's own.  It doesn't matter if somebody actually was baiting another.  Even if a person FELT baited, that doesn't justify incivility.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, got an essay for that, too User:Nobody_Ent/Simple_civility_principle. It certainly isn't common sense the way disputes are handled around here -- here's the rational provided by another editor when an admin told an editor to "FUCK OFF" Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an essay on that one, as well (heavily influenced by Caregiving and dementia real-life experiences) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The AN/I thread that preceded this case has a few items that some people may consider to be baiting.  I think it's important that we "understand" (but I know policy doesn't excuse) how people can be baited into losing their cool.  To be honest, I've seen some folks at WP who take "baiting" to an artform.   — Ched :  ?  22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many master baiters on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of baiting has arisen before. I previously accused Demiurge1000 of baiting Malleus, by (1) repeatedly referencing an apparent Latin mistake in the name of an earlier account and (2) repeatedly referring to his two RfA experiences (in ways that a reasonable person might suspect were vindicative).

I have lost track of the number of times I have objected to scapegoating of Malleus as a toxic personality, etc., at RfA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrators and civility
4) Administrators are required to set a good example for other editors by maintaining high standards of civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:
 * Yes. Flippant, overly casual or antagonistic remarks send the wrong message. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Parties and responses by others:


 * Comment by Others:
 * When an administrator makes uncivil comments, the damage is twofold. They harm the person targeted, and they send a message to everybody watching that uncivil remarks are acceptable on Wikipedia.  This is wrong. Jehochman Talk 03:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and further insinuate that administrators should affirm by their signature, an oath (needs developed) which requires them to conduct their office in this manner. My76Strat (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with this, and especially with Jehochman's view. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with this; studies have shown that verbal aggression stemming from authority figures has a much worse impact than verbal aggression stemming from peers. Adding: forms of verbal aggression studied include scolding, yelling, swearing, blaming, insulting, threatening, demeaning, ridiculing, criticising, and belittling. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Emotion, civility, and blocks
5) Editors may use excessively strident language when they get excited or care deeply about what they are working on. When an editor's emotions lead to incivility, blocking may not be the best practice.  Blocks are to be used as a last resort when other means of controlling disruption, such as warnings or counseling, do not work.


 * Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:


 * Comment by Parties and responses by others:


 * Comment by Others:
 * This is an amalgamation of common sense, WP:BLOCK, and Newyorkbrad. Jehochman Talk 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of slight ambiguity, this principle emerges intact and truthfully relevant. My76Strat (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking is a blunt tool, which is often not the best way to handle incivility. Talking to the editor in question as a person in general works better. If the editor carries on being distruptive after discussion, that's when a block might be necessary <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When addressing civility concerns about established editors, administrators should consider whether they are the best editors to initiate any discussion. Many established editors respond best when discussing civility with a collegial editor: that is, an editor with whom there is a history of agreeable, productive discussions.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's acceptable, some form of counselling or mentoring is always the best approach. Problems only arise when this is unacceptable to the aggressor. Blocking is far too blunt a tool to be used with experienced editors, in almost all cases.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * May use sounds almost as an encouragement. Need different wording. Maybe sometimes use? - BorisG (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Selective enforcement
0) Wikipedia's civility policy has been subject to selective enforcement. Depending on the personal friendships or antagonisms between editors, some relatively minor civility violations are met with blocks, while other blatant violations are ignored.evidence


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Too true, and unevenness is a large part of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) In what way does that make it different from any other of our policies? (b) That link does not work. I'm not seeing anything on the evidence page that demonstrates friendships and antagonisms are at the root of this. Risker (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Parties:


 * Comment by Others: 
 * We either need to enforce civility with reasonable uniformity, or else we direct admins not to make capricious blocks. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Risker, I have now corrected the link above (which I changed because of the 500-word count limit, which in this case, is preventing lots of editors from making any kind of effective case). Specifically, friendships and antagonisms are apparent in Wehwalt's stance in this case, where he has a history of antagonism with Malleus and of supporting mentee TCO, who engaged in his only-ever edits to an article (what brought him to that article?) in an edit war to support Wehwalt's position (both with faulty reasoning about FAC and FAs, I might add), with uncivil edit summaries, concurrently with personal attacks on two pages-- all posted to several highly watched pages, all ignored in spite of his substantial block log and history of same).  The 500-word limit prevents me from making the case more clearly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SG - While it is true that most of Georgia is sandy, not all of Georgia's sand is flea infested. I honestly feel your comments are so colored by your own associations so as to diminish their value. It has already been shown that the misdeeds of one editor do not excuse the subsequent misdeeds of another. And IMO, they should not. My76Strat (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with this. Yes, civility is not enforced equally, but I'd say it is because each administrator has a different standard for civility and not every incident is seen by administrators. Over the past few months, every time that someone has pointed me to an incident of incivility to show non equal treatment, I have dealt with it by talking to the editor - all the way to a sitting arbitrator. Certain editors who are watched by more users will be under more scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that "friendships and antagonisms" are at the root. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, this is right at the roots of it, and probably the major causative factor. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is patently obvious that civility is not (and cannot be) applied equally. Consider this: Some people are never caught; The courts do nothing to them, and this is not something which can be eliminated. Some people reach plea bargains, some people are acquitted, and some people are convicted at trial. Some judges feel strongly or leniently about particular offenses. Some people have brilliant attorneys and some do not. Some people are tried by juries sympathetic to their situations, and some by juries thoroughly disgusted by them. Some people are sentenced to more or less than you or I think is best: This happens, must happen, and is sure to continue. Admin Dreadstar, a productive admin who had never been blocked before, was blocked for one week for calling an editor "liar" . Malleus Fatuorum has accused several editors of dishonesty but he has never been blocked for it. Is anyone here willing to block Malleus Fatuorum the next time he calls someone dishonest? Or would that not be considered "reasonable uniformity"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We do not have an active police force and legal system trained in such issues to be able to ensure that policies and guidelines can be enforced equitably, nor, I think, would we want one, as such a system would give too much power to those individuals. I cannot see that as necessarily being a problem we would be required to address, as such a lacking is, basically, almost implicit in the system. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Civility Standards
1) The Wikipedia community has over the years disagreed about the standards for civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While in this particular case, as Scott Mac notes, I don't think this is really the issue, this is a core problem if we are to look into this situation from a broad scope. It's because that there have been disagreements that we're here in this case, rather than the situation having been dealt with by the community. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Think of past cases and requests for arbitration. I won't name them because I don't want to mention uninvolved parties. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Hersfold: I think it could come into play if the Committee decides to admonish Malleus instead of banning him. It is not fair to ban somebody when the underlying policy is so "floppy". Jehochman Talk 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but actually irrelevant. I don't think anyone much is arguing that calling people "cunt" is civil. The dispute in this particular case is not the "standards for civility", but whether and how they should be enforced.--Scott Mac 18:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in that there are shades of grey, though: there's a big difference between using "cunt" as a sexist attack against a specific editor, and as a generalized insult against a vaguely-defined group. The general principle is obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In this whole civility thing, the thing which is most horribly wrong is the inconsistency with which it's applied. That is just wrong, in anybody's book.  I personally dislike name-calling and belittling and demeaning of other editors, whether that includes "naughty words" or not - but my dislike of the blatant injustice of not applying standards equally to all exceeds any dislike I have of individual incivilities by orders of magnitude. As a community, we cannot afford to have the equivalent of a "postcode lottery" system for who gets reprimanded for what.
 * Community-condoned applied injustice is one of the worst barbarities that humankind can inflict on its members. There is almost nothing so open to abuses-of-power then inadequately-defined rules or laws, inconsistently applied. It does not matter to me which individual is the perpetrator, or which individual is the victim - the unjust and inconsistent application of undefined constraints, the current make-your-own definition, pick-your-own victim, move-your-own goalposts approach has to be one of the most astounding displays of pathetic incompetence in community-rule-making and community-rule-enforcement that can exist - it's a total violation of basic, fundamental principles of justice. My strong suggestion is that the whole civility policy needs a major overhaul.  It needs to make it absolutely clear that it's not any individual naughty word which is a problem, it's name-calling in all its forms addressed to an individual.  Saying "some admins [insert any plausible derogatory phrase here]" wouldn't fit the bill.  In any statistically significant sample, some of them will indeed have whatever characteristic was mentioned.  That's life.  Sorry, guys - but it is.  Any admin who doesn't belong in that particular statistical set would have no need to feel offended.  "Some people are serial killers."  Totally true, and doesn't bother me, personally, at all, because I am not a serial killer.
 * Calling someone an incompetent moron, a hysterical child, a dimwit, a sanctimonious bitch (etc.) under this basic rule would be just as bad as calling them a wanker, a fucking cunt, or whichever swearword-including epithet one cares to think up. It's the act of name-calling which is unacceptable, not the specific name which was called.  If we can revamp the civility policy along these lines things will improve. (The same concept can be applied to probably all aspects of civility; we only have to think constructively to get back to the spirit of the policy rather than nit-picking over the letter of the policy.)  But we must have something which cannot be misunderstood, "creatively" or genuinely. And, once we have it, the same rules must apply to absolutely all editors, regardless of their rank or standing in the community
 * People who have strong principles of honour and integrity and an innate concept of what does and does not constitute "justice" will always get very angry when they see gross violations of justice, amounting to dishonourable behaviour and lack of integrity. We should be valuing people who understand these basic principles, and valuing them highly.  And we should be making the best possible use of them - in re-writing our civility policy along lines of sound principle and basic concepts.  And, in the meantime, we should have some kind of amnesty for cases like this one,  brought about solely because of the problem of undefined or ill-defined policies applied unequally.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum
2) User:Malleus Fatuorum has not yet been the subject of a request for comment on user conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators and responses by others:
 * This case was accepted without this prior step specifically BECAUSE it was a long-running issue, unusually divisive even amongst administrators. A RfC would accomplish nothing since we're already here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we to assume Malleus so stupid that he is incapable of taking feedback outside of the RFC/U process? No, Malleus has demonstrated at least above-average intelligence.  The lack of a process for process' sake is not the issue here, nor is the lack of feedback directed in Malleus' direction. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlike my colleagues, I believe that an RfC would have been very helpful in that it would tend to more clearly delineate what the real issues are with respect to Malleus. RfCs serve a very useful purpose, in that they can narrow areas of concern and assist in the focusing of issues. RFCs can also find the common grounds that do exist within the community on certain users and issues, even if they do not agree in toto. Instead, what we've wound up with here is an academic dissertation on whether or not "cunt" is a word commonly acceptable in all social spheres and circumstances wherever English is spoken or written.  Risker (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As the person who filed the case, I feel like I should address this directly as to why I came here instead of going to WP:RFC/U in regards to Malleus's behavior. RFC/Us are non-binding.  Anything that would come out of it would be at best a stern warning.  Malleus has been told many times before to tone it down.  All an RFC/U would do would add another time to that total.  Secondly, the issue regarding Malleus's behavior has been extremely divisive among admins, which, as I added on to my filing statement, is a legitimate reason for arbcom to take a case without all the prior steps (including an RFC/U) being followed.  I agree with the letter of the proposal as it is indeed true, but I don't agree with the spirit of it as an RFC/U would only delay the inevitable. <font face="comic sans ms">Alexandria (chew out) 14:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, allow me to ask you a simple question: What would an RFC accomplish? <font face="comic sans ms">Alexandria (chew out) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is the logical next step if there are concerns that need to be addressed. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration was needed in this case due to the admin sillyness, but lacking an RFC, I think it is an error to sanction Malleus, such as banning him for a year. He still deserves the same courtesy and respect as any editor. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moot issue at this point. Arbcom has decided to take the case.  Anybody who objects to the procedure here could suggest a motion to close, but barring that Arbcom has the full measure of remedies at its disposal, whether or not it chooses to exercise them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fact that is not in dispute: there has been no RFC.   ArbCom has taken the case, but banning Malleus now would be a poor decision. It is highly relevant that despite the assertions that Malleus is a problem user, nobody ever bothered with an RFC.  Sometimes actions speak louder than words.  The lack of an RFC is telling.  It signifies a higher probability of feuding and vengeance seeking, and a lower probability of good faith attempts at dispute resolution by Malleus' detractors. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this point needs to be included in any final decision. However, as it currently stands, this statement is incomplete: it needs to include a finding why one was never opened. (IMHO, none was out of justifiable concern that any RfC about MF's behavior would decend into WikiDrama & fail to address the problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How would this work if applied in general: skip dispute resolution if you think it would be futile? Jehochman Talk 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were a case that "you" could skip it when "you think" it would be futile, them that would be unworkable. However, if there's a general feeling (and arbcom agrees) that earlier steps are unlikely to help, then we don't need to fulfil futile steps to satisfy TEH RULZ. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and all that. Besides, what is bad in general may be good in particular. Wikipedia has always gone with the pragmatic.--Scott Mac 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the accusations against Malleus are true, I think an RFC should have been started a long time ago. Perhaps that would have resolved the problem before it got to this stage. There are counter accusations that Malleus has been hounded and baited.   Should the alleged persecutors be rewarded for dodging dispute resolution? Jehochman Talk 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone gets rewarded at Arbitration - precisely because it examines all parties. If there are indeed persecutors, they ought to beware the boomerang.--Scott Mac 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of cases where people won't file RfCs because they feel nothing good will come of it. One instance, to name names, is Betacommand, but I could name a variety of people dating back at least 5 years. I tried to talk one of MF's victims to agreeing to opening a RfC a year ago -- it takes two people to certify an RfC & get it started -- but his opinion was not to bother, it was a waste of time to do that; MF's day of judgment would eventually come, just like some other colorful characters. (FWIW, Jehochman, your name wasn't on his list.) I wish that opening an RfC was a productive tool to handle these kinds of incidents, but many Wikipedians have no faith that it works; some don't even think the ArbCom works effectively. There are even Admins who have no faith in the process. -- llywrch (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman is right in that no RfC was attempted, and it should have been. I've stated elsewhere (at the tail-end of the request when it was clear that a case would be accepted) that I would have been willing to start or draft an RfC. It would largely have consisted of two sections: examples of Malleus's incivility (with space to add the necessary context) and examples of Malleus helping others and producing excellent content. The time period would have been something like one or two years up to the time of filing the RfC. And then it would have asked the community to give comments and suggestions as to what needed to change, if anything. I would have drafted it in userspace, and then asked all those mentioned to comment first and help make changes, and only then would it have gone live for wider comment. It would have taken time, but might have helped. My question here is whether such an RfC would help after the case closes or not? The point being that it gives the community a chance to comment in a more structured fashion than scattered ANI threads, and in a less restrictive fashion than in an arbitration case. Also, I don't think the concept of ArbCom-directed RfCs should be dismissed out of hand. A properly drafted RfC could do a lot of good here. A poorly drafted RfC will lead to drama. The same applies to arbitration cases, funnily enough. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC/U is the approved DR approach but is absolutely not mandatory and Arbitration case acceptance terms are very clear - it "deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed." A clearer case could not be found. RFC/U would not be "reasonable" now due to the nature of the case and would do nothing more than kick the problem into the long grass for a few months. Leaky  Caldron  13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And it seems to me that part of ArbCom's rationale for accepting this case was, correctly, that the demonstrated inability of the community to even initiate a productive RfC/U process was, itself, evidence of the kind of intractable problem that requires ArbCom to step in. It's worth noting that this case is very different from one in which a problem with user conduct only recently came into focus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Why wasn't it possible to start an RFC/U?  Who was obstructing the process?  If so, let's have the evidence and  make sure that  doesn't happen again. My reading is that Malleus' detractors couldn't be arsed to compile the evidence.  Instead, there was on-wiki and potentially off-wiki lobbying for administrators to block Malleus.  That's wrong.  Our purpose here is to help other editors, not to play the "get the other guy blocked" game. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that "the futility of it" plays a part in not going to RFC/U and that applies across the board - not just in the case of MF. If there has been off-wiki collusion against MF that would be a disgrace - can anyone show evidence? Same goes for so called baiting and / or lobbying. I believe MF has brought most of the problems on himself but editors/admins. actively working against him is beyond acceptable behaviour. Leaky  Caldron  14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen lots of off wiki collusion, in general. It is an endemic problem. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you say where you've seen this? And exactly the kind of thing which was the subject of this off-wiki collusion?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of a prior RFC is a contributing factor for why we are here. It needs to be noted that Malleus' detractors did not bother to use an obvious dispute resolution option that was available to them. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted - The uniqueness of this case almost requires a unique resolution. It is fitting that it should be this way. Consider this: if an editor feels their own importance as sufficient to construe another editor thanking them as an insult, and further chastises that editor for some lack of pomp and circumstance; couldn't the same editor feel indignant by suggesting a subordinate body was even qualified to hear his testimony? What I have seen transpire suggest it is possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Alexandria: It would put all the evidence in one place and give the community a chance to review and comment. Once that was done, assuming it deadlocked because of the faction supporting Malleus, it would have been easy enough to move to arbitration if there were further problems.  It would have avoided some admins getting desysopped for wheel warring.  It would have contained the drama to a designated page, instead of spilling hither and thither. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only do I agree that the lack of an RFC shows the extent to which Malleus is targeted, but I also believe that by accepting this case without insisting on an RFC, a bad precedent was set by ArbCom, and any opportunity to resolve the problems via RFC was short-circuited. The take-home message is, hound a user long enough, then take him to the arbs to get him blocked or banned.  The 500-word limit on evidence is another problem, making it very difficult to fully explore issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No precedent has been set, good or bad. Referring to both items 2 and 3 show acceptance of this case is well within policy. The only precedent I currently see is that MF is incrementally more well behaved than many of the participants here. In particular I have observed many comments framed in support of MF that are so egregious I have pondered that perhaps they are detractors in disguise. This because the substance of the so called supporting comment has no other value excepting its potential to harm MF should the invectives hit their mark. Or its the most stringent demonstration of AGF I've ever seen for it implies the highest possible assumption that Arbs can be poked directly in their eye without concern that vision could subsequently be impaired. I can only assume that many here are in financial ruin as I do hold true what is said of a fool and their money. My76Strat (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Important: Actually, there was an RfC, though it was a long time ago, and died in its embryonic stages. There certainly wasn't one immediately before this. I appreciate this may be seen as splitting hairs, but I'm just clarifying the situation. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Caution on Civility Blocks
1) Administrators are directed not to block for mere incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or biased, and thus should not be performed.  If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks may be used.

1.1) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for moderate incivility. Such blocks are often contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. If incivility rises to the level of harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered.

1.2) ) Administrators are cautioned not to block for incivility that is merely uncouth. Such blocks are contentious, may have a chilling effect on free expression, may appear subjective, abusive or vengeful, and thus do more harm than good. On the other hand, when incivility is used to harass, shock or intimidate another editor, blocking may be necessary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators and replies by others:
 * No. Incivility and personal attacks are against one of the pillars of Wikipedia and are inherently disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SirFozzie, this isn't correct. The language used should mirror that found in Civility, which is somewhat different. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, this isn't terribly useful. Moderate incivility, if spread over a long period of time, can have just as much or more of a chilling effect than a short block. Even in short bursts, it can be disruptive and impede collaborative discussion. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-starter. If anything, I would prefer to see us restrict civility unblocks, and encourage administrators to levy initial blocks more freely. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Contentious blocks are never good. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely unwise, and beyond the power of Arbcom, to do away with a foundational principle of Wikipedia by declaring it unenforceable. Bad behavior that is sufficiently extreme and vexatious may warrant a summary block.  This is routine practice, certainly in noncontentious cases.  The advocacy of a minority against a core policy does not make enforcement of the policy contentious.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the bad behavior is sufficiently extreme it will qualify as harassment, personal attacks, outing, disruptive editing, or equivalent. Mere name calling, such as me saying that you are a poopy-head, is not justification for a block.  Some administrators like to lord their powers over other editors.  Often civility is used as a pretense to dish out a vengeful block.  That nonsense has to stop.  It has been tolerated for way too long. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is wise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom knows that certain actions will lead to trouble, they can advise that an administrator who performs such action and causes such trouble will be held responsible for poor judgment.  How about 1.1, a softer version.  Jehochman Talk 18:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is "cunt" moderate incivility? YMMV. I certainly think saying "If incivility rises to the level or harassment, severe personal attacks, outing or disruptive editing, then blocks should be considered." is mealy-mouthed. Editors engaging in such activities ought to be blocked immediately. (And I don't think we'd disagree on that).--Scott Mac 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there can be an argument made the "cunt" could be sexual discrimination or harassment depending on who it is directed at and in what circumstances. We have to write principles are generally applicable, then we apply the specifics of the case.  As for mealy-mouthed, we don't want to say "you must block" because that takes away discretion.  Can you think of a stronger formulation that is not absolute? Jehochman Talk 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, "cunt" is certainly vulgar (or should that be vulva), but reviewing the original utterance, I'm not sure it is technically uncivil, so much as gratuitous and incredibly unbecoming. It is certainty not a word I ever want to see typed on wikipedia - unless directly related to content. However, I am not aware of it being sexist. When I occasionally hear it colloquially (and by colloquia I don't mean in polite company - it is, here in Scotland, never a polite word) it is generally used to refer to males rather than females. As for wording, I would suggest "... then blocks are normally appropriate" (that doesn't compel the individual admin to actually do it).--Scott Mac 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the US that word directed at a female co-worker in an office would probably be grounds for termination. A bunch of male truck drivers on the loading dock could use this language at each other and nobody would care. Females on the loading dock, I am not sure.  It depends whether the speaker is using the word to shock and intimidate the target. There is a big difference between being uncouth and violent. The context is very important.  We cannot just make a list of naughty words.  We also need to understand whether Wikipedia is a loading dock or a professional office. Jehochman Talk 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that anyone is pontificating about this - in the UK, USA or Australia. Cunt is fine down the pub with your mates, about each other or about another person (usually absent). It is never acceptable in writing to or about a stranger - EVER. On Wikipedia we are strangers, despite attempts by some to create an artificial veneer of reality in their "relationships" here. Leaky  Caldron  23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunt is not solely directed at persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "cunt" like "motherfucker" is in a class of words which may be acceptable within certain informal subculture groups, where there is implied consent to be addressed as such. However, even people within those groups will generally know to drop the language when interacting within the wider culture. They don't walk into a shop in another neighbourhood and address the shopkeeper. So, the word should not be used. The problem is that the same argument can be applied to the word "fuck" - regularly used in many groups - but almost all would drop it in a professional situation, or when discoursing with strangers, unless they were very clear that it would be acceptable, or they were demonstrating their power by indifference to what people thought of them. Actually, although I've mocked the idea of a "swear list", the idea that we ought to have a guideline against using unnecessary vulgar words, particularly where we are aware that they may alienate, offend, or off-put is not that crazy. An exhaustive list would be impossible, but a guideline with examples???--Scott Mac 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Macquarie, a dictionary of Australian usage, disagrees with your universal characterisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Scott. The proposal has merit but also problems. Let me demonstrate. "You are a c@nt", "He is a cnt", "They are cunts". Which do you list? Some goes for "c*nt" or any other character substitution or missing a vowel in fucking, twat, or whatever. Leaky  Caldron  23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that was my problem with a "list of prohibited terms" - it is impossible to make it exhaustive, and is unlikely to stop me calling you a bawbag or some other Scots obscenity that the list hasn't yet covered. Civility can't be reduced to a list of swear words - because I can also insult you with the Queen's English too. However, a guideline saying "as part of maintaining decorum and civility, please don't use words likely to be seen as vulgar by many editor. Some common examples might be [non exhaustive list]." The point is to recommend a principle, not enforce a tightly drawn rule, and accepting that this is not anything like the sum total of civility.--Scott Mac 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Treat incivility like marijuana; a minor transgression, usually not worth the time or effort to pursue as the time and effort invariably outweigh the severity of the original act. It'll free up admins from getting bogged down in dumb caterwauling every few months. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or it will result in everyone being high - and an increase in a toxic user environment which drives away ladies and more delicate users, until we all sit and swear at our fellow motherfudders. The problem with drug-enforcement allusions, is that there's no consensus in society as to whether abolishing enforcement is the way to utopia or hell.--Scott Mac 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been an admin for four years, and can attest that blocks for incivility are in no way "often contentious". These are probably the least controversial types of blocks. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While it would be a dauntingly unproductive task to seek developing perfectly clear prose that unambiguously govern any and all possible occurrences of incivility, it is irrefutably easy to acknowledge that when a good faith user directly expresses that they were offended, a problem likely exists. In such context, you can not convince me that telling them to fuck off, or grow up would ever be a collaborative, civil response. And I am not available to purchase the Brooklyn bridge either. My76Strat (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of past cases related to civility. Some of our most contentious disputes have had a heavy barrage of civility claims flung back and forth.  It seems like these cries of incivility only complicate disputes.  If somebody is habitually incivil, then start an RFC.  Otherwise, don't complain about isolated incidents that may occur when an editor gets overwrought. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is precisely this well intentioned but ultimately counterproductive viewpoint that has led Wikipedia into the civility morass it finds itself in. Whenever incivility occurs, there needs to be community pushback, proportionate to the situation. It can be as simple as a hey that's uncool, tone it down, a request to strike, use of template, something.  Silence is consent. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Silence is not consent. It may work toward some advantage to construe it as consent, but it is not consent. Silence is Silence. It has no meaning until we give it meaning. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To some degree silence is consent. You Buster7 were not silent as you did speak out when you called for common courtesy. Thumperward on the other hand endorsed the edit, by editing after MF and even after Deb, giving no indication that he saw MF's edit as a blockable offense, even himself seeming to undermine Deb's appeal by commenting to her "You must be new here." I am working on evidence and will provide links and diffs. My76Strat (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I back up My76Strat on this one entirely. Silence most definitely is consent - those who see such abuse and do nothing about it or don't speak up against it, are just as guilty as those who commit the abuse in the first place.  If nobody speaks up, it'll go on and on ad infinitum until something gives.  <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that incivility is often a form of baiting? The rude editor is looking for a fight.  Why give them what they want?  If you refuse to take the bait, they will eventually get bored, and go do something else. Sometimes a good tactic is to leave a deadpan reply that appears to be completely untouched by the insult. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Editors My76 And Barking Fish---There may be a hidden natural self-interest for silence. Back in grade school, did you respond when the bullies were "initiating" the new kid to the rules of the schoolyard? Silence is not indifference or support or consent. It's silence. Let's assume that MF is completely silent as to the conclusion of this case. Will his silence mean that he consents to its decision?
 * There may be simple reasons to explain silence:
 * ..Repeated edit conflicts to the point of creating a long delay or just too much effort required.
 * ..Internet connection problems.
 * ..Fear, plain and simple. Not wanting to become the target.
 * ..Disinterest. Not willing to spend the time to respond to foolishness.
 * ..No time, late for work!--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold: Very true, but if there is mild incivility spread over a long time, start an RFC. Blocking may only escalate the problem, rather than resolve it.  "You seem a bit upset. Let me provoke you and see if that helps you calm down."  Blocks are provocative, and should only be used as a last resort. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Habitual Incivility
2) Editors who habitually violate the civility policy should be the subject of a requests for comment on user conduct. Should that process fail to resolve concerns, a community discussion should be started to determine whether a ban or editing restriction is needed to prevent further incivility.
 * Comment by Arbitrators (and replies by others):
 * Do we start RFC/U's on vandals? On sockmasters? Why, specifically, should civility be singled out? Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * User:Wikidemon states below that administrators are entitled to deference. Can he or someone else explain to me why that is so? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Instead of placing "cowboy" blocks for incivility, administrators need to seek a consensus. Have the discussion before blocking, rather than after.  If a block is needed, make sure it will stick. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we trust administrators to maintain a productive editing environment across the board. Discretionary use of administrator tools to enforce accepted policies is not "cowboy" behavior.  Incivility is not a special class of misbehavior or disruption in this regard.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Are you suggesting that the least tolerant administrator is the one who should set community standards on an issue as nebulous as civility?  I think not.  When the conduct is in a gray area, there should be discussion, rather than administrator versus administrator warfare. Jehochman Talk 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All administrators have discretion to enforce policy and are entitled to deference. The least tolerant is only one of 1,500.  It's counterproductive to tie all of their hands on the chance that the worst among them will show up.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No janitor on this site is entitled to any more "humble submission and respect" than any other editor. That sort of thinking is a cornerstone in the quarrels between Malleus and various admins&mdash;an idea that gives some the impression that we editors are mere proletariat among the exhaulted admins with all their noble powers and wisdom. Lara  22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While this may perhaps be a good idea, it is a change to policy that goes beyond the remit of arbcom. This needs an RFC with demonstrable consensus support (i.e. not going to happen).--Scott Mac 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is restating the standard process, no? ArbCom can remind people how things are supposed to work. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While not wishing to offend, I would say that having tried to raise a Wikiquette Alert against Malleus in the past, and being mauled badly for doing so, I find it difficult to believe that the people who have problems with him would actually have the courage to raise an RFC/U against him, because (like I), they know what would happen. It would get shot down like everything else people do when it comes to Malleus.  Bypassing RFC/U to get here is like climbing over a pit of alligators to get to the bad guy.  It's something that needed to be done in order to get the real issue resolved.  Would you stick your hand into a pit of vipers knowing full well you were gonna get bitten to death? I doubt it. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) (returned to sign - original comment left at 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC) )
 * Agree w/proposal and Editor Barking Fish. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good start, possibly incomplete. Where would the community discussion following a failed RFC/U take place? Nobody Ent 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI or WP:AN would be the customary venues. The RFC is crucial for developing the evidence and allowing a full discussion.  ANI is not a good venue for presenting lots of evidence and having a lengthy, thoughtful discussion.  However, once there is an RFC page, it can be linked from ANI, and there can be a relatively rapid discussion about what sanction might be needed.  If ANI were to deadlock, the matter could be sent up to arbitration. Hopefully that would be a rarity. Jehochman Talk 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's seems like there's a lot of churn on the AN boards about other issues; additionally the conversation would end being split between the RFC and the board. We should just consider implementing an RFC variant where non voluntary sanctions are on the table. Nobody Ent 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @JClemens: we single out civility because we mostly agree on what vandalism and socking is; we're all over the map on civility. Nobody Ent 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens: Because there is no common understanding of what is uncivil. Socking and vandalism are pretty clear cut.  Nobody much disputes blocks given for those reasons. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @JClemens... what the above two comments said. Civility is a different beast because it is a gray area.  Vandalism/3RR is pretty straight forward.  Civility isn't. Not only is civility subjective among the viewers, but among the participants.  The same discussion between two people can have a different tone depending on their history---which simply muddies the issue.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum admonished
2) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for incivility. 2.1) Malleus Fatuorum is admonished to improve the civility of his comments.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Admonished, definitely. Told to cut it out, yes. I would go so far as to say that he should be told that he has two options. Cut out the incivility and remain on Wikipedia, or continue to be uncivil and find somewhere else to be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie, but Malleus' comment below bears consideration, and should probably be submitted as a separate proposal. Administrators must be held to at least the same standards as non-admins, if not higher. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Balloonman appears to be claiming below that I've been "emboldened" by the limp-wristed admonishment dished out at venues like AN/I, but that's very far from the truth. I have a very strong sense of fairness, which is all that emboldens me to challenge those who should know better to behave better. Those charged with enforcing (an admittedly poorly written) civility policy need to understand that their own behaviour must be beyond reproach, but too many of them do not, and are far more long-term uncivil than their victims. The change that needs to be made here is a clear and unambiguous statement by ArbCom that the civility policy applies equally to everyone, from the highest to the lowest, and show some courage in actually enforcing that ideal. If blocks are to be made for incivility then there are several commenting in this case who ought already to be blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman: not entirely, as that puts the blame on me. I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy, but right now we have neither. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman: Again, not entirely, as I see nothing wrong with using occasional intensifiers to drive home a point. In this specific case though the only thing I regret is having called User:Spitfire a "fucking cunt" in response to a comment he made in the aftermath of my indefinite block. That was clearly wrong of me, no matter what he had said. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And Buster Seven's comment that we're trying to "create a new culture" just puzzles me. I thought we were trying to write a freely available encyclopedia? Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @John Carter: so your position basically is that nothing can be done to ensure the equitable application of the civility policy, but we can at least make an example of Malleus? Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * You can't call another editor "cunt" and expect to get away with it, no matter what the circumstances. Nevertheless, ArbCom need not place further sanctions at this time. There should be an RFC and we should see how Malleus responds.  It is not proper to assume that he won't agree to refrain from further incivility, which would be the best possible result. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MF has already been admonished plenty of times. It doesn't hurt to do so again but without more how does this remedy do any good? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Has be been admonished by ArbCom? Links?  The admonishment means that next time ArbCom sees evidence that he ignored their warning, they can drop the banhammer. Jehochman Talk 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition, an admonishment is intentionally mild. A mild sanction should be off the table for matters of magnitude equivalent this case. At minimum, MF should be chastised, while being required to acknowledge the aspects of his conduct deemed unacceptable and describe what changes he intends to make regarding his manner of collaboration. My76Strat (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking a position on anything regarding Malleus. However, all I see from this series of proposed remedies is the status quo, reinforced now by an ArbCom decision.  Is this what you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking to or about another editor, in a manner that is (or can reasonably be expected to be) hostile and demeaning, is inappropriate and should not be accepted. I don't really care if one uses vulgar expletives or simply calls someone else an idiot — it's still a personal attack and doesn't belong here.  In my opinion, this ought to be seen as a "bright line" issue, at least as much so as people consider wheel-warring to be.  —  Rich wales (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus has not been admonished. Whenever an isolated case is brought before ANI, the case is poorly formulated and isolated.  Sorry, but most of the incidents I've seen have failed to pass the test.  Do I think there is a case to be made again MF?  Definitely; but it hasn't been made.  ANI has not admonished him, in fact it has emboldened him because he emerges unscathed.  He's actually warned admins that if they act against him, that they would be sorry for doing so because he knows it won't stick.  An RfC was needed long ago, but his detractors never bothered to formulate one.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feeling intimidated, or being in fear of being intimidated, tends to have a chilling effect on people's enthusiasm to jump through hoops for no benefit. Leaky  Caldron  16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed... but my comment was directed to those who feel like Malleus has been admonished. He hasn't.  If anything he's been emboldened to misbehave because he knows that ANI has failed to do anything.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some thought ought to go into how something like this might be (or fail to be) enforced. A simple statement of admonishment will likely be ignored. The alternative would seem to be to ask administrators at AE to issue civility blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If evidence warrants, an editor could be subject to a civility restriction, perhaps with a requirement that a warning be given, and then escalating blocks for each incident. The advantage of AE is that the block appeal process is rigorous.  We won't have this block, unblock, endless discussion at ANI nonsense. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this, but not as the only action against Malleus - it should be part of the solution, not the whole of it. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We, acting as a community, should not tolerate provacatuers. In spite of all his claims to fame, Malleus' provokes. There is no viable logical defense for boorish behavior anywhere on Wikipedia. We are creating a new culture not implementing and continuing the nonsense of ancient ones that exist under a tent of so-called "cultural and tempermental differences". <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not support this. An admonishment (read: yet another slap on the wrist) is going to do nothing.  He's openly ignored administrators, and other users, and basically knows he can get away with pretty much anything.  It's going to be like "Oh whoops, i've been rude, oh well, nothing bad's gonna happen again, as usual..." - and that's the kind of thing which needs clearly and concisely discouraging on here.  Any other user acting in the way MF has in the past would have been out on their ear a damn long time ago, and as far as I can see, ARBCOM need to be looking at more than just "admonishing" this user.  Enough is enough.  <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop assuming bad faith of one of our best content writers. Malleus has never been admonished before by ArbCom.  You don't know how he would react.  Hopefully things will improve and no further dispute resolution will be needed. Jehochman Talk 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate you stop assuming I'm assuming bad faith. I know Malleus has his good points on WP, and those - like his content writing, are not in question here. What is in question is MF's past conduct and that leads me to believe that this will likely get ignored. If it tones him down, excellent. If it leads to no more issues, bloody wonderful.  Will it?  Well, it's a wait and see now. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: Good response. Do you agree that you need to tone down your remarks somewhat, to set a good example for others?  If your comments were not excessively strident, it would be easier to focus attention on the conduct of those who you have been criticizing. Jehochman Talk 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum: I agree that the standards are unclear and need to be reworked. Let me rephrase my question.  Do you agree that it would be better practice to write your comments so that the substance of your comments would be the focus of attention, rather than your word choice?  Less strident comments are usually more effective at informing or convincing.   It is certainly not my intention to blame you or anybody else.  We need a common understanding so that people can work together to write great articles. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: We are writing a freely available encyclopedia. And, in the process, the WikiPedia community, along with the general public, are creating a new culture. Perhaps I should say culture in a new format. A format that has never existed, in this form, in the history of mankind. So why should we clutter it with defending cultural differences from the past that seperate us and cause us to bite one another. All this talk of the past dozen days is shaping the culture that we will live and work in until we reshape it into something else when the next "gathering" happens. That's how I see it. If you don't agree, that's alright with me.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen enough incivility from Malleus Fatuorum that I would agree with an admonishment. However, besides the topic ban I supported below, I don't think any more than an admonishment should happen. Malleus does respect editors and administrators that show him respect and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance. He's got a reputation which people appear to talk to, rather than the person behind it. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that until we have an unambigious, well-written, absolutely clear and equally-applied civility policy, and bearing in mind that MF has probably suffered more than enough knocks here already, we should consider an amnesty combined with MF's statement above : "I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy". MF has already apologised for the f****** c*** comment to Spitfire. The causes behind MF's history of civility-spats are complex, and the community as a whole needs to take some responsibility for having spread the plague. We shouldn't punish people for showing symptoms of the plague which we, as a community, have helped to spread. Please note: this is a principle-centred stance here, not a Malleus-enabling stance.  My view would be exactly the same no matter which editor we were discussing, if the background were the same.   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A line should indeed be drawn, until the civility policy is clear and consistently applied, no editors should be sanctioned or have to endure kangaroo courts where editors come to settle old grudges. I sincerely hope that any ruling doesn't pander to an easily upset group which is encouraged by the rewards available for being upset.J3Mrs (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus doesn't call people idiots or swear because he thinks those words are civil, so we can't expect dramatic results from re-explaining civility. Read his quote again: "I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy." Do we really want to suspend civility enforcement until Malleus agrees that the policy is proper and consistent, presumably when pigs fly? How many would want to keep editing under those brutish conditions? Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I, in general, support this proposal, I too would have to agree with Art LaPella above. Unfortunately, given the nature of the system, it is all but impossible for the Arb Com or the admins to ensure that any policy is "consistently enforced". Frankly, we (counting myself as an admin) don't all necessarily have the time, or the inclination, to review each previous incident and apply them to any pending questions. Many of those admins who do devote a great deal of their time to this process, for which I am certainly grateful, do, at times, want to do something directly relating to content, and I can't really complain about that. And, yes, "Giano rules" are a clear indication of inconsistent enforcement. So, while I agree in general with the proposal here, if it seems to some that, perhaps, MF is demanding circumstances which I think he knows are never going to be really achievable as his only terms to abide by the rules which are, for better or worse, just as applicable to him as others, then I myself would have reservations about supporting this proposal. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Desysopped
2) (placeholder)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Need to see all the evidence before writing this one. Whichever administrators wheel warred or baited, if any, need to be desysopped. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 previously admonished
1) Hawkeye7 was previously admonished for "blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For convenience could you include a link to the admonishment so that people can see the specifics? Jehochman Talk 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 wheel-warred
2) By re-doing a previously reversed action, Hawkeye7 wheel-warred.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * One can quibble about length, but there was block, unblock, re-block. That to me, counts as wheel-warring. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There was no reversal of the earlier unblock. This was a block for what he did after being unblocked. Does an unblock mean that you can never be blocked ever again? If it was for the same thing, I could understand an editor continuing on good faith that what they did was okay, but this was not the case here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends. What was the previous action? Was it simply an unblock or an unblock of indefblock? The admin certainly re-blocked, but he did not re-instate the indef block. Thus, he did not simply reverse the unblock. Does that matter? Not sure.--Scott Mac 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked Hawkeye7 to demonstrate that he was aware of Malleus's last comment. I think that is key.  It may not be possible to demonstrate it, however.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Hawkeye7 claimed consensus at ANI for a re-block, but there was clearly no such consensus. --Elonka 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to hear Hawkeye7's explanation before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the rationale provided in his original statement, that the action to reblock was due to "consensus" and not a subsequent action, I have to support. Hawkeye provided a detailed rationale for his reblock, but omitted the one piece that would have given his action a leg to stand on.  Even if he had cited the spitfire comment, reblocking during an ANI debate where conensus was clearly not for a block makes his actions appear to be wheel warring---and to address wehwalt's concern.  It doesn't matter if it had only been 20 minutes or an 2 hours, hawkeye claims to have acted on a consensus that did not exist.  His rationale makes the lack thereof pertinent.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Accepting Haekeye's explanation, I do not concur with this finding. My76Strat (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 is incivil
3) is incivil, regardless if "stewed" means angry or drunk, regardless if a koala is used to depict an animal that is angry or drunk.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was in the context of requesting admin assistance, something that any editor may do. It was not an admin function. When I was asked to retract it, I immediately did so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my view of this, this is only noteworthy due to it's connection with use of tools. As a stand alone comment it's not something to lose sleep over.  However coming from a blocking admin toward the blockee it's deeply troubling.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I find calling someone a koala to be more surreal than uncivil.--Scott Mac 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the typical meaning for "stewed" is drunk rather than angry, and I suggest anyone who knows anything about koalas knows that (a) they are much more drunk-like than angry and (b) if they are uncomfortable / displeased with someone touching / holding them they tend to express this by urinating over the person. Whilst I do believe that MF would be considered uncivil if he urinated on another editor, surely the key point here is that this taunting (as I see it) post from Hawkeye7 is another example of the exceptionally poor judgement he exercised here, and is part of the reason he should be de-sysoped.  EdChem (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At face value, I accept your assertion that "stewed" is more typically associated with drunkenness. I also agree that even the less orthodox usage to imply aggravation would be itself an inappropriate taunt. I disagree that using a Koala for metaphoric contrast means either angry, or drunk. I perceived the metaphor as implying the status of a protected species, also inappropriate. I'd like to see Hawkeye stand for reconfirmation. This because it is obvious that community confidence has waned. I do not believe there is evidence to warrant a de-sysoping. My76Strat (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From experience, reconfirmaton after contentious actions, and desysopping lead to the same thing. he only diference is that desysopping cuts out the compulsory submission to a lynch mob. (Arbcomn forced someone to reconfirmation RFA once, and it was horrible). No one should be forced into that. If the tools are in question, arbcom ought only to consider desysopping. If the subjects wants to submit to an RFA that's his choice.--Scott Mac 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the usual concern is more with sustained incivility, rather than a single instance of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the usual concern is more with sustained incivility... but this is a special case wherein an admin makes a dubious block and then appears to gloat about it. It raises concerns about Hawkeye's objectivity and mindset at the time.  Had he made the comment elsewhere at a different time it would have fallen on deaf ears.  But because he had just acted against Malleus, it looks really bad.  Admins, especially when acting on a case, need to appear to be objective and detatched.  This comment makes that assumption dubious.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Hawkeye7's language was inappropriate. Doubly so from an administrator. Triply so for being about someone they'd just blocked. --Elonka 03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 unable to judge consensus
4)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "Per consensus on WP:ANI." At the time he wrote this, the ANI thread did not evidence consensus to reblock - if anything, it evidenced consensus against a block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be another proposal between (4) and (5) here: "That Hawkeye7 re-blocked Malleus while involved." --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Was quite puzzled by this consensus claim, as it did not appear to exist in that ANI discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion twice looking for a way that it could have been justified per consensus... not there at time of reblock.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. It's the strength of arguments that matters. AQFK (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And can you see a strength of argument argument that overcomes the numerical advantage here? Or the strength of argument opposing the block?  In order to argue strength of argument, there has to be a counter argument, but there wasn't.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who decides the strength of the arguments? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For most observers, and certainly for anyone involved, the strength of the argument is usually the extent to which it supports the observer's position. By another measure, the strongest argument is the one that prevails, in other words outcome proves consensus.  Whatever consensus is, it has little to do with the ridiculous posturing and whining of people who show up to AN/I block and unblock discussions to re-argue old debates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I read through the thread, and there was no consensus for a re-block. It's not even a close call. --Elonka 03:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposal comments on Hawkeye and not on Hawkeye's behavior, so violating a fundamental behavioral guideline (at an ArbCom case about civility). There is no evidence that Hawkeye is unable to judge evidence at Arbcom. Rather, in this case, Hawkeye statement that his block enjoyed consensus at ANI was a misjudgment. I have been critical of Hawkeye from the start, but you all should know better than to sign such a statement. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 abuses administrative authority
5)Hawkeye7's block rationale included the statement "I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself." This is not a valid use of administrative power.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There is no such right. SirFozzie (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of this is closer to Nick-D's and Wehwalt's, that is it wasn't intended to be taken literally. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While that may be the case, it's still an inappropriate comment to make when explaining the rationale for the block (what is supposed to be a rather serious matter). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is not a situation that a light-hearted comment is helpful in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I regret this. PhilKnight is completely correct. So is Carcharoth and Wikidemon. I concur with their comments. I was not explaining the rationale for the block, but leaving a note for someone reviewing the block. It was not intended literally. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, according to Hawkeye7's user page he has 15 FA credits, so if it were possible to impose a condition like this, it would disempower a large fraction of the admin community. EdChem (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment was made by Hawkeye in response to the repeated claims in the ANI thread that Malleus shouldn't be blocked as he's written lots of FAs (which, of course, has no basis in any kind of policy and seems to imply that the rules don't apply to FA writers) - you've excluded the "There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. " at the start of this part of Hawkeye's post. While including this was unwise, I doubt that Hawkeye meant that this should be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That probably leaves me and a handful of others, and I would recuse myself as an admin! Seriously though I think Hawkeye's comment is sarcasm and not intended literally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Hawkeye's comment wasn't meant to be taken literally (someone should ask him, though). What I took Hawkeye to be referring to was the way in which some editors (or others on their behalf) flaunt their level and quality of article contribution credentials and that this was to some extent discussed in the ANI thread. There is also a meme (among those non-admins who persistently criticise admins as a whole) where most admins are disparaged as not really producing content. Clearly (with Hawkeye's level and quality of contributions) that wouldn't have been possible here. The other side of the coin is non-admins engaging in persistent incivility holding admins to a high standard of civility. It can be incredibly frustrating for admins to try and engage in discussion with someone who is habitually incivil, while being aware of the need to be civil and not respond in the same manner. Hence (in my view) the 'protected species' comment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. I regret alluding to my contributions above, even jokingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he was joking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this statement was meant seriously it was a gross violation of administrator standards which was a substantial over-reach of his authority. If it was a pointy joke, it is simply more evidence of very poor judgement from Hawkeye7.  I suspect it was the latter, but no matter which interpretation you favour it provides evidence of Hawkeye7's mishandling of this situation and unsuitability to retain the sysop tools at this time.  EdChem (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not meant seriously. Although it's a lame joke (too geeky), it exhibits a very common aspect of humor, which is making an absurd or exaggerated statement, the implausibility of which renders less threatening a harsh underlying message.  What Hawkeye7 is saying is that he's a strong content contributor too so you shouldn't pull rank on behalf of Malleus that administrators are simpletons and unfit to render judgment on him.  I do believe that administrators should avoid humor and posturing -- see my proposal on administrator decorum -- but this is hardly a mishandling of anything and in fact the position he was expressing is a widely held and important one.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. It was yet another inappropriate comment by Hawkeye7. --Elonka 03:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no evidence of abuse, nor even the lessor misuse, of authority or admin tools. I see a minor lapse in judgement that has more than likely self corrected. The facts in evidence support nothing more than what an admonition is designed to handle. My76Strat (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there could be a finding that Hawkeye did not follow best practices to leave a clear, informative block message. Using humor or sarcasm in a block message is poor practice. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Jehochman pull yourself up of the floor Jonathon :) - poor practice. Concur with SirFozzie in the letter but not what I believe was Hawkeye's intent. Disagree with Cube lurker - I'm afraid this is being taken too literally, and whilst the written medium is a bloody poor way to communicate sarcasm (and Hawkeye should know it) the comment is so literally dripping in it, that it really can't be taken another way. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may noy be able to take it any other way, but it is still in very poor taste when blocking somebody.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody makes the occasional bloody stupid mistake. It's called "being human", and Hawkeye has already acknowledged the mistake and apologised for it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 dishonest
6)Hawkeye's block rationale was "Long term abuse." He later stated that the reason for his block was "solely for actions after being unblocked." Both cannot be true - one must be a lie.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Would prefer to see the final sentence read something to the effect of "These explanations are contradictory." Risker (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was an error. Calling someone a f***ing c*** is uncivil, but there was no block for civility. Rather, I regarded this as part of a campaign of disruption. The block reason should have been "disruptive editing". The block was not punitive, but intended solely to preclude more of the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cube lurker: The explanation was not an explanation of the block, but of the rationale for choosing a block of the specified length. The apparent inconsistency arises because the two are different, but this is not unusual. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse per evidence.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst the statements may be somewhat inconsistent, it is simply unhelpful (and a total failure to assume good faith) to speak of a "lie". Remember the admin was being harshly criticised by a whole score of people, that he reacted defensively and tried to put the best justification on his activities is understandable (even if there were inconsistencies). However, I see no logical inconsistency in saying that actions after unblocking were the trigger, but the administrator's understanding that this was further evidence of "long term abuse" was the root cause. The only problem is the word "solely", but with alleged incivility we seldom block for one-off events anyway. I suspect what the admin meant (assuming good faith) is that the "actions after being unblocked" were a sufficient trigger (revealing long-term abuse), even if one discounts the trigger for the initial block. I'm not saying supposition is right, or is the only possibility, but it cannot be discounted - particularly if we are assuming good faith.--Scott Mac 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't correspond with the 4 point block reason posted on the blockees talk page, entered into evidence by Mkativerata.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, granted. I missed that. But when someone is under the type of scrutiny (and downright abuse) Hawkeye7 was under after the block, a certain amount of reorganising the facts (and supplementing the rationale) in your own favour is perhaps understandable (if not justifiable or wise). However, talk of dishonesty and "lies" is unhelpful (and tends to further poison an already polarised conflict)- let's stick to "inconsistencies" (which is doubtless true), and let arbcom judge significance.--Scott Mac 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key isn't the line "long term abuse" but rather "Per Consensus." "Long term abuse" was a bullet point under the underlying rationale of "Per Consensus."  Also, Long Term Abuse and actions after the unblock are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  But the actions after the unblock needed to be included in the rationale.  If they were in fact part of the rationale to reblock, then Hawkeye failed to ennumerate the reasoning adequately.  I read the reblock rationale and was incredulous.  I couldn't believe that somebody had reblocked Malleus "per conensus" when such consensus didn't exist.  I almost unblocked immediately, but decided to re-read the blocking statement to see if something happened that warranted a reblock.  NOTHING was mentioned.  So I decided to reread the discussion to see if consensus had changed overnight, it hadn't.  The only reason I didn't unblock is because I was LOOKING for a rationale by which I could justify Hawkeye's actions.  I couldn't find it.  (Now if he had cited the FC comment, I would have accepted it, but he didn't.)  The whole Hawkeye situation rests upon the question, do you take Hawkeye's initial rationale as the reasons for the reblock or do you believe that his detailed explanation merely omitted a key point in the reblocking decision?  If the former, then action must be taken (including possible desysopping); if the later, then a mere slap on the wrist for not elucidating the primary reason for the reblock.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose this provision and reject it as a fallacy. Because of an error in deductive reasoning, Hipocrite has reached a false conclusion. He asserts that two things which can, and rightfully should, coexist, can not. And that it proves Hawkeye7 "must be a liar". Why is it that a block summary of "long term abuse" can only be used if it is in conjunction with overturning John's unblock? Why would it be considered impossible to block MF for incivility against Spitfire while citing "long term abuse"? If MF was grossly uncivil today, would it seem terribly odd to any one if the blocking admin used "long term abuse" in summary? I have to go to work soon but when I return, if there are still some who believe this is impossible, I'll use mathematics and evidence to prove it is possible. My76Strat (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or I'll evaluate the 4 point reason Cube lurker mentions and see something I missed. Peace - My76Strat (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd edit the proposal to read "Hawkeye7 contradicts self," and redact "one must be a lie," but for the many comments. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Lie" is too strong.  The real reason could be confusion, panic, or carelessness.  Hawkeye7 may have had multiple reasons in mind for blocking.  The prior history could be an aggravating factor when considering the recent edit.  The block log message has limited space.  Again, it is poor practice to leave conflicting explanations, but we should not read too much into this. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Replace "dishonest" which is heavily ladden with "inconsistent". Lie would seem to require stronger evidence then has been presented. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye7. How would you explain this reasoning based on your block explanation on the talk page.  That's where the real contradiction occurs.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hawk... your response to Cube was the best comment that I've seen from you on these pages. Gives me hope that I may have misjudged you.  That being said, I still have trouble seeing how you reached that conclusion based upon the status of the discussion?  There were a few people who said that he should be blocked, but many more who said no.  I still have trouble buying the "Per Conensus" comment.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward fails to understand civility standards
Thumperward's initial block rationale at 22:34 was "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds." At 14:57, Thumperward stated that he "was prepared to simply chalk [MF's comments] off as another wasted day of drama." Thumperward commented that the additional edit by MF that led to the block was this, which does not remotely violate civility standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I can not support asserting what, or to what extent Thumperward knows or doesn't know wp:civility. I would support a finding that Thumperward failed to demonstrate a proper understanding, and reaffirm my evidence where I state that Thumperward's first edit was improper. My76Strat (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward fails to understand what edit warring is
Thumperward commented that he decided on a block as a result of edit warring. 

From WP:EW "A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." As such, the initial revert by Prodego is bold, the revert by MF is not warring, and the partial revert by Nobody Ent is also not edit warring (due to the attempt to solve the problem with the nono template), but the revert by SarekOfVulcan (with bonus snarky edit summary) is while the reverts by Nobody Ent and SarekOfVulcan are.

Additionally, the page was dead silent for over two hours when the block was done - an "edit war" with only one two edit warriors, with one revert each, that appears resolved, is not may not be an emergent an edit war.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Sequence is off here -- my redaction of c- to occurred before Prodego's edit. No editing occurred during the BRBR cycle.  Nobody Ent 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok. Corrected. Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The big mistake here was the blocking hours after the issue had settled down. I can't see any way to look at that block as preventative rather than punitive, no matter how many times I look at it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward actions inconsistent with his asserted explanation
7) Thumperward's inital block of MF was partially as a result of Thumperward's misunderstanding of edit warring. However, Thumperward failed to warn the other individuals he must have thought were engaging in edit warring - namely, SarekOfVulcan and Nobody Ent.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This finding veers far off track having only assumptions as foundation. My76Strat (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hawkeye7 desysoped
1) Hawkeye7 is desysoped. He may regain the tools through WP:RFA alone.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While we've had a lot of discussion about first mover/second mover advantage and limitations on undoing other administrator's actions (for example as AE), the fact is that a third move; that is "Do, un-do, REDO" is wheel warring and one of the bright line "Admins should not do this" without an ongoing and active consensus in favor of the action. It has not been demonstrated that there was such here. This HAS to be on the table here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Hawkeye7 has already been warned, that he was uncivil, and that his explanations in regard to judging consensus were substandard, then we are going to have to consider this as an option. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The block was good. There was no misuse of the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment to Prodego was an agreement that the reason was wrong. I was about to correct it, but this was overtaken by the ArbCom filing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even I don't want to see Hawkeye7 desysoped simply over this incident. Sure, he goofed up with his rationale, but the block was a reasonable one in the circumstances. His koala comment was a big mistake though, for which he ought to be admonished. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Only reasonable remedy considering previous Arbcom admonishment.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Hawkeye7 cannot abuse his/her/their administrative powers so brazenly and expect to keep said powers for much longer. They clearly do not know how to judge consensus which is something that EVERY admin is expected to be able to do more accurately than this case in their sleep. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unwarranted and unhelpful suggestion. Neither the evidence nor discussion have established that the second block was unwise, much less incorrect or outside of the bounds of administrator discretion.  If that's the direction the case heads, so be it, but that looks very unlikely.  I won't speak to the motivations of specific editors here, but the rush to pile baseless insults and attacks on administrators who dare wade in to make difficult decisions in thorny cases has got to stop, it poisons the atmosphere and, indirectly, provides cover for much mischief.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasons for desysopping are not limited to the wheel-warring. They arise also from the involvement, the subsequent misleading of Arbcom, and the derogatory statement about the blocked editor. The evidence in support of these matters is set out by me on the evidence page. I think Arbcom should consider the four reasons in their totality; in that context, the case for desysopping is, in my view, compelling. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If that bears out, yes. But there's a far more innocent explanation of everything but the koala comment, which makes it look like people defending MF are simply rushing to make counter-accusations.  The evidence does not make it obvious that there was wheel warring, involvement, or an intent to mislead in the first place.  The koala comment is the only clear matter.  It falls under a standard of decorum but if that's the one sure thing and reasonable people differ on the other three, that's hardly enough to sanction an administrator over a single incident.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen 'explanations' for the wheel-warring and the intent to mislead: I completely disagree with them, but they're explanations. What's the defence for the charge of involvement? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence that he was involved? I don't see it.  Is it that he had recently commented at AN/I as to whether Malleus should have been blocked or unblocked?  That wouldn't make him involved because that's a prior administrative interaction, not a prior editorial interaction.  I can see why you'd say something fishy is going on but that goes into whether he was wheel warring and the plausibility of his claim that the new block was for a new infraction as opposed to undoing the acts he'd just said he disagreed with.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't weigh into a discussion and then act upon what you say is the consensus arising from the discussion. It's not acceptable at AfDs, RfAs, or any other formal process on wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One question I think should be raised here. Someone (I forget who) said they had been considering unblocking Malleus following Hawkeye's block. Would that have been a wheel-warring action? Also, what would have happened if someone had overturned Hawkeye's block (with a reasonable justification) and then re-imposed the same block but this time specifically citing the 'Spitfire' post that Malleus made (along with posting an explanation at ANI - not sure if Hawkeye did that immediately, later, or never)? Would that have been a wheel-warring unblock followed by an independent (and justifiable) block? In my view, if someone had done that, it might well have calmed things down. But admins shy away from such actions because of the wheel-warring provisos of the blocking and admin policies. The point here is that block modifications and new blocks for previously uncited reasons make things less clear than complete reversals of administrative action. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sir Fozzie, consider the following two scenarios. (A): Malleus blocked indefinitely, Malleus unblocked, Malleus re-blocked indefinitely. (B): Malleus blocked indefinitely, Malleus unblocked, Malleus posts a personal attack on Spitfire, Malleus blocked for a week for that personal attack. Scenario A is a wheel-war. Scenario B is not a wheel-war. Which of these two scenarios corresponds most closely to what actually happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A is closer. All the facts based on posts by the blocking admin at the moment disprove the idea that he was blocking for the attack on Spitfire.  B is completely inconsistent with the facts, see the evidence submitted by Mkativerata, the only difference between reality and scenario A is the length.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So why did Hawkeye block for a week and not indefinitely? To make an accusation of wheel-warring stick, you need to answer that. It was either based on a perceived ANI consensus (if done in good faith, would you desysop an admin for getting an ANI consensus wrong?), or based on the Spitfire attack. Either way, it is not wheel-warring. The inconsistencies in the later rationalisation is understandable given the shitstorm that ensued. Also, look at the exchange on Hawkeye's user talk page in the immediate aftermath of the block (I would link it, but it takes a while to load due to lack of archiving). Prodego turns up and says at 07:21, 22 December 2011: "You really ought to think about that for a second. Please reconsider, we can reimpose blocks after discussion, a user conduct RFC would be a better step here." Then, only a minute later, Prodego reconsiders and says: "Eh, actually I didn't see the latest. mmm. Ok. Perhaps change the reason though." I read that as Prodego's initial post being before he saw the Spitfire comment (which came after Malleus was unblocked), and Prodego saying that Hawkeye should make clear that the new block is for that reason. I'm not sure what Hawkeye meant by "No, you are right of course." Again, someone should go and ask Hawkeye and Prodego what they meant by what they said there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct, my first comment was before I saw Malleus' comment about Spitfire, for which I considered a block to be appropriate. I was confused by the reasons given by Hawkeye, and suggested he make it more clear what the block was for. My perception of his response was that he was agreeing that he did not make the reason for the block clear, however you'd have to ask him to be sure. Prodego  talk 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Said it above. If you accept Hawkeye's claim that he reblocked due to the FC comment, then the reblock might be justified if ill advised at that point.  If you accept the detailed rationale provided in Hawkeye's reblock statement that it was "Per Consensus" then you have to seriously consider this motion.  Note: I would not be opposed to a short term desysopping.  I believe it should be easier to move in and out of adminship when mistakes are made.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are really proposing that ArbCom desysop every time an admin gets an ANI consensus wrong or is willing to take the heat for making a contentious call? You are going to get a lot less admins willing to close contentious ANI discussions. Look closely at the ANI discussion in question and read the nuances in all the comments. Not just the comments you agree with. Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's not get too caught up on process or being too anal about rules. The wheelwarring in this case is insignificant compared to wide-spread disruption MF has caused over the years.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Caracharoth, notice that I have elsewhere said might be grounds for and that a short term desysopping might be appropriate. As for "getting ANI consensus wrong"... this isn't just getting ANI consensus wrong, this is a whole different ball game.  This case was no where close to having a consensus to block (at the time of the reblock.)  His reblock thus appeared to be blatant wheel warring and abusive... followed up by his gloating and later revisionist history.  All tied together raises the spector that this has to be on the table.  Whether it passes or not is a different question.  If you believe the revised story that he blocked because of the Spitfire comment, then it is a mute issue.  If you question that story and base his actions on what he said at the time, then you have to question a lot of things.  That is the key issue IMO.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Balloonman. This isn't between the two options you're listing Carcharoth. There is the third option, the one supported by evidence, that the reblocked based on a "consensus" that didn't exist. If that is true, it wasn't a mistake made in good faith. Then that coupled with previous admonishment doesn't look good. I, however, have previously stated that this case should focus less on the players and more on the problems so that these incidences can be avoided in the future. Lara  19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I would support a de-sysop here. Hawkeye7's actions and language were way out of line. --Elonka 03:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Endorse. I don't see consensus for a block and it came so soon after an unblock. It may not have been the first point of the wheelwar (per my evidence), but it was a wheel war action. I'm not 100% convinced regarding INVOLVED, but after being admonished, Hawkeye should have been extra careful about being seen to be within the rules. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Desysop is a severe and demoralizing sanction. We should ask Hawkeye7 to explain their side of the story before judging this. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lara in much, and to paraphrase Hawkeye, "The block was stupid. There was some misuse of the tools". Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This should have been an entirely uncontroversial block given what Malleus posted and his awareness that it would lead to a block (as indicated by the edit summary of "goodbye Wikipedia"). The main reason it became controversial is because Malleus' apologists and enablers got up in arms, and were prepared to excuse away something even he thought deserved being blocked for. As such, I don't see why Hawkeye should lose access to the admin tools. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick-D: You may be thinking of Thumperward's block. In Hawkeye7's case, he didn't block based on Malleus's actions, he (re)blocked based on "consensus at ANI". Feel free to review the ANI discussion for yourself. There was clearly no such consensus. --Elonka 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about Hawkeye's block, which I think was basically OK. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I think that Hawkeye's original unblock rationale was a bit mistaken, but the block itself was fine. Anybody who makes a comment such as this is, in effect, voluntarily removing themselves from the community in which they made it, and Malleus knew it from the edit summary. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose this remedy. This does not imply that I do not recognize a considerable decline in community trust. This aspect should be addressed, but it does not, nor should it require an ArbCom sanction. My76Strat (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 banned
2) Hawkeye7 is banned from Wikipedia for 1 week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * (Incoming arb) A one week ban is something I'd be very unlikely to ever support as an Arbitration remedy, cases these days (as opposed to the 2004-2006 archives) are too long for this to be reasonable. Besides, banning Hawkeye7 strikes me as wildly excessive here. Courcelles 17:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is punitive and not preventive. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any ArbCom-issued ban must be greater than three months at the least, otherwise they're worthless. By the time the case finishes, you may as well consider it time served. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's only for a week, it's not a ban. I cannot see this coming to the final proposed decision. Risker (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Desysopping (if justified) could be remedial - banning could only possibly be punitive.--Scott Mac 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. While desysopping MIGHT be an appropriate sanction, I defintely oppose this.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly punitive and makes me look at the other proposed remedy in a new light of punishing Hawkeye7.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no reason for a ban. Just pull the bit and let him go back to editing. --Elonka 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not intended to be punitive, but rather instructive - Hawkeye7 has never been blocked (his prior bad action was taken as an admin, so he was immune to blocking), and should realize the effects that his bad block has by feeling them himself. I consider my three propose solutions as alternatives - either take his bit, block him so that perhaps he'll get it's a big deal, or just admonish him yet again. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your comments that this would be "instructive". I think that's a dreadful word / implication. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this as a cavalier approach to a serious matter. My76Strat (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a bit like nuking London as an effective way to address the litter problem. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 admonished
1) Hawkeye7 is admonished for abusing his administrative tools for the second time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The problem with this is that if an admin has used their buttons unwisely twice in a year, shouldn't they have to go through another RfA? PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There was no misuse of the tools. The block was good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Possibly, depending on the evidence and Hawkeye7's response to my question. If there was fresh matter (there was) and Hawkeye was aware of it, then I query this.  If he was not aware of it, and he was "too much indebted to the event for his acquittal" (that is, Malleus's comment provided a post hoc justification, but Hawkeye was unaware of it at the time of his block of Malleus) then trout slapping is a minimum.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as a second choice (first choice is to de-sysop). --Elonka 03:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If an admin has been admonished before (link?) a repeated case of bad judgement needs something stronger. I am not yet sure whether or not Hawkeye7 can explain their actions.  People seem to be jumping to convict without hearing his or her side of the story at arbitration. Jehochman Talk 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While there are elements of Hawkeye7's conduct which could warrant admonishment, abuse of tools is not one of them, nor even misuse. My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward admonished, instructed
1) Thumperward is admonished for failing to properly explain his actions, and instructed to review our civility standards and our policies on edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. The block was at least in a grey area. I don't see the initial block as under any arb scrutiny here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * If you believe his statement that the change from no-block to block was edit warring and civility, then he, at the least, misunderstands edit warring (along with who should be warned for it), and our civility standards. Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Admonished at least, but considering the 500-word limit is constraining evidence in this case, has anyone looked for a pattern of similar in his case? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Malleus was unblocked before Thumperward was able to post the rationale he'd said he was preparing at ANI, this seems entirely unjustified. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose separating these into two separate remedies. Currently, I could support one but not the other. My76Strat (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward desysoped
1) Thumperward is desysoped. He may regain the tools through WP:RFA alone.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If I'm not going to support admonishing, there is no way I'll support this. SirFozzie (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * If you believe an admonishment is not enough, or if you think the post-hoc explanation of edit warring/additional incivility is dishonest. Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It reeks of revisionist history to me (similar to that demonstrated for Hawkeye7), but I still think we need to know if there's a pattern. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thumperward may have been guilty of not posting a detailed rationale at the same time as the block, but that's not enough to de-sysop someone. The actual use of tools was within discretion. --Elonka 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, treat the illness, not isolated symptoms. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! You stole my line! Oppose.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum
1) Malleus Fatuorum is a long-time editor of Wikipedia, who has made many valuable content contributions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Statements such as this I take slight issue with. While I do not question Malleus's - or anyone's - value as a content contributor, such is irrelevant when considering allegations of disruption. A history of good editing should not serve as a "get out of jail free" card. It's possible this deserves some mention in the case, however presenting it as a finding of fact, to me, implies that any sanctions against the editor in question will have been lessened out of deference to this fact. That is something I do not support. Disruption is disruption, no matter who is causing it. (I should note that I have not reviewed the evidence in enough detail to determine if sanctions against Malleus are appropriate or not, however.) <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Tryptofish: I'm not sure if a site ban is necessarily on the table here anyway, but even in that case, I don't think that it necessarily is worth considering. An editor can have a hundred featured articles under their belt, but given a grievous enough offense (or more likely history of such offenses), the proper response would be to remove them from the project, at least for a time. Allowing any sort of preferential treatment creates a hierarchy of sorts, with those at the top able to avoid the worst sanctions. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Tryptofish: That might be acceptable, although it would probably be best presented as two separate findings, with the latter pointing out specific issues with diffs. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * What exactly is the scope of this case supposed to be? Why the focus on me in a case entitled Civility Enforcement? Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, and blah, blah, blah. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold: Please understand that I fully agree with you about the concept that good content work is not a license to be disruptive in any other way. That's very important! I think, however, that this is a simple, objective statement of fact. It should not be used as a reason to back off from making any sanction at all, but I think it is worth considering as a reason not to consider a site-ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold: I agree with you. When I posted this, it was not yet clear that we would rule out a site-ban. Here's a thought: a finding of fact that starts as above, but is followed by a sentence or two about the downside. In effect: Malleus is an excellent editor, and we acknowledge that, but that doesn't change the fact that there are problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as I asked for a similar statement in the Mattisse case and got it after some heat. I will note that while I take no position on Malleus, certainly the Mattisse case is precedent on contributors who do a lot for the wiki, but still get themselves here.  That is not to say that I think Malleus is deserving of what Mattisse got, or indeed of anything at all.  My concern here is with the administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, I think that most agree on this. --Elonka 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously one of the best content contributors we have on the project.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, that sort of comment is the sort of thing that inflates people's egos. There is no reason to label anyone as "one of the best content contributors". I could point out that there are many editors (such as Hawkeye) whose contributions I would judge to exceed Malleus's in terms of volume (by which I mean kilobytes of text, rather than edit count) and quality (more difficult to measure, but could be done), but that would be missing the point entirely. If you really want to consider the effect of this case on content contributions, consider why Wehwalt (among others) is trying to ensure that no-one reacts to this case by retiring or fading away after losing motivation because of the stress the case puts them under. If a finding like this is made about Malleus, you end up needing it for all the other editors and admins named in findings as well, and then it gets silly. There is no need to stroke the egos of either Malleus or Hawkeye or anyone. They know the value of their contributions already, and don't need validation from a body like ArbCom. I say this as someone who supported such statements in the past in arbitration cases, and now regret doing so. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, I read your last sentence with great interest, because I have to admit that I got the idea for this proposal from some past decisions. If those past decisions do not hold up so well any more, then my suggestion may well have been mistaken. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Carchoroth, it doesn't matter if it inflates his ego. I think it is pretty obvious that he is one of the best content contributors on Wikipedia.  If you want to put forward a notion for Hawkeye's contributions being among the best you are free to do so, but I think this is a relevant finding as it does come up as one of the rationales that people are using both to support and to attack Malleus.  The supporters are using it as a point that we can't afford to loose somebody of his calibre.  The detractors are using it as a point that this fact has created a suit of armor protecting Malleus.  His behavioral issues aside, Malleus is one of the best content editors that we have.  His editorial eye and proof reading abilities exceed those of most users on Wikipedia.  Simple fact.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed My76Strat (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Malleus Fatuorum topic banned
1) Malleus Fatuorum is banned for an indefinite period from commenting upon administrators as a group or about the RfA process, broadly defined, except in direct response to an action of dispute resolution directed at him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An evidence submission in relation to this is important. You can start here. Risker (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If evidence is submitted that he's disrupting the RfA process to prove a point, this could be on the table. SirFozzie (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously depends on the evidence, but could also consider a 1-year ban from WT:RfA. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth seriously considering. If Malleus demands black-and-white rules rather than values-based ones, I suppose we can provide them, though probably not the best use of anyone's time and effort. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Tryptofish says of me that "he might still bite newcomers", which seems to be rather typical of much of the misinformation and innuendo I'm seeing here. Where is the evidence that I have ever bitten a newcomer? Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish: what's your definition of a newbie? The diff to which you link was posted on 17 November 2011; the user to which the comment was addressed registered on 11 February 2010, and as of today has 27,275 edits. Which is more than you do in fact. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish: so basically you have been unable to find any evidence at all that I've ever bitten a newcomer, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Nick-D: yet more of the unsubstantiated innuendo that seems to be characterising this case. Can you provide a diff to even one RfA that I've disrupted? Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Offered as an alternative to either a site ban or to insistence that nothing happen until after an RfC/U. I think that part of the problem the community has long faced is the argument that if any user such as Malleus were to be site-banned, we would lose that person's high quality content work. A topic ban solves that problem. Malleus would still be free to do his content work and to be helpful to other editors in such work; he might still bite newcomers other users, but I'm unconvinced that he is generally wrong, or generally disruptive in this regard. And I strongly reject the opposite argument, that we should take no action, or that the matter should be sent back to an RfC/U that will waste everyone's time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC) "newcomers" --> "other users" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Risker and SirFozzie: You (and some of the editors below) raise a good point about !votes in RfA itself. If you look at the evidence I already offered on the evidence page, I've given quite a bit from WT:RFA, but not from WP:RFA. In my experience, it's a gray area with respect to Malleus' !votes themselves. One could argue, as some have below, that he is speaking truth to power. His comments in talk are, I think, in a different category. My intention in posting this proposal was to address the talk page issues. I'm not sure what to say about RfA !voting, but I will think about it. One thing that is absent from my draft proposal is any delineation with respect to namespace, such as talk pages versus RfA itself. Perhaps, in the final version, some distinctions ought to be made there. (I also framed it as administrators as a group, as opposed to individual RfA candidates.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, see also the evidence submitted by Kaldari. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good explanation why civility problems are not usually solved by blocking. If a user loses their cool in certain situations, blocking them will only result in them returning angrier and seeking vengeance until they are eventually site banned, which is a very bad result.  If discussion and self-control do not avail, a ban from the area of trouble seems like a better solution than blocks escalating to indefinite. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Outside the immediate case in question, is there evidence that MF has been particularly problematic at RFA? I see none currently presented. I don't go near the awful place. Is MF worse than any of the other swamp dwellers there?--Scott Mac 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an .. ummm ... occasional "Swamp dweller" .. I'd say that yes a large number of the dust-ups regarding Malleus often begin at individual RfAs and WT:RFA - but you're right that this specific venue hasn't been cited with refs and such. Just an observation, but I personally would prefer this to a site ban no doubt. — Ched :  ?  23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think evidence could easily be found where he uses RfA to stick it to the admin corp. That being said, this might be a viable option.  Unfortunately, I don't think MF would acede to this requirement.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing this would amount to a whitewash to protect a group of hardened, experienced and largely unaccountable users from a no-nonsense individual with a high profile and knack of calling things correctly. At the same time it would send out a message that the rest of us aren't considered important enough to be protected from his at times forceful opinions. In my opinion this would be worse than banning Malleus completely. —WFC— 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a "topic ban," that's flat-out political censorship. Strongest possible objection to this. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's disrupting RfA process, RfA is the locus of his issues, and temporarily removing him from RfA would quiet any problems, a topic ban would have some merit. Wikipedia is not a sovereign democratic state, free speech is not the point here, and in any event pages are not behavior-free zones.  But somehow I don't think this gets to the heart of the issue.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MF is capable of contributing anywhere without creating disharmony. His critical comments made at RFA, in a straightforward manner, are frequently persuasive and should not be lost to the project unless there is no alternative. They should always be made in the civil terms without being "vulgar, hateful, obscene, profane, threatening, insulting or offensive". This should be considered as an alternative to a topic ban. Leaky  Caldron  12:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have, more often than not, disagreed with Malleus's comments made at RfA (I mean the actual discussions about specific candidates), I have felt that most of his comments in that venue were reasonable and at least somewhat constructive, and I see no need to banish him from this topic area as long as he treats other editors with respect and avoids personal attacks. In my opinion, any sort of demeaning language directed at another editor — regardless of whether one uses vulgar expletives or simply calls someone else an idiot — is inappropriate and unacceptable.  I think this ought to be considered as much of a "bright line" as wheel-warring is.  If Malleus (or anyone else) is unable or unwilling to refrain from expressing himself in ways that others may reasonably consider to be offensive — and especially if he defiantly refuses to change after having been put on notice — then he (or anyone else acting in the same way) needs to have limits placed on what he is allowed to do here, or else should be shown the door.  My own talents, skills, and contributions are highly respected at my workplace, but if I were to start verbally abusing or harassing my co-workers in the way we're talking about here, my good qualities would not save me from being out of a job by day's end.  This same principle applies just as strongly (if not more so) in a volunteer endeavour like Wikipedia.  —  Rich wales (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic ban is widely cast. It covers not only a ban on the RfA process, but a ban on "commenting upon administrators as a group". That is a very bad idea. Only the most extraordinary evidence of harm could support censoring an editor from commenting, no matter how adversely, on one of the principal layers of wikipedia's bureaucracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree: topic bans are about preventing disruption, not silencing critics. OTOH, I generally agree with Tryptofish's analysis, and think a specific RFA topic ban is worth considering. There can be a protective element to a topic ban: I appreciate that Malleus makes useful contributions to individual RFAs, but this is an area that leads him disproportionately into conflict, and it might be better for him, and for the encyclopedia, if he had to disengage from it. Geometry guy 23:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that Geometry guy has that right. I said earlier that I would think about this some more, in response to the comments so far from the Arbs. There are numerous thoughtful comments from editors above. I think that the drafting Arbs will need to reconcile a number of things. A total site-ban is not supported by the evidence. A generalized remedy forbidding Malleus to be incivil is going to lead to a never-ending series of arguments just like those throughout this case. There has to be some sort of remedy that isn't about one person's definition of civility versus another person's definition. I think that rules out a very large number of remedies proposed elsewhere on this page! I agree with the comments that we have to be careful about preventing disruption while not preventing dissent. I think my evidence clearly establishes WT:RFA as a place that should be put, indefinitely, off limits. If that's all, however, we have to consider whether the disruption will move somewhere else, such as ANI, and we should try to avoid that. Kaldari has some evidence about WP:RFA, but I think that, overall, preventing Malleus from !voting on individual RfA candidates would end up being an undesirable silencing of dissent, rather than protection against disruption. That's what you (the drafters) have got to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree taht a topic ban may work. But this proposal, as written, is ambiguous. Would MF be allowed to comment re:Admins and RfA's anywhere except WP:RfA? Or does the proposal mean to limit his ban to WP:RfA and other Administrative pages? --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is only a draft. I trust the Arbs to improve on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse something like this, per my evidence. Just a quick glance at RfAs for this year shows that administrators is a sore point for Malleus and a topic ban from the area similar to the above is likely to at least cut that issue out. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus: . There are times in this arbitration case when I think you are your own worst enemy. My argument, above, was that you should not be site-banned, and I expressed skepticism of the view expressed by others that you were driving newbies off the site, that there was a widespread bite problem. I provided evidence on the evidence page of abundant cases where you were impressively supportive of new editors. But here I simply left open the possibility of a few incidents when you and the newbies didn't play nice. And since you asked me for it, here is an example of just that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish,
 * "Fuck off" is Scottish chef Gordon Ramsay's standard goodbye to his guest sous-chefs on The F Word. Isn't it possible and perhaps probable that Malleus used "fuck off" in the colloquial sense? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 06:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not probable, certainly, and particularly not probable that the average good faith editor would understand it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus: what you seem not to get is that you were rude to someone who was sincerely (as far as I can tell) asking you for help. If you think it's productive to focus on how many edits that person has, and how many I have, well, let's just chalk it up to my inexperience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus, I'll just leave it to the Committee to decide who is wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, this is precisely the sort of situation where you should be saying "Oh sorry, I didn't phrase that right." What you wrote implies that Malleus drives away new editors. You then try to justify yourself by saying that you didn't mean he actually does do so, just that there is the "possibility" he does. Come on, WTF? And then you seemingly contradict yourself again by trying to show an example of him being rude to a new editor when they clearly weren't new. Careless words matter, and if you've been called on it hold you hands up rather than try to justify it. These sort of generalisations of Malleus' supposed behaviour, without evidence, are all too common in this case (and from before) and it is not on. Polequant (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why an RfC/U would not have worked. Malleus and his fan club are trying to make me the issue, and I was actually taking a partially supportive position about him. I suggest that impartial readers just look at what I actually wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which you've now changed. Thanks. Polequant (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a small thing, but I actually had changed it ten minutes before your first comment to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can somebody explain why "commenting upon administrators as a group or about the RfA process" is a problem and clarify why it is considered "disruptive". All organisations need to be open to criticism in order to move forward. I would have thought the mark of a good administrator was how s/he dealt with the situation as surely that's a very important quality for an administrator to have.J3Mrs (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting on administrators as a group or about the RfA process isn't intrinsically disruptive. If it were, I would have proposed that everyone be banned from doing so! And I agree with you that constructive criticisms to administrators are a good thing. But you can see in my evidence on the Evidence page what Malleus' postings have been like. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I then would need to see what led up to each individual remark as taking things out of context isn't what I do. So what essentialy is the disruption here? I don't get it.J3Mrs (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't take things out of context either. Again, my evidence is on the evidence page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Malleus' behaviour in RfA's is particularly concerning: RfA's are stressful for even the best candidates, and the last thing which is needed is someone disrupting them as part of a campaign. I know of several excellent editors who'd make outstanding admins but have declined invitations to stand because they don't want to go through the grief of a RfA given how nasty they can get. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But what exactly is the "disruption"? Surely admins need to be able to deal with it or what's the point?J3Mrs (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a topic ban of this sort is the way forward. I think the rightful focus is "civility enforcement" and MF, as well as all others should be held to account for violations. The requirement of civil participation is already enshrined in pillar and policy. The failure is in enforcement, a thing I hope this comity resolves. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No! If criticism is warranted and in some cases, it is  any community which validates silencing the critics and the criticisms is walking on the thin end of a very toxic wedge.  Anybody remember the Ceaușescu regime?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, I am in a very happy relationship! Please stop seducing me! ;) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See my evidence. I'm being very careful to distinguish between criticism, which I agree should be protected speech, and disruption that does not, can not, accomplish anything constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrator decorum
1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Absolutely! Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Verbatim from WP:ADMIN. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially the "expected to lead by example" part. --Elonka 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaders lead. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though what this means in practice may not be clear.  One reason (amongst several) why my first RfA bid failed a year ago was that many people objected to my judgment call that an admin involved in edit-warring merited an immediate 24-hour block, whereas the newbie he had been edit-warring with was entitled to a warning before any block.  I bring this up, not in order to rehash ancient history, but simply to show that there isn't necessarily full community agreement on how to deal with disruptive behaviour by admins and other experienced users vs. users in general.  —  Rich wales (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1.1) Administrators are expected to act with decorum, avoiding unnecessary comments about editors they are interacting with in their administrative capacity that those editors may reasonably interpret as uncivil, demeaning, hostile, rash, or threatening.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Probably needs some wordsmithing. What is unnecessary? "may reasonably interpret" has a nice and specific meaning, but I've seen things I've said interpreted as uncivil in ways that I would not consider appropriate. We need less ambiguity here, not more, but I agree with the thrust of this principle. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Follows from principle 1.  This standard goes beyond mere civility by going to how administrative comments are perceived, not just their intent.  Not all admins currently seem to feel so constrained but it's part of leading by example.  If a party subject to an administrative action, or their defenders, perceives the admin as unnecessarily hostile, rude, etc., they will not respect the action and it is less likely to be effective. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree it follows from principle 1, as you add in "in their administrative capacity" which is not present in principle 1. Why are you limiting it?  All this will do is endless arguments about whether Admin A was acting in their administrative capacity when warning Editor B about something or other.  Suggest striking the limitation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if everyone were on extra-special behavior all the time, but some administrators moonlight as regular editors. It would be harder to get agreement that they should be held to a higher standard whether on duty or off.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For some editors, being inherently civil comes naturally. The others shouldn't have sysop bits. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Elonka 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the following reservation: by suggesting administrators "lead" by example, we affirm their core, a class of leaders. I have seen much objection at assertions like this and rather suggest a more germane statement like "administrators are evaluated by their actions or lack there of. They are expected to demonstrably uphold the core values of Wikipedia while uniformly protecting it from harm", perhaps. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Studies support the fact that belittling, humiliating, and demeaning comments from authority figures cause a great deal more harm than the same from peer figures.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators are not leaders, there is no evidence that as a body they "lead" anything. They are "regular editors" who have extra buttons to aid the running of the encyclopedia. When using these powers it should be apparent that they are doing so in a manner that will not disrupt wikipedia, for example by addressing other editors civilly, without sarcasm or humour, being patronising and without pulling rank. Why would administrators be "moonlighting" by doing what most of us do all the time? Is that because some administrators consider themselves different from the regulars and can apply different standards depending on what they're doing?J3Mrs (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7
1) Hawkeye7's calling Malleus a Koala falls below the standard of decorum expected of administrators, in that the comment was unnecessary to carrying out Hawkeye7's duties, and whatever the term's exact meaning or intent, an editor may reasonably consider the term derogatory.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth stating. Agree with Richwales that something at least as strong is required for Malleus' comment. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was in the context of seeking admin assistance, something that any editor may do. It was not in the context of any admin function. I was not asking for help dealing with Malleus. It was not intended as an insult, and was retracted immediately when it was pointed out that it was misunderstood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This seems obvious to me.  An admin doesn't have to use a regional slang animal comparison to ask another for help dealing with Malleus. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this, but I believe such a statement is appropriate only if accompanied by at least as strong a statement regarding Malleus's choice of words. —  Rich wales (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think Malleus has a thicker skin than some give him credit for... he has to the way he dishes it out. That being said, blocking a user and then using making the statements he did the way he did just doesn't sit right with me.  If he had said them outside of the context of having just blocked the user, it might get a pass, but here is felt like gloating.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to Hawkeye merely as an admin, choice of language isn't the problem. I'm sure many admins have said far worse about Malleus in justifiable contexts. The issue is that he made the comment in the context of being the blocking administrator. —WFC— 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this as anything more than Hawkeye's macaca moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree generally with the finding, but don't think it's necessary to repeat the insult. Why give more weight to an insult by repeating it over and over? Better would be to simply diff it, and say, "Hawkeye7's language towards Malleus after blocking him, fell below the standard of decorum expected of administrators." --Elonka 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse revised wording.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse principle. My76Strat (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that it ended "...decorum expected of blocking administrators", given that part of the wider issue is the behavior of admins whilst using the tools. —WFC— 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 admonished (2)
1) Hawkeye7 admonished not to use derogatory idiom when referring to editors with whom he is interacting in his role as an administrator.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If he's desysop'ed, this is essentially included. Not sure there's much added value for calling this out in that eventuality, especially if it's part of an FoF. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is intended to be a mild remedy to avoid future insults.  If other administrative failings are found warranting more serious sanction this one may well be subsumed by that. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fair. Frankly, in such controversial circumstances, he should have been more careful to avoid contentious asides like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why this is not simply "Hawkeye7 admonished not to use derogatory idiom when referring to editors"? It implies that it is appropriate for him to use such turns of phrase in other situations. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thryduulf, this is expected administrator decorum for all published communications. Or it should be IMO. My76Strat (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Wehwalt
===Proposed principles===

Involved administrators
1) Administrators must not undertake contentious actions regarding editors with whom they can be considered involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Needs the caveats added, but essentially correct. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Basically straight out of WP:INVOLVED.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Entirely reasonable, given there are over a thousand other admins that are not biased. Wait for one of them to do it. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Wehwalt. Could be rewarded more strongly to get the "done and seen to be done" feel about it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Construction of "involvement"
2) "Involvement" is construed broadly, as per WP:INVOLVED and includes both friendly and hostile relationships.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Interesting, and not inappropriate. It's how we deal with recusal on Arb cases, worth considering how to extend the same bimodal expectation to admins. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. While the policy cited does not explicitly mention friendly relationships, I believe it is implied and this would be a useful clarification of existing policy by ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open, as discussed below to changing this to cordial, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Opposed. This would disqualify 95% of the admins from acting on any case involving Malleus ;-)  In all seriousness, just because somebody is cordial and has talked to a user in the past doesn't negate their ability to deal with them objectively or to weigh conensus.  Now a user should refrain when they know that such a relationship does exist, but too general.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed my evidence? I'd welcome specific comments on it.  I value also your general comment above, I am just asking you to get down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally John probably should have refrained from acting, I did because I've interacted with Malleus before and tend to defend him against specific accusations. But, I agree with John that at the point that he acted, there was a clear consensus forming that the block was unjustified.  I'll move to weak oppose, because technically I guess you can say that he was "involved" and ideally wouldn't act---but I don't think his action was clearly inappropriate in light of consensus forming.  You observation about his having over a 100 edits to Mal's page does give the argument more credence than the other cases.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, you don't "form" "consensus" in 20 minutes. Why?  Apart from the obvious, the most people to show up initially are going to have the blockee's talk page watchlisted.  And I don't believe there was consensus for anything; thus ArbCom was asked to step in.  Repeating "consensus forming", as you do several times on this page, is a less than persuasive argument.  If there was, all the more reason for John to step aside.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you can form consensus in 20 minutes, what is clear is that the block was contentious. Contentious blocks should, per the BRD cycle, be reverted ASAP.  An improper block should not remain so that we can have six hours of discussion while an innocent person fumes. (Again, talking hypothetically---regardless of one's thoughts on MF's guilt or innocence.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant and even-handed. —WFC— 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support generally, but would recommend spelling out what "involved" means, since WP:INVOLVED changes quite a bit. So just linking there won't mean much, if this case is being referenced three years from now. --Elonka 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could easily link to a specific version, as of the date of decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of indefinite blocks
3) An indefinite block does not mean a permanent expulsion from Wikipedia, but per WP:BLOCK, is often applied when "there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This really begs the question: why are blocks ever anything other than indefinite? When I block, I issue an indefinite block, and then post what I expect the blocked editor to do to satisfy another admin that they will not repeat the same issue again.  In my mind, that makes it clear that a second set of eyes on the block (I do not handle unblock requests for my own blocks) has a clear understanding of both the violation and the expected rehabilitation. If that second set of admin eyes disagrees with me, we can hash it out, or we can seek extra input if there were to be an intractable difference of opinion.  I haven't had this happen yet... Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Straight out of the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have not seen commentary that indicates anyone considers an indefinite block to be "permanent", I have seen several comments which indicate many do consider it to be "long term". My76Strat (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit wordy. Suggest: Indefinite block does not mean permanent, it means at a minimum until editor agrees to contribute productively. Nobody Ent 15:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse, though it would have been better if Thumperward blocked with a more detailed rationale. Instead he blocked with a terse comment, and then spent more time explaining it on his talkpage, than Malleus's. He did post a detailed rationale an hour later (though he'd already been reversed before that), but it probably would have been better to post it all on Malleus's page to begin with, as there was no "this split-second" urgency for the block. I also would have liked if Thumperward could have added something to Malleus's page such as, "This block may be lifted if you are willing to acknowledge the concerns with your behavior, and indicate that you are willing to try and modify your behavior in the future." --Elonka 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking procedure
4) In general, administrators should not unblock an editor without a request from the editor, unless there is clear and obvious error, so clear that no reasonable administrator would have carried out that action.  Even so, an administrator considering an unblock should consult with the blocking administrator and allow time for the blocking administrator to post a rationale in full.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think there are some blocks that have been made over the years, particularly for "civility" issues, that are so outrageous that requiring the editor involved to complain is absurd. (I can think of one episode where a user was counselled and ceased the relevant behaviour...then was warned by another administrator... and without making another edit, got blocked by a third - all for the same edit.) However, discussion should involve the community as a whole, not just a few people on a user talk page. As well, our policy does not take into account the fact that so many blocks are now being made with talk page access cut off. Our block review process needs some examination, if Arbcom is getting an average of over 50 unblock requests a month. Risker (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Pretty clear from our blocking procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, though please make it "his or her"? :) --Elonka 17:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * rephrased to avoid pronoun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Might even consider removing "In general" since it becomes unnecessary given the remainder of the proposal. Leaky  Caldron  11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support wholeheartedly. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree because it makes collegial sense, and I thought it was already Quid pro quo to these regards. My76Strat (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John and Malleus in friendly relationship
1) At the time of his unblock of Malleus, John had an ongoing, friendly relationship with him


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * No doubt that they had discussed in an open and cordial way several topical issues, including civility, blocking and the need for Admins. in the lead up to the AN/I . Leaky  Caldron  12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would "cordial" rather than "friendly" be a better term?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think any number of simple adjectives would do, e.g. affable, genial even amiable. I don't think any particular one fits better than friendly. Leaky  Caldron  13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open to any of those, in case "friendly" is what causes someone to hesitate here. Also when I use it above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cordial" is usually code for "they hate each other but avoid punching each other". Regarding "friendly", the shoe fits. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is baloney. Most long-term editors have (or should have) either friendly or cordial relations with most other long-term editors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Too often they are "cordial" rather than friendly!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia. I would describe the relationship as "mutually respectful". Interacting in a productive, cooperative, mutually respectful and polite manner with another editor should be encouraged as default behavior, not flagged as a sign of "involvement". Geometry guy 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. I don't rightly see the point of it, unless it's building a case of friendly-->involved-->unfair. Is there a need to describe the relationship in the first place? Must we analyze their conversations, word choice, WikiLove? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The were, as editors should be, collaborative. What's the point of this? I'd never be able to get unblocked if this criteria were applied to me.  I think most active admins have had friendly (or hostile) dealings with me at some point in time. Editors who've been around a long time are well known.  Is that a crime?  If there was mentoring, John's action was appropriate.  Mentors can and do block or unblock mentorees as part of the process of helping guide them past difficulties.  Jehochman Talk 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John involved
2) John, by his own admission, and by the evidence submitted to the committee, was "involved" with respect to Malleus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think there's no reasonable dispute about this.  YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See point 1 above this one-- this is equal baloney. That long-term users frequently interact, cordially, means nothing in this context. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What Sandy said. Defining "involved" so broadly might soon get to mean that no one gets to act towards anyone anymore, and it amounts, in this case, to calling John partial (or at least suggesting that). BTW, I hope the indentations are clear here. I am not sure whether Toa Nidhiki, below, is supporting "John is involved" or Sandy's commentary. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposal is challenged as being inflammatory and accuses John of an ethical violation. Please post diffs to support this, or else strike it.  I am not aware of John admitting any such thing. Jehochman Talk 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After reviewing Wehwalt's evidence, I endorse this finding. --Elonka 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also per my evidence. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

John's unblock improper per procedure
3) John should not have unblocked Malleus as he did not consult with the blocking administrator nor allow time for the blocking administrator to post his rationale.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, even as I hold that Thumperward's block was itself "improper per procedure". My76Strat (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support. had not requested unblock, and  hadn't even been given a chance to post his rationale. Thumperward informed Malleus on December 21, 2011 at 22:43, an ANI thread was started at 23:30, Thumperward posted at ANI at 23:40 that he was writing up a rationale, which he had ready by 00:27.  But  (aka Guinnog) had already unblocked at 23:47, before Thumperward could even formulate a post. That was disrespectful to Thumperward, and not in line with procedure. --Elonka 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a block is needed urgently to stop disruption, a rationale can be typed in about one minute. If it will take an hour to gather diffs and write the rationale, that work should be done before placing the block.  The process should be to compile evidence, then decide, then act.  It seems that in this case the blocking admin may have been working backwards. The lack of a rationale made the blck appear erroneous or capricious. Jehochman Talk 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. It doesn't take an hour to figure out why you blocked someone. Just spit it out. There were hours between the incident and the block that could have been used to write up a justification for a block that any admin worthy of the tools would know required one. Thumperward made clear in the statement that he was fully aware of Malleus' history and his block log&mdash;his reasoning for setting it as indefinite. Thus, he knew that blocks of Malleus were almost always overturned. That considered, he should have already had a statement written at the time of the block to be posted with it. Or, better yet, carried on the discussion that was inevitable after the block before deciding to hit the button. Lara  19:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

John's unblock improper as involved
4) John should not have unblocked Malleus as he was involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. There was no emergency and plenty of admins around.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse, per Wehwalt's evidence. --Elonka 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That evidence has been struck.  I don't see the basis for this finding.  Jehochman Talk 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support "John was ill advised" where I can not support "John should not have" My76Strat (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman - Per my evidence then? John has accepted that his block was in error, I'm curious to know why you don't see a basis for this finding. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

John abused the tools
5) John, in unblocking Malleus, abused his administrative tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. In the absence of any reason why John, in particular, should have unblocked Malleus, I think it follows?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * opposed. I think that by the time John unblocked, there was a clear consensus that the initial block was A) over the top and B) unwarranted.  While he probably should have refrained from doing so, I would not say that following the clear consensus at ANI was an abuse.  Misuse maybe abuse no.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not quite as accurate. Six people had asked to overturn the block.  Additionally, one (Protonk) had warned against a summary unblocking without consultation.  That did not stop John. And let's face it, if John had allowed more than twenty minutes, then many of the people who have weighed in here who think the blocks were justified (I say here to include all fora which this debate has occurred in), then there would have been no consensus.  Additionally, we generally require more than twenty minutes to judge consensus.  Especially at that time of night in some areas.  What was the urgency?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For better or worse... There is where history comes in and Malleus' position within the community plays a role. Everybody knows it would be over turned... it was only a matter of who and when.  Isolated incidents against Malleus were not going to result in a block.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)  Also, as I've said before (and elsewhere) it doesn't matter; this was a contentious block.  Contentious blocks should be reverted ASAP per BRD, innocent until proven guilty, and one's right to confront one's accuser.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Those rights apply against the US and state governments, not Wikipedia. We do not put people in jail or execute them or issue fines, and no blocking them is not an equivalent, as the editor is only restricted in the web site.  It has no effect on the rest of his life.  By the way, I'm fine with "misused" rather than "abused", which alludes to the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear abuse of admin tools. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not support that John abused the tools. I believe he had a mild lapse in judgement while honestly believing he was following consensus. I do not see this mild lapse as requiring an Arbcom remedy. My76Strat (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, John did not abuse the tools. Balloonman's point is well taken, and I think John was following consensus. I do not believe they had a lapse in judgment--the block was at the least contentious, as the ANI discussion made clear, and in my opinion out of all measure. That one editor "warned against a summary unblocking without consultation"--well, that one editor was Protonk, whose dislike of MF is a matter of record, and who (I think) calls for him to be banned at every possible moment. Supporters of this statement seem to think that it doesn't matter for the blocked party how long it takes for them to be unblocked; well, I am quite sure they are wrong. John should get a kitten for sticking out his neck and unblocking; perhaps ArbCom would be kind enough to include that. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 20 minutes of "consensus". That is all John had. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW there was enough there to tell that the block was contentious---20 minutes or 2 hours, it wouldn't have mattered, the block was contentious.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support. John's action was out of line. At the very minimum he should have posted his intent to unblock to Thumperward, and then given Thumperward a chance to respond. Instead, he unblocked within 20 minutes of the start of the ANI thread, and then asked Thumperward for a rationale. This was both improper, and disrespectful. --Elonka 01:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too strong a statement. The unblock was premature, bad practice.  It could be considered a mistake or bad judgment rather than abuse.  Jehochman Talk 05:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jehochman, abuse is too strong a conclusion. I can only support an "apparent misuse" and then only in context of an admonition. My76Strat (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward's block of Malleus contentious but not obvious error
6) Although the original block of Malleus was contentious, it was not so completely unreasonable as to constitute a clear and obvious error. Accordingly, an admin seeking to unblock Malleus should have discussed the matter with Thumperward after awaiting his detailed rationale.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think this follows from the AN/I discussion, and from the purpose of an indefinite block.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure of the wording, but I will agree that no sanctions/review needs to be made of Thumper. Agree or disagree with the block, I think it was made in good faith and not so egregiously wrong.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Issuing an indefinite block, in this case, shows serious lack of judgment, and I don't accept "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" since it is much too vague. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've quoted from the policy on indefinite blocks and their purposes, Drmies.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've stated my opinion on Thumperward's block, in what I think are very diplomatic terms. To make my position clear, I'll chime in with Sandy, below: oppose, as a punitive block, in error. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, he most certainly blocked punitively for a resolved issue well after the fact, and even if he had done it immediately, many would still argue the block was uncalled for because the "uncivil" comment was directed at no one in particular. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Sandy. The block was punitive, taking place several hours after the issue had been resolved. Lara  04:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the block was both contentious, and obvious. So obvious that the first foul was called 2 minutes after Thumperward announced he had blocked MF. My76Strat (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it was contentious. If you can't ask people to stop saying "cunt" to deliberately offend, what's left of civility policy?  Knee-jerk opposition by regulars flocking to AN/I because they do not believe in civility enforcement cannot reasonably be counted as demonstrating that something is contentious, as the proper forum for their complaints is to advocate for changing policy, not to object to its enforcement.  Otherwise, six vocal people on any noticeboard could basically veto any policy.  Whether the block was wrong for being stale is a question that comes to reviewing the facts.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read more about this, it seems to me that the key issue is the timing. It's probably reasonable to block for something like this (although not universally agreed to), but there is a question as to what was being prevented, several hours after the fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The block was questionable, but not an obvious error. Malleus had violated policy, he had been blocked multiple times for similar violations, so it was appropriate to block again. I probably wouldn't have blocked indefinitely, nor would I have blocked without a more thorough explanation to Malleus's talkpage. But the block was within the realm of admin discretion, and subject to review, as are all blocks. --Elonka 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with SandyGeorgia's analysis of this proposal. In addition: Thumperward's block contains an obvious error in their rationale's facts' point 2; Thumperward's block contains an obvious error in their rationale's facts' point 3: there can be no personal attack on an unnamed group of administrators, and cunt is perfectly useful to describe a group of reprehensible people or a reprehensible process (See Macquarie, OED 2 (1989) and ODOE 3 (2010)).  The rationale is internally inconsistent: an obvious error.  Strawman 1 is incompatible with fact 2—strawman 1 notes that there is no gag on language, fact 2 indicates that the language was blockable.  ErikHaugen noted these errors in the block's rationale at 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC); Thumperward's rationale was posted at 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) by its datestamp. (diff).  Thumperward's attention had been clearly drawn to the obvious errors in their block rationale prior to posting it.  Thumperward should be admonished, and topic banned from civility administration for a period while they overcome their inability to present internally consistent rationales, apply community consensus on language in administrative actions, and identify the difference between personal attacks and criticisms of bodies of people displaying reprehensible conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thumperward's block only appears to be contentious, and then only if you are missing or misconstruing some fact, as I apparently was. My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the timing of the block hours after the issue had completely settled down, which was the worst thing about it.  Redaction, with consent from MF, plus a light-weight suggestion that it was time for snittiness to stop,  was all that was required, and it had already been done.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

John continues to adhere to his position
7) John, in his statements to the Committee, shows no awareness that his unblock was improper. Accordingly, there is a significant risk he will repeat his actions, given similar circumstances.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think I was very gentle with John in my initial statement, hoping he would say "Yeah, I goofed."  If he had, I wouldn't bother with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Query the header for this section is that he maintain his position, but the underlying comment implies otherwise. Is supportin this query supporting his keeping or losing the bit?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) NOTE: section heading was changed from "continue to maintain his position" to "contiues to adhere to his position"... thus, a different header has been provided which clarifies my question.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. While I don't think his unblock was egregiously wrong or merits sanctions, he probably should have left it to somebody else.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aligned with Balloonman here. To go further, I do not feel John is "unaware" or even "likely to repeat" where he erred. My76Strat (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I think John would think twice on this subject. he has learned something...--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree per John's recent statement. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

John admonished
1) John is admonished for his misuse of administrative tools, and is directed to follow policy in his use of his tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I'm not wedded to any particular remedy, and all this is off the top of my head.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Misuse I will support weakly, abuse I would have to think twice about.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is stated as "misuse" on the evidence page . Maybe Wehwalt agrees to change the reference to "abuse" above? Leaky  Caldron  17:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "misuse" is what is stated in policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could support such an admonition but I would prefer calling it an "apparent misuse" noting that at times the appearance of a COI is sufficient enough reason to avoid an action. My76Strat (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At a minimum. --Elonka 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Relatively neutral on more severe sanctions. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

John restricted
2) John shall not block or unblock any autoconfirmed editor, nor shall he undertake any administrative action regarding Malleus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This should be 2 seperate remedies. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See comment below. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not support any remedy that partially restricts administrator tools. Editors either are administrators or are not administrators. Risker (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I see the first part of this as something that can be quietly removed after a few months, and assuming John makes it clear he "gets" the policy aspects.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First part, opposed. MIGHT support if there was a time frame.  Second part, even if he wasn't involved before, he is now; so it goes without saying.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds punitive as opposed to preventative. --Rschen7754 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest splitting this into two remedies: 1) an indefinite duration restriction against administrative action regarding Malleus, broadly construed 2) a shortish (say, one month) restriction against blocking or unblocking autoconfirmed editors. 1) seems a no-brainier given what occurred and 2) seems necessary as John appears to have lost perspective on how blocks and unblocks should work Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it as it is for now and people can say if they support each part. All these are are suggestions to the arbs anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, then:

2A) Until the restriction is removed by ArbCom or by a successful RfA, John shall not block or unblock any autoconfirmed user.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If we are to broadly prevent an administrator from using an aspect of the tools in such a manner, I feel it would be more appropriate to remove them entirely. This sort of remedy creates a "partial admin," a concept which the community has rejected on a number of occasions. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Weak support. Seems a little harsh, but I support the idea in theory. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One arguably bad block/unblock should not result in loss of blocking privileges. Lara  04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose; this is much too harsh a penalty for an unblock that other admins (including an arbitrator) indicated they were also willing to (and about to) make. 28bytes (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this remedy. My76Strat (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, and agree with Hersfold. John misused his access, so his sysop bit could reasonably be removed. --Elonka 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. His apology should be sufficient. No doubt he will be more mindful to avoid COI in future. Leaky  Caldron  12:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

2B) John shall not henceforth undertake any administrative action regarding Malleus, or with any other editor concerning whom he would be deemed involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * He has shown he cannot be trusted to use the tools without bias, and to avoid future error, support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this intuitive restriction. My position follows an earlier comment where I stated my belief that the appearance of a COI is sufficient reason. My76Strat (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

John may seek a new RfA or modification to remove restrictions
3) These restrictions may be removed by a modification request, or by John initiating a new RfA, attendant to the usual risks of an administrator undertaking a new RfA.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This gives John an out in the event he thinks ArbCom was wrong.  There's an obvious risk though, if he fails the RfA, he's not an admin anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaky  Caldron  12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this ever been done before? --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  16:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I opposed the other sanctions, I don't see this as necessary. He is now official "involved" with Malleus, thus would be ill advised to ever take admin actions there (regardless of what else occurs.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the ways we prevent a "next time", not necessarily with Malleus, but with anyone, is to deter those who would enable. John was involved, he unblocked anyway.  I wouldn't mind seeing admins chew on it and consider if an unblock of someone they admire is really, really worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05 
 * This does not work for me. If by chance John succeeded an RfA it would mean he had community trust. It would not mean the appearance of the COI regarding unblocking MF had vanished. Yet by this provision, he would then be free to do so. My76Strat (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. In essence, 2B) applies to all admins as the tools aren't meant to be used in a situation where you're involved (except to rectify WP:BLP problems) and this implies that it could be relaxed for John. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn, please remove.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversial language
1) Words or phrases of a controversial or offensive nature should be used sparingly, if at all. If deemed necessary, such comments should only be made in the context of a well-rounded argument. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of comments made solely to cause offence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer: I've never drafted an Arbcom principle before, and the wording may need significant alteration. Judging by the Arb's initial comments, interpretation of civility enforcement was the cause of what appears to have been a wheel war, which in turn is why this case was accepted. This is therefore an issue that needs tackling. I hope that those that disagree with my proposal will acknowledge that I am trying to deal with the right issue, even if they consider it to be the wrong way. —WFC— 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who dislikes harsh language, I support. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the concept but do believe it needs additional clarity. As worded, I can envision this provision being used to support the use of "controversial language" as equally as it could be used to suppress the same. It becomes a "flavor of the day" remedy in such fashion. My76Strat (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, with respect for the effort. The proposal is too vague at every point. Offensive words (whatever those are) should not be used. Incivility never rounds off an argument. And, we should not be arguing; we should be collaborating. But your headed in a positive direction.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree that "argument" was a particularly poorly selected word. —WFC— 16:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has recently and definitively rejected this proposal, as indicated in evidence, and repeatedly referred to. (Your proposal is well worded, well done, but it is inconsistent with clear community consensus.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what clear community consensus you refer to, but would cite your evidence as an example of what is generally considered "uncivil language" being used in the context of furthering an argument. —WFC— 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the status quo, mate. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And that differs from this proposal in what way? —WFC— 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the intention of this proposal is to attempt to serve as a clarification of the status quo, regardless of whether that status quo is to everyone's tastes. If this were accepted, other principles would also need to be adopted to ensure that no user could use this to argue that direct abuse such as "shut the fuck up you dick (or the female equivalent)" is justifiable under this principle. —WFC— 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the status quo isn't to your tastes, the Village Pump is that way. The community is very clear on the fact that I can use fuck cunt dick and shit to describe objects and processes (where not associated with a specific individual), they've been repeatedly tested as emphatics, and the community has rejected banning these.  You seem to be talking about personal attacks; which is very very different to "controversial language." Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And where, my omniscient friend, does this clearly defined status quo draw the line between what is and isn't a personal attack? "Shut the fuck up you dick"? "Learn to fucking read"? "What the fuck are you on about"? "You're being fucking ridiculous"? "I don't give the fuck about certain people's sensitivities"? Clearly some of them are direct personal attacks, others could easily be interpreted as tinkering with adverbs to get around NPA. —WFC— 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to introduce policy because you don't like words, go to the Village Pump. Nobody has introduced significant criticism of the personal attacks policy or enforcement during this case: the NPA policy and enforcement don't seem to be failing, they appear to be operating normally. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Existing civility policy is incapable of handling this sort of case
1) Wikipedia's civility policy is largely subjective. Good faith disagreement over what constitutes long-term and/or egregious incivility is therefore to be expected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer. This should of course be used alongside a complementary statement that wheel-warring should nonetheless be avoided at all costs (I haven't made such a proposal because there are already several to that effect). —WFC— 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Create a roadmap for handling future cases such as this one
1) Arbcom asks the community to design a 'roadmap' for how future disputes of this nature should be handled, from the very first allegation of incivility, right up to the point where an Arbcom case is considered the only option. The committee is prepared to offer its assistance in drafting the 'roadmap', should the community request it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer. This would admittedly be a disappointing outcome, but we have to cover all the bases here. It may be that the committee feels that it does not have the ability to solve the wider issue, because to do so would require imposing a wholesale re-write of policy on the community. If that proves to be the case, this might be a viable option. —WFC— 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Default status in regards to contentious blocks
1) When a block is deemed contentious by two or more admins, the default status should revert to unblocked. Reblocks should only occur after a consensus has been established. Added "by two or more admins" for clarification request below


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Is this supported by any policy or guideline? I don't recall any such directive, and in fact the blocking policy appears to imply the opposite: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter [... or ...] a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard". This seems to imply a consensus must be gained before any further action is taken. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept, particularly in situations where another administrator has taken mitigating actions without using tools. Blocks should not take precedence over other dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As proposer The normal cycle of discussion is BRD---Bold, Revert, Discuss. When a block is contentious, then discussion should occur until a consensus can be determined.  In this scenario, the principles of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one's accuser should apply.  This would alleviate the supposed "first/second mover advantage."--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree but I'm keen nevertheless to know how a case might be "deemed" contentious? Little doubt the blocked editor likely thinks it is but that is not what you mean. Please clarify the process of determining contentious in a manner that could be applied across a wide range of circumstances. Leaky  Caldron  20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Modified header to include "2 or more admins"---basically, if one admin thinks a block is justified and another doesn't, the default is to leave unblocked.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This basically guarantees that editors with a following of supporters will be automatically unblocked as soon as they complain about the block, so it's not workable and would actually act to entrench the problems here. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This requires a policy discussion of the community, beyond the remit of ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this would just cause more chaos. --Elonka 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have previously suggested Block_protocol. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right guilty until proven innocent and let's deny people the right to defend themselves when challenged. Defaulting to block is a very bad idea.  Being blocked pisses people off---it says they did something wrong and need to be punished.  If the block is contentious, let's not punish the person until/unless it is clearly needed.  We pretend that blocks are to be preventive not punative, but that's bunk.  For most established sincere editors, blocks are punative.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Defaulting to unblock is a very bad idea too, as it allows whatever trouble lead to the block to continue. Where a vocal minority of administrators actively oppose a particular policy or an editor has an entrenched corps of administrator supporters, as is alleged by some in this case, it completely disables the community's ability to deal with things.  The highest aim here is to facilitate an orderly environment for building the encyclopedia, not a fair system to declare who's guilty or avoid pissing people off.  If a block is bad, surely there's time (more than twenty minutes) for a proper review rather than allowing the first administrator who opposes it to press the undo button.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of points: 1) It wouldn't be one admin usually. There were several who responded before John undid the block, but if one admin does unblock and the community felt that the block was warranted, then the specified admin does run the risk of having people seek actions against said admin.  Also, premature unblocks could result in a backlash affect against the person unblocked if there wasn't some discussion. 2) If a person is unblocked and continues his/her behavior, then those actions can be taken into account during the discussion.  In this case, had Hawkeye mentioned Malleus' FC comment in his reblock or highlighted it in the discussion, I think the events here might have transpired differently.  There is a substantial difference between calling an unnamed group of admins "cunts" and calling a specific user a "fucking cunt" DURING a civility discussion.  That comment would have made it nigh impossible for defenders to object because it was over the top.  3) You raise a point about the possibility of an "editior [having] an entrenched corps of administrator supports, as is alleged by some in this case."  Well, if said allegation is true, then guess what the problem exists and is compounded by the fact that we do not have an established default.  What we currently have is an environment where recriminations and continual bickering occurs.    4) Finally, if a block is obviously bad, then the block is obviously bad and should be lifted.  "We know you didn't commit the crime, but I think we'll leave you in jail for another 2 years nonetheless."--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Balloonman, being bold in editing and the idea of the BRD cycle make sense in mainspace, but are they really appropriate for admin actions? In particular, should admins be encouraged to be bold in blocking?  One of the problems shown by Malleus' block log appears to be an overabundance of bold blocking.  It seems to me that whilst reverting contentious bold blocks is a reasonable idea, avoiding contentious bold blocks being made in the first place would be a better outcome for everyone.  EdChem (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this for practical reasons. My76Strat (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoiding bad blocks in the first place is ideal, but when a bad block is placed, it should be reverted ASAP. This is to ensure that when contentious blocks are made, that the default remains in the UNBLOCKED/ORIGINAL status.  It takes away the so called first/second mover advantage by declaring that the default status is unblock.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold... that is partly what makes this contentious. If you look at the quick consensus that was forming (granted after only a short time) it was snowballing towards "obviously bad block." Thus would qualify for the reversal. IMO, if an admin feels strongly enough that a block was unjustified to "risk it", then it was a bad block. Example, when Hawkeye reblocked Malleus, I've gone on record as saying that I was minutes away from unblocking him myself. I felt strongly enough about the issue and that Hawkeye acted without proper justification and was wheel warring, that I would have "risked it." If it had resulted in my being desysopped or what have you, it was a risk that I was willing to take because I felt that strongly that Hawkeye was unjustified in his action.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Admins failed to address an ongoing issue
1) Malleus has routinely been subject to various warnings, ANI Reports, and blocks. In each isolated case, the accusations against Malleus were deemed insufficeint to act upon.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It might be worth considering whether that death spiral Balloonman alludes to is mine or Wikipedia's. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As Proposer The individual cases brought before ANI have tended to lack substance and have routinely been overturned by the rest of the admin core. Malleus was never given a warning/sanction that had teeth to it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What has happened, in most cases, is that an admin has seen fit to unblock without consultation with the blocking admin.  In a narrow sense, you are correct, as that was the position of the unblocking admin.  However, you make it sound like that was the judgment of the community.  --Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a failure of the sdmin core. The admin core failed to do anything substantive.  All that ever happened is that somebody would raise a stink.  Then be shot down at ANI and on various talk pages.  Ye who shouts the loudest wins.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to agree with this apparent failure of the community/admins. in relation to the subject going back many years, where is the actual evidence by way of diffs. to support the inaction described? Another way of arguing it might be that a group of adherents regularly arrive at AN/I to talk down and effectively filibuster the proposed discussion. I am not making that claim without evidence, but if you are an experienced Admin here making a proposal you must produce evidence to support it. Leaky  Caldron  20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically all of the ANI cases/blocks/etc are proof that nothing has been done. The fact that Malleus can be offensive is well known; but nobody admin nor community has done anything to stop the behavior.  In fact, when people have acted, those people have been reverted and shot down---thereby bolstering poor behavior on Malleus' part.  IMO, it was a death spiral that has spun out of control.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 06:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RE Malleus... it was a joint death spiral in my opinion. Your poor behavior and ineptitude of the system to do anything fueled one another until they spun out of control and we ended up here.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Community failed to address an ongoing issue
2) Despite ongoing repeated issues with Malleus, those who saw him as overly disruptive failed to initiate an RfC against him or his actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Given that over 100 people commented on the proposal to open this case, there was clearly enough concern within the community to have initiated an RfC. The unwillingness to even make the effort to address these concerns in a more constructive process than an arbitration case is a serious failing on the part of the community, in particular on the part of the several administrators who ought to be supporting rather than undermining this aspect of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it may be interesting to consider why the community were unwilling or unable to get together to address this issue, though I'm not certain we'll get an answer; and simply urging the community to do something about "repeat offenders" is not focused enough. Who are the repeat offenders in this case? Some will say Malleus, some will say the blocking admins and some will saying the unblocking admins. And it may well be that the lack of consensus in this matter is why there was no action: the feeling that any community debate would end in a deadlock. Though I think that by itself is probably only part of the picture, and there may well be other reasons.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  03:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As the filer of this case, I feel the need to address this and explain why I brought this case to RFAR instead of RFC. However, I have already explained it here, and would rather not have to type it all out again, sorry. <font face="comic sans ms">Alexandria (chew out) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker, but given that ArbCom decided to accept the case rather than await the outcome an RfC which we were intending to establish, this finding would amount to ArbCom admonishing itself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * as proposer No RfC was ever brought against him. While I defended him against most isolated attacks, I never understood why nobody initiated an RfC.  I know why I didn't, but I couldn't believe his detractors never did.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I could support except for the conclusory heading and the word "failed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, as a community, the community failed to do anything. The ANI reports/blocks etc failed to address the issue.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You talk about "detractors". In any incident there will usually be two parties (others might turn up later). It is not necessary to be a detractor of MF to end up in a dispute, it can happen for a variety of reasons. Are you certain that "detractors" is appropriate and impartial for an Admin. to describe fellow editors? Do you think that fear of intimidation or simply apathy might be a reason why RFC/U has never been attempted? Leaky  Caldron  20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cases tend not to end up at Arbcom if people are apathetic about it. —WFC— 22:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC is a fundamentally flawed process and the last two I have participated in have left me feeling jaded (One I initiated, the other I tried to stop escalating. Neither were likely to have a productive outcome.) They are designed for pile on against an editor and therefore other editors will instantly become defensive on this matter. Furthermore, given Malleus' own discription of the process, I do not believe that an RfC would be productive in this instance.  <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But as has been noted previously it's the only one we have . The KW and BD rfcs are reason to fix the RFC process, not skip it for MF. Nobody Ent 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True, it is the only one we have and it would certainly have been preferable to a unilateral indefinite block. I don't however see the point of continuing to use a process which won't do any good, that's bureaucracy for it's own sake. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, RfC/U generally doesn't work. But it is still part of the dispute resolution system.  The community failed to initiate one against MF despite issues going back at least 4 years.  It is part of the communities failure to deal with MF/Civility.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye... Huh? You wrote, "given that ArbCom decided to accept the case rather than await the outcome an RfC which we were intending to establish."  That is news to me.  I just reviewed the case request page and there was a clear conensus that going thru that stage at this point would be a waste of time.  But I couldn't find anythin on that page to indicate that ArbCOM should reject the case because there was a pending RFC/U.  If you are going to chastise ArbCOM for accepting this case because some unknown individuals were "intending to establish" an RfC, you need to have let others know.  Hell, I just went through your edit history to find evidence of this RfC, and couldn't find anything... so I'm guessing this was done off WP?  In which case how could ArbCOM know?  ArbCOM is acting, but only because the people who wanted to silence MF failed to get an RFC off the ground.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, Why no prior action: 1. see Wikiquette_assistance/archive96 for prior attempt to address perceived incivility by MF. 2. endemic wikipedia civility problem. Nobody Ent 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of "the community failed" I am more inclined that "the community was failed". My76Strat (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of his reputation, Malleus was on a shorter leash than most
3) Malleus' was often brought to ANI or blocked for issues that would have been ignored if they had been said/done by anybody else.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As Wehwalt notes, this is not possible to support through evidence; as such, I don't think it's appropriate to include as a FoF. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * @Elonka: see the statement I made in evidence. To keep within the 500-word limit I could only give one example, but it's endemic. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * as proposer Malleus was often blocked without warning and for reasons that other people would not have been blocked for. Over eager admins applied blocks knowing that they would be reverted.  I suspect that this cycle simply spiraled out of control.  (Note, I know that Malleus' detractors will oppose this, but it has to be said.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Impossible to prove or disprove. And please don't characterize those who disagree with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse per sycophant and arse.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This case is new for me, but from reviewing the Evidence I get an impression that the opposite is true. Any average editor would be banned from Wikipedia for such a string of actions by now. - BorisG (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with BorisG. I think that what's overlooked in this proposed finding and also in the remedy proposed directly below is a sort of blame-the-victim thinking applied to the community. What I mean is that the existence of a very entrenched group of supporters associated with long-time editors like Malleus means that large numbers of less-experienced users can feel intimidated by small groups of experienced users. Telling those less-experienced users to try harder is the wrong solution, and potentially very hurtful to Wikipedia in the long run. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably true, but hard to prove. I also wouldn't quite put it that way.  It's his history, not his reputation.  And the leash isn't necessarily shorter, it's just that everyone who looks at the history knows there is a leash.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. SandyGeorgia's evidence supports this, and it is surely not the extent of relevant examples. For individual instances, Malleus has been more harshly punished than is the norm. The issue is compounding in that each incident causes additional strife on both sides, leaving Malleus more embittered and likely to react harshly, and admins more frustrated and quicker to hit the block button. Lara  04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. SandyGeorgia's evidence shows the opposite (see analysis of evidence: "SandyGeorgia's concerns with TCO"). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose IAW BorisG. I think this finding is confusing higher visibility with a shorter leash. My76Strat (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the facts show a longer leash than most. "Why do you keep arresting me for jaywalking?" "Because you're in the middle of the street!"--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would be very interested to see evidence showing that any administrator was clearly aware of egregious behavior by one editor, and chose to ignore it, but then saw the same behavior by Malleus, and took action. It's difficult to prove what an administrator did or didn't see, but if there's proof of that kind of behavior, that would speak very poorly of that administrator's judgment. --Elonka 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus: Thanks, I did read your evidence. However, if a problem is genuinely endemic, perhaps you could come up with some diffs that were more recent than 2008? --Elonka 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka, take a look at the ANI/Block history. There is a solid pattern.  Malleus makes a comment/statement.  Somebody sees said comment/statement and blocks Malleus because he is a problem child.  The issue is taken to ANI, whereupon Malleus is unblocked and the blocker/complainer is chastised.  This could almost be a finding of fact!  Now what it means is somewhat up for interpretation/viewpoint.  Malleus gets taken to ANI on a regular basis; but at the end of the day he usually walks away relatively unscathed with people objecting that the specific case doesn't warrant action.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, I agree with you on most of those points. My query to Malleus though, is because I am trying to give a fair hearing to his side of the situation. He (as I understand it) is claiming that the civility standards are being enforced unevenly, and that he has been being blocked for some statements, which are ignored by administrators if other editors make those same statements. I think it's a very reasonable claim to make, but in order to take action on it, we really need to see some proof. So far all he has provided are a few diffs from 2008. If I would have been reviewing these in 2008, I probably would have agreed with him on some of them. But what I'd like to see now are diffs from 2011 or 2012. If there are admins that are still doing this kind of thing, let's see it. This Civility enforcement case is the right time to bring up these issues, and deal with the problems. --Elonka 03:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a hard one to quantify, but let me ask you a question. Do you always keep your cool?  When you work on articles have you had articles where a debate has occurred and where the debate has turned somewhat south?  Where you've said things with a little edge knowing that you were pushing (if not breaking) the boundary?  Have you then responded to your target with sarcasm and/or ridicule?  I know that I have and I think if we were honest, most people who have worked on the project a lot probably have.  Article development is a little more personal than discussing policies or deletion of an article---it's an art and people get more emotionally attached to articles they've worked on than the latest AFD.
 * One of the things that differentiates Malleus is that he works on so many articles on so many subjects. While some people will work in 2 or 3 silos, Malleus works on them all.  His silo is article improvement and if there is somebody willing to try to improve an article, then he'll help out.  Because of his productivity, he probably gets into more of these debates than others.  Because of his reputation (which is earned) people are more likely to take offense at his comments and to respond in kind.  Malleus can be an ass/arse.  I've told him that many a time.  But I think it is a combination of factors... and his reputation plays a role in that.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, your reply does not seem to have any answers at all to my question. Did you post this in the right section? --Elonka 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Common Pattern regarding Malleus
There has been a repeating pattern involving Malleus. Somebody blocks him, opens an ANI case against him, or warns him on his talk page about civility. People swarm the discussion from all sides of the issue. In the end, often after substantial discussion, no meaningful action has been taken one way or another.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I tried to word this in such a way that it was without judgment on what this pattern means/represents. Some undoubtable will argue that this pattern is proof that Malleus is a repeat offender.  Some undoubtably will argue that this patter is proof that others have it out for Malleus.  This finding does not say either of those things, but rather represents a fact that I think most of us will agree to---that there is a pattern of events that surrounds Malleus and issues of civility.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that no meaningful action has been taken. The action to dismiss and take no action is meaningful at some level. I prefer a conclusion that "regardless of action, MF's tendency to recidivate does not diminish". My76Strat (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Community needs to be more proactive in dealing with ongoing issues
1) The community/admins need to be more proactive in initiating RfC's against repeat offenders---especially when ANI has proven inept at dealing with the issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As proposer an RfC on Malleus was long over due. The RfC would have either vindicated him and condemned the admins who routinely blocked or would have chastized him and given a solid footing for future actions.  An ArbCOM case should not have been required without an RfC.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the purpose of this, but ANI should be tried before RfC/U is considered. I would therefore tweak the middle bit to "repeat offenders, where ANI has proven inept..." —WFC— 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed as worded. I don't think it is in the remit of AC to tell volunteers what they should or "need" to do.  The outside best would be encouraged to — Ched :  ?  22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless people who do so are treated significantly better than I was, and are adequately defended against false accusations and pile-on attacks resulting from those, it's unlikely in the extreme that most members of the community would even want to attempt that! The "civility Police" label is tantamount to hanging a "beat me!" sign about one's neck. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is substance in this proposal, albeit misaligned. Pesky, if ArbCom succeeds here, your prudent concerns may see answer; they deserve alleviation. This proposal is better aligned by stating that the RfC process needs to become more user friendly. I have taken baby steps no less than three times to start an RfC only to be discouraged by sheer bewilderment. Oh yeah, and the potential for reprisal. It's a bad mix; at least make the act of filling one, easier. My76Strat (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The very extensive findings below and in evidence (re: Risker's request for collaborative evidence) indicates that RFC/U is a gross failure, and a disciplinary weapon masquerading as a dispute resolution process. As such this proposal is unwarranted. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Community civility standards
1) The standards of civility are a matter for community policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely agree with the observations made by Pesky. Someone needs to be mandated to grab this bull by the horns and rethink the whole civility issue, because all we have right now is anarchy and chaos. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * They may be, indeed - but what we have at the moment is totally chaotic and dysfunctional. Different standards are being applied left, right and centre.  And I can't see any way that the community would be able, arguing each sentence out to get to a consensus agreement, to re-write a civility policy.  Remember the RfC on whether or not to move three words from the first sentence of WP:V just a bit further down the page, and add a clarifying section?  The build-up to that lasted for nine months at least, the RfC was a shambles, it became so involved that it was well-nigh impossible to judge consensus - some people saw an overwhelmingly-obvious consensus, others didn't ... and it's still chuntering quietly on to see if "improved rearrangement of wording" could go up for another RfC.  And we think the community can come up with reasonable, sensible changes to the civility policy?   In less than a few decades? No - it needs a few dedicated people to have a mandate to rebuild the whole thing from scratch, and only once it's rebuilt have an RfC on "Is this clear enough?"  That's the only way I can see it ever improving.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and especially in this instance with MF as well. In the spirit of Catch Me If You Can, I see hardly a better soul than MF to assist in the creation of actionable prose that clearly sets the metes and bounds of such a necessary policy provision. This needs a done stamp, ASAP. My76Strat (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
2) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.
 * Per EEML Principle 1, specified for IRC


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Is this an issue here? Granted, I haven't read the evidence in full yet, but I wasn't aware that IRC was involved in this case. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fifelfoo: Are you able to provide evidence of the abuse you appear to be asserting (obviously not logs, but the references you mention)? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fifelfoo: I'm having a hard time seeing what your diffs are demonstrating. A good many of them don't appear to relate to civility enforcement at all, and by pulling primarily from one user's talk page, you're also not showing widespread concerns, but only the concerns of a single user. Some context, rather than just the diffs, would also be appreciated to assist in understanding. It's important to answer the "so what?" question: "This happens!" "So what, why's it a problem?" "Because it is!" doesn't cut it at arbitration. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Can you explain the relevance of IRC here? Giacomo Returned 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the long running civility issues that lead to this case, repeated reference has been made to administrators discussing wikipedia actions on IRC. Who can tell what veracity exists in this, as the most relevant official IRC channel is closed to non-administrators and not logged.  This isn't a checkuser or WMF channel; it is merely an en wikipedia administrator channel.  Similarly, from my weak understanding, there is no logging process of any of the other major en wikipedia channels that are officially operated.  In fact, wikimedia proposes that only Arbitrators have access to some logs.  So any action I may take to attempt to solicit evidence regarding this would require administrator action.  See wikimedia's stance at logging.  Resolving the meme of off-wiki administrator inappropriate discussion of administrative action would require either restatement of the EEML principles, or, administrators requiring logs from these "official" yet uncontrolled off wiki bodies. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is all beginning to sound horribly familiar and déjà vu; I hadn't realise that IRC was going to be an issue on this case. I had been assured tafter previous Arb cases concerning IRC that the en wikipedia administrator channel was being carefully regulated by former Arbs, checkusers and trustworthy admins - are you saying this is not the case? Giacomo Returned 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Hersfold: Surely, in the secretive IRC channel (controlled by arbcom and J wales) it is for you admins to prove that it is not, rather than Fifelfoo to prove that it is. Giacomo Returned 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To reply to Hersfold, I have Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence of user concern of IRC in relation to the underlying civility enforcement dispute.  In particular the early 2011 concerns discussed related to a named party, a potentially poor administrative decision, and appropriateness of discussing matters on IRC.  I feel that the community concerns make it a reasonable supposition to believe that evidence may exist within IRC logs.  This is amplified by the 2007 case, the 2007 arbitrator personal opinion, 2008 issues with IRC, and complaints about the quality of the culture of the off-wikipedia exclusivist IRC community.  This, and the privacy and inaccessibility to user scruitiny of channels that duplicate the purposes of AN and AN/I lead me to believe that evidence may exist on IRC.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Admins IRC channel has always been a place for them to misbehave and insult other editors. I rememember well when and admin and clerk to the the arbcom insulted one of our senior lady admins. Those that rule IRC were furious that behaviour there had leeked out and even more furious that I (a non admin) had dared to edit their precious wikipedia page describing it. This edit was enough to cause an Arbcom case against me, but the insults were not. I had incurred the wroth of the great David Gerard (Jimbo's favourite Wikipedia spokeman). today, the Admins and Arbcom are still making the rules up as they go along - no one has the remotest idea where they stand on civility and the confusion allows editors like Malleus to be persecuted on the whims of their enemies. If the Arbcom don't like you you will be persecuted, if they do, you won't.  Giacomo Returned 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To reply to Hersfold, regarding the context of the diffs:
 * My recollection of a year of reading WT:FAC, and highly trafficked and viewed talk pages of editors primarily dealing with content creation and polishing, is that there is a great deal of concern over off-wiki consensus cultures on IRC, and their intervention on en.wikipedia WMF employees, in attempts to form policy, in actions as administrators, and as editors. This has been part of a greater concern at WP:FAC over the quality of encyclopaedic administration, policy and WMF intervention into the encyclopaedia over the last year.  WP:FAC has a consensus culture of not dog-pilling support for valued statements, but merely observing them.  This is why you may see a limited number of editors from that open and recorded community immediately voicing this concern: when they speak aptly they are not opposed, and when they speak aptly they speak for the group of editors who attend to that area of the encyclopaedia.  Whether that concern is true or not; it is grounds for Arbitrators to use whatever powers they have over the IRC to determine by something as simple as text searching, whether the IRC logs are relevant to the problem of the poor quality of civility administration on en.wikipedia.
 * In the diffs and link I provided, a couple of editors discussed wikimedia supported IRC channels as dubious, and a threat to consensus. One, in particular, directly addressed civility consensus over one of the parties named here.  Given that this discussion is about the community's failure to obtain administrative consensus over civility; and, given the concern regarding off-wiki "consensus" formation; I feel this is reasonable terrain.
 * To provide more context, here are some archived discussions from another users page:
 * "We can talk about how we split the money off-line, in our private IRC channel. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)" in the context of this discussion of being hounded off wikipedia by "kiddies".
 * "It can only be a mater of time before we are all once again tried by IRC as hapened so often in that dispicable era. Too sad. Giacomo Returned 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)" in the context of a discussion about this case opening.
 * "Don't shoot the messenger, but someone who watched the whole thing unfold on wiki (I didn't) contacted me to say that it looked like you were baited, and the whole thing was cooked up on IRC-- not about GTBacchus, but why that fish got involved to begin with. MF, don't take the bait when the kiddies are after 'ya! It reminds me of what they did to The Fat Man; it makes them feel powerful to take down someone of stature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)" and "I don't think that GTB did anything other than wander in where angels ought to have feared to tread. I had a pretty good idea that the whole thing had been cooked up somewhere; too many kiddies peddling the same distorted version of the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)" in the context of this discussion about a templating event placed on a user party to this case. ; This relates to This WQA where the role of off-wiki advice supplied by IRC in relation to one of the parties and their civility is brought up.
 * And "Just as a matter of fact, I didn't tell GTBacchus to "fuck off". I said that to some kiddie who was put up to placing a warning on my talk page for the question I asked at Ironhold's RfA by his mates on IRC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)" in relation to this discussion about the quality of administration, and civility.
 * This diff in relation to RfA] (7 September 2011). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Following on: "This happens" it is a problem because we have no way of determining who did what, but they're "officially" connected with us, but they don't keep public logs and they lock the editorial community out. The only grounds needed to use Arbitrator power to raid their logs, is a concern in the community.  I trust that the concern is reasonable—IRC use correlates with an age range, an editing style, a language use.  I trust that the concern is reasonable—some of the individuals evaluating that IRC channels have a negative affect on consensus and community action are quite adept at this kind of evaluation.  I trust that this concern is reasonable—the concern has been present for a year since an editor launched an WQA and sought advice on IRC, being messaged specifically regarding civility enforcement on a user party to this case.  That's fairly good evidence that IRC have directly intervened into civility issues with a user party to this case.  That's good enough grounds for an Arbitrator, or the community, to go through the logs of a group that claim they're officially involved in en.wikipedia but don't actually make their actions available; and don't have an WMF administration of US law issues style excuse for doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "IRC use correlates with an age range, an editing style, a language use." IRC use correlates with age range? Data?  Source?  I'm (generally) a regular in IRC, with the exception of these past couple of weeks.  I'm also what I consider to be well-educated, and I have five grandchildren, three of whom are school age.  I know of several other IRC-regulars (not naming names) who are quite definitely not in the younger generation.  Let's face it, IRC-type chat dates back a long, long way - and some of us were using net-chat of various kinds decades ago. And the -en channel is hardly "exclusive" - to the best of my knowledge, anyone not banned from it can join it and see what happens there.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great. I too was "here" before there was a "here."  Gopher was an amazing development.  I missed out on the great renaming but I managed to experience pre-September.  My first "real" as in networked computer was a PDP.  And yet IRC use correlates to age;  The vast, super majority of people who use it are clearly generationally marked.  Idling doesn't relate to the unmeasurable as unlogged herniation of "consensus" off wiki. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know there's a huge assumption that IRC-users are generationally marked, and yes, I know of several IRC-regulars who are indeed very much of the younger generation. But, unless someone reveals their actual calendar age, mistakes are easy to make.  Quite a surprising number of people have been shaken to the core when they discovered I was a grandmother - apparently, in IRC, my "persona" makes me appear to be a late-teen or early-twenties male! So, people can appear to be of a very different age and background than they actually are - on IRC (and on-wiki), we can't see the wrinkles, the grey hairs, and all those other things we're glad people can't see ... it's beautiful that it's possible to have a high-intellect, erudite, playful, profoundly philosophical conversation whilst schlepping around in PJ's, and with unbrushed hair, and swigging wine directly from the bottle, and all those other lovely plebian things we do when nobody can actually see us ;P
 * For a very long time, there's been a similar assumption that new page patrol is inhabited for the main part by kiddies - but to the best of my knowledge, the recent survey has the majority of patrollers being over 21 and with at least graduate-level education. Not at all a parallel to what "everyone knows". We need, as intelligent people, to be very, very wary of placing too much faith in what "everyone knows". We must beware of WikiMyths.  And before we start even considering including WikiMyths in any kind of evidence, they would need to be as reliably-sourced as the most contentious statement we would ever include in a BLP. Without hard evidence, reliably supported, WikiMyths are precisely that - myth.  Hearsay evidence. Chinese whispers.  We absolutely mustn't consider WikiMyth to be fact until there is incontrovertible evidence, not only that "the majority" of any given group are what we've assumed them to be, but that the particular individual(s) being considered  also fit that description.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While the principle is sound in itself, debating the merits of proposing it here serves this discussion as superfluous at best. My76Strat (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication
2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.
 * Per EEML Principle 9, specified for IRC


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Absolutely true. But we must not ever make an assumption that this has taken place unless and until we have hard evidence that it has done so. It's very hard for the accused to prove a negative.  Innocent until proven guilty, please.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with TPC here. True, but nigh impossible to prove and or enforce.  There is circumstantial evidence that it happened here on both sides---but where is appropriate and inappropriate actions deliniated?  On the one hand, SandyGeorgia advised Malleus to write his statement offline and to get feedback before posting it.  I think her rationale and reasoning here, however, would be an acceptable exception to the above principle.  On the other hand, we have a mysterious comment from Hawkeye that there was a movement to start an RfC against Malleus.  I couldn't find any evidence of said discussion from Hawks edits so I hafta assume it was via IRC or some other off wiki communication.  But again, if so, is that inappropriate usage of off channel communications?  I can see the same reasoning used to form a well formatted properly documented RfC that I could see being used to write a well formated properly documented ArbCOM Defense.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This principle reaches a false conclusion that all private conversations are improper. My76Strat (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct
3) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in IRC channels in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.
 * Per EEML Principle 11, specified for IRC


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't thnk the above statement is quite corect. IRC is very much under the rule of Mr Wales and the Arbcom per the official statement here. I'm sure the "spirit of loving harmony" ia as alive there now as it was then. Giacomo Returned 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is under the loving spirit of wikimedia, then they can either choose to log channels such as #wikipedia-en-admins much like WP:ANI is logged, or wikimedia can withdraw their support. It is highly disturbing that wikimedia is operating a clique that needs to repeatedly regulate off-wiki canvassing in its rules; that doesn't log; and, that is not open access to non-administrators.  Wikimedia should not be supporting off-wiki objects that have such a severe problem about outside of consensus canvassing for disciplinary action that they spell it out in their rules multiple times (Purpose a; Guidelines 1b, 2abcd). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is fodder for a separate RfC. My76Strat (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure
4) Attempts to form consensus, or complain about civility, require closure.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In my collaborative uncovering of evidence for Risker, many discussions were not closed, some were not even attended to. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is right. Meaningful closure of some kind should always be required; even in situations where w hichever process is "overtaken by events" or "becomes moot", there should always  be a summary by the closer as to what the situation was when it was closed.  Which way was consensus going?  What had people agreed on?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Community language standards
1) The community has perennially and recently addressed the issue of certain language as universally uncivil, and has perennially rejected language gags.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Incoherent. - BorisG (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was missing a noun. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you were missing an adjective, but ok. Feel free to delete all this. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The arbitration system that anyone can edit. (But my formal knowledge of English grammar extends only to a high school level :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This needs to be said --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Lara  20:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent and fundamental  point.  We do not punish for what the community has considered not to be a breach. Individual words are not where it's at.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that language gags are tantamount to censorship and inherently counterproductive. The only language standard I support is the we, being en-wikipedia, should require the use of English. My76Strat (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor closure of discussions
2) Administrators on AN and AN/I, and users of WQA have poorly closed discussions. Discussions have been left without attention, or summary.  Administrative actions taken as a result of discussions are poorly reported in connection with those discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * What policy indicates such discussions should be closed at all? Frequently there is no clear consensus; closure templates often have the effect of "shut up" and escalate a situation rather than help it. Nobody Ent 04:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * CONSENSUS is a good one, even for no-consensus. Users blocked as a result of a discussion without that block being noted against the discussion.  When a discussion is nearing archive date minus one day, it might be a good idea to actually record the outcome, particularly if the outcome was "no consensus".  There's no problem with summarising discussion when it has been inactive for 13 days, etc.  Especially if the discussion was an attempt to force disciplinary action against a party.  When administrative actions are taken as a result of discussion, they need to be noted against the discussion.  Try reading AN/I's archives.  I'd suggest reading at least 10 in sequence.  I've read 17 in sequence, and the standards of administration (as in record keeping) connected with attempts to discipline users is appalling.  Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My evidence lists three poor closes, which have been interpreted as  rushing to stop discussions that might prove embarrassing to the administrator closing the discussions.  One involved a misuse of the univolved-only hidden-archive template, with a misleading edit summary and a misleading description of the archived contents.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors counselled to better close discussions
1) Editors and Administrators are counselled to better close their discussions, indicating that attention has been paid to the discussion, what disciplinary or consensus outcomes have been developed, and that further discussion should not continue at this time. Editors and Administrators are counselled to better formalise their closure of discussion when the outcome of discussion is a considered no action.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Particularly the bit about attention being paid - not only to the discussion (where other contributors' comments could well have sprung from insufficient data or wrong interpretations of data) but also to the full background of the subject of the discussion. Also where there may be doubts about consensus, to analyse it very thoroughly and discount input from the ill-informed, based on their own thorough investigation into the facts.  Consensus should never be based on numbers involved in pile-ons.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Symmetrical value of actions
1) Any decision by any administrator, posted as such, whether to block or 'not' to block, to undertake a specific action or 'not' to undertake a specific action, shall not be reversed by any other administrator without full discussion, and subject to clear consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As noted above, this may be an important consideration. It is not logical to grant special protection to the action that is most severe (i.e. blocking considered more protected than dispute resolution without sanctions), or the extension of that logic would be that a longer block outweighs a shorter one. Risker (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I believed this was current policy and practice, but it does need to be restated occasionally. Collect's emphasis on negative decisions and the need to evidence them to the community by posting them is worthy.  It currently needs a title though.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Title now provided - but certainly amendable. Collect (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This should be considered a statement of the obvious, as it's the basis for respectful interactions between admins responding to the same issue. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A decision not to undertake an action is not always visible for everyone. Not all admins explicitly state that they reviewed the situation and decided not to block. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which basically means that admins would now be encouraged to make such positions known, right? Any problem with such a step? Collect (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose It would create cases of people rushing to judgment without reviewing the facts. "I wrote action/no action necessary" thirty seconds after the ANI case was posted, therefore I get priority because I acted first.  It would have disasterous affects on people actually reviewing cases before acting.  I am also fundamentally opposed to leaving people blocked for questionable or flat out wrong blocks.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need a fast efficient way to procure an injunction which is not wheel-waring that doesn't unnecessarily tie every hand of dissent, pursuant to first and second mover advantages. Make injunctions easy, hold that admins requesting two or three deemed frivolous be considered for desysoping, and unbundle some ArbCom exclusivity, to allow bureaucratic desysoping for cause, to be handled in house where it often should be handled. My76Strat (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Defining "Civility"
2)  "Civility" is not defined by the use or non-use of any given word, but by the attitude of editors towards others. While Wikipedia tolerated use of rude and sophomoric language in the past, that toleration no longer extends towards the use of all (word appended) objectionable language, but this stricture is not necessarily the same as "civility."  Blocks for incivility, therefore, should be based on apparent attitude, as viewed by consensus of others, and not simply on choice of words.  


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I hope this manages to parse the root problem here - that is, how are "civility" and "language" intertwined. And noting that there may be reasons for blocking for "improper language" apart from specific "incivility." Collect (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible to me, and reflects the way most admins act when following up on problems with incivility. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could possibly support if you remove the sentence that toleration no longer extends towards the use of objectionable language. As pointed out elsewhere objections over certain words has been rejected by the community.  I do think apparent attitude needs to be taken into consideration.  People can be insulting without profanity.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added "all" as it is clear that the community does not any longer tolerate "all objectionable language". Cheers - I trust this answers your issues. Collect (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Special committee of Arbitrators
1) Following the close of this case, with whatever remedies it entails with regard to single editors, this Committee shall appoint a special subcommittee with the charge of producing a comprehensive and continuing report on civility on Wikipedia, on civility in specific areas of Wikipedia which have been the subjects of prior cases, including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Israel/Palestine, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation, Biographies of Living People, and other contentious areas, as well as inter-editor civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems long-overdue from here. And far more substantive than simple resolutions which simply say "Be Nice" and "Do No Harm."  Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of blocks subcommittee
2) That a subcommittee be formed as well to examine the use of blocks as currently found on Wikipedia, examining the use of blocks as punitive measures, and the commonness or rarity of such blocks by administrators previously involved with the persons blocked, or not involved with the persons blocked. 


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This could be put off for aeons, but I strongly suspect the sooner this committee actually takes on the task, the sooner the perpetual disputes traceable to the possible problems may be reduced.  Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopaedia with the minimum of fuss


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is intended to lead into the next finding... --Errant (chat!) 16:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Escalation
1) The community often fails to stop the escalation of issues beyond what common sense dictates is appropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I feel this is not something any long term editor could disagree with :) --Errant (chat!) 16:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
2) Civility is not a simple issue to resolve, and often only surface civility is noticed/addressed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Good, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on this concept of "surface civility", as in many of the discussions I've seen the term can be used interchangeably with "direct incivility". Effectively, and YMMV, I see discussions of "surface civility" being used to excuse incivility. Having said that, I agree with the first 8 words. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to aim for was the idea that civility is problematic to resolve partly because direct/surface incivility is the only part that gets noticed. I would excuse a lot of surface incivility - especially where it is not directed or vitriolic. Simple "fuck off's" can be put down to frustration and dealt with a lot more calmly than we do. I'd say, for example, a more uncivil action might be following someone's edits around - or trying to move an editors draft article to main space and nominating it for GA (all things I have seen happen without much sanction - till someone says fuck, then people pile on). --Errant (chat!) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me - I guess I'm just reacting to the conversations of surface civility I've seen in the past... I don't like the term. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally particularly dislike it if people who are civil in their interactions are going to be portrayed as always having underhand motives. "Surface" and "genuine" civility are not, nor should it ever be suggested that they are, necessarily mutually exclusive.  It's quite possible for people to be civil right the way through, including on the surface.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Exercise restraint
1) In general the community should encourage editors to pursue the minimum level of dispute resolution required to conclude a matter


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Good, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; common sense. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrator responsibilities
2) Administrators should attempt to enforce de-escalation of issues where possible


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * All editors have a responsibility to de-escalate issues, so this isn't admin-specific. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Nick-D, needs to be broader. Also needs to cover teaching editorial conduct, and teaching editorial culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; but Admins have more leeway to close down discussions. I mean this to reflect on AN, AN/I & WQA threads - with the intent to encourage admins to the practice to cutting off disputes early by simply sending everyone to their corners. A broader additional remedy, though, would be good. --Errant (chat!) 09:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This bit was better-expressed. In cases where everyone can, with justice,  be sent to their own corners, yes.  Of course that's not always either fair or possible.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Intent
3) Editors should try to consider the intent of comments when judging their civility


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It is worth noting that ArbCom has decided in, for example, the Noleander case, that the effects of a pattern of editing are more important, for purposes of dispute resolution, than their intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a complex line to draw. In theory a good faith commentator (i.e. someone without specific intent to offend) should be amicable to having any adverse effects of their actions explained, and would then fix the issue. Whereas someone with a specific intent simply to cause offence can be dealt with more simply through blocks. This all ties back to my point about taking the minimal level of dispute resolution - where a quiet word or redaction should be the primary DR weapons :) --Errant (chat!) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I agree with you. It occurs to me that your answer suggests a solution. The good faith user makes subsequent edits whose effects are to deescalate the conflict, whereas the user intending to cause offense will subsequently escalate (a distinction that I also drew in my evidence, by the way). Thus, one can look at the effects of a series of edits, taken as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both intent and effect should be considered; a good-faith attempt to do anything should never be punished or the editor reprimanded for it. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility
1) Content creation is no excuse for incivility. Content creators make valuable contributions to this encyclopedia, but are expected to maintain standards similar to those of all editors - perhaps even higher, given their prominent role in the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Everyone should be civil. This is not a content creator issue, or an admin issue. It's a Wikipedia issue. Being a content creator/admin/all of the above does not grant a "free pass" to be uncivil. SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support, especially the part about how content creators should strive to maintain high standards of conduct. In any online community, not just Wikipedia, individuals new to a community look to the established members of the community for cues on how to act. One thing that Wikipedia does well, is to communicate that content creation is a valued skill within the community. That part's fine. But content creators must also be aware that their behavior and language are also observed, so they should endeavor to be good rolemodels in other ways, not just article-writing. --Elonka 21:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a whole. The first sentence would be acceptable if there were more awareness of the explain/excuse dichotomy. Holding content contributors to a higher standard than "normal" editors is counterproductive to say the least. Also, "prominent editor" and "content contributor" are not synonymous; in fact, I would venture to guess that newbies have more contact with admins, NPPers, RC Patrollers, and any number of other groups than with the folks over at FAC. You want "role models"? Impose civility on the admin corps; they're the ones largely seen as "authority figures", not content editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone should be held to the same standards of civility, with the lone exception of those too inexperienced here to know what those standards are; our emphasis in that case should be on education. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
2) All editors are expected to hold to reasonable standards of civility. Language that one may use with friends in a social environment may not be acceptable in a more professional environment, and may even be patently offensive to those in a different country or region. Editors are expected to use caution in using strong language on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is probably pretty close to something we'll end up saying. It is pretty general, but highlights the reason behind our civility expectations. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As well, what one says down at the pub amongst friends does not necessarily translate well into writing - and as Wikipedia keeps an Akashic record, one's words can be revisited days, months or even years later. That is useful in maintaining an article history, but words spoken in haste or in anger can follow an editor for the remainder of his or her career. Risker (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. WP:CIVIL is policy, not a guideline. It is one of the five pillars of the project. "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." --Elonka 21:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong on multiple counts, especially the variable definitions of "reasonable standards", "professional environment" and "strong language". Nikkimaria (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this, it fits with the concept of wikipedia being an encyclopedia - not somewhere to socialise. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need, though, to bear in mind that some of the most genius-level things which have ever been accomplished have been thought up, and worked up, in an extremely informal environment. There is some truth in the concept that over-formality can be too inhibiting, and the eccentric genius whose idea would have saved the situation is discounted because he wasn't wearing a suit and tie. Civility and restrictive formality are not interchangeable concepts. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring
3) Administrators are expected to respect and honor the decisions of other admins, including decisions to block or unblock users. Disagreements between administrators are common and acceptable, but should be dealt with between the feuding admins before a decision to undo an action should be made.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Suggest using a word other than "feuding". Also, would the decision not to block be considered a decision to "respect and honour"? Nikkimaria (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum
1) Malleus Fatuorum is an established editor of Wikipedia and has made many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. However, he also engages in incivil behavior on a somewhat regular basis, and thus has a lengthy block and unblock record. Recently, Malleus used a word considered extremely offensive and possibly sexist in much of the English-speaking world to refer to admins as a group. The use of this word led to a large-scale conflict and debate on civility standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Apart from being too long and trying to include too much, the proposal is factually incorrect. I made no comment at all about admins as a group, and in fact I was complimentary about a great many of them. I actually began by saying "We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings." Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish; misrepresentation appears to have been a feature of this case. What I said was "We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts." That's not at all the same thing as you are suggesting I said, that most admins are cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish: on what authority do you claim that the admins who came to my mind represent "a large swathe"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish: why are you continuing with your misrepresentation? What I said was "I can think of ...". By what magic are you able to know how many that is, or whether it represents "a large swathe"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Incomplete without stating the context in which he used it. After all, he might have noted that the word is found in the dictionary somewhere between cunning and curt.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, this good? <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He also directed the same term (with 'fucking' in front of it) at a specific editor. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is saying too much in one statement. Better is to split things up. --Elonka 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A finding of fact including "possibly"? Possibly not.  Either find facts, or don't. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of order: Malleus didn't use the word to refer to "admins as a group". He quite specifically only used it to refer to some admins.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not particularly endorsing this proposal, the actual posting by Malleus said that some admins are OK but a much larger proportion of them ("far more", in his exact words) are "cunts" . He was talking about a large swath of people, not just a few individuals. But I do note that there is a potentially valid case to be made that his comments, elsewhere, to individual administrators are criticisms that ought to be treated as fair play. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I'm trying very hard to represent this accurately. I actually did not claim that you said that "most" administrators are "cunts", but rather that you said it about a large swath of people. I fully acknowledge that you began your post by saying something that, indeed, has not been noticed enough, that you were explicitly not applying the term "across the board". That's true, and a valid point in your defense. But I think that your words clearly placed the "cunts" in the majority, and the non-"cunts" in the minority. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I forget how many admins there are in total, but I figure that "far more" (perhaps 50% plus one?) can be considered "a large swath". Neither "most" nor "just a few individuals". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If what you meant at the time was that you were only thinking of a small number of administrators, good and bad, and that you were only assessing the cuntishness of that small subpopulation, then that was not clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's likely too late to go back and add and  tags at this point. — Ched :  ?  23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward
2) Thumperward made an administrative action by blocking Malleus for an indefinite period of time. Although the action was contentious, he justified it as 'long-term hostility far beyond acceptable bounds'.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose The phrasing implies Thumperward did something wrong, which is not in evidence. Administrators sometimes have to do contentious things, it is the nature of the job.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wording is weak. He made a punitive block, hours after the issue had been resolved. Lara  04:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Lara on this one. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

John
3) John unblocked Malleus after a short period of time, citing community consensus and declaring the block 'disproportionate'. However, John did not give the blocking admin time to give his case, and had a cordial and friendly relationship with Malleus, and thus could be considered INVOLVED in the dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Hawkeye7
4) Following an additional use of the word "cunt" by Malleus (in combination with an additional profanity) directed at an editor, Hawkeye reblocked Malleus for a period of one week. Hawkeye did not cite this in his original block justification. Editors have regarded his action, which was not supported by consensus, as 'wheel-warring'.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I suggest simply stating what Hawkeye7 rather than characterizing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "shifting over time" is a "characterization" and for "many editors", see WP:WEASEL.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to represent both views here. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Lara  04:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: amended wording slightly without changing meaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SS-Goes without saying... I particularly like it because it declares that the action has been viewed as wheel warring and properly summarizes the facts.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) added emphasis to word viewed... it is undoubtable that it has been viewed as wheel warring. Was it?  That is a different question.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 02:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Factual statement; can't disagree. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Malleus Fatuorum restricted and warned
1) Due to his long record of incivil comments and personal attacks, Malleus Fatuorum is strongly admonished for his incivility. Additionally, for an indefinite period of time, if Malleus makes any comments that may be possibly construed as a personal attack, he will be subject to a minimum block of one-week, which may possibly be made longer based on the blocking admin's judgement. As this sanction is indefinite, not infinite, it may be appealed and removed if he has shown a sincere change in attitude and behavior towards fellow editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This would just be a ban by another name, as the evidence very clearly shows that some editors, including several commenting in this case, will be looking to take offence at anything I post. Probably including this, for not assuming good faith. Also, on a point of order, I have an alleged "long record of incivil comments and personal attacks", whatever the distinction between those two equally nebulous concepts is supposed to be, but I have a proven and demonstrable long record of generosity and helpfulness towards other editors. Unlike several of those commenting in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * So it would be considered an AE block, or just the standard workaday block?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AE block. Workaday would allow an appeals process for the block, wher as this gives no appeals process due to the very plain nature of the sanction (Malleus cannot make any comment that can be interpreted as a PA). <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that we apparently will always have one person who says "this violates CIVIL" and another who says it does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "any comments that may be possibly construed as a personal attack" is a very broad net. I feel that it is almost too broad. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be broad, otherwise he (or others) can argue he didn't mean it to be an attack. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "You're wrong" might be viewed very broadly as a personal attack. This slope is too slippery.  The "may be construed as" has to go.  Block if there is a personal attack, not if there is a critical comment that some oversensitive person considers to be a personal attack. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Too vague.  makes any comments that may be possibly construed as a personal attacksheesh.  That means a simple disagreement results in a block of a week?  This response could possibly be construed as a personal attack, would it result in a block of a week?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous and stupid proposal. They tried this with me and were left with egg on their faces as every sad and unknown little Admin tried to block me for every utterance in order to get their name in lights. Malleus would be stalked by the mediocre and we would be left with a farce - again! Giacomo Returned 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Giacomo, please replace "would be stalked by the mediocre" with "would continue to be stalked by mediocrities". Wikipedia's active administrator corps is shrinking, and it is an imperative of RfA Deform 2011 to find fresh mediocrities. The definite article is too restrictive. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 06:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Idiotic proposal. Unworkable and poorly thought out. Suggest whoever came up with it (can't be bothered to check) remove it. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments nevertheless may be all of these things in concert and I welcome anyone so inclined to advise me of the same according to their own manner and desire. But please, do not disenchant a wiki-brother of mine, in my presence. I've decided I'll no longer sit idle in such circumstance. I do not wish to antagonize, or usurp the rightful entitlement of another to edit in tranquility. Nor incite a colleague with threatening prose. This is merely a promise that any eyes that may see, should consider backed with a guarantee. When, and if ever it may subsequently happen. I fully intend to eat any comfort food I may desire. No editor who serves cause to the effect will be blameless and should instead expect that I will become increasing larger, while stocks of food become proportionately smaller, ingressing famine, hunger, and starvation. The astute should ask themselves now, "is it really worth all of that?" I hope to believe each will for them-self realize, it certainly is not. My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @My76Strat, Sorry, I can't understand the meaning of your post above, what is it that you are trying to say because it reads like gobble de gook. Giacomo Returned 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I apologize for that. It is gobble de gook and shouldn't be cluttering this page. My76Strat (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward
2) Thumperward is advised not to make severe blocks on established editors without community consensus, even if there may be a track record of incivility or abuse by the user in question.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is well-intentioned, but wouldn't work in practice. Admins generally can't judge whether there's going to be a 'community consensus' before blocking. It also implies that a very different set of rules applies for "established editors" and other types of editors, which is undesirable. All editors are expected to meet the same standards, though established editors are in practice cut some slack for out of character actions. Also, if an editor has a "track record of incivility or abuse" blocking them should be totally uncontroversial. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The idea that everyone here is or should be treated equally is an illusion. WP:DTTR is a good example. Established editors, having displayed their value, have earned certain courtesies. Indefinitely blocking an editor who makes unquestionably high-quality contributions to the project should not be considered acceptable when there is no community consensus for it. If the issue has been resolved for a number of hours without the imposition of a block, then one can assume several more hours could pass while discussion takes place (if even necessary) before a block per consensus need take place. Of course, that would be punitive, wouldn't it? Lara  04:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any punishment, reprimand, or blocking of any editor in anything other than an emergency situation should not be considered acceptable when there is no community consensus for it. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

John restricted

 * 3) John is indefinitely prohibited from making any administrative actions or decisions regarding Malleus. He is advised not to make administrative actions in situations where he is involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * 3a is fine, 3b is purely punitive. - BorisG (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can scratch it. I want some agreeable and needed sanctions, not anything that violates policy. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider mine. I want John to learn, not to be punished.  He is in most ways an admirable editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually used your idea here, in a slightly altered manner, but if the block is punitive, it goes against policy. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yours is punitive because it is for a set term. Mine is not, it runs until John convinces the Committee or the community that he gets blocking policy.  He can do this by motion or by convincing the community to reconfirm him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7
3) Hawkeye7 is to avoid wheel warring, and may be subject to loss of administrative powers if he does so. He is also advised to avoid making comments that may be considered derogatory to editors that he has blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "that may be considered derogatory" is a bit vague. Lots of people who get blocked for good reasons go on to complain that the admin has unfairly labeled them a POV pusher, sock puppet, vandal, etc, and that this is highly offensive to them. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility blocks
4) Admins are advised to avoid blocking solely for civility unless the user in question has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. However, civility is one of the five pillars, and must be upheld by the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. Egregious incivility merits a block just like any other egregious behavior. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Invicility and Personal Attacks are inherently disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The second sentence completely contradicts the first at the moment - you can't realistically uphold WP:CIVIL without allowing admins to block editors who violate it. I don't think that any experienced admins block editors for civility problems unless they've a) received and ignored previous warnings against this, or b) are engaging in totally unacceptable behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you can: admins can issue time-limited topic bans from the context which provoked the incivility in the first place. Further disruption in that area would then result in a block, but it would not be a civility block; it would be a block for violating a topic ban. Geometry guy 23:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am startled to discover, on reading WP:BAN, that I am wrong: individual administrators can block an editor for a week, but apparently, they may not topic ban an editor for the same period. That is a completely absurd position, which needs to be addressed. Geometry guy 01:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I too would like to see that addressed. It has long seemed bizarre to me that admins are allowed to block editors entirely from the project, but not to issue short-term topic bans. --Elonka 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes From what I've seen Wikipedia governance suffers far more from a lack of judgement than a lack of power. If a topic ban is appropriate it should be easy to get consensus for it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another way to deal with incivility. The drama-loving community we have can't seem to do it, but the way exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility is sometimes context-sensitive
1) When determining whether or not a block should be issued for a violation of WP:CIVIL, administrators must take into account the context of the statement, and the intended audience. Comments made on a user's talkpage, to an audience that does not regard them as offensive, are probably not a serious violation. However, the same comments, made in a more public venue, especially when directed towards an audience that does regard them as offensive, should be treated more strictly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There may be something to this. The user talk hierarchy has a limited audience, and Wikistalkers have no right not to be offended (or, more likely, bored) by the happenings.  The Wikipedia talk hierarchy is something entirely different, where conduct could legitimately be held to a worldwide (vs. individual) expectation for civility and decorum. This bears consideration, because something tells me we might wade into unintended consequences if we articulated such a delineation... Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like the comment above, I'm afraid of the unintended consequences, but do agree that User Talk vs Talk has wildly different viewing levels. SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Just because two friends are using "pub language" to each other on their respective talkpages, does not mean that they are being particularly disruptive to the project. But the exact same language, said in a more public venue such as an article talkpage, said to a new editor, or to an editor who doesn't know you, could be very disruptive indeed. Editors should try to adapt their language to the venue, and adopt a more professional tone as needed. --Elonka 22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about two friends using "pub language" to badmouth another editor on their respective talkpages? And because they do not find it offensive and it is just their talkpages, no problemo? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk pages are not "private" — so no, I would probably not see Sonicyouth86's scenario as a good one, especially if the third party being talked about speaks up and objects. It should be understood, in any case, that an "iffy" statement may cross the line into clearly being offensive if the target of a comment indicates that he/she finds it offensive and the originator refuses to stop.  —  Rich wales (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The insulted parties did not say that they were offended, does that mean that dickhead and fool are not personal attacks? In Elonka's scenario, enforcement relies on the "victim's" willingness to confront the offending editor or group of editors. But many (particularly new) editors may not be aware that this is expected of them, they might just "suck it up". And even if they are, seriously, who in their right mind would want to post on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page "I am offended, please stop"? All this discourages editors from complaining. Did you read Deb's statement that she left the discussion because the "response was so aggressive"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not being precise. If another editor is being referred to, that would come under the category of personal attack though, wouldn't it? Not to mention just being tacky to discuss someone without informing them of the discussion. In the case of both of your diffs, Sonicyouth86, I am in agreement that the language was inappropriate. My principle was meant to refer to other casual banter between editors who know each other well. So if two editors (call them Max and Ned) knew each other, and Max went over to Ned's talkpage and said, "Hey dickhead, you screwed up the article," and Ned replied, "Oh fuck, thanks for letting me know," and they were both okay on this level of discourse, then I don't think an incivility block would be appropriate. Neither of them were being offended, it wasn't being targeted at anyone else, and no one else was being forced to read it (unless of course they were just stalking the talkpage). My point being that just because someone uses profanity, doesn't necessarily mean they are being disruptive. As an admin, if I saw that kind of exchange, I might pop in and ask them to chill, but more likely I'd leave them be, and I wouldn't block. If on the other hand the community were to adopt a strict "no profanity" rule, of course I'd do my best to enforce it, but I don't think there is support for that. To follow the example though, if either Max or Ned used that language towards someone else who was offended, then WP:CIVIL could be invoked. Would that make more sense? Or is it your feeling that a block should be issued, even if the language was in a limited venue, between two people who weren't complaining about it? --Elonka 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. Agree with you and thank you for taking the time to clarify, Elonka. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Different jokes for different folks. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This should be a statement of the obvious for all admins, but it would be a good idea to 'formalise' it. Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per [|repeated, perennial and recently snowed consensus]. Administrators can't block for language.  They can block for attacks.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm with Fifelfoo here in that admins should only block for direct rudeness / attack, not for language  but on user talk pages, the user to whom the page belongs can ask another person to stay off it if they don't like what's happening (apart from very obvious attack stuff, which  they may not have seen yet!)  and users who've interacted collaboratively in the past can get into some play-fight banter which others might misconstrue as being a genuine attack.  There should certainly be more leeway on user talk pages than on article talk pages, but that leeway shouldn't extend to calling other editors names on one's own or one's friends' talk pages.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A vital distinction here. -- J  N  466  19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block is appropriate, when dealing with repeated disruption
2) Blocks are not intended as a revolving door. If an editor is disruptive, has been blocked multiple times, and is showing a pattern of just resuming the disruptive behavior upon their return, it is reasonable to block the editor's access indefinitely. The block should not be lifted until the editor acknowledges that they understand the problems that caused the blocks in the first place, and agrees to modify their behavior accordingly. --Elonka 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Absolutely, per my comments on blocking elsewhere on this page. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indefinite can mean two things on Wikipedia. Infinite or until circumstances change. Too often, people mistake it for the first when it's meant to be the second. SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * @Elonka: what exactly is it that you're alleging has been disrupted? Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Time and time again I have seen editors be disruptive, get blocked, then just wait out their blocks and go right back to the same behavior, without ever acknowledging that they understood why they were blocked, nor making any indication whatsoever that they were going to try and change their behavior. It might make sense to AGF for the first couple blocks, but once someone has been blocked multiple times, they should just be blocked until they indicate that they understand why they are being blocked, and agree to modify their behavior accordingly. --Elonka 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Leaky  Caldron  23:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My issue with this is that the majority of Malleus' blocks have been overturned. I believe two, including the one that has just expired, are all to have been left standing. To be able to determine "repeated disruption" for this sort of case, serious investigation has to be done as to what has provoked each incident. If Malleus (or any editor who is being looked at regarding "repeated disruption") has been baited or provoked, or was inappropriately blocked leading to an escalation of an otherwise resolved issue, thereby causing disruption, that should not be put on the user in question. At least not solely. These issues aren't black and white, and this proposal attempts to make them so. Lara  04:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle I agree with this, but as it applies to Malleus---it doesn't work. Malleus has a history of being blocked and then those blocks being lifted and the blocker chastized.  Right or wrong, Malleus has not been repeatedly sanctioned for his behavior.  The individual blocks against him have been overly quick and poorly thought out.  Does he have a civility problem?  Yes.  But there is no RfC trail or sanction that stood against him.  Even this seven day block was really his doing---voluntarily.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (reply to Malleus) This was intended as a general principle for the "civility enforcement" case, and not something directly targeted towards you. --Elonka 20:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for their own behavior
3) It is never acceptable to respond to incivility, with incivility. Provocation is not an excuse to justify personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True in general, whether or not it applies to this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems to be some misrepresentation here, particularly in BarkingFish's endorsement of this proposal, as I have not claimed to have been provoked. In fact I have as yet made no statement at all in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. We are responsible for our own words and actions. Those who are making excuses for Malleus's behavior by saying that he was "provoked" into incivility are wrong, and to some degree disrespectful, because they are implying that Malleus is incapable of controlling his own behavior. Malleus is not a wild animal who should be expected to lash out. He is a human being, an adult, and therefore responsible for his own language and actions. --Elonka 17:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Every editor makes choices about what they write. There is no way to be provoked into personal attacks. A lack of self control and questionable self monitoring are the only impediments.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Partially Endorsed - All editors on Wikipedia are responsible for their own actions, and their own behaviour, and must be aware of the consequences (and be subject to the same) when their behaviour and actions cross unacceptable boundaries. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish 13:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment @ Malleus Fatuorum: I accept that you do not actually claim to have been provoked, and will reword my endorsement of this proposal accordingly - however my endorsement of the proposal in general (Excluding the statements on provocation) stands. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Replying to Jclemens: This case has been given a broad remit regarding civility, and civility enforcement. This seems like a useful principle to state. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes..... And editors are responsible for keeping their passwords secure. Way to general a comment to add value to this case. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 21:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to editors as words that represent genitalia
1) It is common and accepted practice for an editor to refer to another editor as a "dick", a word representing male genitalia. An essay justifying this use exists on Meta. Despite this, referring to another editor as a "cunt", a word representing female genitalia, is not acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yet another of the many peculiarities of the English Language, how different words that in the dictionary mean essentially the same thing can carry such wildly different connotations. However, I'm not entirely sure this statement is wholly accurate. If I were to to see Editor A say to Editor B "I think you're a dick," I'd consider that a personal attack, just the same as if they use "cunt" or any other offensive term. And as pointed out, the essay does not encourage the use of the word in that manner, but is simply intended to act as a behavioral guide.
 * There is a general hierarchy of swear words, from the largely acceptable "damn" to the more vulgar ones, many of which do refer to bodily parts or functions, however I'm not entirely sure that it's in the best interests of this case to establish such here. Something that's offensive can and often does present a barrier to collaborative discussion, which is really the core issue. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So maybe it's time to rename WP:DICK? Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't actually agree with it, but it is the apparent double standard on the project. Lara  05:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But remember: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to count the number of times editors have used the word 'dick' and not been blocked. How about 'tool', or 'schmuck'? Are we putting all these words off limits? Indeed, why the double standard?  This highlights to obvious fact that blocking for naughty words is douchey.  The criteria needs to be the effect of words upon the target, not the words themselves.  Jehochman Talk 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Art, that is irrelevant. That sentence does not negate the fact that it is common and accepted practice. Find any editor blocked for calling another editor a dick, linking it to that essay. If there are any, I'd be willing to bet money it's a tiny fraction of the instances of such specific-user name-calling.
 * Jehochman, the criteria most certainly does not need to be subjective. What offends you may not offend me. And there is no right to be unoffended, especially important considering some people (here and in the real world) are pathetically sensitive. The criteria needs to be straightforward and consistent in its enforcement. Lara  16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we do not set standards to protect the most sensitive. There's the problem.  One administrator judging each case could lead to wildly different levels of enforcement depending on their personal views.  How do we set a standard that everybody can understand (and enforce)? Jehochman Talk 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Solution: The most pathetically sensitive Administrator is decreed the Civility Administrator, is the final word on the subject, and slowly builds a community standard that reflects experience and foresight. ---<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  17:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd be blocked for calling him/her "pathetically sensitive". "Never offend anyone ever" is not a viable goal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've expanded upon in my evidence section, the reason why "cunt" is more offensive really needs to be considered. Lara  16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Editor Nikkimaria...I did not coin the phrase pathetically sensitive. You can thank Editor Jennavecia for that. As to my solution and what you fail to understand. Maybe its the way I stated it that confused you. The admistrator would self-identify and step forward as, in the words of Jennavecia, the most pathetically sensitive of the available administrators. In this way we would have a single decision-maker, a final decider, a what-she-goes type of decider. The many facets of the Civility debate would have to "shut-up and chop wood"..<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT I've not misunderstood anything here (though I will admit that my first sentence was facetious). Guerillero (below) makes my point quite nicely. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the solution is accepting that people need to grow up a bit and get thicker skin. We aren't a primary school here; wikipedia is real life. We should be shooting to have our standards of civility to be the median amount accepted across the world. If do what you are suggesting, Buster, then we would live in a world much like a feminist blog. A world where if something can be seen as offensive by ANYONE or X-ist it is banned. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster, please take care when attributing words to me without using quotation marks. I said "some people (here and in the real world) are pathetically sensitive." Just to make sure that's clear. Lara  20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My growth has taken 65 years. In that time I acquired two wives and 14 grandchildren. My skin is quite thick although a bit wrinkled. We should be shooting to have our standards of civility be the Beacon across the Internet to all that come here to work and to research. Shooting to be the median misses the mark. Why aim so low? I have removed the quotation marks from my previous statement. Both of you still miss my point. But thats alright. Maybe someone else gets what I mean.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wholly disagree. For one thing, the existance essay does not imply that the term should be acceptably used at another editor ("calling someone a dick is dickish"). For another, the word dick has non vulgar meanings, rather than cunt, which does not. The word "cunt" is regularly referred to as the most offensive word in English and just because the subject matter of the word is similar, it doesn't mean that the offence that is likely to be taken is the same. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...except according to the very page you link, "cunt" does have non-vulgar meanings. Also, if you'd like to argue that the essay has nothing to do with the vulgar meaning of "dick", I would suggest doing something about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has one non-vulgar meaning, when used with a positive modifier - "good" or "funny". I would suggest that "dishonest" and "fucking" are not positive modifiers. Having said that, I'm not trying to argue for the essay, I'd quite happily see it go, I'm just suggesting that there's more to words than the base meaning, there's context and there's societies reaction to them. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It can also mean "a contemptible person". And even if not, one is more than none. Lara  17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's currently under discussion Redirects_for_discussion. Nobody Ent 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Common and accepted practice? Not as far as I'm concerned.  Calling someone that is just as bad as calling someone an idiot, which is not acceptable either.  An essay is just an essay. Deb (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about personal opinions. It's about what actually happens. People don't get indefinitely blocked and/or have an arbitration case opened on them for calling another editor a dick or an idiot. Lara  17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for the sidetrack, which isn't really relevant in this case anyway. Just say "Referring to another editor as a 'cunt', a word representing female genitalia, is not acceptable." Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. If we're not going to state the first sentence as written, then we need to state "Referring to another editor as a 'cunt' or a 'dick' is not acceptable." Or substituting for "words that represent genitalia". Or, even better, if we want to go the civility police route, just say no name calling and then actually enforce it across the board instead of letting it slide until you see it from someone you don't like. Lara  14:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My view is that calling another editor either of those, unless in play-fight banter between people where both parties are OK with it, and on their talk pages, is wrong. And it's because derogatory name-calling and meaning it is actually wrong. It comes under the current civility-category of "direct rudeness".  We don't need to get into name-calling  that's really school playground stuff. There are better ways of expressing how we feel.  But, whatever we decide, however we decide it, it has to be same rules for all.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on civility vital
1) Civility and consensus are equally important coexistent pillars of Wikipedia. The community has failed the former due to lack of due diligence in regards to the latter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators expected to lead by example
1) Per Administrators Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. This standard is not currently being met by all administrators.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Re Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence: Thumperward cites edit war 'drama' as a contributing factor to his initial block. Prodego, Sarek of Vulcan and MONGO failed to follow both WP:TPG, which only allows removal of personal attacks, and escalated the conflict with their edit summaries: 'improve Wikipedia' is snarky, 'kind of like this, actually' is smug, and 'trolling garbage' is inappropriate. Nobody Ent 12:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I view the existence of this case as excellent evidence that my solution would have been a much more desirable outcome. Removing that discussion was a deescalation, one which would have prevented the block unblock reblock cycle and the thousands of words and dozens of hours that have been sunk in to the analysis of that removed section. I don't advise following WP:TPG by rote. That section was detrimental to Wikipedia, as shown by all this contention! Removing it was certainly an improvement. Prodego  talk 07:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The result was MF reverted you with How dare you! How can that possibly be considered deescalation? Nobody Ent 10:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus making edits like that reversion are the reason for this case. If he hadn't made that decision everyone could have gone home happily. Prodego  talk 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, though, removing something with a snarky edit summary is just going to escalate matters. And frankly, any suggestion, wherever, that Malleus ought to spend his time "improving Wikipedia" is hardly likely to be met with a cool and calm response. It's the old "don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs" thing, isn't it? And it comes into the category I've mentioned elsewhere of things which "could be construed as" uncivil.  Telling Malleus to improve Wikipedia  from anyone who doesn't do the same kind of level of content work  "could  be construed as" baiting.  And the response (and I have no idea whether or not this is what MF actually meant) of "How dare you!" could be a perfectly reasonable "How dare you tell me to improve Wikipedia!" Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify my own position in this case, although I may appear to be "pro-Malleus", that's not where I'm coming from.  I endeavour at all times to be solely principle-centred.  I'm "pro-justice" here (and try always to be pro-justice).  In this case, it's not Malleus I'm "defending" - it's the fundamental principles of justice.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree totally with "This standard is not currently being met by all administrators." Many, probably even most, do meet it. (Bad news gets more shouts than good news - there must be really quite a lot of admins behaving extremely well.) But some certainly don't, and should. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dysfunctional
1) Wikipedia's approach to civility is Dysfunctional. Sniping, snide comments, lack of good faith, innuendo are rife in discussion pages and noticeboards.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Indisputably true, but it hardly helps towards any kind of solution to address that dysfunction, which is the only thing I think ought to be important here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * True. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This finding ought to be taken up in the proposed decision. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately true. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true - and the thing which means that this has to be not only "taken up" in the proposed decision, but must be given a huge amount of weight in that decision, is that it is precisely this demonstrable dysfunctionality that has been the direct cause of this case and others. This case is no more than a symptom - and symptomatic treatment is a pathetic approach when we have the ability to treat the cause.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence in the case directed to establishing this as a generalized finding, and such a finding is not in Arbcom's purview. What has been established is that in this case, and probably others, there has been dysfunction arising from attempts at civility enforcement.  We haven't heard evidence of cases where civility enforcement works, or is uncontroversial.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the evidence uncovered at the collective evidence gathering section for bad blocks and bad no-actions; and the analysis I prepared of this evidence below; demonstrates this finding. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics leads to disruption
2) Malleus has significant influence over some other editors due to his article contributions, willingness to help other editors, willingness to Speak Truth to Power, and double standards of Wikipedia civility "enforcement." will cause disruption to Wikipedia.
 * allowing him to continue to periodically engage in excessively confrontational behavior, and
 * curbing such excesses
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This makes me seem like some sort of Svengali, and that contributing to articles, helping other editors and so is in some way a bad thing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Think this needs to be edited for clarity and phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Something along these lines would be reasonable finding, but the conclusion that acting to stop the problems would cause disruption is highly questionable (and its worth noting that the 'disruption' would be limited to a smallish number of people complaining at ANI and other discussion boards). Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely in agreement with Malleus himself on this. I don't see why any individual should be held responsible for other contributors being easily influenced, whether for good or ill. Deb (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, too. Ultimately, people as individuals choose whom to follow.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to the community
3) The civility dysfunction has been allowed to systematically develop by the community over years. No ArbCom decision can, by itself, resolve this.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We can and will try. Future cases may be necessary to fine-tune things, but it is my sincere hope that we can severely curtail the problems through appropriate outcomes here. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes they can! Please, give a small chosen and hand-picked team, including people with widely varying views, who are good, succinct writers, a mandate to re-write the civility policy, and an instruction that the only RfC to put to the community on it is "Is this clear enough?"  I could personally hand-pick an appropriate team without  much trouble - and some of them would be people that many of you may never have heard of.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Systematic change required
4)The goal of dispute resolution is to minimize disruption to the community. In this case, this requires reducing Malleus's political influence by removing those factors which provide him influence.
 * Malleus gains great political advantage by statements by himself and others claiming his actions are scrutinized to a much greater effect than other editors, especially admins. This is because his actions are scrutinized to a much greater effect than other editors, especially admins.
 * The class warfare practiced by a portion of the admin community puts Malleus in the role of victim/martyr.
 * Malleus operates in the gray area created by a wide variation of community understanding of civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Points one and two are impossible to prove or disprove, and point two ignores the fact that some of Malleus' 'supporters' (loosely defined) are admins. The fact that he's been unblocked within minutes of being blocked on three occasions in the last two years speaks for itself in this regards - it is very unusual for any blocks to be lifted within such timeframes. Point three seems to be outright wrong - he's very clearly crossed any conceivable line on multiple occasions based on what I've seen on the evidence page. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is sound and acceptable. The rest should be struck.  Let's not make this too personal - this case is a symptom of a much greater dysfunctionality.  Blame the plague itself, not those who've caught it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity and temporal component of Wheel War doctrine leads to conflict
5) The current wheel war policy results in accidents of timing, incentive for hasty instead of thoughtful administrator action, and ambiguity in interpretation; this makes conflict inevitable.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Wholeartedly agree. Badly-thought-out policies create poor decisions resulting in injustice. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 failed to communicate
6) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Hawkeye7 failed to provide cogent, clear justification for their blocks in a timely manner.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The discussion as to whether Hawkeye7 is dishonest or was simply confused is prima facie evidence that he failed to provide a well reasoned justification for his block at the time it was made; no compelling argument has been presented that the block was sufficiently urgent to not take the time to clearly outline their reasons. Nobody Ent 12:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good finding of fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good finding; however I feel that this probably happens a lot, and it's it's Hawkeye's misfortune that it happened here. I don't think Hawkeye should be singled out for any sanctions without first assessing how frequently this happens overall.  That would be unfair.  I would be like punishing one person for washing their car at the kerbside (technically an offence in the UK) while ignoring the fact that many people do so. We need data here in order to avoid injustice.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward failed to communicate
6) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Thumperward failed to provide cogent, clear justification for their blocks in a timely manner.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * At the time of the block Thumperward said the justification was the comment at Rfa; in his explanation for the time delay his cites MF's later posting on Deb's talk page. No compelling argument has been presented that the block was sufficiently urgent to not take the time to clearly outline the reasons for the block. Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not strong enough. Per his statements here, Thumperward appears to have blocked Malleus well after the issue was resolved, leading to all of this escalation, because of other editors' actions at WT:RFA.  At minimum, an admonishment for misuse of tools is in order here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While this is an adequate finding of fact; SandyGeorgia's suggestions about why this is an insufficient finding of fact are correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too, per all the above. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hands off
1) For a period of one year, no administrator will block or unblock Malleus Fatorium except those listed here: ...
 * Admin to be named later
 * Admin to be named later


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. No no no. If there are issues with specific administrators, then they can be placed on an interaction ban. The inverse of this is unfeasible and presents severe problems. Absent any specific issues with their conduct, administrators should be able to act as they see fit in accordance with policies. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, per split decision, last time we discussed topic banning an admin, we decided the bit had to come off as well. Thus, I'd say that any administrator whom the community can't trust to block Malleus appropriately should no longer be an administrator. Further, any administrator whom the community can't trust to unblock Malleus appropriately should no longer be an administrator, either. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We've tried this before with the "Star Council" of admins to deal with a repeated problematic offender. No good can come of this. SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * What is this trying to achieve? It would be better to specify the admins who should avoid blocking or unblocking Malleus (eg, those who are - or have recently been - WP:involved with him) and support the other admins to do their jobs. I see no reason to assign a special admin squad to this editor, and if the situation is so bad that such an extreme remedy is needed it would be better to block Malleus and move on. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconding Nick-D and in support of Hersfold &mdash; It's wrong to state who can do it, better to say who can't/shouldn't - as Nick rightly says, those known to be involved with Malleus are the ones who should be told to avoid the issue. Blocking Malleus permanently would be the better of the two solutions if it's got to the point where you need to do something so drastic.  <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be remedies specific to Malleus. This case is not in his name. We need general principles laid out to apply to everyone and all future issues similar to this that arise, regardless of who is involved. Generalized remedies. Admins should not block editors based on "offensive language" unless there is a community consensus to do so. Something like that. Lara  16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an empiricist Realpolitick solution. The fact is the block/unblocking causes far more disruption to Wikipedia than Malleus's comments. The Arbitration Committee has an incredibly difficult task here. The political influence of MF is the elephant in the room and should be considered when they issue their decision.  I agree 100% that we need general principles that apply to everyone, but the admin community has repeatedly shown a lack of judgement with regards to Malleus, and I don't think excluding the admins with past interaction MF is sufficient given the number of admins. It's my understanding it is out of scope for ArbCom to dictate a policy solution regarding how to deal with the generalized incivility problem; I'm suggesting a stop the bleeding band-aid until the community as a whole figures this out. Nobody Ent 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment, but it should probably be generalized. Ie. "no user (with more that xxx edits) should be blocked for incivility unless imposed by arbcom or a committee set up by arbcom." Or something to that effect. --Harthacnut (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Harthacnut on this. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking and unblocking administrators admonished
2) User:Thumperward is admonished for a non-urgent, disruptive block without prior discussion. User:John is admonished for unblocking while involved. User:Hawkeye7 is admonished for reblocking without a clear community consensus, poorly worded blocking statement, and intemperate remarks following the block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * These should be split into multiple remedies rather than balled up into one. Waiting for further comments as to the merits of the proposal itself. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Desysoping any admin in this case will create a martyr for the "pro-Malleus" or "anti-Malleus" cause. Admonishing them takes this off the table. If they're unfit to be admins they'll eventually pooch up an admin action when dealing with an editor no one cares about, and they can be desysopped then. Nobody Ent
 * I find grouping these proposals together helpful for the purposes of discussion, even if any ultimate remedies should be split per individual. In my view, even admonishment is a questionable remedy in this case. Here we have three experienced admins, who all undertook administrative actions that they believed were right (and justifiable) at the time (noting that they have subsequently, to their credit, acknowledged mistakes or flaws in their actions or reasoning). Their actions all took place in a c. 10 hour period, and were the only admin actions taken, and they have all have been criticized post facto (aka with the benefit of hindsight). Such a complete (100%) failure in administration suggests something systemically wrong with our policies, guidelines, or admin culture and training: blaming the individual admins involved is a cop-out that does nothing to address the more substantive issues involved. Geometry guy 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way in which even an admonishment is going to help; there's the spectre of martyrdom hanging over even that one, and the whole block->unblock->reblock thing is caused by the fundamental flaws in our system when it comes to civility. Inadequately defined - everyone sees it differently.  I'm going to WP:AGF here and say I believe that each of them did what they honestly thought was right at the time.  It's human to make errors of judgment from time to time - especially in the face of a nebulous policy-and-enforcement situation.  Let's face it - if they make mistakes like this again, they'll eventually fall flat on their noses anyhow, and I think they've probably suffered enough already here.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrator community instructed
3) The administrator community is enjoined to be personally be scrupulously civil when discussing or performing administrative functions, and to hold each other to the highest standards of behavior. In particular the attempted use of humor when imposing sanctions is not appropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, this is more likely to actually improve the culture of civility than anything we do (or don't do) to, for, or about Malleus. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. --Elonka 01:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, too. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence uncovered in the collaborative evidence gathering section proposed by Risker (for bad blocks and bad no-actions), and based on my analysis of this evidence (below), and based on my observation of the failure to oversight poor administrator behaviour by the community; this is an insufficient action. Administrators have been allowed to ignore incivility to the point of no outside party commenting.  Administrators have acted with incivility in sections of discussions concerned primarily with civility.  Administrators have blocked on non-disciplinary and non-administrative noticeboards with incivility.  Enjoinment is not sufficient to deal with the failure of self-governance of the administrator group; the failure of community oversight of the administrator group; and the failure for there to be appropriate and effective methods to oversight administrators at all.  Enjoining a group which has a demonstrated and persistent failure (per my evidence in the collective section and analysis of it) is insufficient.  Beyond enjoinment there lies admonishment, oversighting, probation, and removal of powers.  And this isn't directed at single administrators: this is directed at a community of failure with a culture of failure. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Superbly put. Kudos. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Enough already
4) The community acknowledges that Malleus Fatorium has made his point regarding double and varied standards for civility. It it therefore requested he just get onboard with the Wikipedia concept of civility or leave already.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I said it above, and I will say it again. The two outcomes I see here on this issue is Malleus agreeing to abide by the civility policy and staying, or continuing to reject it and leaving (either retiring or a permanent block) SirFozzie (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Better would be to fix the Wikipedia concept of civility and apply it consistently to all editors, which is the only possible good outcome I can see from this case. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sonicyouth86: Can you not see the logical inconsistency in your position? Would you still be here? Would Jimbo Wales? Would anyone? Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Malleus is too skilled for topic bans or other externally imposed restrictions to be effective; if he chooses to test the limits of any imposed restrictions the situation would be as contentious as this current discussion. On the other hand, if he gives his word on something, he will do it. Nobody Ent
 * Interesting. But perhaps we need to allow for if he declines the "request". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum. If we did that, apply the rules consistently to all editors, I doubt you would still be here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malles Fatuorum. Plenty of us would be here. Plenty of us do not call users "cunt", "arse", "windbag", "dick", "idiot", "mindless zealot", "dishonest", "delusional"... on a regular basis, even when we want to. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some might be here. You wouldn't be one. Neither would Jimbo, neither would many other prominent editors. "Naughty words" are not the only type of incivility, and actually having people around to edit is one of many reasons why we shouldn't block for every possible instance of incivility. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine ArbCom ever officially telling any user to "just get onboard". Proposals should be serious and reasonably worded so as not to waste time or space. Lara  21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too narrow, and again calls for an unequal application of policy-enforcement. You can't say this without saying that everyone with a similar glitch should have the same thing applied simultaneously, otherwise you become part of the problem which creates cases like this. I accept that you probably didn't mean to.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Block log redacted
5) ArbCom will work with WMF to redact the records of the inappropriate blocks and corresponding unblocks from the log of the Malleus account.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The Revision Deletion/Suppression policies do not support such an action. For this to be considered, a very good justification would be needed. If nothing else, redacting these log entries obliterates the evidence that improper administrative actions took place, removing support for the admonishments you have also proposed. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with Hersfold. There's always the risk that some will just look at the log's length, but more thoughtful editors are currently able to judge for themselves whether blocks for using terms such as "wikilawyer" or "sycophantic" are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with Hersfold on this. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 12:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Temporally independent blocking protocol
5) The community is urged to implement a temporally independent block protocol (e.g. Block_protocol).
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not quite sure it would be possible for me to disagree more strongly with that linked section.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Cube Lurker and I have ever agreed as much as we do now, I don't think it is possible for me to disagree more strongly with the linked section that I do... I felt so strongly that I had to post a comment on the essays talk explaining why I discounted the section and thus the essay itself!--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The remedy is a temporally independence, the linked section was intended as an example. As Balloonman notes, a protocol which encourages haste (Ents hate hasty) is extremely problematic. A temporally independent protocol with "unblocked" as the default condition would serve as well if the details can be worked out (discussed on essay talk page). Nobody Ent 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed proto-principles
None of these principles are refined enough to be part of the final decision: the formulation of such principles is a matter for the drafting arbitrators. Instead, I present my thoughts on the proto-principles that I believe should inform the final decision. They are interlinked so I list them together for easier discussion.

1) Blocks of experienced editors (those with a history of good contributions to the encyclopedia) are generally ill-advised:
 * a) They are likely to be punitive, rather than preventative;
 * b) They are unlikely to have any benefit with regards to rehabilitation;
 * c) They are likely to be divisive or contentious, causing unnecessary drama;
 * d) Blocking is too blunt a tool, preventing a good editor from contributing to the project as a whole because a particular area leads them to edit disruptively;
 * e) If an experienced editor does not improve their behavior in response to reason, they are even less likely to do so in response to chastisement.

2) Blocking editors for incivility rarely accomplishes anything:
 * a) The whole notion of civility is poorly defined;
 * b) Such blocks are almost always punitive rather than preventative;
 * c) The impossibility of applying civility blocks consistently means that they are unlikely to be respected or have any benefit with regards to rehabilitation;
 * d) The disruption caused by the block may outweigh the disruption caused by the incivility.

3) Policies primarily designed to deal with vandals, trolls and point of view pushers should not be used blindly as rule book for handling occasional disruption or incivility by experienced editors.

4) There are circumstances where blocking experienced editors may be appropriate because there is a preventative benefit for such a block. For example:
 * a) When two or more experienced editors are actively engaged in a dispute involving incivility and/or personal attacks, blocking all such involved editors without prejudice for 24 hours or so may prevent further escalation of the dispute.
 * b) When an editor is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and shows no sign of letting the matter drop, a "cool-down" block may be appropriate: this is rather more to take the heat off the associated drama than to cool down the editor!


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Geometry guy, what alternative behavioural sanctions would you propose in the case of experienced editors? Risker (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Combining 1) and 2), blocking experienced editors for incivility makes no sense in almost any circumstance. However, I believe that 4)b) was relevant in this case, which is why I would have supported a 48 hour block on that basis. I intend to summarize the evidence that led me to this conclusion. Geometry guy 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors don't - and shouldn't - get a free pass to be rude to one another and new editors as you in effect suggest here. All editors are expected to be polite to one another. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting any such free pass. I am rather pointing out that most uses of the block tool in these situations serve no useful purpose, other than making some segment of the community feel good about "enforcing" something (despite the enforcement being ineffective and often counterproductive). If instead blocks of experienced editors were applied only to support (time-limited, topic-specific) bans, then everyone would see the purpose. Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proto-principle #1 is accurate only when a given experienced editor also show that she/he understands the dynamics of how Wikipedia works; otherwise, that editor is more accurately described as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for a long time. However, writing essays about Wikipedia -- such as Antandrus' Observations on Wikipedia behavior, which I find is relevant on this case in many ways -- does provide proof of experience. On the other hand, when an editor routinely makes blanket attacks on a specific subgroup of Wikipedians, then it is proof that this editor doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, & is just a person who has contributed to Wikipedia for a long time, & nothing more. -- llywrch (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How does Wikipedia work? Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Been trying to figure that out myself; so far I've only been successful in figuring many explanations are completely worthless & inaccurate. However, it has been my impression that experienced Wikipedians are always trying to figure out how to be more effective, & have often accumulated a great deal of writing on the topic. You are welcome to look here for some of what I've written on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and the link. I have been editing here for nearly 5 years now, and believe I have a pretty clear idea on what Wikipedia is about, its purpose and ideals, but there is much I do not understand. I know next to nothing about IRC (I'm an "onwiki please" editor) and was completely shocked by the Arbcom leaks last summer. That leads to the point of my question. If we are not even sure whether we understand how Wikipedia works, how can we reliably assess whether another editor does? Geometry guy 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Divisive. Pandering to a self-declared elite, when only a handful of the best content contributors actually cause any issues, is unnecessary. Also, it gives Admins. further excuse to exempt themselves from their responsibilities. Contributing excellent content is a scarce talent, treating everyone here with respect is a universal obligation. Leaky  Caldron  12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing against a point that no one has made here. Did you post this comment in the right place? Geometry guy 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I opposed your suggestion as I believed it to be divisive. Editors who contribute great content are no less bound by WP:5P, including civility. From what I understood of the unrefined and (to me) complex proposal, you appeared to be making a special case for content creators. I note that the following oppose also interprets it that way. However, I have re-read it. If you simply mean editors in good standing, i.e. not vandals, socks, disruptive, irredeemable block history, then I could see it differently. Leaky  Caldron  18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back on this. I am not making a special case for content contributors and agree that it would be a divisive to do so. I would add/agree that excellent contributions in one area are no excuse for disruption in another. My notion of "experienced editors" broadly coincides with your "editors in good standing", but my "proto-principles" are not intended as any kind of concrete proposal to be supported or opposed, just a starting point for discussion. Geometry guy 22:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Editors who repeatedly and persistently refuse to obey one of the pillars of Wikipedia should be blocked indefinitely, even if they are otherwise great content contributers. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and requires some minimum standards of communication. These decisions should not be taken lightly, and should not be used in borderline cases, but ultimately the whole drama caused by persistent incivility may outweigh one's contributions. - BorisG (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely they should be banned indefinitely, shouldn't they? Geometry guy 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incomplete while these principles present a view point on what not to do about incivility they don't seem to address what to do. Nobody Ent 14:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if every editor proposed a complete set of principles, findings and remedies, this Workshop page would be even longer and more difficult to digest than it already is. Geometry guy 14:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The original five-hours-post-comment-block is what ultimately set off all this drama. If an experienced editor who makes valuable contributions is persistent in causing problems, that's what RFC is for. That the community failed to initiate this process early in the history of disruption is its own fault. The fact remains that there are various tools available other than blocking. A community discussion could solve a lot in a much more productive way when it comes to these situations, particularly when a block will set off a community discussion with a much greater heat to light ratio. Lara  16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to agree, but I just can't. While there is some truth to the above statements, they don't contain the entirety of it.  Some users a repeat wheel warriors always pushing a specific agenda.  Sometimes they require blocking to build up a case. I might be able to go along with a modified version that said something to the effect that when blocking a regular (unless immediate action is required to protect the project) that it is better to get consensus before doing so for the reasons listed.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, though, I agree with you. I readily admit that the above statements don't contain the entirety of it. Rather they reflect aspects not often expressed or well-reflected in policy. Your comment already suggests to me an alternative proto-principle:
 * Where individual admins are not permitted to impose temporary topic bans on experienced editors without community consensus/discussion, they should also not be permitted to impose such temporary site bans without similar discussion
 * Any block imposes a temporary site ban, and we have general conditions permitting such blocks, but outside those conditions, the above logical principle may help improve our policies and guidelines. Geometry guy 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like 3 and 4; the others, I personally feel, are at present in need of ... something. Dunno what.  Much of it is case-dependent.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Risker. As discussed in this thread and elsewhere, I believe the community can come up with more imaginative ways to regulate the behavior (thanks for the courteous "u"!) of experienced editors. The big difference between experienced and unexperienced editors is that the former should know better: where they are uncivil or disruptive, they are likely to be aware that their approach is not widely accepted, but the first step is certainly to make sure they are aware of that. Beyond that point, conditioning by block is likely to be patronizing and counterproductive, so I favor an approach of progressive restrictions rather than blocks. Temporary topic bans, interaction bans, and civility parole can all play a role here: the point is to prevent the editor making further disruptive contributions in areas where they have proven to be disruptive (and then relax such restrictions where there are signs that an editor might be able to contribute without disruption again). The aim is to provide a continuum between "you may edit freely" and "you may no longer edit". When blocks are only used to enforce predefined restrictions, the punitive aspect is automatically removed. It is a subtle distinction, but I think it is a crucial one. Geometry guy 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact
I'm leaving this as a place-holder for now.

1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed outcomes
As with the proto-principles, these are not refined enough to be remedies.

1) The community needs to develop more refined ways to deal with occasional disruption and incivility from experienced editors. Blocking is an ineffective, and far too blunt, tool for this purpose. Options to be explored might include specific short-term topic bans from areas which have been causing an experienced editor to become disruptive or uncivil.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * One of the questions we sometimes ask prospective administrators at RfA is "What is the difference between a block and a ban". It is easy enough to read the relevant policies and parrot out an answer. It is not so easy, it seems to me, to understand what the distinction means. The block tool is a tool, and like all tools, it does not have an agenda, but is a means to achieve an end. Blocking an editor without having any idea what the block will achieve is like drilling a hole in a sheet of metal without having a use for it.
 * Experienced editors (as defined above) are generally familiar with the way Wikipedia works, even if they don't always agree with every aspect of it. Most editors get by okay most of the time. Some are so unable to adapt to Wikipedia that they end up being banned. In the continuum in between, we have no coherent approach: blocks, arguments and drama characterize this zone. In my view, it is a zone that should be regulated through time-limited topic bans, as a continuum between no ban at all, and the ultimate sanction of an indefinite site ban. Geometry guy 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is some logic in using blocks instead of topic bans for incivility. Some behaviour (such as POV pushing) is often limited to a specific topic area. But incivility is a behavioral thing and it may or may not have anything to do with any specific topic area. Yes it is blunt but sometimes necessary. - BorisG (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad-hoc topic bans as proposed here would be a nightmare for admins to institute and police. I think that there would be considerable opposition to individual admins being given the power to ban editors from particular topics, as this is currently done through community discussions. Policing such bans would require that admins regularly check up on topic banned editors actions (which is labour intensive and a bit icky) and/or be dependent on editors spotting and reporting the banned editor violating the conditions, which would also be labour intensive and problematic. It would also lead to inevitable debates and wikilawyering over whether actions do or don't violate the ban. Moreover, if an editor is acting like such a jerk on one topic, it's likely they'll go and do the same thing elsewhere, if they're not already doing so. Blocks are much simpler and a great deal more transparent. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both that blocks (i.e., immediately enforced temporary site bans) may be more appropriate than topic-specific temporary site bans in many cases, but at present they are the only option available without substantial community discussion. It is a very odd state of affairs that lesser sanctions are less easy to apply. Concerning transparency, it is easy to make bans as transparent as blocks by requiring both talk page notification and a note in the editor's block log (using a 1 second block, for example): see WT:BAN for further discussion. Blocking or banning another editor is a serious responsibility: I find it more distasteful to admit the convenience of blocking to the admin as a consideration than to accept the work involved in enforcing a lesser sanction. Geometry guy 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Using editors' block logs as a way to record misbehavior is explicitly banned by WP:BLOCK, and I don't think that they'd be consensus to change that (I know that I'd oppose doing so as it would serve no useful purpose and would be open to wrongful and mistaken use). Please also note that admins need to go out of their way a bit to look at editors block logs in the first place. In regards to the workload enforcing bans would require, I think that you're drastically under-estimating this (just look at all the requests for amendment and clarification of ArbCom ban conditions...), and you need to bear in mind that admins are unpaid volunteers who - in most cases - prefer writing articles to chasing troublesome editors around. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose using block logs as a way to record misbehavior, and agree with the principle you cite: "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log". That would not be the case here: the purpose would be to record an administrator action (a topic ban) for the information of the community and not (certainly not "solely") to record misbehavior. That said, I'd be open to discussion of other ways to provide the transparency you seek, such as a dedicated noticeboard.
 * I am also fully aware that admins are unpaid volunteers (being such myself!): nothing here compels admins to do anything; the aim is to provide more options, not more constraints. Geometry guy 18:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
1) Civility is not optional; it is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. No editors are exempt from the Civility policy. Civility is as much about how you treat other editors as it is about the words you use when interacting with them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * All human societies have designated certain behavior as bad manners. The over-whelming majority of Wikipedia editors have designated the mistreatment of fellow editors as bad manners. Editors do not want to be abused. Not by the most prolific editor or the newest newbie . Aggressive behavior without consideration or regret shows an underlying tactlessness that is unacceptable.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to come up with a way to say this in the format demanded of this page, but I cannot process what this format requires, so I'm posting it here: IAR as one of the 5 Pillars completely negates Kaldari's argument. The 5 Pillars as instructions or guides for behavior/blocking are a failure. They are idealistic notions of what Wikipedia aspires to be. They are not directions, instructions, or explicit commentary on how the site and its individual members should operate. Should this site treat civility and content creation/maintenance seriously, it would spell out specifically where these issues lie in its priorities and relegate IAR to a guideline page away from the 5 Pillars. If we revere one of the 5 Pillars, we revere them all and IAR negates the previous 4 Pillars. My comment isn't about excusing incivility but highlighting the lack of clarity, the giant loopholes, and how members justify their opinions and behavior that has created this conflict. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this context it's important to recall "IAR" is a shortcut; the pillar is "Not Bureaucracy." In that sense its does not negate the other pillars but enhances them. I've stated previously (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop) the undervalued pillar here is consensus -- until consensus is achieved on what civility is (and that it applies equally everywhere) we can't achieve it. While I agree the problem is lack of clarity I disagree with the solution; trying to spell things out leads to a pseudo-legal system with the problems that entails. Nobody Ent 17:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators are judges that decide how to interpret policy. We are engaged in a pseudo-legal system as pseudo-lawyers arguing a case here. If no single entity is in charge to make decisions, the arbs do it for us. If you go to WP:5 and click on Wikipedia does not have firm rules, it links back to WP:IAR. We are demanding clarity of individuals, such as Malleus and the admins involved, when the ideas (not rules) that err, govern, I guess, the site conflict with each other. Editors here seem to be nonplussed that everyone doesn't automatically get that such incivility is not allowed, citing the 5 pillars as evidence, when the current way the 5 pillars reads pretty much allows it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Pretty straightforward. --Elonka 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Reaffirms and strengthens an existing policy. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointless without a proper definition of civility, for which the community has no consensus. Polequant (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Polequant; this can't be implemented without first putting decent foundations in place. We have to have the rock-like foundation of clear definition and clear implementation, otherwise this will collapse just as surely as a house built on quicksand. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, per the No Personal Attacks policy. No editors are exempt from this policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Personal attacks are the parasitical types of behavior that are the enemies of human intercourse. They slowly eat away at the natural desire to be collaborative and another tendancy, counter-attack, takes its place. This is not some detached, independant phenomenon. It is a continuous self-perpetuating process. If given free reign, parasites eventually kill the host. Luckily, here in cyberworld, the parasite can instantly morph. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  09:15, 4 January 2012
 * Endorse. Again, pretty straightforward. --Elonka 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to be the only project in the world where a few editors known more for their mouths than their contribution can argue for civility by accusing one of the most productive editors the project has ever known to be a parasite. Malleus said a “bad” word – we have all heard it before  in our lives and we will all hear it again. As a result of this case, we now know it's considered far worse on one side of the Atlantic than the other – that needs making clear rather than crucifying the man who said it. Is Malleus a parasite to the project? I am incredulous that such posts are permitted let alone endorsed. Giacomo Returned 19:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what was endorsed was the principle ("Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, per the No Personal Attacks policy. No editors are exempt from this policy."), not the above statement. No one endorsed the statement. --Conti|✉ 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Conti is correct, I was endorsing the "No personal attacks" principle, not Buster's comment. Maybe we should start using bullet points on these endorsements, to avoid confusion? --Elonka 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None are exempt, but many are hypocritical. Jehochman Talk 20:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse comment from Jehochman above. Pretty straightforward. Giacomo Returned 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly endorse. Nonody is exempt from this policy, be it newbie or established editor. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05 
 * I stand by my statement, which I might point out makes no mention of Editor Fatuorom. The parasite is aggressive behavior by one editor toward another...not the words or User Fatuorum --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wholly support this principle, particularly the "No editors are exempt from this policy" part. I also endorse Jehochman's comment, but would point out that we need to be wary of assuming incivility, and therefore hypocrisy, where there can reasonably be doubt  for example plain, ordinary differences of approach which may have been misconstrued by the recipient and/or others.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum
1) Malleus Fatuorum frequently attacks other editors, is frequently incivil,, and causes disruption on a regular basis, despite several years worth of requests, warnings, and blocks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. This does indeed seem to be the case. --Elonka 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the adjectives about frequency. This is not scientific.  Malleus has been around a long time and made many edits.  I think only a very small fraction were troublesome. Jehochman Talk 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, endorse. Malleus is a habitual offender. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be fully supported by the available evidence. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the evidence completely underwhelming. As Jehochman says, saying things occur "frequently" is a subjective measure, and should take into account how much people contribute. If you contribute more you get more hassle (which to my mind a lot of the evidence here is - people harassing Malleus until he says a naughty word). The thing I most object to is labelling Malleus as disruptive. Particularly on the basis of one tongue in cheek remark. Disruption is far worse than incivility (imo), and what exactly is he supposed to have disrupted? Polequant (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say he is occasionally disruptive. The question is "why?", and there is more than one answer, but all of the answers might help us make more sense of civility policy. Geometry guy 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy to make assumptions here. If we're going to compare people to each other, we should be looking at what percentage of their edits are problematic, not what numbers are.  Someone who makes a thousand times more edits than someone else is  likely to make a thousand times more mistakes without in any way being a "worse offender".  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
2) Malleus Fatuorum has repeatedly attacked editors at both WP:RfA and WT:RfA, as well as making uncivil and disruptive comments on there.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Your evidence does not substantiate your claim: you cite an unspecified 5 out of your 50 diffs without indicating which diffs are relevant. You also engage in undemonstrated analysis of a deleted RFC/U.  Please improve the standard of connection between your evidence and claims of fact.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is outside the scope of this ArbCom case, which was barely accepted. Only one administrator stated a wish for a wider-ranging inquiry. The majority of the majority of accepting administrators discussed only the immediate case ("cunt", blocking, unblocking, etc.).
 * Further, (arguing in the plural) I note that this is a grossly one-sided proposal. Even several of Malleus's critics have noted that, at RfA Malleus frequently faces incivility, personal attacks, and questions of good faith. This one-sided proposal seems partisan and would unseemly appear to censor the most vocal critic of administrator incompetence/abuse of power. (On the contrary, Wikipedia's administrators should be able to tolerate one frequent critic.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief! A serious suggestion that MF's approach at RfA and RfA talk should be singled out from the snarkfest/bloodbath that inhabits those pages? We (should?) all know by now that Jimbo describes it as "a horrible and broken process".  Wildly unjust; there are worse offenders over there.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Malleus Fatuorum warned
1) Due to his record of incivility and disruption, Malleus Fatuorum is warned to abide by both the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think a warning in this case would not be worth the electrons it's sstored on. He knows he's uncivil, and doesn't care, apparently (or feels that the ends justify the means. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * @SirFozzie: it is not for you or for anyone else to make assumptions about what I may or may not know, care about, or feel. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It wouldn't hurt anything to do this, certainly. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he knows he is viewed by some as uncivil, but I've seen no evidence he agrees he is regularly uncivil. He specifically agreed regarding one edit, which hardly rises to a level that one could call a "record of incivility".--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being trouted by MF for presuming to make assumptions about what he "may or may not know, care about, or feel", he's not lacking in any kind of intelligence, and the case alone gives him enough information to draw intelligent conclusions. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum placed on civility probation
2) Due to his record of incivility and disruption, Malleus is placed on indefinite civility probation. If Malleus makes any comment that could reasonably be construed as incivil or a personal attack, he will be subject to a minimum 48-hour block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Oof. This is one of the reasons why we're here. Detractors say "That can be reasonably construed as incivility or a personal attack", His supporters say it's not (queue up much using of administrator tools and wailing and gnashing of teeth0 SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * "Reasonably construed" by who? You? Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. This seems a reasonable remedy. It might also be worth adding wording such as, "Any blocks made under this provision must be understood to be Arbitration Enforcement blocks, and as such, cannot be reversed unless they go through the normal appeal mechanism. Administrators who unblock without clear and substantial consensus, may be subject to sanctions themselves, such as removal of their administrator access." --Elonka 18:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * makes any comment that could reasonably be construed as incivil or a personal attack---WAY too broad and open for ambiguous interpretation. It opens the door for somebody to say, "My feelings were hurt when he said the idea was a dumb one."  Guess what, in a collaborative environment, peoples feelings will get hurt and sometimes you have to say that an idea is dumb.  Too subjective and prone for abuse.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse, although I prefer my phrasing, which uses "could possibly" instead of "could reasonably". <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems sensible, though the wording may need some tweaking. I agree with Elonka's suggestion about the blocks needing to be specified as having AE status - this seems necessary to prevent questionable unblocks. Something to protect the blocking admin from being threatened and abused by Malleus' more disruptive supporters would also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this provision in spirit but would require modified prose for clarity. My76Strat (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This will be quickly co-opted by people who are looking for a reason to block malleus --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Undefined policy unequally applied. There is no way something like this is going to be acceptable until we have the properly thought out and clear New Civility Policy applying equally to everyone.  Malleus is a symptom, not a cause.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unworkable: Nothing more than a recipe for bullying and inept Admins to display their stupidity and need to be famous. Major disruption would follow. Giacomo Returned 09:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum topic banned from WP:RfA
3) Due to his record of incivility and disruption at WP:RfA, Malleus is indefinitely topic banned from WP:RfA and its associated pages. 3.1) Due to his record of incivility and disruption at WP:RfA and WT:RfA, Malleus is indefinitely topic banned from WP:RfA and its associated pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To what disruption at WP:RFA does this proposed remedy refer? I'm not aware of any. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @A Quest For Knowledge: so far as I'm aware there has been no evidence whatsoever presented to support your assertion that I have been disruptive anywhere. What are you alleging that I've disrupted? Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse. Malleus is clearly incapable of acting civilly there, so until he can, the disruption must be stopped. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  01:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for his incivility at WP:RFA? And assuming you're getting confused with his contributions at WT:RFA, are you suggesting that if I were to go through all of his edits to that page, I wouldn't find any civil ones? I think the majority of his edits there are probably civil. Until you demonstrate otherwise, statements like "incapable of acting civilly there" should probably strive to be more accurate. Lara  14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seeing "incapable," seeing "record of." Different things. Nobody Ent 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't go far enough. MF's uncivil and disruptive conduct isn't isolated to just RfAs.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: So just to clarify, you're not actually denying that you've been disruptive outside the RfAs, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lara: Malleus has repeatedly attacked editors at both WP:RfA and WT:RfA. See this section on the evidence page. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which five out of the fifty diffs? Where's the analysis of these five diffs in the section given for analysis of evidence? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that some of the prospective little admins don't like his comments, but if they can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen. I wonder if any of the Arbs are actually reading any of this huge ridiculous page. I am tempted to post somethig very rude just to see. Giacomo Returned 09:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Toa Nidhiki-5: "Malleus is clearly incapable of acting civilly there" would you see that as a violation of WP:CIVIL or of WP:NPA? In either case, it's untrue.  There are many perfectly civil comments in both arenas.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed motion to close

 * 1) I propose that this case is closed on the following grounds
 * The statement by in the original case* was poorly stated
 * The original case* was not supported by diffs, thus the evidence is scattered 'wiki-wide'. There are even attempts to include off-wiki evidence
 * Evidence was presented before any reasonable scope was defined
 * If scope does include any historic civility violations and resulting admin actions or inactions, then 500 words in evidence per editor may not be enough
 * I do not know how to link to the original diff for this case. Please feel free to re-factor that diff and remove this note


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed long service award
I propose that all editors with more than 100,000 non-automated edits and active since 2008 be automatically promoted to administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposer: I have been reviewing this case almost in its entirety since it began. I see the alleged uncivil behaviour of Malleus no worse than some of the administrators posting here. Mallaeus behaves with considerably more integrity than those same administrators -- Senra (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Add non-automated -- Senra (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Newyorkbrad
Please note that I am not drafting the decision in this case, just putting a couple of thoughts down on paper (or on the screen). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
1) Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. See Civility and No personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I see a lot of debate on this page about how we should best articulate the basic norm of civility. This is how we used to do it (copied from Requests for arbitration/St Christopher (2006)). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * How is "reasonably" being defined here? What I think is reasonable may not be what you do Newyorkbrad, and vice versa. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Over the last six years this definition has failed to achieve the desired result. We still do not have a common understanding of what civility means.   I think it would be better to say that civility on Wikipedia is like civility at church, or the local pub, or the typical university classroom, or some other real world example.  Wikipedia is an academic project, so I think it would be best to say that civility can be judged the same as at school.  Most of us have experience with school and know how to behave there.  My kids curse fluently, even the two year old, but they don't do so at school.  My thirteen year old is very sweet at school and gets nothing but compliments, though he has the potential to be extremely snarky and contrary at home. If children can figure this out, so can our editors, even those who are not children. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree full well that we don't have a common understanding of what civility is, but I've been in classrooms where the level of discourse was worse than here. We have editors who are children, editors who come from highly sheltered backgrounds, editors who may be hooligans in real life, and editors who just don't care what anyone else says as long as they are left alone.  There is no way not to offend someone. Karanacs (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors should be unhurtful to each other. Most people know full well when they're intending to be hurtful. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost never intend to be hurtful, which does not preclude those to whom I am speaking from being hurt by my word choices. Others may intend to be hurtful but don't hurt me because I don't take offense easily.  Karanacs (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a good faith editor tells you they find your word choice offensive, do you continue to use it in that particular discussion? --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's like beauty. We know it when we see it. NYB's formulation is enough. Recognising it isn't the problem; insisting on it is. I'd like to see a serious commitment from the committee that it will be holding everyone to a higher standard of civility, though, not just Malleus. There'll be no problem from him if he sees that everybody's being held to the same standard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's already clearly indicated that he would have no problem in abiding by a civility policy which was unambiguous, well-thought-out, properly constructed, and equally enforced. This is the obvious solution for every incident caused by the current dysfunctionality.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility policy and enforcement
1) The current civility policy, and the enforcement thereof, are wholly problematically dysfunctional


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Evidence that would point to this is outside the scope of the case, but my hunch is that civility policy works fine in most normal cases, although it could use some increased enforcement. The meltdowns that have occurred center around a handful of deliberately uncivil long-term editors, and the problem has been one of process not policy, namely, how to enforce community expectations for behavior in the face of opposition to enforcement. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with caveat that "wholly" may be an overstatement. We editors deal in the trade of words and collaboration. Each time we meet we create a partnership based on mutual respect and the assumption of good faith. Situations and disagreements start to eat away at that partnership and slowly we turn away from each other. While the partnership and collaboration and mutual respect were present there was not a hint of dysfunction. Its when that first aggressive bite happens that the partnership is disbanded and working together toward a common goal is forgotten. Our individual dysfunctions live in the moments when the conversation starts to degrade. The Line of Demarcation as to when our individual dysfunction reach the tipping point into incivility is illusive. The community of editors needs to be clear where that tipping point is in order to make editting judgements.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the wording! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been my experience at all in about six years of quite active editing, including four years as an admin. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, and under most circumstances, it works reasonably ok. But "reasonably ok" is not good enough when we can make it much better. Apathy is the enemy of improvement. Why settle for something which sometimes fails?  Competent programmers continue to de-bug until there are no bugs.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mandate to rebuild
1) ArbCom to give a mandate to a small well-balanced team of people to re-write the civility policy to ensure that it is principle-centred, clear, readily-understandable, and that enforcement is applied equally to all with due consideration to immediate circumstances.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is certainly a job that badly needs doing, along with subsequent consistent enforcement across the board, not just against non-administrators. But it's not at all clear to me that I'd agree to be part of any such team, and obviously many would in any case raise objections to my participation in any such effort. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Pesky: the effort would be wasted unless there was a demonstrable will to apply the same standards to administrators as are now applied to non-administrators, and frankly I've seen precious little evidence of that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A New Civility Policy is imperative. The thoughts, ideas and responses of the past two weeks month need to be strongly considered and weighed as some of the threads necessary to make the fabric of a new policy that will work towards everyone's benefit. It may sound hoaky but "..in order to form a more perfect union" comes to mind. We should also consider how a new policy will be approved. It may be drafted by a small team but it must have the support of the community of editors to have any chance for its acceptance.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be:
 * that the small team would be notionally-headed by an Arb (and my personal recommendations for that would be Courcelles, as not only having the most number of votes and therefore probably more of the overall community's trust, but also being someone who I've [gasp!] stalked for quite a while, and who, to my view, consistently oozes honour and integrity)
 * that once the team is relatively happy that the job has been done properly, the Arbs would then check it over for being correctly in line with the spirit it's supposed to convey,
 * and that once that's happened, an RfC of "Is this clear enough?" is put to the community. The New Civility Policy could then be tweaked by the original team to take into account any well-supported recommendations from the results of the RfC.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And while they are at it, they might as well give RfA Reform a shot as well...--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that my sarcastic response is outta the way... I'm dubious about any meaningful reform coming out of this process. Wikipedia is a consensusology and it is nigh impossible to make widespread meaningful reform in a consensusology because people don't like change or agree to what that change might be.  Wholesale reform won't happen anymore than it has worked with RfA Reform.  The best we can hope for in incremental changes---but even there, you probably have two drastically different views on the direction those incremental change should go.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest obstacle to progress is the phrase "It can't be done." It needs a few words added to make it not the biggest obstacle, but the biggest spur to progress.  "It can't be done that way.  OK, so how can it be done?" The only way to effect a solution to a problem is to be solution-focussed, not problem-focussed.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest obstacle to brainstorming is the phrase "That's the silliest idea I've ever heard. That Wont Work!!!". The best brainstorming begins with the most outlandish idea and then working backwards to reality. Edward deBono said it best...(paraphrased) The best way to see the best path to the top of the mountain is from the top of the mountain...!--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia may not appear to agree, but as long as the revision is done with integrity, and no one feels that their viewpoint has been disenfranchised, Wikipedia is more than likely to accept an improved policy once it is a fait accompli rather than a dream. Geometry guy 23:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the Wikipedia way. If the community wants something, they will write it.  Forcing does not work. ArbCom may independently say, "This is how we interpret civility.  Until the community tell us clearly to do something else, these are the standards we will hold editors to when they are brought before us." Jehochman Talk 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes i nominate you, pesky, i'm confident with anything you may care to write.
 * here's a distinction to be made: Crocker's Rules - "Postel's rule applies to human communications no less than network communications: one should be conservative in what you produce and liberal in what you accept. If some properly formatted, meaningful communication causes your server to fail (i.e. "taking offense"), that's your own fault....If someone wants a nice soundbite to list with other eponymous rules like Postels, I offer this: "Tolerance is an obligation of listeners, not speakers." " (emphasis added). tolerance; but criticism must be meaningful. i.e. "this is cruft" is not productive, but "this cruft could be improved by x,y,z" is meaningful. <font face="Vijaya"> Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: The community will, in due time, revise and improve WP:CIVIL through the normal processes. Picking out a star chamber to do it for the community has not worked in the past, and will not work in the future. ArbCom already has a mandate from the community to issue specific rulings on cases like this one, that the community has been unable to resolve. ArbCom will devise a set of rulings that will, by their very nature, be part of the process of the community as a whole identifying where we want CIVIL to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse, at least in general principle. With great respect to Jehochman, we dont need to hold ourselves hostage to the past. If the outpouring of opinion at the request stage at a common theme it seemed to be "Arbs, please help us! The community had tried and failed to solve the civility problem. You're our only hope!" So have to agree with Pesky that Arbcom have a mandate for this or a similarly radical solution, even if personally I think the policy is fine, we just need better enforcement that could most readily be achieved with a minor institutional fix. Or better still a major fix such as the fork just suggested by the phenomenal WSC.


 * Per editor Buster7, the approval mechanism is key. If handled by a small group, either appointed or randomly selected, the polarised arguments seen in this case and regular RFC /Us can be avoided. A size of about 12 or less works best.


 * If Arbs like Peskys idea and chose an appointed team, perhaps some of the more moderate and eloquent contributors to the request state could be invited such as FlufferNutter and Scotty, along with Milowent for some much needed humour. Quasi random selection similar to the RfC inviter bot could also work. Many folk initially don't like the idea of entrusting major decisions to a random team, but over the past decade or so its been done hundreds of times, often involving political decisions of considerable impact, and the consensus among democratic theorists is that the outcomes have generally been excellent. Am slowly adding the best available sources about this to our Deliberative Democracy article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have my own preferences how a team is chosen - I agree that 12 or thereabouts is an excellent number. But then I've done some team-construction and task-force construction in the past.  I would, of course, be more than happy to be on it.  (And Fluffernutter would be a good choice, yes, with about three of the necessary attributes required within a properly synergistic team.)  I don't think quasi-random would work; to get the best synergistic team, there has to be a really valid reason for the choice of each team member.  Some of the reasons might appear strange to people who've never had to hand-pick teams for tricky work, but, from long experience, they work best when picked for the right combination of reasons.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Arbcom cannot give a body a mandate that it doesn't have itself. Arbcom has no mandate to do other than what they were elected to do. Making policy is explicitly excluded from Arbcom's mandate: "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat." (WP:AP). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is based on the fact that we need to find something workable. And the suggestion is not that ArbCom should come up with a policy. And the suggestion is that whatever gets built would get put to the wider community to ensure that it's clear, and to make any necessary tweaks or additions, before it was "set in stone".  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the community have the opportunity to say "no, we don't like this, go back to the old one or nothing at all"? If the community only gets the chance to "ensure that it's clear, and to make any necessary tweaks or additions", this is policy by fiat. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are questions which are best left until later, really. And "nothing at all" is never going to be an option! The idea is not to come up with a radically different policy - just a much clearer one.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. This is not to be left until later. I've asked you a question that goes to the core of your proposal: does the community get to say "no" to the work of this working group? I want an answer now. If the answer is "no, the community doesn't get to say no", you are entrusting policy-making power in small coterie. If the answer is "yes, the community will get to say no", your proposal is much less radical. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mandate" does kind of suggest a free hand. (I'm not saying I agree or disagree.) Deb (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The mandate would be to re-write the existing policy for clarity. To make it far more difficult to misinterpret.  To include some examples of how the snarky comment that an editor wants to leave could be re-worded in a way that would make it acceptable.  Things like that. To cover the basic principles of civility in a way which makes the policy easy to apply; and to make it clear that these same basic principles cover all editors, regardless of their standing. The re-written, clearer, easier-to-understand and apply version would then be put to the community for comment.  Those comments would then be used to ensure that it would get the backing of the community. The advantage of having a smaller team working on it is that there's less room for chaos and argument in the re-writing process. I suppose that maybe the easiest way to sum this up would be by comparing it to getting the existing policy up to at least FA standard.  That can't be done with hundreds of people involved in re-working it.  FA's are produced by a small, committed team, who can work together with a very clear goal in mind. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A hand full of editors here can not generate a consensus to change policy. ArbCom may interpret policy if it is unclear, but they cannot change it. Jehochman Talk 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I think you've probably misunderstood this proposal. It's nothing to do with generating a "consensus to change policy".  I'm not suggesting that the policy should be changed - just that the way it's worded should be simplified and clarified.  Bearing in mind that the idea is not to change the policy, but to make it harder to misinterpret,  misunderstand, or mis-apply, do your views on this change?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: one of the things which could (and I think should) be covered is that nobody should get a "civility slap" following an action which, for example, "could be construed as uncivil", or "could be construed as" anything else bad. It would have to be absolutely clear.  For example, sometimes people do something as a result of a genuine mistake or oversight, having failed to notice something, but on the surface it "could be construed as" spiteful or hounding. To get a "civility slap" it would have to have been an offence beyond reasonable doubt. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Chgo, parking 8' from a fire hydrant gets you a $150 ticket. The officer has an 8' stick he uses to measure. Our problem is we have no designated officer and the stick is nowhere to be found. There is no 'line in the sand'. There is no uniform communal agreement. No consensus that has been achieved here in WikiPediaWorld. Therefore we wind up here confronting an editor of supreme ability. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have, here in Wikipedia, a smaller-scale version of one of the most problematic areas in the "real world" of human justice systems. Miscarriages of justice are immensely psychologically damaging to their victims, and when the original miscarriages of justice are heaped up and used in evidence against someone for future "trials", that situation escalates.  What we have here in Wikipedia, unfortunately  and we have to admit it  is the situation where our "justice system" has failed so miserably in some instances that we are responsible for having caused lasting trauma to some people.  What we have, with the editors whom we have been responsible for damaging,  is not an abnormal reaction, but a normal reaction to an abnormal situation.  In real life, victims of miscarriages of justice develop C-PTSD. Where those miscarriages of justice have resulted from the actions of what one could best call "bent coppers", the obsession / hypervigilance becomes tightly focussed on bent coppers, and, to a certain extent, on coppers as a whole.  We need to accept some responsibility for having damaged people, not just rail at them for the results of that damage. Part of that responsibility is addressing the causes of the problem, and eliminating them.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus said he would "abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy" and Malleus knows how to write. I'm jus' sayin'...--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is fair to ask those affected by a policy to propose a better version. Jehochman Talk 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Having had some experience of team-structure and team-building to address particular purposes, the structure of the team is very important and it should include people who've been affected, either way (both ways) by the problem to be addressed. See my jottings on team structure for "types" which must be included for an effective, synergistic team. There have been several very scholarly studies on verbal aggression (which, in our WikiLanguage, is pretty much a large part of the definition of incivility); is a very interesting one, and largely applicable. It addresses the impact of verbal aggression (including scolding, yelling, swearing, blaming, insulting, threatening, demeaning, ridiculing, criticising, and belittling). To do a really good re-clarification of policy, I think we need to be looking at some of this stuff, to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of actual harm as opposed to perceived harm associated with verbally aggressive behaviour. This is why I'm saying we need to treat it as we would an FA; it has to be really well thought-out, encompass the community views, and be based on scientific facts. No reason why we can't use the sources available to us to come up with a real winner.

Adding: if I were building this team, Malleus would have to be on it. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the spirit of this proposal, I think it is workable, but nothing close to an easy fix or even a fast fix. We must learn to better function during the interim, even now! And that may well require enforcing the current policy, as is. Can that be done? My76Strat (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooh, what a question! The more important point is that the current policy must be equally enforced. We cannot afford to tolerate injustice any longer. Injustice breeds rage, quitting, or both. It's all going to be tricky. But then few things which are both really worth doing and really needing to be done are ever easy. In fact, if it had been easy, it would  already have been done.
 * Full text of this paper would be very revealing and worth some serious study. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No time to explain, but I am "lifting" ideas, thoughts, comments, etc from these case pages...pro and con.. and gathering them for study. The community views (or at least a rather large and diverse cross-section of them) have been expressed on these pages (consensus??). My usual habit when I do this is to dis-connect the editor from the edit. That way no hard feelings, anomosity or favoritism come with the lift. Also, I would vigorously support the inclusion of Editor Malleus in any re-write of the Civility policy. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would join Buster7 in vigorously supporting Malleus Fatuorum for participation. This of course, only if I were successful in vigorously beseeching Malleus Fatuorum to participate. I doubt saying please would help to this end, (why I have such a doubt is unknown) But I do in fact say "sir, I hope that you will please agree to assist this important endeavor should the option arise". My76Strat (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words into MF's mouth, but I feel relatively confident that he would join such a team if invited. (And he is welcome to trout me for this comment if I'm wrong!) From his history, Malleus is always receptive to genuine requests for assistance. And the end result would certainly be extremely well-written! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus: the "has to be applied and enforced equally" would be a fundamental requirement of the re-written policy as I see it. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Different standards but the same goal
1) We accept that Editor Malleus Fatuorun has different standards of civility, but that we expect and hope he will take some personal responsibility and accountability for demonstating more empathy and caring for his fellow editors. He can be more self-policing, showing a capacity toward tolerance, and we can support his efforts to co-exist.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposal is based on a false premise. I don't have "different standards of civility", I have an adult and honest attitude towards civility, not that of a primary school. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Refering to Malleus Fatuorum as Editor Fatuorum can be considered incivil and patronising.J3Mrs (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you will note I almost always call fellow workers "Editor". Its a sign of respect. If we treated each other more like editors instead of just "user" inter-relationships would definitely get better. Plus, Its not aomething new that Ive just now started to do for this case. Ive been doing it for years. Ive never had anyone complain. If I provided diffs, there would be literrally thousands, I'm sure. So . I guess this is a case of "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but Im not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." PLease assume good faith. You're not the first to mistake good manners for condescention and patronizing. I hope other Editors see how things can get turned inside out and how fragile communicating by the written word can be...I say something and you read something completely different.  HMMMmmm! A bit like this case, wouldn't you say?<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so perhaps you should use his full username, rather than your own version of what of what you consider acceptable, so as to avoid any ambiguity. J3Mrs (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster Seven, I think what J3Mrs is getting at is that the meaning of the Latin phrase "Malleus Fatuorum" is "hammer of fools", so by calling him "Editor Fatuorum", you are actually calling him "Editor of fools". Interestingly, his previous name "Malleus Fatuarum" means "hammer of female fools", and I expect that's why he changed it. Deb (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the change. I had no idea I was insulting him which, humourously, turns the Greenberg quote I used back on my self. The last time I needed Latin was in the 12th century <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I had in mind but, with more than one interpretation, goes to show how "incivility" is more than a naughty word. There are other examples which should be changed as well. J3Mrs (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Editor J3Mrs..feel free to change whatever example you feel necessary. After your change I'll have a clearer understanding of what interpretation you had in mind. It clearly was not my interpretation, but we are seperated by a common language. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Examples of "incivility" should include:
 * I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding C-t. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless C-t pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.
 * Much conversation took place (not sure where) between many editors and administrators as to the validity and incendiary quality of this "humour page". The essay was altered and softened to gain reluctant support. Even in the face of many critics the author showed remarkable inflexibility. I recall claims of satire and sarcasm and irony as reasons given for its existence. I also recall President Nixons comment that he was not a crook. 
 * I have been the one that has been arguing with c_____t about paid operatives. It started 3/4 weeks ago...It just seemed like an obvious statement of fact that Both parties would be present to make sure that they had their say in matters. AND IT WASN'T JUST VOLUNTEERS, BUT PAID STAFFERS. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT, I WAS MERELY MENTIONING IT..If I was running a campaign I would certainly want to know what was going into the Sara PALIN article. It just made sense. WELL>>>>>C_____t got all upset and said I was reprehensible for even thinking that. He/she made a big todo about it...in the hopes of shutting me up, I guess. She was the only Palin editor to have a problem with it. Ferrylodge was OK withit. No-one else got into a snit....just C_____t. Which made me suspicious. so......I started to sniff around and see if something fragrant would surface. You know the rest....see you at the Palin pages!
 * All of which strikes me as being quite worthy of Janus as a bare minimum.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These entries were made by me about Editor Collect at other editors talk pages during the 2008 US Presidential election. Reading them now, I still don't see any incivility. I guess if the editor wants to make a case out of them I can provide background diffs to explain the validity of their truth and substantiation of their facts. @Editor Collect, feel free to fill in the blanks.....<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG! I just realized. Do you think these old diffe' refer to that word that this whole case is about (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), that word that weve all been talking about??. No, not at all. Your user name fits nicely in the Gap. So Mind the Gap as they say. False evidence, in this case. C____t becomes C OLLEC T. Truth lies in the spaces between the letters. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not identify the editor, but I wonder if you would apply your new standards to the editor that I quoted? As for "false evidence", I fear the quotes are quite accurate.  So - I trust you are not the editor you were - but would that not then be of importance in this case?  I assure you, moreover, that there were many uncivil things said by that "old" editor and others - how would you have treated them?  (And stating that an editor is surely being paid by a political campaign, I suggest, is a specific charge and attack).  Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also the post to which I had responded was altered after my reply, and worded in a manner which alters what my reply would have been had those been the original words. My usage of quotes was exact and so the charge of falsity was wrong, despite the alteration of the claim now.  Cheers - but I find it very hard to deal with substantial changes in posts to which I have replied.  Collect (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes are definetly accurate. I made them about you. Nearly four years ago. Quite a while. But I would challenge you to consider your audience and the size of it. I may be going over the line but I assure you that some may not concur with your explanation of events.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly note I did not identify you in this colloquy, and your wondrous civil edits summaries like Some one left the outhouse door open!)' seem more to place you at a disadvantage than you might otherwise wish. I gave them as an example - but the edit summary you just used seems to show a remarkable "view" about "civility" indeed, as did your alteration of a prior post. Cheers - this colloquy, never intended at all, is over from my side. Collect (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My side too, Four years ago! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr Rogers was a soldier
2) It may be that we need to adjust our perspective of and our standards for WP Civility. We should work to communicate to Editor Malleus Fatuorun that standing up for a fellow editor is not Civility Policing. It is an act being a Good Neighbor. If editors cannot follow a simple direction like respecting another editor, they should refrain from negatively labeling those that can.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Being in your local Neighbourhood Watch is considered to be good in most parts of the Real Life community, but not here in WikiLand. Calling someone a "member of the Civility Police" is (bordering on?) uncivil in itself, when it's clearly being used as a derogatory term. This is a good part of the point - it's labelling other people with derogatory terms which is uncivil, not the particular derogatory term which is used.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being in your local Neighbourhood Watch is considered to be good in most parts of the Real Life community, but not here in WikiLand. Calling someone a "member of the Civility Police" is (bordering on?) uncivil in itself, when it's clearly being used as a derogatory term. This is a good part of the point - it's labelling other people with derogatory terms which is uncivil, not the particular derogatory term which is used.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like this. Speaking the truth should be protected.  If an editor is attempting to use civility as a cudgel against another, they should be told that their behavior is wrong.  Esepcially if the editor is an administrator, they need to have a thick enough skin not to be upset by a mild criticism like being called the "civility police".  Jehochman Talk 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AH! The illusive Truth. And your truth is that telling a fellow editor he has stepped over the line of common courtesy is an act of civil policing? And is wrong? And, one more time, the bad manners were directed at everyone present, and ever to be present, not just administrators. But, botttom line, I don't get upset by the term civility police. I'd prefer good neighbor. But I guess it depends on your vantage point. Added thought--Calling editors the civility police seperates them from their fellow editors. Calling editors neighbors unifies them.-<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "civility police" are not necessarily administrators, my personal definition is they are individuals who demand higher standards of other editors than they demand of themselves, the most sensible thing to call an editor is an editor.J3Mrs (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "they are individuals who demand higher standards of other editors than they demand of themselves" - that's very interesting, and it defines the problem of labelling people as "Civility Police". While that statement is almost certainly true of some of the notional civility police, as soon as one applies a label, the definition of that label is then a slur on everyone who's had it hung around their neck.  We must avoid labels.  It's perfectly possible  and I know for a fact that this is actually the case with many of us who've been labelled  for people to hold themselves to the same standards they'd like to see from others.  "Civility Police" carries an unwarranted subliminal suggestion of hypocrisy.  Not all Civility Police are hypocrites, and I'd suggest that not even most of them / us are.  This is why the straight and honest people who care about the equal application and enforcement of civility rules strongly dislike being labelled as "Civility Police".  Nobody likes to be labelled as a hypocrite - especially those who are not hypocritical.  In any barrel, there are likely to be some bad apples.  It doesn't mean that every apple in the barrel is a bad one.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Using civility as a pretense to block people one dislikes is hardly civil. As commonly used, the "Civility Police" are indeed hypocrites. I am not aware of anybody who proudly calls themselves a member of the Civility Police.   There is nothing wrong with using a label as shorthand instead of writing out every time, "administrators who like to lord their powers over other editors, and hold others to higher standards than themselves." Jehochman Talk 10:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason people want to get to Malleus is to stop him from being uncivil. There's zero evidence that anyone is using civility as a pretense to punish him over some unrelated grudge, that doesn't even make any sense.  Why on earth would anyone object to anything Malleus does, except for the incivility?  He's a great editor, a major benefit to the project, and very friendly to most people.  One of the most daunting things about trying to get people to behave around here is the amount of abuse, game-playing, and sabotage one faces from the wall of defenders and enablers.  Calling people names for complaining about abusive behavior isn't sanctionable and it may or may not be uncivil, but whatever it is, it poisons the atmosphere around here.  As a side note, there's nothing either civil or uncivil about blocking people, it's an administrative action not a social interaction.  Even a bad block isn't uncivil, no more than an illegitimate ticket for parking in front of the opera house is unmusical.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An illegitimate parking ticket is unjust regardless of where it is given; furthermore, in that case there is generally no direct interaction between the ticketer and the ticketee - not so with blocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, it's a bit strange to find "policing" regarded as a slur. I am not at all ashamed of my part in helping to enforce wikipedia policies, which is what administrators are supposed to do.  In most western societies, people are quick to criticise police but only too glad to have them around when they need help to defend themselves against anti-social elements. So I don't think we should take the label too seriously and we should just ignore those who try to twist the phrase to make it mean anything other than its literal meaning. Deb (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, to me it is strange to find "policing" regarded as admirable—the more so the more I read the history of policing. Your "anti-social elements" is as menacing a construction to me as the "good neighbour" in this proposal.  These metaphors are those of the Cancer ward. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "As commonly used, the "Civility Police" are indeed hypocrites." Yes, that's the problem. But where is the label which distinguishes the "bent coppers" from the "straight coppers"? There isn't one - so it gets to the point where anyone making a civility call is also labelled as a hypocrite. We've moved from "Beware of Greeks bringing gifts!" to "Beware of anybody bringing gifts  they're probably Greek!" This is a major part of the dysfunctionality - anyone who makes a civility call, no matter how right and how honest they are, is automatically tarred with the hypocrite brush. ... "administrators who like to lord their powers over other editors, and hold others to higher standards than themselves." I've had the Civility Police label nailed onto me - but I'm not an Admin, and never want to be one, either.
 * Adding: What we have is a "copper = bent copper" perception and label. This is not right, and undermines fundamental principles. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, the vague handwavy concept of "civility police" is that there is a group of self-appointed editors who go round looking for swearwords or rude comments and try to get the otherwise productive editors sanctioned. This concept is flawed, however, as it assumes that civility and offence are the same thing - that the "otherwise productive editor" has done nothing wrong and the issue is with the "civility police" who are taking offence, where none was meant.
 * As much as the editors above say the term is positive, it's not - if it were, you'd find Userboxen or possibly even a project talking about civility police. The way wikipedia works means that no individual editors should have "authority" over others and therefore any self-appointed police officer is ineffective... further implying the derogatory nature of the term. Interestingly though, self appointed terms such as new page patrol, counter vandalism unit, guild of copy editors, or the mediation cabal are considered positive... <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The smear-label has come about as a direct result of ill-defined rules unequally applied. How can any community function properly where there is a perception that every copper is bent? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck in somehow reducing civility to a Star Trek computer program. But as for this present proposal: Although policing can obviously be abused, the unqualified phrase "civility police" is of course a good thing. If it isn't, then please remove the civility pillar so we won't make the mistake of thinking it matters. And excuse my "please"; I meant to say REMOVE THE F---ING PILLAR, YOU #%&$@!!!! Art LaPella (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Biting
3)Don't Bite the Newbies should be changed to Don't Bite Each Other.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Discounting each other
4)Editors should, at all times, place a higher value on Wikipedia than they do on themselves and their ability to discount another editor.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Words are all we have
5a)An editor should not receive special dispensation because of clear, concise word choices in one area while making poor and outrageous choices in another.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

5b)A Lexicographer should be hired by the foundation and tasked with creating our own private swear words that are unique to WikiPedia. Once established and distributed to all editors, the use of these swear words would be problem/ban/block-free.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposed remedy is quite simply bizarre. Many examples have been given of alternative versions of "cunt", notably the Cockney rhyming slang "berk", short for "Berkshire Hunt". By what logic should one be considered more or less offensive than the other? Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Had you said "berk" Editor Deb would not have been offended (she found it offensive as it has been proven to be) and none of this would have happened.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * During this case and discussions surrounding it, many editors may have been asked to leave public areas where what was on their screen was easily visible by the general public. I was asked to leave two libraries over the past three weeks. If we had had our own private word for 'Cunt', lets say 'jutt' User:Malleus would not have been asked to retract and none of this would have happened.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Aggresive behavior
6)Aggresive behavior ruins a social situation that is designed to function astho all members are equal. Aggresive behavior captures your attention, undermines collaboration, marginalizes the user, derails group progress and mutual respect, assumes bad faith and minimizes collaroration.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Addition to all Welcome pages
7) New editors should be warned via the various Welcome pages of the possibility that they may encounter swear words, bad language, and what may seem to be personal attacks. The new editors  should consider these words and actions as acceptable within the Wikipedia Editing Community. They should be warned to not find fault with the editors that curse or are aggressive.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Buster7's proposed remedy below plumbs new depths of pettiness and vindictiveness. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, its old depths of ingenuity and imagination --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  09:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Buster7: I am frankly disgusted by your proposal, and your assertion that this case is about me, as the "defendant". The defendant is Wikipedia's administrator corps, who have signally failed to equitably enforce an admittedly poorly written civility policy but have not pushed for its clarification, as it's convenient for them to have a generic big stick with which to beat other editors into submission. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC
 * I don't recall when and where I called you "the defendant". Please provide diffs.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Buster7: and for Christ's sake will you please stop referring to me as "Editor Malleus", or "Editor Fatuorum". It's like having to listen to chalk squeaking across a blackboard, makes my flesh creep. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest ear-plugs. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
1)I propose that all Wikipedia editors be paid/apportioned/allocated/distributed a stipend, in Wiki$$$$, that would be the equivelent of the current amount of edits that are listed @ WP:List of editors by number of edits. In this way fines could be levied for breeches of social decorum, etc. to be determined by consensus. For instance, Editor Malleus Fatuorum currently has 122,591 edits or $122,591 in WikiDollars. It would be much like play money at the various Internet Poker rooms: it would have no value whatsoever. It would merely be a method to measure the value and rank of editors and provide a vehicle for the payment of fines levied by Arbcom. Lets say the fine was $7000 per cunt and $5000 per "I don't give a fuck". That would seriously delay his goal of achieving 125000 edits and would be an incentive for him to cease and desist his aggresiveness. Right now the only alternatives are forget about it or ban/block. This provides a lower level, easy-to-manage system of editor responsibility. Before fellow editors spurn the idea and attack it as silly, give it time to ferment. The best solutions come from wacky solutions that seem peculiar and derisible prior to brainstorming. No editor should take offense at this proposal. It is presented merely as an idea for consideration. Since Editor Fatuorum is envolved in this case it seemed obvious to use him as an example, but it could be any editor. My bad! I have nothing to be vindictive about. Restricting the achievement of a self-declared goal is not petty, its a message. It offers a consequence for actions detrimental to Wikipedia. Maybe some editors (other than Editor Malleus) would get the message. Maybe not. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on consensus, so blocks of experienced editors should too
I think the basic problem is that consensus is not involved in contentious admin actions, specifically blocks of experienced users (the admin actions which are most often disputed or contentious). Since Wikipedia generally works on consensus, I propose requiring some form of consensus for blocks of established users. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This basically harkens back to my proposal above where the default is to unblock on contentious blocks.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly endorse this. An indefinite block of an experienced editor for a pattern of incivility is not something that should be done unilaterally. Perhaps we need some sort of definition of "experienced" but these sorts of blocks should be done through consensus. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Restating current policy is always a good idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wholly endorse this, with the obvious exception of emergency situations where the blocking admin would have blocked absolutely anyone in the same circumstances. Including the blocking of any and all the Arbs if they had done the same thing. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
My proposed remedy: 1) allows individual admins to block IPs and new users (as now); 2) requires at least two admins to block established users; 3) allows an emergency block by any single admin; 4) encourages topics and interaction bans as an alternative to blocks; and 5) hopefully would resolve many of the issues involved in this case.

Currently all admin actions are done individually and under my proposal most still would be. Most blocks are for IPs or new users (vandals, POV pushers, COI, SPAM and the like), and these blocks are seldom disputed. Thus admins could still act individually to block (or unblock) IPs and new users. A threshold for new users would need to be established, perhaps the autoconfirmed level (though accounts 4 days olds with at least 10 edits seems low). It may be better to use the stricter autoconfirmed threshold for users with IPBE editing through the Tor network: 90 days and 100 edits.

For established editors (however that may be defined) I propose requiring the agreement of at least two admins to block or unblock. It seems to me the best way to do this would be in the software - one admin registers a block on the user, but the block is not implemented until a second admin also registers a block. I think the first admin's !vote to block should trigger an automatic notice to the user - this would act as an immediate warning. Furthermore I think the first blocking admin would have to leave a comment for the user on their talk page explaining the proposed block, and there should be a minimum time limit (5 or 10 minutes?) before the second admin could agree to the block. I would also require the second admin to explain his or her block on the user's talk page, or else the block would be undone. Unblocks would work in a similar way (at least two admins agree, notices required).

This is just an idea, so I am sure there are several ways this could be implemented or tweaked. It may be that this could be done via a project talk page or notice board of some sort, and that once consensus is established a non-involved admin or "super admin" or crat would do the actual block. It could be that unblocking requires one more admin than the original block (i.e. 2 to block, 3 to unblock). It may be that several levels could be established: IPs and new users (1 admin can block), experienced users (2 admins to block), users with special priveleges (rollbacker, reviewer, admin, whatever - 3 admins to block).

I would allow any admin to perform an emergency block of any user without consensus. The catch is that this would also block the admin, with crat action needed to unblock the admin (and no permanent stain on their block record). So if Jimbo's account were compromised and he started vandalizing the Main Page, any admin could block him immediately, at the cost of being briefly blocked themselves. If this were abused, well the admin is already blocked. [Please note I saw something similar proposed long ago, but do not recall where or by whom].

The proposal would also encourage alternatives to blocks - topic bans, interaction bans, etc. - again with some sort of consensus of admins required. Blocking is a blunt tool which accomplishes little in most cases involving experienced users. Perhaps finer restrictions would be worth a try.

Hoped for outcomes As noted above, this proposal would give an immediate warning to any established user threatened with a block, which would hopefully serve to de-escalate some situations. It would also initiate discussion of the behavior in question before the block, which seems better to me than all the words wasted after blocks. Hopefully it would reduce the number of disputed / bad blocks and wheel warring - if someone proposes a really bad block, then no one would "second" the block. I feel that some bad behavior is exacerbated by the perceived unfairness of an original block, so if this reduces bad or disputed blocks, it may help prevent situations from escalating. It may also reduce the perception of "admin abuse", since the power of a single admin to block would be limited to emergencies. Similarly, I think this would reduce the need for unblocks, and by requiring consensus for unblocks too, it might reduce the perceived second mover advantage and accusations of wheel warring.

It also seems to me that consensus is a way to avoid some of the uncertainties in WP:CIVIL. I do not see how we can more clearly define civility for individual admins (does an encyclopedia which is WP:NOTCENSORED and has WP:IAR as one of its five pillars really need a prohibited Seven dirty words list)? I hope that requiring consensus that an established editor is being uncivil or disruptive or making personal attacks before blocking would be a way to better implement WP:CIVIL.

It may even be that making blocks more dependent on consensus might help attract more admins via Rfa.

I plan not to watch this - do with it as you will. If you really need my input on it, please ping me on my talk page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum (came back to look after a week)
 * 1) Thought one: I am not calling for prolonged discussions at AN/I (and purposefully did not name that noticeboard). I propose a mechanism where if one admin wants to block and experienced editor a second admin has to agree - there is now a bot that asks people to participate in RfCs, surely something could be worked out? What if there were a noticeboard just for proposed blocks of experienced editors. There could be a list of experienced admins (had the bit a year, no sanctions from ArbCom - some sort of qualifications) and they could post when they were available (as admins used to do at DYK). If one admin proposed a block, only someone from the list could second it - maybe you contact the top three names on the list and the first one to respond makes the decision? There could be a rule that the seconder not be involved in the dispute or be closely associated with the admin proposing the block or the person whose block was proposed. I have made two stupid blocks in my career as an admin - I think both of them would have been prevented by such a system, and I seriously doubt that such a system would have led to an indef blck of Malleus and all this drama (a shorter block, perhaps, but indef?? no).
 * 2) Thought two: How difficult it is for those in power to surrender even a little bit of it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'd be more likely to support the inverse: that two admins are needed to undo certain blocks. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems like there has to be an easier solution than asking WMF to rewrite the programming surrounding blocking. Also, 2 blocking admins doesn't necessarily equate to consensus.  Using MF's case as an example.  We have two admins willing to block (Thumper and Hawkeye.)  Does their being willing to block equal consensus even though the majority of users/admins said no?
 * A better proposal would be that if the block is going to be of an established user, then it needs to goto ANI first to get consensus. If consensus can't be reached there, then no foul.  If it can, then the block.  If a user is a repeat offender, take them to RfC.  Malleus SHOULD have been taken to RfC a long time ago---but the people who see him as doing more harm to the project than good, never bothered to start one or compile the evidence.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The notion that when someone engages in a bit of extreme incivility admins should need to generate a positive consensus on ANI before issuing a block is a non-starter. Firstly, it would be a policy change, for which you'd never get consensus. Second, it makes to big a deal of what shouldn't be a big deal. Someone crosses the line, an uninvolved admin issues a short block - we don't start an endless discussion about it. Thirdly, ANI is weighted. The first people there will be those with the blocked user on their watchlist. Enough of those will be friendly to deny any apparent consensus unless 100 uninvolved people chip in. Your proposal would allow "friends of the accused" and those who dislike civility blocks on principle to make blocks impossible - which effectively allows a minority to make a new anti-block policy. Lastly, define "established user" - that's so open to wikilawyering. Where I would agree with you is that when a user is constantly sailing close to the wind, but never actually engages in the type of personal attack that would result in a stand-alone block, then an RFC is appropriate (or an ANI discussion) rather than jumping on something that would not of itself merit blocking. That may be pertinent in the MF case (not sure). My parallel would be with edit-waring. We deal with it at two levels. You step over the line and break the 3RR - you get blocked. A first offence, or a promise to stay away from the article will normally a quick unblock. However, if you don't actually break the 3RR but are consistently edit warning, then an RFC, arbcom, or a discussion among uninvolved admins can still sanction you, and even place you on a 1RR (which means you get blocked for any infringement). Same should be here. Outrageous personal attacks, or way-over-the-line, incivility ought to result in a summary block. If you quickly show you "get it", or agree to step back, and you don't have a history of previous blocks, then obtaining a swift unblock should not be a problem. However, a pattern of incivility or constant borderline personal attacks, needs dealt with by discussion. And it may also be that more often such users need placed on paroles where they know the may be blocked (perhaps by agreed mentors rather than any gung-ho admin) for any borderline activity.--Scott Mac 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Saved me a couple of hundred words there Scott, agree with every word. Especially agree about ANI being weighted and friends piling on, potentially the biggest problem of the lot. Leaky  Caldron  19:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a short-term (24 hours) emergency block for any action which would get anybody blocked is fine for an established user. If an action wouldn't get absolutely anyone blocked, it should never justify a block on an established editor.  It's generally easy enough to say to oneself "If Jimbo / my best buddy had done this, would I block him?" For longer-term, ongoing, borderline-area stuff, RfC/U has to be the way to go, with some kind of probation implemented.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: what is the proposed remedy with an editor who flatly and with uncivil language and personal attacks refuses to engage at WQA or RfC/U? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott, is there any consensus on what extreme incivility is? I know my definition is probably much looser than that of many others here and depends greatly on context. Karanacs (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz
In progress ...

Self-blocks are discouraged: WP:BLOCKME
1) All administrators are discouraged from granting request for a self-block, under usual conditions. If the requesting editor has been disciplined by an administrator or has been discussed at at a noticeboard in the last week, then a self-requested block should be discussed at ANI or with a member of ArbCom (or both); such blocks must be limited to one week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I can't agree with this, as 28bytes is absolutely on the button. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer.
 * The first sentence summarizes WP:BLOCKME. The second sentence follows from both (a) an application of the first sentence's principle and (b) a seeming consequence of some of the stringent conditions for self-blocking listed by administrators  willing to issue self-blocks (at WP:BLOCKME): The (suggested one-week) time-limit avoid ambiguity
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, naturally. The blocking policy is ambivalent (one might say self-contradictory) regarding "on request" blocks, so I disagree that it "discourages" such blocks. I happen to believe that it's a kindness to block someone who in good faith requests to be blocked, and that to require an AN/I discussion for such good faith requests is unnecessary bureaucracy. It is, of course, critical for administrators to be able to discern between a self-block that someone requests in good faith and one that is being used to game the system. Regarding the case at hand, when I blocked Malleus per his request, as I commented to Salvio, I took Malleus's request as a serious, good faith request, and I believe I was correct to do so. Being unblocked solely for the participation in an ArbCom case carries the very real risk of leading to further trouble if the blockee so much as unthinkingly removes a bit of vandalism from an article they watch. Anyone who has ever accidentally called someone's old phone number, or written the wrong year on a check, can surely relate to such an "oops" moment, and I think a certain amount of empathy is in order when considering the unpleasant ramifications of an innocent, inadvertent violation of someone's unblock condition. Being an administrator carries the responsibility to help other editors when possible, and although it may seem counter-intuitive that blocking someone may be helpful to them, we have to acknowledge the possibility that sometimes it is indeed helpful. 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And for transparency's sake I should note that just before I saw this proposal, I blocked another long-term, hard-working editor per their own request, in this case so that they could manage a medical condition without the temptation to edit. If this were against policy, I would not have done it, of course, but what's written at WP:BLOCKME strikes as best a balance as can be probably be achieved between the legitimate aims of discouraging frivolous "block me" requests, and not hindering the ability of administrators to act on good faith requests. I urge ArbCom not to make any statements that would discourage the use of the block tool as a response to such good-faith requests, as to do so would go further than the blocking policy does, and would constrain administrators from taking actions that are in the best interests of good-faith editors who request their help. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to the issue at hand (and existing policy clearly supports 28bytes) Nobody Ent 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Two experienced, productive writers made angry requests for self blocks, which were granted, following earlier contentious blocks
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

1) After having been blocked, User:Badger Drink angrily requested that he be indefinitely blocked. He was indefinitely blocked by administrator. Afterwords, his account has been inactive (as of 13 January 2012).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I don;t think, really, that anyone could view a 24-hour block for someone having written "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" in an edit summary as being "contentious". I;m sure that even if an Arb had done that, they would have been facing at least a 24-hour block, and would have known that they were.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1) After having been blocked, User:Malleus F angrily requested that he be indefinitely blocked. He was indefinitely blocked by administrator. (Need to double check) 1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Pesky is entirely correct in what she says; I was neither angry nor requested an indefinite block. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * IIRC, MF requested a proper block, as opposed to being "unblocked for the purpose of contributing at ArbCom page", for the specific reason that he didn't want to violate the unblock conditions accidentally by correcting something or removing vandalism, etc. I don't think this was done in anger, but for a very sound and intelligent reason. MF can correct me if I have this wrong. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators proactively avoid WP:WHEEL
1) Administrators should exercise caution when blocking established editors and where the block is likely to be contentious should discuss with other administrators before making the block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This has been discussed above. Sure, caution is good. However, the problem is with the growing incivility of established editors, who should know better - and making it harder to enforce civility here is problematic. Lets be honest, if an administrator ever discusses blocking an established user (even with very good cause) it would have to be on ANI. The admin (or someone else) will post a note on the subject's talk page. The talk page is watched by friends who will be the first on the scene and whose commentary will ensure that there's visibly no apparent consensus for action. So instead of a clear breach of civility ending in a short block, we end up with an ANI drama and no action - unless some admin gets frustrated enough to go commando. There is simply no such thing as a quiet discussion (sanity check) with another admin before making a block, unless one uses extra-wiki means - and that causes all hell. The effect of this, very sensible looking proposal, is to reject all blocks on established users.--Scott Mac 09:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Blocks of established editors are not always contentious, if they have done something obviously wrong (eg violated NPA, 3RR, POV pushing). I'm talking about situations where you know your block is likely to be reverted, because you are making a unilateral decision based on a pattern of edits. What's more, it doesn't need to be AN/I - it could be another admin's talk page or an Arb's, or a 'crats. It still sounds sensible to me. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U doesn't work
2) Requests for comment on users is a fundamentally flawed process, as it one-sided and stressful for the user in question. The community should find a better process for dealing with patterns of problematic edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * But everyone is saying "use RFC not blocks with long-term incivility". So, if RFC is broken, what do people use until the day 1,000 years from now when the community agree another process?--Scott Mac 09:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Effectively you have the choice between a blunt tool (block) and humiliation (RfC). I don't approve of either - and that's why I'm saying the community should find a better process. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic bans. Geometry guy 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I read every RFC/U that involved a civility issue in 2011 as a result of Risker's request to develop evidence collaboratively. Only two were successful in developing discussion around the civility issues.  Most others were bans by humiliation; bans by aggravating user conduct through a humiliation process; or quite simply disciplinary attempts to ban by people using RFC/U as AN/I community ban with a mask of "niceness."  RFC/U does not function according to its remit in terms of civility: it is a disciplinary kangaroo court, lacking oversight.  RFC/U ought to be shut down by the Arbitrators for use in civility issues for de-facto breaches of the banning policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)  Per . Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the cause which is responsible for the ineffectiveness of RfC's on civility is the fact that we have an unclear, ambiguous, nebulous policy, unequally enforced. This is the one thing which is behind every instance of this particular dysfunctionality, and these symptoms will not go away until we have properly and adequately addressed the cause. The more that any intelligent and objective person reads what is written here, the more blindingly obvious this becomes.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Community does not deal with incivility
1) Besides egregious uncivil acts, such as personal attacks, the community does not effectively deal with breaches of WP:CIVILITY.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Too obvious to need stating.--Scott Mac 09:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Obvious. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All editors are advised to edit outside any areas where a COI is likely to cloud judgement
1) Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * @My76Strat: I'm not aware that there's any confusion about the meaning of "cunt". The only disagreement is over whether or not it is misogynistic is some parts of the English-speaking world. And to characterise that as a conflict of interest is quite simply bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed with the further extenuation that this principle extends beyond content disputes remaining equally valid when weighing discussions, otherwise expected to remain collegial. My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding what outside interests are being brought forth here. ??? — Ched : ?  21:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is merely a principle which I extenuate applies to talk page discussions as equally as it would in measuring a content dispute, in so much as a COI would be concerning. The relevance to this case manifests where MF holds his interpretation of the meaning of "cunt" (his outside interest) supersedes and/or circumvents (is more important) Wikipedia policy (aims of Wikipedia). My76Strat (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum - You are minimizing the scope of this case disproportionate to the stated relevance. It is not the mere use of the vulgarism "cunt", that is at issue here. It is also, and more so the dismissively patronizing manner you chose in dealing with your colleagues. My evidence better shows this fact. My76Strat (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Duh.  Of course people shouldn't edit areas where they can't be objective and need to be mindful of COI, but if people avoided areas where they were interested, then nobody would edit anything.  As it applies to Malleus... is somewhat unique in that he doesn't just edit a few silos like most people---he is all over the board in subject matter.  His area of interest is to improve articles... and if there are people who are interested in improving the article, he's usually more than willing to lend a hand to help out or provide guidance.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - COI seems to have absolutely nothing to do with this case, and, as such, this is indeed a bizarre proposal. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><font color="#ee3399">Lady <font color="#0095c6">of <font color="#442288">Shalott 03:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it really so bizarre to state a principle that unambiguously provides that an editor who places their own interest above Wikipedia's institutional aim stands in a "conflict of interest"? My76Strat (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to redefine COI from its normal meaning. I don't think that's useful. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><font color="#ee3399">Lady <font color="#0095c6">of <font color="#442288">Shalott 06:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking outside the box, sure. Redefining a principle, not at all. I deliberately present this principle verbatim to avoid that charge, and particularly find it to be unambiguous in its current form. My76Strat (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY outlines 4 required elements
2) Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If the proposal is that incivility must encompass all four of these elements then it is clearly nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an observation. Hopefully the conclusion of this case will clarify exactly what incivility is.  (and also hopefully without a "we'll know it when we see it" type of finding).  Also hopefully, there will be a distinction between 1 and 2 .. vs. .. 1 or 2.  I think a person can be aggressive without being uncivil, and even rude without necessarily being uncivil.  Degrading, disrespectful, denigrating, condescending, etc. perhaps are closer to what constitutes incivility.  — Ched :  ?  23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF no sir, the proposal is not that incivility must encompass all 4, the proposal is that conduct which does encompass all 4 must be incivility. My76Strat (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All incivility in print is an example of verbal aggression. Verbal aggression can include any / all of the following: scolding, yelling, swearing, blaming, insulting, threatening, demeaning, ridiculing, criticising, and belittling. We should not, ever, focus on "swearing" to the exclusion of all of the others.  And we should strive to remember the enormous difference between generalised swearing and swearing at someone.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy applies equally to all editors
3) Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - This principle is derived verbatim from WP:CIVILITY. My76Strat (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable as it it pretty much the intent of CIV and NPA. — Ched : ?  23:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Regarding your edit summary, "isn't that pretty much understood?" I do not accept that it is. I have observed comments which seem to genuinely suggest an abundance of good deed rightfully should extrapolate to higher levels of tolerance. Thankfully this policy principle unambiguously rebuts such a notion. My76Strat (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Verbatim; obvious. This is one of the fundamental principles of civility. The problem arises when this is unequally enforced, and therefore not applied equally to all editors.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum has a declared bias
1) Malleus Fatuorum has shown a bias to a resultant extent that he deems "Americans in particular" to seemingly "manufacture offence on an industrial scale."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * @My76Strat: One might argue that the very existence of this case proves the truth of my comment about manufacturing offence on an industrial scale. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My evidence includes abundant kindness to a group of high school students from the US, and nothing indicating bias against them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This fact is not intended to imply MF is devoid of good deed, or unable to manifest objective conduct. It is merely restating his own declaration which frankly I can't see as anything but prejudicial bias. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF - Your comment has no relevance unless you can show the nature of those opposed to your conduct have manufactured their stance rather than present a truthful rendition. My76Strat (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SMH. You would have to provide a hell of a lot of evidence to pass this opinion.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are surely correct. An equally large lot of evidence would have to be ignored as well, if this finding was relegated to frivol. The dynamics of this case present many circumstances, hard to prove in isolation. But they are but strokes of a brush. In the finished analysis, it is the painting that will emerge whole, and tell the best tale. You wouldn't have know that the Mona Lisa was to have no eyebrows had you witnessed da Vinci appending his brush strokes. But the finished product, that can be seen and this case will be no less apparent. My76Strat (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Mona Lisa had eyebrows- which puts an interesting spin on your analogy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it certainly does. Thank you for that. I think the spin will prove itself analogous, namely because I have already discovered some fact that disproved a previously held notion of truth. And I honestly don't mind saying that I am happier to find myself wrong in some of these regards. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the "manufacturing offence" comment as a rhetorical jab, not a sign of a deeply held belief. But even if it is, I don't see how a personal belief about the political culture of another country creates an actionable bias.  Look, we all have opinions.  I think Spanish, French, and Italian wine, cheese, and bread is very tasty, far superior to the American counterparts.  Does that mean I shouldn't edit articles about American food products?  Some people believe in reforming the language as a tool of social good, others think it is all political correct nonsense.  We're expected to set those opinions aside, at least when editing content.  The goal is to edit fairly, not to be unopinionated. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't mean you shouldn't edit articles of your stated interest. It does however clearly mean that if the content of your editing reflected your opinion over Wikipedia aims you would be in violation. Assume MF edited with a stringently held bias that some majority of administrators were "dishonest cunts". To edit while holding this bias is not problematic; when the content of your edit carries this bias forward, the COI becomes an impairment. It is not nearly as hard to see as some have it portrayed. And remember, these are weighed against his own stated biases. How else would it be measured? My76Strat (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this possible bias affects content, which is the point of the COI policy. It might affect how he chooses to interact with people on talk pages and in dispute resolution, but as far as I know everyone is entitled to be their own dog on the meta.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum is conflicted by his bias regarding Wikipedia policy
2) Malleus Fatuorum framed his comment to Deb according to his bias, irrespective of community norms like AGF, Civility, and NPA.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The offending comment was not made to Deb, and indeed the comment that resulted in the indefinite block was not made about anyone; it was an observation on an unidentified subset of administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @My76Strat: if this case is really about civility enforcement, then why are you and several others so focused on me? Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF - You are missing entirely, the intent of this case, "civility enforcement" by not acknowledging that your comments to Deb were also uncivil. I defer to Thumperward for a better explanation, but my evidence, and Thumperward's edit summary in the block log: "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds", focuses on hostility and not language. You would do well to broaden your own objectivity in this regard. My76Strat (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF: I don't want to speak for anyone else, but your misconduct is what started this case and has been ongoing for a long, long time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the bias posited above? No.  Was it an unnecessary comment?  Yeah.  But reality check?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Check - My76Strat (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think somebody put "stop payment" on it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF 02:06 I am in agreement with A Quest For Knowledge. Additionally I reaffirm an earlier post, (you may have missed) where I elaborated to this regard. To further elaborate, do not presume to know what remedies I may or may not support, as I am not fully decided myself. My76Strat (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you claim to know why Malleus did something? All you can do is say what, not why. Prodego  talk 05:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The finding does not stipulate why, perhaps the header does. The finding merely states that his comment was framed in accordance with the bias that he declared in his own words. Furthermore there was an entire flap on the transatlantic dichotomy in diction, evidence attempting to show the larger misunderstanding was related to this chasm, with the entire notion of offense relegated to the manufacturing abilities of "American" editors. No evidence was shown, or even researched to establish the geographical identity of the offended parties which my research implies Deb, "the offended party" is more than likely British herself. If this is not an example of letting your bias overwhelm your editing behavior, I await to hear what it means otherwise. My76Strat (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Malleus has at several points said what his intent was. I think we should take this at face value.  In this case he has denied that his actions were motivated by bias so I don't see the point of this finding. What he has said is that he doesn't acknowledge the offense others have expressed at his language as legitimate because it is "manufactured".  That opinion too we can take at face value.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must concur that the only comments made specifically to me were not ones that would trouble me unduly. If I remember correctly, Malleus implied that I could not be offended by the "c---" word unless I never go outside my front door.  That did show up a kind of prejudice on his part, in the assumption that I am somehow not normal because I found the word offensive.  But perhaps we should refrain from discussion of whether Malleus intended any offence to anyone (except, obviously, Spitfire), because it has been covered elsewhere, and concentrate here on whether his dislike of wikipedia's "modus operandi" is interfering with his contributions to the project and/or in itself disruptive. Deb (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum focuses on the letter of policy while forgoing any subordination to it's intent
3) In answering my direct question, Malleus Fatuorum has shown both ability, and desire to parse language well beyond a measure of good faith intent, aligning instead with a steadfast intent to impart blame on ambiguous verbiage.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have no idea what this gobbledygook means. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @My76Strat: I hope that the irony in your reply below is not entirely lost on you. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that the AC would be reluctant to ascribe the intent of any editor here. Trying to guess intent, motivations, and desire is a very slippery slope I would think.  Just IMHO — Ched :  ?  21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is valued and astute as well. It is not my intent to pour grease on an already slippery slope, but I did find, and ascribe these fact based on the answer MF provided to my direct question. It is worthy to note the answer came in two parts, which when evaluated separately, help authenticated this finding. My76Strat (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum - I will attempt to reword this finding with prose understandable to you. My76Strat (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps using your own words will provide a better response. "Then I guess that you consult a dictionary, and think a little harder before you waste your time in posting here again." My76Strat (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you're directing that comment at yourself, it doesn't apply. Grammar is the issue. Poor grammar makes it difficult to understand what you are attempting to say. I think you should go back to option one and reword. Lara  21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * that's one thing we can say about Malleus, he would never resort to calling somebody a fucking cunt... oh wait... you do realize that Malleus is have a laugh at your expense because these proposals are all opinionated and cannot be validated?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only way they become validated is if they emerge in tact. Of course I realize that it is possible that MF could see this as a comical aside. I do believe this would be an example of misdirected focus and hope you are wrong in asserting your own opinion here. My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF 02:09 - It is not, but you'd have to trust me on that. My76Strat (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum was not sanctioned for verbiage
4) Evidence shows that Malleus Fatuorum was not sanctioned for mere use of a vulgarism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * So far as all the available evidence presented on the first (indefinite) block is concerned this is clearly untrue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - Consistent with evidence. My76Strat (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is certainly my understanding. The block did not happen until many hours after the initial comments. Deb (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is valid on the second (1-week block), but I'm not sure about the validity of this proposal in the initial block (indef. block) - and I don't think that the evidence has proven that at this point. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum was sanctioned for a "hostile" pattern of incivility
5) The sanction brought against Malleus Fatuorum was for a "hostile" pattern of incivility which included all 4 required elements per WP:CIVILITY


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As opposed to a pattern of "friendly" incivility? What does "hostile incivility" even mean? Are the scare quotes significant? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - Consistent with evidence. My76Strat (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this even mean? What four required elements? And required for what? Where did "hostile" come from? The word doesn't exist on WP:CIV, so why are these things coupled? Lara  21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 elements, pattern, and ""hostile"" in quotes?  Not sure this is a keeper. — Ched :  ?  23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry scare quotes were seen in this proposal. That was not my intent. I should have provided this diff and made it clear that I was using Thumperward's word "hostile" from the block summary. to help show that "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" is not a summary for a block against the use of a vulgarism. But rather incivility, indeed a pattern. IAW proposed principle 2,  Civility provides its own description as: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours ..." Being conjoined, the four are taken as one. If you can suggest better prose, that would be great. If you believe MF was blocked for the use of a vulgarism, I'd like to know what compels you. I hope at least it is more clear why I proposed this finding. Respectfully - My76Strat (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incivility consists of personal attacks and / or rudeness and / or disrespectful comments and / or aggressive behaviours. Incivility is not like cake, which consists of flour AND eggs AND sugar AND butter, and which, if any of these ingredients are significantly disrupted, ceases to come within the definition of "cake".  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Overall conduct considered
1) Wikipedia editors are not expected to be perfect. Mistakes and missteps are inevitable. Wikipedia does not, in general, follow the principle 'one strike and you are out'. When deciding on the consequences of an inappropriate action, an editor's overall conduct is taken into account.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If there is a standard formulation for this (or just one from an earlier case), it may be preferable. Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Experience and activity considered
2) When deciding on the consequences of inappropriate actions, editors' experience and level of activity must be taken into account as measures of their expected ability to avoid them and their exposure to situations in which they may arise.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems obvious. For editors' experience we have WP:BITE. New editors (should) only get into trouble for really blatant behaviour. It appears to me that level of activity is not usually considered, but that is deeply unfair. The reasons we customarily divide the number of blocks and instances of disruption by a unit of time rather than a measure of activity are practical and sociological. Doing so is very unfair in extreme cases. (One case of disruption per year cannot be held against an extremely active editor working primarily in contentious areas in the same way as against a veteran retired from an uncontentious area, who is now making 10 edits per year.) Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dealing with vicious circles
3) When an editor is caught in a vicious circle, the key criterion for evaluating measures is whether they cut, dampen or escalate it. An escalating measure is generally not appropriate, even if it seems attractive as an apparent compromise between cutting the circle through draconian punishment and doing nothing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is the main lesson learned from the Giano civility sanctions. Maybe there is already a standard way of expressing it? Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Bursts of focused activity
1) Wikipedia is work in progress. The community normally makes up its mind about content issues through bursts of activity focused on specific issues. Ideally, these bursts result in decisions that guide other, similar issues, and possibly a change or clarification of policies and guidelines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I was unsure whether to put this under principles or findings of fact. There is no specific evidence presented for this finding, but I think it's uncontroversial and obvious to every experienced Wikipedian. Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Vicious circles
2) Very productive and well known editors are under closer scrutiny than most others, sometimes resulting in a vicious circle. Ambiguous or innocent behaviour is more likely to be judged problematic, and problematic behaviour is more likely to be reported and sanctioned. Sanctions are more likely to be reversed, resulting in polarisation. Editors caught in such a vicious circle often experience administrators as a mob and lose their respect for them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is very evidently true, and certainly corresponds to my own experience. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Pretty obvious from the evidence regarding Malleus. Giano is another clear case. (TreasuryTag is an example or a very different case where everything but the last sentence also applies.) Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * seems to be true--Guerillero &#124; My Talk  07:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Bursts of activity and vicious circles
3) Bursts of activity focused on specific editors are often perceived as unfair by editors sympathetic with the target. They can start or reinforce a vicious circle. To the extent that they give negative feedback on ambiguous or even positive behaviour, they are deeply problematic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is appropriate for uncritical content, but not as a principle for social interactions. Behaviour is improved by positive feedback to positive actions, not by negative feedback to negative actions, and especially not by negative feedback to ambiguous actions. I think these things are clear from the Malleus evidence and the earlier Giano cases. The overall problem is that when the community cannot make up its mind about an editor, that editor tends to be treated extremely unfairly. Years of mobbing are a much worse punishment than a site ban. I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem. Hans Adler 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The question of the week becomes how does one break the cycle? --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  07:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence: "cunt" is not a fundamentally uncivil word
The evidence presented of this recent community discussion on the perennial attempt to impose a language gag clearly indicates that no words are fundamentally uncivil, and that the context of civility is editor interaction not the use of particular words. This is reinforced by the evidence from the Macquarie Dictionary of the use of "cunt" in Australian English. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Is Malleus Australian? Even if he does move in circles where the word is an acceptable address, I'm finding it hard to believe he's ignorant enough of wider social mores not to be able to predict it would be offensive to many of his fellow wikipedians. In any case, context is what needs looked at here, dictionaries and evidence can't settle what's uncivil or not.--Scott Mac 23:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "evidence can't settle what's uncivil or not"? What do you propose can settle what is uncivil?  You may wish to rephrase yourself.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant generalities. This evidence speaks for itself without analysis. Is that not incivil? The rest is just lawyering.--Scott Mac 23:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, because I'm seeing a lot of hostility against the community's clearly are perennially put position that no word is inherently uncivil. I'm seeing "Won't someone think of the children?" arguments above (though, peculiarly, with "ladies" instead of children as the subhuman category of victims). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was not meant to protect the children or the ladies. It was meant to put a possible solution forth for editors that have a problem with incivility: one that required a bit of imagination. See . We are all taught to be polite when ladies are present. It's one of the standards in RL in almost every culture I can think of. So why not bring that standard here, as a tool to fix a problem. Granted, it has a certain silliness to it, but it just might work.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  10:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is inherently uncivil is pretty moot, when what is actual incivil in this case is pretty much beyond dispute. Again, [ you can't get around this with any amount of lingo-philosophical relativising.--Scott Mac 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop impugning a position on me, please redact your accusative, I consider "you can't get around this" as incivil as it claims I hold a position I haven't talked about. Your rhetoric "what is actually incivil in this case is pretty much beyond dispute," is a dubious factual claim without support. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "a dubious factual claim without support"? Please, give it a rest. You're spouting utter nonsense and if you want to consider that as a personal attack, feel free. If I see the word "sociolect" once more I'll not be responsible for my actions. (If anyone sensible here thinks that this is totally irrelevant please feel free to strike it without notice and stick a fucking haddock on my talk page). Leaky Caldron  00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the threat, insult, and rhetorical argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True but not relevant. The overwlelming evidence is of personal attacks, with or without obscenities. - BorisG (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to other evidence of IDHT incivility, and subsequent administrator baiting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott Mac showed an irrefutably uncivil edit. Fifelfoo then showed us how pathetic the lawyering can be. WTF is your intent in labeling women as subhuman? Disregard the rhetorical sarcasm. I could care less what motivates you, as long as you understand I loath your position. My76Strat (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Or it will result in everyone being high - and an increase in a toxic user environment which drives away ladies and more delicate users, until we all sit and swear at our fellow motherfudders. The problem with drug-enforcement allusions, is that there's no consensus in society as to whether abolishing enforcement is the way to utopia or hell.--Scott Mac 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The key point is the intent of whatever was said. We can debate how uncivil a word or phrase is — but in my view, it really doesn't matter if someone uses a string of locker-room vulgarities, or simply calls another editor an idiot or a fool; either way, it's an uncivil personal attack, and it doesn't belong here, and it needs to stop.  —  Rich wales (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Fifeloo. Please present, once and for all, your evidence of Admin. baiting. Thanks. Leaky  Caldron  12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Fifelfoo, both you and Balloonman have been casting aspersions on the admin corps and their treatment of Malleus.  Your claims are long on rhetoric and short on diffs.  Please reply with that rigour that you have so often advocated for FA articles.  Of course, I greatly respect you, I'm just trying to cut to the chase here; this is the "analysis of evidence" section.  Please say what evidence you are relying on, or if it is not yet in evidence, remedy that.  Happy New Year, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Deb's evidence, all this discussion strikes me as beside the point. I'd prefer to have an editing environment where editors feel welcomed, rather than demeaned, over an environment where we have to argue ad nauseum about whose cultural assumptions are the correct ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel demeaned by WMF's suggestion that I'm less valuable then an editor with two X chromosomes. I feel demeaned by political correctness. I feel demeaned by referring an instance of an editor calling another "a prick" from WQA to AN and the admin community blowing it off as "not actionable." Do you think the witch hunt du jour is going to fix any of that? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I were to say that I, in turn, feel demeaned by the phrase "political correctness", we could doubtless go in circles ad infinitum. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are "demeaned" by the the WMF's goal to increase the proportion of female editors. Of course it is extremely rude to let on that women make up less than 10% of the editor base. And of course, the only reason why the WMF wants more women (and other under-represented groups) to contribute, is because the wicked WMF devalues male editors. Simple as that. Whatever was the WMF thinking!? Very déclassé. Yes, I am being sarcastic, if you are not quite certain. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as a female user I can say I also find the WMF's approach, and that of some editors, demeaning. If you'd like to spend your time increasing the proportion of female users, feel free- but don't assume everyone else should share in that goal. Furthermore, if you want to look at sexism, answer me this: why is it considered grossly uncivil to use the word "cunt" or "bitch" but not the word prick or dick? To my way of thinking, that fact is more insulting than actually having any of those words used against me. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pointless to suggest that all the sex organ invectives, male or female, should be at the identical incivility level and to claim offense that they aren't. For better or worse, that's not how things are in the world beyond Wikipedia.  "Cunt" is considered far more objectionable and sexist in most English-speaking places than "bitch", "prick", and "dick", though much depends on context.  I link a few sources for this in my evidence section, and summarizing that again here would create a big wall of text.  Some relevant factors are the history of abuse and discrimination against women, and the conception of female sexuality as something unclean and shameful that must be hidden.  The public conception of men and their sex organs, historically, has been different.  Held against that backdrop, calling a woman a cunt for having too strong an opinion or too much ambition is particularly hurtful.  In my opinion we shouldn't be calling each other bitches, pricks, or dicks either, and on a one-to-one level that could be just as uncivil.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See page 110 of An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geffrey Hughes, published 2006, in New York and London. "Cunt has always been a specific term, unlike cock, and has been the most seriously taboo word in English for centuries, remaining so for the vast majority of users." Not long ago it was considered "obscene libel" and necessitated a seperate legal category (pg 112). So, it's not WMFs' or the Civility Polices' approach, its the vast majority of English speakers.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to "driving off female editors", quite honestly I personally found that having polite, gentle FemaleSpeak / GrannySpeak classified as "patronising and condescending" (not much assumption of good faith going on there) was orders-of-magnitude more likely to drive me off than any number of people using the c-word. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understanding the Malleus phenomenon starts with noting that his supporters are disproportionately female. But it would be considered disruptive and ridiculous for me to explain my theory more explicitly. Art LaPella (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite possible, I suppose, that female editors aren't as offended by much of this "language" as other people think they are? That female editors find other things more off-putting than cusswords? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, if you don't oversimplify it. The most traditional women presumably aren't here to discuss it. Talk:Sewing, for instance, has several female editors and no one anywhere near as profane or hostile as Malleus. Art LaPella (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I know, I apologise for cross-posting this link in a couple of places) This is relevant here. In a nutshell, the links given in other places re relative offensiveness etc. need to be checked.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An example of this is that the source cited for "Cunt has been the "primary English language taboo" for five centuries, with certain limited exceptions" also says: "Eric Partridge, writing in 1931, proclaimed 'cunt' "a very frequently used word - one used indeed by a large proportion, though not the majority, of the white population of the British Empire"." In fact, it says it in the opening paragraph(s). Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - this is roughly the date that the Cockney rhyming slang word "berk" began to be used as a less offensive alternative. Deb (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, I actually find some of the ideas that people seem to have that female editors require special treatment, require more in the way of "feminine-attractive" articles, require an easier editing interface, or require anything else which, by implication, means that they're being seen as "less capable of editing" than male editors, to be orders-of-magnitude more sexist than any swearword! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Adding: if Wikipedia as a whole really wants to address the issue of female editors, we need to get to grips with the fact that there are far more women interested in gender-neutral areas from aardvark to zygote than are interested in the "traditional" (sexist?) female-gender-specific areas of sewing, knitting and cooking.  And remember to take a look at the proportion of female editors working right at the top of the quality scale, in all kinds of areas. We need, we really need, to avoid any suggestion or impression that females are in any way inherently less-capable beings or more interest-restricted beings than male editors.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this, but would like to draw attention to a mistake many people make, which is thinking that a comment or action cannot be sexist or racist simply because some members of the gender or race being discriminated against or insulted “don’t mind”. Does the fact that some black people don’t mind being called “nigger” mean that it is not a racist word?  Does the fact that there is one woman on a company’s board of directors mean that the company does not discriminate against women?  Does the fact that millions of women don’t object to being told that their place is in the home mean that others shouldn’t object? Does the fact that some people aren’t offended by the use of the “c-word” mean that no one is allowed to be? Deb (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The important point here is that MF didn;t know it was considered by so many people to be sexist, and has quite clearly stated that he was not using, nor ever would use, that word in a sexist way. Important not to overlook that one here. If you had used the "call a spade a spade" idiom, not knowing that the person to read your comment was from an Afro-Caribbean background and would see it as grossly and offensively racist, you would no doubt feel that if you were then to be accused of racism it would be grossly unfair.  It's a parallel.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that, if a contributor called a white person "nigger", it would be all right? Deb (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of [Various, ?pseud] "Letters" The Economist 2011-01-27
[Various, ?pseud] "Letters" The Economist 2011-01-27 was offered as evidence "there are undoubtably a significant number other editors who are driven away from the project."
 * We assume that The Economist displays the fact checking behaviours of reliable sources as encyclopaedists; however, in presenting and analysing evidence we are able to go further and engage the source's bias. The Economist comes from a right wing economic perspective, a perspective that since the 1980s has been overwhelmingly biased against volunteer social projects, and which since the 1850s has been selectively biased against volunteer social projects started by people who rely upon wage labour for their living.
 * Thus: There is no reason to expect that the letters in The Economist are representative.
 * Tim Rooks of Berlin complains that he was obliged to follow WP:V
 * Tim Rooks' letter describes what we wish to have happen: editors be obliged to support their writing by reference to reliable sources.
 * Jonathan Kane of Belle Mead, New Jersey appears to have a problem with WP:FRINGE; and with the CONSENSUS pillar.
 * Jonathan Kane's contribution appears to be a complaint with the pillar of CONSENSUS—editors unable to edit within the pillars should not be esteemed when they attack the pillars.
 * Neither letter is worth consideration, and the claim is not supportable from the evidence provided. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Kane: "One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”." Nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The various pieces of coverage of WP/Jimmy Wales in The Economist that I have seen over the years (not the full set I'm sure) have been generally pretty favourable. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's concerns with TCO
Sandy has cited TCO's block log here as an example of inconsistent standards regarding Malleus. I entirely agree with her.

TCO was blocked eight or nine times, each time for incivility (he has some recent blocks at own request). On each occasion, he either served his time, or engaged with the blocking admin to reduce or get the block lifted. In other words, the block system worked as intended without being gamed and left us with a productive (and far more self-controlled) editor who authored a fine report on the Featured Article system.

On the other hand, Malleus never requested an unblock, served his time only twice (counting this), but was almost always unblocked, generally within an hour, and never with his request or engagement with a blocking administrator.

Yes, I agree with Sandy.

By the way, regarding Sandy's point about me, I did not see it at the time. I do not spend a lot of time reading others' talk pages. If I had, given the considerable heat he was taking from Sandy and others at the time and to today over his report, I probably would have sent him an email so as not to inflame the situation. I would not have taken administrative action, nor referred him for same, as I was involved. I would not have thought it worthy of same because what he said was at worst vulgar, not a personal attack against anyone. End of story. And I have taken no position regarding what should occur with Malleus, if anything, in this case. My concern has been with the misuse of tools.

Happy new year.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

When I was made administrator in 2006, there was the understanding that it was for fixing typos on the Main Page, and I have never blocked anyone, TCO, Malleus, or anyone else. Had I seen the pussy juice comment, I would have responded at least as much as I did to TCO. All editors including Malleus and TCO are inconsistently disciplined for some incivility and not others. Malleus drew my attention here more than TCO did, after John gave me a sample of what Malleus's defenders are like. If Sandy considers me to be part of an IRC cabal, that is impossible because I have never learned to use IRC. Art LaPella (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think each side (to use a very loose term) sees the other side (again) as tightly organized, and communicating via IRC. I am not sure if I ever tried IRC, but if I did I gave up in frustration, I remember using some communication system but not being able to figure it out.  Really, what it is, is that some people see Malleus as getting away with stuff, and others admire him and fear that if a block stands, Malleus will never come back and we will be out a key editor.  By the way, some of the people who see him as getting away with stuff admire him too.  But I don't see him walking away.  As a fellow Wiki addict, I know how hard it is to keep away from editing.  We'll work this out without retirements.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The section heading here is a misnomer-- my "concern" is not with TCO, it's that Malleus is targeted, discussed on IRC, hounded, and watched, where others aren't. TCO is one example.  No, I don't consider you a problem, Art LaPella-- my point is that some admins hound and go after Malleus while other editors are left to much worse behavior.  I spose it mostly depends on their IRC buddies, and certainly Wehwalt's characterization of that "fine" report on Featured articles give us a clue as to who and why Malleus is hounded while others are left alone.  Hersfold asked for evidence of same, I provided latest example, there are many others, nothing special about TCO in particular (except that his pussy juice was actually more offensive than any of the random "fuck yous" I'm exposed to).  But, while we're on the topic, "the block system worked as intended without being gamed and left us with a productive (and far more self-controlled)" editor doesn't seem to be true, considering his "motherfuckers" and "pussy juice".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was by no means perfect, but it also by no means needs to be flushed down the virtual toilet. But we digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Sandy, I'm no much on IRC now, but last time I was I found the level of activity to have very significantly dropped off, particularly in the admin's channel. Is there any actual evidence that IRC has anything to do with this?? You keep talking about Malleus' blockers/critics as "IRC buddies". In fact, a number of people I assumed were included in this have denied using IRC at all. Do you have evidence of any significant admin discussions of Malleus on IRC?--Scott Mac 02:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised IRC levels are dropping, since everything related to Wikipedia is declining. Another editor commented somewhere they had seen blocks cooked up at IRC-- and I don't know where to find that comment now.  I do know that I periodically get clueless new admins popping in to my talk page for a "little chat", where they are clued in to how they've been used, and it's pretty clear those cases are cooked up either on IRC or via e-mail.  Since I conduct my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, where all can see everything I say and stand for, such business bugs me.  But, yea, for example, where did The Fat Man block come from?  I've never been to IRC, wouldn't even know where to find it, but know many folks talk of how blocks are cooked up on IRC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is true, it would be in private channels or one-to-one chats (or via e-mail). It is unlikely that evidence of such will be presented, unless someone's guilty conscience pricks them. I think a lot more is down to watchlists, rather than anything like IRC or other chat clients. Also, consider this: if a single block is cooked up at IRC, imagine how many blocks that would be by the time it had been through the grapevine - hundreds, likely. But the other 'blocks' would be only rumours spawned by one incident. Sometimes hard evidence is needed to avoid chasing shadows. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone supply full text searchable logs of all official IRC channels associated with en.wikipedia; or, where editors know en.wikipedia administration has been discussed. This sounds to be precisely like the off wiki canvassing related to EEML; whether foundation "set-up" the channels or not. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer appears to be "no by design"—I do not see how unlogged IRC differs in anyway to EEML. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, while we can't discount the logical possibility that admins have been chatting about Malleus on IRC, if there is, as it appears, absolutely no hard evidence of this whatsoever, and some involved admins have specifically denied IRC use, can we drop the subject until and unless there is evidence? Assuming good faith means we don't make unevidence assertions that things we don't like involve a conspiracy in a place we don't like. This appears to be an attempt to poison the well. So, Sandy, can we cease comments such as you used on the evidence talk page in the last 48 hours: Again, if there's evidence of any significant level of people discussing stuff, related to this case, on IRC rather than on wiki, then it could be presented, and might be relevant. But if not?--Scott Mac 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I doubt that it has as much to do with to or from an admin, as it does with how much time one spends on IRC and how many IRC friends one has. That's where most blocks are cooked up, and I can fersure tell you that some editors who have lots of IRC friends can talk to me or others however they want, while if I say "boo", they'll dig up a newbie friend to come over and have a "friendly chat" with me. It's all about IRC and a social game"
 * "If those admins want to chase off one of our top contributors, can we get them to either stop, or do the same to the unhelpful idiots-- just apply sanctions equally, and get in the Wiki and off of IRC chat rooms?"
 * "meaning, Malleus gives up, admins continue doing what they do, some good, some bad, and rude editors with friends on IRC continue to get away with it, while editors with enemies on IRC get targetted"
 * "as long as admins avert their eyes when they or their friends do it, while going after content contributors who don't suck up on IRC"
 * "because he drew the wrath of the IRC-chatting admin corp by highlighting this double standard"
 * I think accusing admins of coordinating by IRC (in which case they are doing a very poor job) is just as bad as accusing Malleus's supporters of doing the same. Evidence should be presented simultaneously with the accusation.  Isn't AGF still at least in theory not a dead letter here?  Yet much of what I see is that sort of finger pointing, as well as settling personal grudges.  I am also concerned about TCO being dragged into this, without it being mentioned that a number of editors have grudges against him for in his report dubbing certain writers "star collectors" and for calling for elections at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be worth strongly suggesting that officially supported IRC channels may need to be officially logged if they enter into territory noted under the sections of the EEML principles I restated above. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case any nefarious conspirators would take care to avoid using those particular channels.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty believing any administrator would have the time or bother to conspire nefariously. If any conduct existed that was unacceptable, I would expect that it came about from accidental discussions on IRC that were misread by users on IRC to form "consensus," outside of exposure to the general community of the encyclopaedia.  But knowing if any logs of admin heavy official or unofficial public IRC channels existed would be the first step in determining if any evidence worth discussing existed.  And logs aren't officially kept. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not a grudge at TCO so much as disgust and anger at this community which indef blocks a user for an already redacted insult while ignoring and essentially endorsing another. Nobody Ent 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not about an insult, as in singular. Not really. It is about a persistent pattern of abuse directed at admins and non-admins alike. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Short answer to Scott Mac: No. We are limited to 500 words on the evidence page, everyone with two fingers in front of their faces knows that blocks are cooked up off-Wiki (IRC is shortcut terminology-- I should better state off-Wiki in general, which includes e-mail, Skype, and IRC channels that are not official Wikipedia channels).  The clear issue here is that friendships are a factor in uneven enforcement of civility, and such issues frequently evolve out of the public eye, and it's not hard to determine who engages in same (many of them even admit it, see Wehwalt's statements).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if Sandy writes as many words as she wants in her user space, and posts a link? Art LaPella (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I am genuinely finding your contributions here to be borderline scurrilous. You've gone about making repeated allegations about "IRC admins" and "IRC chatting" conspiracies - knowing fine well that IRC is unpopular with many people and thus the allegations serve to paint the facts of this case blacker than they are. I ask for one shred of evidence of any IRC involvement - and you produce none, muttering that the evidence limits prevent you. (OK, well, provide one supporting diff here. Can you even do that?) Then you say by IRC you actually meant e-mail skype or any other type of off-wiki communication - or indeed it is just shorthand for "friendship". No, that is not the same thing at all! You are too experience here to plead careless ignorance of the political significance of shouting "IRC abuse". Of course if there's evidence of admins conspiring that needs to be investigated (is there?) but that does not justify you sustained attempt to drag IRC into this (see my quotations above for how much you've engaged in this). It may well be that there are serious issues of admin partiality (again evidence) but that does not condone your mudslinging, which is quite frankly dishonourable.--Scott Mac 17:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This post was brought to my attention elsewhere yesterday (days after I came to this page to clarify that this section was a mischaracterization of my actual evidence, which is here and then ignored the tangential discussion that ensued). Perhaps, Scott MacDonald, if you reread the discussion above you'll see several editors who introduced the "IRC cabal" concept (which is not in my evidence), aim your "genuine" concern at them, and separate that from what followed from an "I spose" statement (I spose you're familiar with the term I spose?)  We elect arbs who aren't likely to be sidetracked from reading what evidence one actually entered, and who have the benfit of institutional memory of the concept of "collective blocs of editors" (or what Scott MacDonald calls "friendship").  To the point of this case as it relates to my evidence,  if I were to say "Scott MacDonald, I am genuinely finding your contributions here to be borderline boorish and furthering a mischaracterization of my actual evidence that creates a tangent", you can call for a "block of the lot".  Play nice now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things: 1) There is a blatant misstatement of facts in this summery. Wehwalt declares, never with his request or engagement with a blocking administrator.  This is not true.  While I can't speak for the other blocks, the one I lifted the blocking admin had been notified an hour prior to the unblock.  I'm not going to leave a block on a user when an admin clearly abused the tools---The blocking admin took offense to a comment Malleus made 32 hour earlier about said admin.  Issued a warning on Malleus' page.  4 hours later malleus responded kurtly.  4 hours later, said admin blocked Malleus because the admin was insulted by what Malleus said 4 and 40 hours earlier.  Such a blatant misuse of tools that even though I had certified an RfC 6 weeks earlier, I felt compelled to lift it, because (at the time) I was definitely not part of his claimed cabal. 2) There are some questions above about IRC. The only circumstantial evidence I've seen revolves around a comment Hawkeye7 made to Risker.  Hawkeye7 made a comment that ArbCOM did a run around as htere was a group of people preparing an RfC against Malleus, but because ArbCOM had accepted the case, the RfC process was subrogated.  There is no evidence of said RfC on Hawkeye's page or in his edits, so my guess is that it was done off line.  I asked him, but never got a response.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer, Balloonman, that you would AGF and say that there is a disagreement about the definition of engagement. Some might not consider leaving a note on the talk page and waiting an hour "engagement".  Did you seek consensus at AN/I, for example?  People do not devote 24/7 to the Wiki, and if you "felt compelled" to lift the block after an hour (was Malleus editing his talk page to request an unblock?  Had he edited his talk at all?), I would look and consider why I "felt compelled" and query my own motivation.  Then I might go do something else until the urge subsides.  As for Hawkeye7's comment, can you provide a diff?  I see nothing in your description of the comment which would make me concur that anything was taking place off-wiki; my first reaction would be someone else's userspace.  Let us agree, however, that you saw nothing controversial about the unblock, and you allowed more time and opportunity for comment than certain subsequent unblocking administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of GRuben's evidence re: New editors and women leaving the project
GRuben cites this article in the New York Times, stating, "High among the reasons women do not participate as much, as stated in that article, are the openness to high conflict and misogyny."

The full quote including direct quotes from Joseph Reagle: "''[B]ecause of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd. ... This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women. ... "I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.” Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists ... so you have to have a huge argument about whether there is the problem.”''"

First, this article doesn't make the claim that misogynists "drive off" female editors. That is synthesis from GRuben.

Second, the article also goes into detail about how the percentages of female contributors on Wikipedia follows trends of females participating in real world projects. The reason discussed in the article has to do with women being less confident in themselves and less willing to express their minority views.

Thus, the drawn conclusion, "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was working hard to cause the specific strife and misogyny that drives off new, and especially female, editors," doesn't follow. Without any evidence to support the claim that Malleus has "driven off" any new or female editors, this evidence should be struck. Lara 06:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Clearly that statement is not evidence, it's analysis. Additionally we don't know 1. What Malleus's intent was, and 2. that he was working hard. Nobody Ent 06:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lara is absolutely correct. It is not hard to avoid GRuban's conclusion at all since there is no evidence (as has been stated before) that Malleus has driven any editors away, male or female, old or new. The evidence seems to be just this: Malleus uses a bad word, an ostensibly female editor complains,* and Malleus refuses to redact. Ergo--Malleus drove away female contributors, giving the finger to the Foundation, and causing us to be written up in the NYT as misogynists? Indeed, "this evidence should be struck." *On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. For all we know, Malleus is a girl and Deb is actually the President of the United States. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darn it! I'll have to have a word with those secret service guys. :-) Deb (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its Official. You have been moved up seven pay-grades. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC) GRuban has trimmed his wording on these points to what's supported by evidence. Thus, striking this section as irrelevant. Remove is necessary. Lara  14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seven hour delay
Thumperward commented on the dishonest cunt at 9:57, but blocked for long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds at 17:34. The seven hour delay would seem to indicate the block was not considered urgent to prevent ongoing disruption -- Malleus had allowed the redaction of "cunt" to stand and made no further use of the word. So why no consensus building before imposing the block? Nobody Ent 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * @Geometry guy: (Popping temporarily out of light-editing mode as I've been summoned: I'm not planning on providing much in the way of further input unless absolutely necessary.) At the time of my 14:57 "you must be new here" comment I was prepared to simply chalk said thread off as another wasted day of drama. However, the trouble continued after that comment with Malleus's repeated refusal to redact a comment that had been construed as "offensive and sexist", coupled with an additional followup at said user's talk page and leading into additional drama including full-scale edit warring over the removal of the entire problematic section. This subsequent disruption was what made me conclude that a block was the most effective preventative step that could be taken to end the long-term disharmony of which that day's drama was symptomatic. So rather than making my mind up at 14:57 and then acting on it seven hours later, I rather changed my mind upon a later inspection of what had happened following my original comment. (and so back to light-editing mode.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ched Davis: (One last one here, to clarify the timeframe.) The drama was still ongoing until roughly 20:00 that evening, when Nobody Ent, Malleus and SarekOfVulcan were warring over the removal of the section in question. This was fully 35 minutes after Nobody Ent's redaction (bearing in mind that it is very much a point of opinion as to whether a redaction immediately means "case closed" anyway, though that's for ArbCom to clarify I suppose). At the time of the block, the page had only been stable for a little over 120 minutes, which I consider a reasonable period of time for an administrator to make a weighted judgement on an action to be taken. I'm sure the period of time will be pondered by ArbCom in the context of the case, but I was asked about the timeframe and IMO we're talking about two hours (from the last disruption to the admin action) rather than seven hours (from the first time I commented on that thread to the admin action). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The explanation for the 7 hour delay is that the goal or game was to block Malleus, not to resolve a dispute. The incident was a pretense to place a much sought after block.  If the goal were to prevent future disruption from Malleus of the same nature, the concerned parties should have started an RFC or a community discussion to generate a consensus that Malleus had been crossing accepted boundaries.  It is obvious from Malleus' block log, replete with reversed blocks, that yet another civility block would be controversial.  ArbCom has said over and over again not to make contentious blocks, except in emergencies, which this was not, as evidenced by the 7 hour delay.  Jehochman Talk 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Nobody Ent's point is a significant one. I'd be very interested in what reply Thumperward might have to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the community as a whole is at much at fault as any individual admin: we play lip service to the idea that blocks are preventative not punitive, but in practice encourage punishments for infractions of community norms. Geometry guy 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Chris Cunningham: Thumperward's earlier statement of block  And the reply does not indicate why they acting unilaterally without prior discussion or consensus building. Nobody Ent
 * @Chris Cunningham: The thing that bothers me with that Chris is that once I saw that Deb was offended, (and don't get me wrong - if someone said that about or to my daughter or mother - yea ... someone is in for a butt whoopin) .. I went to Malleus, and we discussed the matter - Nobody Ent joined in there .. and in the end, Malleus didn't object to the redaction of the "word" which is offensive in some cultures.  Nobody Ent took a bold step, and it should have stopped all the bs.  Should have been "case closed" at that point.  But when you come back with an indef hours after the fact .. and hours after you were aware of the situation ... well .. that just set fire to a whole tank of fuel.   Truth be told, if you want to be an admin here, then you should be prepared to accept the fact that we screw up.  On a daily basis.  It's part of the tool set.  Malleus often shines a bright (albeit sometimes harsh) spotlight on the shortcomings of our culture - but that's a good thing if we recognize those faults, admit them, and try to move forward by improving them. — Ched :  ?  00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Deb's evidence
In her first bullet, Deb claims to know Malleus' intentions, claiming they were "to be offensive" and that this is "apparent from the context". First, no one can ever know the intentions of another. Only the acting person truly knows. Second, I find that reading the conversation in its entirety leads to the conclusion that Malleus' tone was more jovial—surely meant as an insult to a large number of admins, but not meant to offend those he was in discussion with. Thus, his intent is not apparent.

In her second bullet, Deb states that Malleus has "unwittingly become a focus for discontent", but then calls him a "ringleader", a word with very specific and negative connotations that seems to contradict the "unwittingly" part. And considering the definition is "A person who initiates or leads an illicit or illegal activity," I would consider this bordering on a personal attack. And it, once again, presupposes ill intent. Lara 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I may inadvertently have become a focus for discontent at the uneven application of the poorly written and widely abused civility policy but a "ringleader" of anything I am not. The use of that term implies that I have recruited others to my side for some nefarious purpose. Does Deb have any evidence that's what I've done? Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Deb: I was stating my opinion of some administrators. How could it have been offensive to anyone when no administrators were named? Or is it your opinion that all administrators are beyond criticism and entitled to deference, as I just saw another editor claim somewhere in this labyrinth of pages? Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Deb: No. Who would I have been trying to offend? Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: I think it's clear from the fact that I said "if you like" that it was not my preferred word but I couldn't think of a better one - and I withdraw it. If you should state, in all honesty, that you did not intend your comments to be offensive to administrators, then I would also withdraw that interpretation of your words. Deb (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: I was asking if you intended your wording, regardless of whom it was directed at, to be offensive. Deb (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One imperfect word choice ought not to obscure the fact that Deb's take on this has been very reasonable right from the start; looks like her earlier comments on the general offensiveness of the C word were in line with the solid evidence just posted by Slp1. Accepting this does not mean Malleus intended to cause serious offence or deserves further sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But not evidenced community standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feyd, your comment seems to suggest that my only objection is to her use of "ringleader". That is not the case. I also object to her claims on his intentions, which she cannot know. Both points of her evidence presuppose ill intent that is not "apparent" by the exchanges in question. Lara  22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree in general that discussion of an editor's presumed intentions is analysis, not evidence. Geometry guy 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's posted as evidence. So if it's not evidence, it needs to be moved, no? Either way, they are still fallacious arguments and I maintain my objections. Lara  15:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Deb's original comments to Malleus as an example to stand against her evidence. Because the way I, and many many others, read it was as sarcastically making fun of "senior editor" using scare quotes. Which she has posted today a clarification that this was not the intention (which of course I for one accept, in good faith, an apologise). Which I think highlights how complicated intent can be to judge :) --Errant (chat!) 15:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Particularly difficult in text in general. And even more so when you have no history with the author. Lara  15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Deb has reworded her evidence to avoid the issues I've raised here. Thus, I'm striking as this section is no longer relevant.  Lara  14:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Geometry guy's evidence
As I tried to avoid any substantial analysis in the evidence I presented, I'd like to clarify my view on a couple of matters related to it.

First of all, the issue as to what amounts to acceptable language on Wikipedia, is not, for me, the central question, but rather:
 * how should we deal with occasional disruptive behavior from experienced editors?

There has been much discussion on the evidence and evidence talk page about the profanity Malleus used, whether there is a double standard, whether it was sexist/misogynistic/offensive, whether UK and US norms are different and so on. Editors have asked whether MF's "intent was to shock and/or offend those he was in discussion with" or commented that "MF may not have been aware of how offensive the use of the C word would be". This misses a key point, which my evidence highlights:
 * After MF became aware of the furore surrounding his remark, he made no attempt to deescalate the situation, quite the opposite: he initially refused to accept any redaction (see comments below) and made no apology, but instead continued to press his point more vigorously, leading ultimately to him making an offensive personal attack twice (and then forgetting he had made it!).

Secondly, it is not my aim here to enter into the "blame game": quite the opposite. In my view, blocks should be preventative, not punitive: editors do not deserve to be blocked as punishment for bad behavior, but sometimes they need to be blocked to prevent or reduce further disruption. The question my evidence asks (with the 20-20 benefit of hindsight, of course) is whether the unblock might better have been a reblock, with a more preventative justification.

Malleus is an editor I greatly respect: I sympathise with the frustrations he faces on a regular basis and support his right to speak about the injustices and double standards he believes Wikipedia is plagued by. While compiling the timeline in my evidence, it became even more clear to me how much faults in the system contributed to the disruption: for instance, without the initial civility block and ANI discussion, the subsequent disruption may well have been largely confined to MF's user talk page, where we traditionally give editors more latitude. What I hope this case will do is clarify how blocks and bans might be used in a more intelligent way to support the goal of maintaining an environment conducive to writing a free encyclopedia, with all the stresses and disagreements such an endeavor inherently involves. Geometry guy 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's very difficult to keep track of these allegations posted on various pages, but I can say categorically that I when I replied "I don't give a flying fuck" I meant that I really had no further interest, and certainly no intention of reverting anything. If anything was subsequently reverted that's nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * MF accepted redaction of the remark. Nobody Ent 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right that he did eventually: can you find diffs so that I can add this to my evidence (I've still got 50 words to play with!) and modify my above comments accordingly? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in my evidence section. Nobody Ent 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is not completely clear to me whether "I don't give a flying fuck" was meant as acceptance of (or indeed indifference to) your redaction. In the edit war that followed a few hours later, MF restored an unredacted version. Anyway, I've updated my evidence accordingly - thanks again. Geometry guy 21:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying 'I don't care,' even in colorful language, is acceptance. The redaction was undone by MZMcBride. MONGO violate WP:TPG by reverting MF's entire edit, and MF reverts that. If restoration of the redaction is inappropriate, isn't that on MZMcBride? Nobody Ent 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the first point: I could answer "you can say whatever the fuck you like" and it wouldn't mean I accept what you say. It is not even completely clear to me that the "I don't care" was responding to your redaction proposal, but Malleus himself can surely answer that. The history here is complicated, and a lot took place in the heat of the moment: no one can be expected to behave perfectly, logically or even consistently in the middle of an edit war. I agree that it wasn't MF's responsibility to restore the redaction, but his action here is consistent with the evidence in general that he did not give a "flying fuck" about redaction or deescalation. Indifference cuts both ways. Geometry guy 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @gg .. in a sense it's impossible to "prove" because Malleus simply did not revert - meaning that an "inaction" it not something we can link a diff to. The fact that he objected to the wholesale removal of the entire "post" indicates (to me) that he did not mind the removal of the "word" - but DID want his thoughts to remain on record.  just IMHO — Ched :  ?  01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On your second point, I agree with your analysis (although this is still a matter of opinion). Regarding the earlier non-reversion, MF happened to be editing the page at the same time as the redaction, which makes drawing any inference here even more difficult than you suggest! Geometry guy 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree 100% that this is not "easy" :-) — Ched : ?  01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor Debs' unawareness of Malleus' long-running history is interesting. Few editors have the courage to confront him. As his peers, we stand idly by while he does what at he does. She innocently asked him for consideration and he flatly refused. His continued refusal to reconsider his actions was incivil. The specific words that brought on Editor Debs request were the "weapons" he used to attack admins. When told that those words attacked others, he should have toned it down. His indifference was bad manners. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I partially agree in that I already noted above that "indifference cuts both ways". I am also surprised that analysis of intention here has made little or no reference to the edit summary MF used in his initial remark: "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it". Geometry guy 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Looping ... again ... why is this horse not dead yet???) Deb's poorly worded scare quote request (not "innocent") = refused. A non-judgement AGF request for redaction = accepted. Nobody Ent 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis. The evidence only shows intransigence followed by indifference, with a bit of carelessness later. These can be explained by the passage of time. MF is an editor of integrity, with strong views, including a strong sense of honesty and fairness, and generally acts according to those views (at least in the long run: for instance, regrets concerning his comment about Spitfire did not emerge immediately, but his regrets and apologies now are clearly genuine). The evidence does not support your analysis that this was all about wording the request nicely, but even if it did, your analysis actually diminishes MF's integrity (an editor who will only climb down if someone says "pretty please"?). In my view, you need to reread, rethink, and reconsider. But that's up to you. Geometry guy 00:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the horse we all rode in on. Rather than dead, it is alive, well fed and new stables are being constructed as we speak type. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  08:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Berean Hunter's Evidence
It is based on two false premises: Nobody Ent 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * that nations are homogenous; subcultures exists within nations.
 * that only the background of the named parties is relevant; the issues under discussion are far more ranging than the one incident.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Although what Nobody Ent says is technically correct as a matter of anthropology, I would argue that it overlooks something significant as applied to this case. I thought the evidence was actually quite helpful, in that it provides a good reason for the parties to stop arguing about "that word is offensive where I live" and "no that word is not offensive where I live". Way too many bytes have been wasted on that. If people who are members of our community make a not unreasonable statement that someone's post was offensive to them, it's the wrong answer to say something like "well, it's acceptable where I live, so you should just stop complaining". A far better response is "well, it's acceptable where I live, and no offense was intended, but having learned how you feel about it, we should be considerate of that going forward." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should a single editor's request have more weight than community consensus? Your statement above is recursively problematic, as it requires reaching consensus on what "not unreasonable" is. Nobody Ent 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to that discussion. I do not think it means what you think it means. There's clear consensus that we can swear. I see no such consensus that we can swear at people. Quite the opposite, in fact: the closer of the discussion you link to states plainly that "Foul language that is uncivil or used in personal attacks is already prohibited by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." That's an important distinction. 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is saying some editors are incompetence (e.g. WP:COMPETENCE) a personal attack? Nobody Ent 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That essay says "It does not mean 'come down hard on someone as soon as they make a mistake, so I presume we aren't talking about Malleus (review the incivility lists if necessary). However Wikilawyers may define "personal attack", the common sense answer is that "X is incompetent" is unnecessary, because it could be rephrased more like "X should study Y to understand how to do Z", which may be necessary. Art LaPella (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and I need to clarify what I said. It isn't about giving exceptional weight to the wishes of a single editor with respect to policy or sanctions or anything else like that. Rather it's about, when faced with a request from a single editor, being willing to get along with other people instead of looking to make a matter of principle about something that simply isn't worth getting into a dispute over. If someone is troubled by the word "cunt", it makes better sense to say that you didn't mean any harm when you used that word (and even that you were surprised that anyone would react to it) and then look for a way for the discussion to move along productively, instead of taking a rigid position that no reasonable person could possibly take offense at the word "cunt" (even when one honestly believes that to be the case!), and taking up everyone's time with a silly battle over the issue. Isn't that what this arbitration case is ultimately about? Wikipedia is a "place" where one has to work with whoever comes down the pike, whether you share their cultural perceptions or not. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to let them push you around. But you shouldn't think that you are being pushed around simply because you are expected not to pick a fight with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what this case is about. Remember MF allowed redaction of the word, and Thumperward stated here that it was as much about his comment on Deb's talk page and the (so-called) edit war, and the history of disruption.... Nobody Ent 03:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's all stipulate to the fact that there are disagreements as to how the events should be interpreted, which is why the case is before ArbCom. But the evidence being examined here in this discussion thread is about the self-described nationalities of some of the parties, and how those nationalities fail to line up with some of the assumptions that have been made in discussions during this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Bearean Hunter's point was simply that people are a little quick to blame us sensitive Americans for calling "Civility 911" when the truth is a bit more complex than that. I'll admit, I was surprised when looking at Malleus's block log to see how many of the blocking admins were based in the UK. Yet "why are American admins less likely to block Malleus than their counterparts from other countries?" is not a question you hear all that often. 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could it be to do with the time difference? Deb (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, that's not an unreasonable point. 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The notion that in the UK people can go about calling people "cunts" and it is completely socially acceptable is, quite frankly, bollocks. Cunt is a word, like I suppose motherfucker, that just might be used within a fairly tight (and almost certainly male) social group, but no-one would ever use outside of that if they had any expectation of reasonable social relations. People maintaining that it is acceptable in some cultures are talking out their asses (or arses).--Scott Mac 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also true in the US. And likewise calling someone a dick, and telling folks to fuck off, and other common Wikipedia practices. Nobody Ent 04:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Scott MacDonald, that's not quite true, I have heard the word many times in quite polite London circles (with all four sexes present) from Notting Hill to Highgate, although for some reasons the British often have to adopt a strange "mockney" accent as though speaking in inverted commas. I can't do the accemt and be understood, so I avoid it. Whatever, the word no longer has the shock value that it perhaps once did in 1950's "polite society." But in any case, is Wikipedia supposed to be "polite society"? Giacomo Returned 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Giacomo: At first your aside, "(with all four sexes present)", made me smile. Another part of me thought you were making a personal attack on @Scott Macdonald. A third part of me began to cry at the apparent injustice. A fourth part of me got angry at the second part. The four of us then began talking all at once. Our differences prevented any of us making sense. The first part then said "Tea anyone"? Over a cup of tea, we realised we are not apart. We live happily ever after -- Senra (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had an early opportunity to comment on this evidence here. I think it is evidence worth noting, and agree with much of what Tryptofish has to say above: differences between individuals as to what amounts to civility are more substantial than differences between particular (e.g. regional) subcommunities, and so contributing to Wikipedia sometimes involves a delicate balance between "live and let live" and the censure of comments that harm that very same collegiate atmosphere. Geometry guy 04:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Users Nobody Ent and Tryptofish--- I'd like to point out that the problem was not with the request of a single editor. Deb requested. I requested. Then Deb requested again. That makes 2 editors and 3 seperate instances not 1.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 editors and 5 instances; after Deb and Buster raised the issue, Ched Davis followed up and I successfully requested redaction. Nobody Ent 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster7, that's true. Clearly a number greater than 1, whatever the exact number might be construed to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the response that was given for the redaction request was one that can be characterized as successful. Ambivalent bordering on disdain would be more accurate...<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just throwing this out there: realistically, what's the real difference between "you're a cock-sucking asshole" and "you're a cork-soaking basspole"? Both are intended to insult - this focus on the word "cunt" is missing the big picture: that the word was being used to denigrate the other editor.  Let's not forget that. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, no, if we're looking at the original trigger-of-triggers. It was being used to describe a sub-set of admins; it was not being used to denigrate the other editor. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Evidence of Reading for Risker for the Collaborative Evidence Section
At the request of Risker I read:
 * AN/I archives 661–683 inclusive (January 2011 to the start of April 2011)
 * AN archives 220–229 inclusive (all 2011)
 * All 2011 RFC/Us that involved substantial civility issues (
 * WQA archives 96–100 (start of the year), 112 (after WQA changed their header)

I am primarily addressing issues related to the failure of process in this analysis; rather than specific failures of process (many of which have been enumerated in the section where Risker requested collaborative investigation of incivility issues).


 * 1) The archival system and search system is fucked. No archives indicate internal dates by their title.  The invariance of the archives is not demonstrable (by reference to diff look ups for original postings).  Diff walking is not an effective archive for the purposes of reviewing disciplinary action and decision making (the core reason for an organisation to keep records in an "archive").  The records keeping of the disciplinary and consensus systems of en.wikipedia are fundamentally deficient and do not allow easy research of organisational conduct of decision making.  This is a core failure of process and needs to be rectified.
 * 2) Two RFC/Us with significant civility components were successful in terms of their civility components: RFC/U of 28 March and RFC/U of 8 October
 * 3) Nine RFC/Us with significant civility components were failures:
 * 4) Eight amounted to blocks, either by:
 * 5) Five retirements
 * 6) One indef over other matters
 * 7) One indef as a seeming result of a preexisting escalation of user conduct
 * 8) One self-indef as a result of community bickering (noted clearly in the collaborative evidence section, multiple times)
 * 9) One failed to establish a consensus situation.
 * 10) RFC/U is not working in addressing incivility. It is effectively a disciplinary procedure masquerading as a collegial editing tool with the aim of developing consensus.  Disciplinary institutions should be explicit, not concealed.  RFC/U is the teddy bear with a dagger inside it.
 * 11) RFC/U's archives for 2011 are the best "closed" archives, with the results clearly marked. RFC/U's archives are maintained reasonably well, with record summaries (that aren't completely accurate), but which at least indicate the date of issues, the kind of issues involved, the centrally involved party, and what the outcome was.  RFC/U editors ought to be congratulated for maintaining better records for a disciplinary system than AN/I or AN.
 * 12) AN/I's archives are a failure.
 * 13) They duplicate sections repeatedly.
 * 14) AN/I editors fail to close sections accurately, or indicate what disciplinary action was taken in the section where community discussion lead to a disciplinary action being taken. This is unacceptable for disciplinary actions.
 * 15) AN/I editors regularly fail to even address disputes. There is a basic courtesy of external parties commenting on a discussion that arrives at AN/I; even if to say "wrong venue," or "do not soapbox AN/I"
 * 16) Incivility by administrators in AN/I discussions, especially discussions about civility, occurs with a disturbing frequency.
 * 17) From the limited sample, in a continuous time series run, of AN/I I expect that bad inaction and bad blocks occurred with a disturbing frequency throughout 2011.
 * 18) AN/I does not effectively address incivility.
 * 19) AN's archives are slightly better.
 * 20) However, AN editors occasionally fail to address disputes. There is a basic courtesy of external parties commenting on a discussion that arrives at AN; even if to say "wrong venue," or "do not soapbox AN"
 * 21) AN editors often close discussions better, but, cross referencing and recording of disciplinary outcomes is not complete. While AN does better than AN/I at recording actions taken, it is still not meeting expectations for an environment that develops disciplinary action, consensus decisions, and oversights previous disciplinary action.
 * 22) Incivility by administrators in AN discussions, about civility, occurs. This is disturbing regardless of the frequency.
 * 23) Administrator incivility was raised at AN through 2011; and, on at least one occasion this was not resolved by the community. The immunity of administrators while acting in their mop-and-bucket capacity from oversight is disturbing even it it occurs once.
 * 24) AN does not effective address incivility and had abjectly failed to oversight administrator conduct at AN/I on at least one occasion.
 * 25) WQA has slightly better archives
 * 26) WQA often notes closure or redirection of discussion better
 * 27) WQA rarely failed to address discussions brought to WQA; however, the rare failures noted in 2011 are still disturbing. There is a basic courtesy expected that outside editors will comment when a WQA request is noted on WQA.
 * 28) WQA has had, and continues after the changes to the header in September to have a high failure rate. WQA's failures are different to RFC/U or AN/I or AN.  WQA does not oversight or conduct disciplinary action.  WQA is not a defacto way to cause disciplinary action (unlike RFC/U, which is a defacto ban-hammer).  WQA's failures are soft failures of trying to get editors to come to agreement.  The only real failures of WQA are when WQA editors fail to address a request, when WQA editors fail to meet their own expectations about making an attempt to heal civility issues, or when an administrator acts with incivility on WQA and bans people.  WQA editors are not responsible for the latter, only the former.  And WQA's failures are "soft," they do not fail into disciplinary action.
 * 29) WQA ought to be congratulated for being the least inefficient civility institution; and, for regularly meeting their goals.
 * 30) WQA archives still suffer from a failure to be linked to the originating diff, or to have the date coverage listed in their name (or search pattern), and for the poor quality of the archive search system on wikipedia in the first place. However, to the extent that WQA maintains their own records, WQA editors usually note far better than AN/I or AN editors what the actual outcome was.

I was quite frankly disgusted by the procedural fairness over a number of key incidents noted in the collegial evidence generation section—basic elements of organisational function such as recording disciplinary actions, linking to immediately relevant discussions elsewhere, review of actions, conduct by those engaged in disciplinary actions, oversight of those engaged in disciplinary actions, and clear statements of rationale were missing. The level of oversight given to disciplinary actions is poor if existent. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC):
 * I was astounded by Fifelloo's classification of my RfC as a success for "civility", because of it was the last chapter of retaliation for my first discussion at RfA and because civility was violated by the deliberate misrepresentation of diffs, which were pursued like a U.S. criminal prosecutor in the courtroom of a stroke-addled judge. (A real judge would have jailed & fined them for contempt of court.)
 * First, I was disappointed by the lack of discussion of RfA as a source of conflicts.
 * RfA as a flashpoint: I had been the subject of hounding ever since I opposed a kid at RfA. The attempt to silence me at RfA was downplayed at the RfC, until WTT and Demiurge1000 revived the emphasis at RfAs at the close of the RfC. It is no secret that Keepscases has been mistreated because of his RfA eccentricities (following RfA Reform discussions/groupthink concluding that something must be done to stop Keepscases). Similarly, BadgerDrink was first pursued at ANI and then at RfC.
 * Second, in the RfCs, there was no attempt to police the critics and stop their violations of AGF/NPA/Civility. I documented Snottywong's projection of psychological problems onto BadgerDrink; his personal attack was endorsed by 6 or so administrators/sysops.
 * Third, WTT and Demiurge1000, etc., grossly violated [[WP:Civility|WP:Civility, especially  "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them."]." These were documented at the RfC, after complaints about misquotation by Carrite and me.
 * (DGG just made Gamamielesque attacks on the basis of a 6 minute reading of 108K, and never showed any concern with correcting his falsehoods.)
 * None of these critics ever once got off their asses (save TFD) and wrote anything on any of the articles mentioned.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz has made many comments regarding me since the RfC, appearing to continue some sort of grudge, which I do my best to ignore. Needless to say, I refute pretty much everything he says in his account. I am willing to discuss it here, but I suspect no one is interested in the past history between KW and myself. What's more, I don't think it has any bearing on this case. I will of course discuss further on the request on any individual besides KW.
 * Finally, since I believe KW's behaviour since October has been tending towards harassment, I will be taking it further if he carries on. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note on accuracy: The RfC on Badger Drink was moved from AN/I to RfC. This was made quite clear at both AN/I, in Fluffernutter's closing, and at the RfC.  It was the same case  moved on advice at AN/I from BWilkins that it should have been at RfC and not AN/I in the first place.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RE comments by Worm That Turned:
 * I have previously stated that WTT and especially Demiurge1000's hounding, carried on for months, seemed to approach harassment (linked by him). He or Demiurge1000 have previously made similar threats, but strangely have not corrected false accusations or apologized for mistakes....
 * The Wikipedia community is concerned about the appearance of double-standards and the misuse of administrative tools to help friends and apparently hound their rivals, e.g. by mis-closing discussions at ANI/AN. The RfC's against BadgerDrink and against me, as well as the puerile barnstars awarded after the block of BadgerDrink (celebrating civility or decapitation), etc., have been discussed already by many contributors to this ArbCom case.
 * Space limitations and documentation required my focusing on him, but the editing history shows a broader draft, mentioning others and providing more context. I wish that he and the community can forgive flaws in my submitted evidence, drafted in two days, after WTT took 2-3 months to compile the RfC against me! (The reader may compare my apologies for mistakes already corrected in my drafts, with WTT's partial apology the misrepresentation of Carrite, BlackKite, etc., only after Carrite voiced his outrage at being (mis)quoted.)
 * I was editing in a hurry, to comply with the deadline. It may have been that I missread WP:Civility's prohibition on quoting editors out of context, which should be relevant to this case. Space did not allow me to reference WP policies about administrators avoiding the appearance of partisanship, etc.,---perhaps happily saving my faulty memory from even more mistakes....
 * Perhaps WormThatTurned should review his actions in 2011, which are partially documented in the evidence submitted, the better to understand that how his present complaint about "harassment" is viewed by the community. His defeat in the ArbCom elections may also be relevant in gauging Community sentiments.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick factual correction of the worst errors.
 * I didn't take 2-3 months to compile the RfC. After a specific request on 8 August by Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I did not start the RfC until 31 August (see . I spent a few days writing a draft and left it on 5 Sept. I then left it alone for another another month, to comply with KW's request, at which point I informed Demiurge1000, who added his comments. The RfC was edited on a total of 12 days prior to going live and the sole reason for delay was KW's request.
 * Casliber, to the best of my knowledge did not admonish me for anything, he pointed out that a comment at RfA was the trigger Badger Drink's RfC, a fact I do not disagree with and something I had already commented on referring to it as a catalyst.
 * Prior to the "Barnstar of decapitation" there were no civility barnstars given out wrt Badger Drink to the best of my knowledge. Please do feel to correct me on that with a diff.
 * KW's favourite issue that I accused him of censorship at the RfC is incorrect - I did not add the information, though I do endorse the comment. KW appears to have complained about "my" accusation many times without thinking to check if I actually made the accusation, including at this venue. Had KW used diffs, as suggested by a few editors, perhaps he wouldn't have made that mistake.
 * Reclosing (after KW had ignored the original close and was subsequently blocked) an ANI thread does not require any administrative tools, and is therefore not an abuse of them.
 * Have a different opinion of diffs is not the same as "deliberate misrepresentation"
 * I appreciate the work that KW has put into rewording his evidence to remove attacks on my character after my request on his take page, but I do wonder if KW could just try to not make uncivil comments in the first place? It's not exactly the first time this has happened... <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Worm That Turned (WTT),
 * Above, I clearly wrote that WTT had misused the hidden-archive template (HAT); above, I explained WTT's involved status, which made him ineligible to use the HAT template. Let WTT explain his misleading edit-summary, suggesting that another close the discussion, and his cover-up descriptor for the HAT template, "Nothing left to see"! His answer again looks like subterfuge.
 * Certifying the RfC, WTT accused me of politically motivated misuse of copyrightviolation-tags and in particular removing material from Penn Kemble. That WTT's summoner, Demiurge1000, introduced the falsehoods does not change the fact that WTT signed his name to the false accusations. This is the first time that he has attempted to distance himself from false accusations, which WTT published in the RfC in October---despite my having protested his previous parroting of false accusations by Demiurge1000 in his inept RfC-formatted "discussion" (after which he quit). I made many requests that he retract that accusation before today, when he finally distances himself it.
 * The dates of WTT's composition over 2-3 months are documented with diffs in my guide to the election for ArbCom. "WTT & friend  took August, September, & October in drafting the RfC under WTT's leadership. WTT's RfC started with a shock-and-awe section of "issues not to be pursued", which tried to discredit me by quoting editors' complaints;  in this section, WTT cherry-picked diffs in a grossly partisan way, ignoring context, and grossly distorting events. Written August-October, WTT's passive-aggressive misrepresentation  "shocked" an editor who had criticized me for "POV-pushing for a week until he observed my accomplishments and  congratulated my editing, indeed helping me with sources and comments ever since. WTT's RfC continued to misrepresent my editing|, again cherry-picking quotes from me and others out of context and ignoring obvious counter-examples to his claims."
 * I don't think that WTT understands that he is an officer of Wikipedia, and therefore can be held responsible for actions like signing RfCs with falsehoods, without exercising due fiduciary care and avoiding misfeasance---certainly in discussions and elections in the Wikipedia community. There was discussion of other Wikipedia officers, ArbCom, facing the usual personal liability for officers of not-for-profits incorporated in the USA, in the last ArbCom Elections: Whether the real-world liabilities that concerned the last election were serious or fantasy does not concern me; the Wikipedia community does hold its members accountable at elections, at desyssoping, at RfCs, etc.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can clearly see here (I think) where both sides are coming from. When people perceive that they have been misunderstood, or that wrong motives have been attributed to them, it is a normal human response to become impassioned and even obsessive about them.  People make mistakes (we're human, that's what humans do), and when impassioned about something we make more mistakes.  I firmly believe that to become a really committed, passionate editor, a certain amount of innate obsessiveness is required.  We don't get paid for this, after all  and we voluntarily spend a lot of time doing thankless tasks for hours on end.  It's not only a normal human response to retaliate with attack to perceived attacks  it's a response we share with most species of any intelligence whatsoever. (My boa constrictor with a brain the size of a broad bean does the same thing.) Humans obsess about things which touch them emotionally, and when dealing with a subset of people who are already likely to have aspects of passion and overtones / undertones of obsession (Wikipedians!) this is going to happen a lot.  Wikidemon and I bumped heads here, both of us becoming increasingly frustrated, because each of us had just been working on crossed wires and totally misunderstood where the other one was coming from. Without the nuances of real-life, in-the-flesh, interpersonal communication, we are completely reliant on the typed word.  This leads to far greater misunderstandings.  Obviously.  It can't help but do so.  In situations like this, everybody is on edge, everybody is hyper-alert to possible attacks, and everybody is bringing all their own old baggage and revisiting it here.  That, again, is simply what humans do.  Can we all try extremely hard to make allowances for each others' humanity, each others' histories of having been hurt, and each others' paradigms; can we try to call a truce amongst each other and focus on the higher priority of getting this darned mess of civility policy and enforcement sorted, once and for all?  If we can do this, we are all winners  and so will every editor not-yet-here be.


 * Everybody here is hurting; everybody is licking old wounds, either on their own behalf or on others' behalf. That's why we're here.  If we keep this in mind, we may be able to see each other and all around us with more empathy and sympathy.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's probably the single most important thing I've said on any of these pages! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TParis closed the RFC/U of 8 October noting, "To move forward, KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms)." (15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)). If this was an improper closure, or an improper representation of your own voluntary agreements, then I'm surprised at why it has taken two and a half months for the improper closure to come to light. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TParis's closing was better than could have been expected. However, it would take angel dust or really bad crack (from a liquidator's after-Christmas sale) to call that one-sided, malevolent RfC a success. Look at the charges made, which have been shown to be false, and the lack of apologies.
 * At least ArbCom member Elen of the Roads certified the RfC with the careful caveat that she was certifying the existence of an ongoing conflict ..., without suggesting that she was cerifying the particular charges.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about closing date of this case

 * This question should be in another section.


 * What I'd like to know is why this case is still open and hasn't moved on to the next phase, as it should have done two days ago. Maybe the committee feels that I haven't yet been sufficiently humiliated? Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging from how the Δ case is inching along I wouldn't get my hopes up for any quick rulings. Or even medium-speed ones. The Δ case opened in October, so my guess is this one will likely wrap up in March at the earliest. 28bytes (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, but I'm talking about the evidence collection phase, which was scheduled to end two days ago. A pronouncement was promised for a couple of weeks later. What's changed? Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that probably hasn't changed is the practice of announcing way-too-optimistic dates for these things. 28bytes (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I seem to have become the target of this alleged "civility enforcement" issue I somewhat disagree with that. One may take as long as one likes to debate any policy issue, but when it becomes personal there's a duty of care involved. Perhaps only Giano and I know how stressful these trials can be. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One only has to think back to the Hoffman case to know that ArbCom has a long and generally poor track record on duty of care issues. Sad but true.  EdChem (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it impossible to believe that the Arbcom did not know exactly what it was doing in opening this case. On one of the occasions when I was in Malleus' position here on this nasty page I began to feel physically ill (I won't say suicidal because I am far to selfish to ever give anyone that pleasure). But, you know, it can become obsessional watching the vitriol being heaped on in post after post and feeling the need to retort and deny or explain can become very stressful. I can remember staying up all night once just watching post after post from people posting all manner of rubbish - it's very unhealthy. The Arbs know this and they encourage it, I think it's all part of the torture - they accepted the case on the evidence provided yet don't seem to be able to make a decision on it without the likes of all and sundry adding their 10 cents. It's vile. Giacomo Returned 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please close the "evidence" section. Nobody else supported my request for an extension, and my request has been withdrawn. The announced 15 January deadline passed. Please close evidence. Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What I hope that some editors can take away from this, is that there really are valid concerns about behavior. The repetitive patterns I am seeing basically boil down into two camps, "I/he/she didn't say anything wrong, the complainers are just thin-skinned and using the comments to attack and block for personal reasons" on one side; and "Wow, that person just doesn't get it, they are consistently rude and abusive and refuse to stop," on the other. The latter complain that WP:CIVIL supports them but is being ignored, while the former are saying that the policy is only for egregious cases, is being abused and over-enforced, and it is the over-enforcers who need sanctions, not the enforcees. Things are further complicated because in some cases, one camp is clearly right, and in others, the other camp is clearly correct. Plus there are plenty that are probably muddled with a bit of both. I think one good thing that this case is doing, is really putting a spotlight on the situation. --Elonka 17:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it completely repulsive Elonka, that you who have posted here more often than most - even here now, have to pile in with your views yet again. What do you want to see - some blood? Giacomo Returned 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an odd comment about what appears to me to be a very even-handed and non-judgemental summary. Deb (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite! Do we need Elonka who has ben posting throughout and pontificating to now "summarise" for us or has she suddenly been promoted to the Arbcom? Giacomo Returned 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks who juggle rocks should not blame the rock when one lands on their foot. Likewise, editors who repeatedly disregard community norms, regardless of how inconsistent, arbitrary, or unfair they may be, should not be surprised when they end up at ArbCom. Nobody Ent 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * .....and neither should those who come here for a pile-on be surprised when they get a bloody nose and the case descends into an unseemly fight because those claiming to want to keep the peace allow it to drag on for their own nefarious purposes. Giacomo Returned 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems rather evident from the comments made throughout this case that there isn't a community with a single set of norms, there are many communities with different sets of norms. Which is why the emphasis ought to have been on those norms and their equitable enforcement, not on me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first sentence (and I believe my contributions here are consistent with that philosophy). However, given your self-description as at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site not anticipating ArbCom as a possible outcome for being unaware of and/or defying the norms of a significant subcommunity doesn't seem reasonable. Nobody Ent 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George Bernard Shaw and I disagree with that position: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the unreasonable man should expect discomfort along the way to progress? I prefer Robert A. Heinlein "Half the battle with any culture is knowing its taboos." Nobody Ent 19:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of MF's block log
Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm really grateful to Karanacs for spending so much of her limited time here on populating this table. To the best of my recollection it's an accurate summary. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There is a much more complete index at []---where several of the people involved such as myself gave throrough analysis on some of the cases. For instance, what this summary omits is that the first block was a complete abuse of the tools.  Six weeks before unblocking, I was involved in trying to get an RfC against Malleus and my comments surrounding the unblock will show that I was not a Malleus supporter.  But when I saw SJ's block, I had to unblock.  SJ was insulted because he was called a wikilawyer (a term that I daresay gets used on Wikipedia on a regular basis.)  He issues a warning THIRTY TWO HOURS LATER.  4 hours later Malleus responds poorly calling the admin "petty minded"  (I suspect that most people here would consider a person who places a civility warning on their talk pages 32 hours after the flare up as being petty minded too.)  Four hours later, the admin who was initially insulted by the term issues a civility block for something said 40 hours earlier?  Or for being called "petty minded" four hours earlier?  Clear abuse of the tools and inappropriate block.  Several other of the blocks were similarly issued by people with COI---one admin was apparently blocked as a result!  If you are getting blocked by admins who are abusing the tools like this, is there any wonder that you get a bitter feeling towards them?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: