Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Hersfold
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) Newyorkbrad
 * 7) PhilKnight
 * 8) Risker
 * 9) SilkTork

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) John Vandenberg
 * 3) Mailer diablo
 * 4) Roger Davies
 * 5) SirFozzie

Recused:
 * 1) Coren
 * 2) Elen of the Roads
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Xeno

Comment by Scott MacDonald
Hey, ho. Those with wiki-memories as long as mine will groan at this. This is the perennial civility blocks on committed users quagmire - I trust arbcom have the collective memory enough to remember this timesink from old Giano cases etc.
 * 1) Given cultural and temperamental differences, civility cannot be objectively codified
 * 2) Civility blocks will thus always be contentious - and when used on long-standing users, there will always be a friendly admin willing to unblock
 * 3) The difficulty of the subject allows a few users (who should know better) to be deliberately rude with impunity (gaming the fault in the system)
 * 4) Given this, civility blocks on long-standing users almost always cause more drama than what they are trying to prevent
 * 5) However, a ban on civility blocks on long-standing users will be seen by most as a green-flag to rudeness, and to render WP:CIVIL impotent

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

@AGK, soryy but your response is classic arbcom trivialising at its worst (and exactly the reason I opposed your election). On technicalities you ignore the structural issues, you ignore the long-term user conduct/civility issues which have led to this pathetic drama, and pick up on the one frustrated admin who flicked a switch. Look, if you have uncivil vested contributors, and no way to make a block stick, admins in frustration are always going to get frustrated and flick switches - if it wasn't Hawkeye it would have been someone else. Now, don't be obtuse - either reject the case, or pick up on the real issues underlying - not the wikilawering technical stuff. Get some backbone, or keep the hell away. Learn the lesson of the Giano cases - if you delay dealing with what obvious it just keeps coming back. Now, deal with it - or make it clear you won't ever deal with it. But not weeks of a case about one decision by one admin - because in two months some other frustrated admin is only going to do exactly the same thing to Malleus.--Scott Mac 02:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @AGK - OK, I understand that. I guess what I'm saying is this. The community cannot deal with this - it never has dealt with longterm users and civility blocks. Now, I am not necessarily advocating you accept this case - but if you do it will be a timesink and cause lots of sideshow drama. If you are going to allow that - you'd better be ready do deal with the big issues head on - or it simply isn't worth the time for you or the community and will just cause mass frustration. Now, stop and ask what outcomes you could see here (I'm not advocating any in particular). But, if all you're going to do is slap an admin for a block, then do it by motion, or e-mail him and caution him, and don't put us through what will be an unpleasant case. Too often cases are taken and it quickly becomes clear nothing will really be found to help. If that's the likely outcome, don't take the case. I will think no less of you.--Scott Mac 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Response to Toa Nidhiki05
There's a difference between a verbal altercation between users and abusing Admin Tools. If Hawkeye had made that statement with no connection to using the block button it would have been of no concern. When you combine that behavior with using the block button that's when it becomes intolerable.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Response to TCO
 * "spouts off a little"? "still a one off"? What project have you been hanging out on????? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Block history
 * I blocked Malleus on 2010-10-15 for "" His response to the block was "" -- nevertheless, I unblocked him shortly afterwards, realizing that if I didn't, someone else was going to do it without discussing it first, and possibly against consensus, and I wasn't in the mood to watch that happen. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Response to Nobody Ent's "Community must do the work"
As evidenced by the vitriol (suggestions for resigning the sysop bit, demands for recall, demands for emergency de-sysoping, questioning the fitness of blocking admins) in the thread that precipitated this, a group of editors are of like mind to Malleus. Any time a conversation gets started about how to attempt to solve this (from my point of view) a lot of hand waving occurs and cries of "Content Creator" drown out the conversation or the consensus is reversed shortly after being implemented. It feels as though the community has attempted to resolve this and failed. Therefore it is being delivered back to ArbCom to take responsibility for the situation. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Bali
I urge the committee to immediately ban all editors focused on quality content creation and improvement and to leave the field to the ethnonationalists, button pushing vandal fighters, and the admins more interested in playing bureaucratic games than fixing the appalling quality of this website's content. Those people apparently say "cunt" less often. So, you know, do this for the good of the project.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Hawkeye is a fucking liar, as proven by his comments on this page (the "stewed koala" lie is of such complete transparency that he also displays a fundamental contempt for the intelligence of his audience). If you really want to deal with incivility lying (on an encyclopedia project, no less) is orders of magnitude a bigger problem than using the word "cunt." And it's tolerated (practically encouraged) every day, across the website. Which leads some people that care about quality and honesty to use words like cunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
There are two separate issues to consider:
 * 1) What are the standards for civility on Wikipedia?
 * 2) What is the best practice for handling cases of uncivil behavior?

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

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


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


 * Which editor feels "harassed" by Malleus? There are people wanting to block Malleus because they disagree with his views or are offended by his language, but I would like to know who if anyone has felt harassed. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
This is similar in scope to the Ottava case of awhile back, except that Malleus actually works with people to improve articles and doesn't spin out wild conspiracy theories (sorry Ottava). We either just lost or are close to losing one of the few prolific copyeditors on the site, let alone one of the more productive content creators. This does not give anyone a free pass, but it's worth keeping in mind that there is much to lose here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05
I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Regardless of what you think about Malleus' contributions to mainspace (which are by no means minor), his track record of personal attacks and crass language directed at editors has given him more than 15 blocks over the past three years, which isn't minor either. Clearly this is not able to be solved among admins or even the general community, so a final decision on this long-running dispute would certainly be beneficial. Toa  Nidhiki 05  16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Cube lurker
So it is unacceptable for Hawkeye to call Malleus a 'koala', but it is fine for Malleus to call Spitfire a 'f***ing c**t'? Toa  Nidhiki 05  16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to John
Preface: I'm interpreting the current MF incident to be the blasting cap which has set off the normally dormant but much more powerful RDX - like Wikipedia Civility Dysfunction and therefore paraphrasing your question as 'List the high quality content editors who were driven off by the varying degrees of aggressiveness and personal attacks currently tolerated on Wikipedia.' This is not a reasonable question. Editors who are driven off by the current environment are most likely just to fade away quickly without drama. There will be no specific record of the reason for leaving. Certainly they are unlikely to stay long enough to become high content editors. Therefore the statement that hostile interactions drive off editors should be treated as an axiom; you are certainly entitled to disagree with it but demanding 'provide a list or strike your comment' just isn't cool. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should only address incivility if editors who not longer participate provide evidence.
 * But if they provide evidence, they're participating.
 * Yep, its Wiki-22. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, I was going to unblock Malleus but was beaten to it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sowhy... sowhy makes a good point and has convinced me that this case should be accepted... not necessarily to investigate Malleus, but rather how he is treated by admins. Does he invite some of it upon himself?  Yes.  But he gets blocked if he sneezes in the wrong tone.  Sheesh an indef block for stating a fact in a little more colorful language than is necessary?  Not the word I would use, but face it some admins are [use your choice of vulgarity here].  If you can't admit that...--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@Protonk, the problem is that because some admins jump on every single infringement/transgression, it has become comical. It is a circular pattern. Does MF invite it? I think so, I think he sometimes goes out of his way to provoke knowing what the outcome will be. (Which is unacceptable.) But I also think that because some admins are constantly blocking him for frilous issues, that it has become like the kid who cried wolf. If you think Malleus should be blocked, don't run out and block him for every little transgression knowing that it will be unblocked an hour or two later. Build a case and take the case to the community/RFCU or even here. Frankly, I suspect that building such a case against MF would not be overly difficult... pick the examples that best eximplify a continued pattern. Half the cases brought to ANI are shere utter jokes. Some have a modicum of merit, but the one's that have merit are scorned at because we've been there, seen that, bought the shirt. If somebody wants to block MF, then they should be proactive and write up a solid rationale citing examples and justifying the actions... instead, you get blocks like Thumper's. Thumper is upset that his block has been mischaracterized by others... well, guess what, when your block essentially says "per a long discussion" you open that door. If you know your action is going to be controversial, you either need to refrain from the action or take the offensive in justifying it. The case against MF is undermined by those who block him every time he turns around for comments that would not invoke a block for anybody else. Thumper in his statement at WP:RFA wrote, "No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this." No, that is not true... if it was anybody but Malleus, it would have gotten a warning like this or opened an ANI case at most. Jumping straight to Indef Block? Nah. Hell indefing a user without detailed rationale, when you know that it will be overturned and create much consternation is....--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye/Risker, Hawkeye now claims that he blocked MF not because of consensus, but rather because of the new case of abuse. Yes, there was a new comments by Malleus, but that flies in the face of his detailed rationale to re-block Malleus:
 * Per consensus on WP:ANI, you have been blocked.
 * The consensus was that the previous indefinite block was too severe and should be lifted. A new one of one week has been substituted.
 * The the use of certain sexist language constitutes uncivil and unacceptable behaviour.
 * You have a long term pattern of abuse.
 * There was no consensus that the admin who lifted your block was in a conflict of interest.
 * Notice, he says "per consensus". He then states that there was consensus that the original block was too severe and should be replaced with a shorter block---there was no such consensus.  There was definitely consensus that indef was too severe, but no consensus that it should be replaced with a week long block instead.  While his comment reads, "no consensus that the admin who lifted your block was in a conflict of interest," this is opposite of what he wrote on the ANI report.  The unblocking "was unjustified. Wet trout time" (emphasis his).  At no point does he reference the new cases of abuse.  Had he indicated that the new incidents of incivility were a factor, then he might be able to appeal to that defense now.  But as he didn't even make a vague reference to "continued" abuse or anything... then I have to go based upon his original rationale.  His original rationale is that he was blocking MF because he saw consensus to do so and that he felt that John was acting against COI when he unblocked.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 10:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker, also relative to the "second mover" advantage... civility/NPA blocks are very subjective. While a 3RR/vandalism block is objective, these are subjective. Different people have different views and it is my opinion that whenever there is dispute over the validity of a civility/NPA block, then the default should be to unblock until the conflict is resolved. I say this for several reasons. 1) If the abuse isn't clear cut, then blocking in appropriate. 2) If a person is blocked then they cannot defend themselves. It is for those reason that if I would have unblocked Hawkeye7's reblock if I had stumbled upon this issue a minute earlier. I think that default position should be solidified, that would allieviate some of the controversy that pops up around these contentious civility/NPA blocks.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 10:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Ched Davis
see here for comment from Malleus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrators should stamp on this cyclic nonsense once and for all by aggressively sanctioning the first block by.
 * Recommendation

Reply to Nobody Ent
In Maintain good faith you said "The exact same lack of standards that make Malleus's block inappropriate make starting an admin witch hunt the wrong thing to do." Enormous no. This actually is the very point. I, and I am certain many other editors, hold admins to a higher standard than ourselves, just as we hold our country's politicians to a high standard.

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

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

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

Malleus writes more than the vast majority, to a better standard than the vast majority. For better or worse he says things as he sees them, and from what I've seen is always prepared to back up his opinion if challenged. If that merits a long term block or ban we may as well shut down our featured processes, because you'll find relatively few editors there that aren't in that mould. —WFC— 17:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, my statement is not intended to imply deliberate wrongdoing on Thumperward's part, and I can see that it could be interpreted in that way. My point is that had Malleus used the language he had in the context he had on a page other than WT:RFA, he probably wouldn't have been blocked. I say that having used such language on high profile pages myself, and never having been blocked. Maybe I should have been blocked on one or more of those occasions, but again that specific element of this case is a matter for community consensus to determine, not Arbcom to dictate. —WFC— 18:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Coren: "The very reason we exist at all in the first place" is to build the definitive encyclopaedia. The pillars, RfA and indeed Arbcom exist purely because they are (or once was, in the case of RfA) considered helpful in achieving that goal. Your statement troubles me, not because of the emphasis it places on civility, but because it demonstrates the extent to which Wikipedia places its rules above its raison d'être nowadays. —WFC— 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
Part of the reason Malleus tends to get unblocked after being blocked for the things he says is that he has this annoying habit of being right, even if he is rude about it, and it seems there is always at least one other party involved who has acted as badly or worse than he has, whether they used "bad words" or not. In this particular case I am more concerned with the edit warring and wheel warring between parties who certainly should have known better, and hope that if the committee accepts this case they consider those factors as well and take appropriate actions regarding them. Wheeel warring in particular is very troubling. I would also note that despite many saying this is a longstanding problem, Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum is still a redlink. Looks like it was created once in 2009 but never certified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I daresay it is piss or get off the pot time. this reques is quite long, but I think a careful read of it will allow the arbs to see what the community wants from them, starting with yanking Hawkeye's bits, which I,think does not need to be part of any full case but could rather be handled by motion. He was wheel warring in a situation where it was guaranteed such actions would only make things worse. We don't need an admin who would do something so obviosly stupid, regardless of his motivations. That he saw fit to make that idiotic koala comment only makes it more obvious.Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * To AGK

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

Statement by Cusop Dingle
I hope that the Arbitration Committee will make a ruling that supports Civility in letter and spirit. The object of that policy is to create a collegial atmosphere so that we can all get on with building the encyclopaedia. Frankly the rude word thing is not the most important part of it. Some people are put off or upset by some words more than others: the issue is as much about intention as effect. There is at least a prima facie case that MF either intends to put other people off editing, or at the very least is consciously reckless about whether his words will have that effect. In a short discussion I happened to be part of a few days ago, MF's sole contributions, addressed to other users, not myself, were "I'm a strong advocate of the fact that you talk bollocks much of the time" and "Then you're also talking bollocks. It's not up to administrators, or anyone else here, to forgive". The incivility here is not the use of the word "bollocks", although this is not language I would wish to hear in my own drawing-room: it is the deliberate use of the word in a context which displays a clear intention to discourage another user from taking part in the discussion; a clear expression of personal contempt; and no interest whatsoever in advancing a rational debate. The two sentences containing the word "bollocks" could have been deleted without any effect whatsoever on the logical argument, and serve only to upset or discourage other users. This is incivility, and is an -- admittedly minor -- example of the sort of behaviour we need to discourage. It is clear that this is conscious and deliberate behaviour on MF's part and that he intends it to have the effect that it does indeed have. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional. It has been suggested that MF should be allowed a greater degree of incivility than usual because of his contributions to the encyclopaedia.  That seems wrong to me.  We do not, of course, maintain a civil atmosphere for the sake of it, but because maintaining politeness and collegiality is the best way of bulding the encyclopaedia.  If MF intends to flout community norms in this area, then he will have to lave the community.  However, we should look to ArbComm to find a way of keeping MF as a valuable contributor and a civil and collegial co-worker.  Perhaps a good first step would be to require him to explicitly acknowledge and agree to adhere to the community norms in this area.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Polite/ness request
Since the immediate focus for this case is MF's use of specific bad language, I suppose it's inevitable that those words would have to be repeated occasionally. However, would the people who want to proclaim how un-offended they are by those words please refrain from bandying them about in their comments? I for one do not like to have to read through pages of foul language here. It makes it harder for me, and for others, to concetrate on the issues involved. If that makes me sound like your grandmother, so be it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that several people feel it necessary to use offensive language as part of their regular discourse, as opposed to as a necessary part of the civility discussion. I also note that this discussion is becoming unmanageably long.  Perhaps I could propose a solution to both these problems?  Suggest all submissions that use the "F" and "C" words directly (as opposed to necessary quotation) be deleted.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Various people didn't like my somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal, but none the less I'm quite serious about my request to people not to "F" and "C" in their own discourse. As I said twice already, I suppose that some quotation of those words may be inevitable.  But not as part of the regular discussion.  Please?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Reply to AGK
Your lack of enthusiasm to consider the underlying issues here is disappointing in light of your Arbcom election statement “important issues”:
 * 1. Effective resolutions to disputes: I see little use in recycling the same principles endlessly, when more time could be afforded to creating meaningful remedies.
 * Also, in view of the final "important issue" in your statement:- 5. Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected), maybe you should recuse. Leaky  Caldron  20:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to RegentsPark
A fair attempt at differentiation and I do follow your point. However, it has side effects regardless where it occurs. It has a chilling and intimidating effect on some editors. At RfA it frequently causes Hell to break out which doesn’t help the community to determine the candidate’s credentials. It also emboldens and encourages admirers of said contributor (not necessarily MF, any charismatic contributor using insults and vulgarity will do) to add their own imitation of such conduct, usually in a rather puerile – and frankly pale imitation - fashion. This may be an attempt to somehow associate with the brio of the original poster, possibly in an attempt to ingratiate themselves. Such behaviour is ultimately divisive as can be seen on this page. Leaky Caldron  14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to John
“some of our more easily-offended editors could toughen up slightly”. Well, since you never “ know” the individual to whom invective was aimed this is wishful thinking

“lest my initial response above seem too unambiguously supportive of Malleus.” It did and still does

“"Fucking" is often used as an intensifier without rancour or controversy” – Indeed, I frequently use it, but never to people I don’t know and never in writing. Recognising the impact on the victim is the key to appropriate use and you cannot do that on here – unless your addressing one of your wiki pals. And let's not kid ourselves that rancour and controversy was precisely the intention

“we should also recognise the different values certain words have in different cultures” – as well as being wholly impractical and unnecessary the idea of it being codified is objectionable.

That stuff about MF being misunderstood and comparisons to Lenny Bruce - save me the pathos. As for your rejected olive branch last January topped off with an equally unsuccessful attempt in December, it is easy to see who’s got the upper hand in that relationship. Trouble is, once you start agreeing about removing policy & process, as you have, you begin to question your value here, which I see from your user page that you have. Shame.

Finally, this isn’t about a list of snigger, snigger, naughty words. Anyone thinking that is barking up the wrong tree. There is a good example involving MF and User:Deb just prior to the kerfuffle which was typically uncivil without resorting to vulgarity.

Sorry if this all sounds a little bit uncharitable. I have just started watching Scrooge and I haven’t reached the point where he achieves redemption! Leaky Caldron  22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Johnbod
Image removed by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blatent censorship (of my comment I mean). Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Underscore by uninvolved Modernist
I am unaware of anyone run off by Malleus; unlike Ottava who constantly and aggressively picked fights with editors with whom he disagreed. I am utterly convinced that Thumperward should relinquish his bit; as an admin he has developed an aggressive and hostile attitude. I am unconvinced by Hawkeye's remarks as well and I reiterate the opinion that Hawkeye should relinquish his bit as well...Modernist (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata
This should be a straightforward desysopping for Hawkeye's wheel-warring and involved (also, ) restoration of a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye says "Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked." Which is a lie. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Hurricanefan25
In short, opening an arbitration case for incivility is extreme, even if it is long-term. If any case is opened, it should be opened under Hawkeye for wheel-warring by re-blocking Malleus against the claimed consensus at the ANI. Malleus is a net positive to Wikipedia.  HurricaneFan 25  —  19:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chzz
Well, what a mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Hawkeye7

 * Please sign and date your posts on this page. If possible, please could you look back at the diffs of your previous posts on this page, and add a signature date/timestamp. Alternatively, perhaps a clerk could do so.
 * Below, you responded "I greatly regret a misunderstanding here. "Stewed" has another meaning here, of someone who is troubled ("near boiling") and prone to outbursts ("boiling over"). I deeply regret any misunderstanding or offence caused." - Hawkeye7 06:36, 23 December 2011
 * It is stretching my AGF quite a long way, but I can accept that there is a different meaning from 'intoxicated'. However, I believe that means that you were actually saying, I blocked a user called User:Malleus Fatuorum who's apparently some sort of koala (ie a protected species who is boiling over most of the time).
 * That is still a personal attack, and still I highly inappropriate thing to say about someone you have just blocked.


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

Why should arb accept this case
If Mr. A adds "Foo" to an article, and Ms. B removes it, we tell them to STOP. and get consensus. Because, there's no deadline; because, if it is "wrong" for a bit, that's not as bad as disrupting our project. Because, we believe in discussion and consensus. Mr. A certainly believes his edit is "correct" - but, still, we ask him to refrain from repeating it, regardless. That is how the wiki works. Because we all know that, if Mr A adds it again, and Ms B removes it again, and Mr A adds it again...it's disruptive to the project. regardless of who is "right".

If Mr. A blocks Ms. X for something, same applies

Mrs. B shouldn't unblock without discussion/consensus.

Mr. C shouldn't re-block

Ms. D shouldn't unblock. And when Ms. D does, Ms. D. should certainly know better than to re-block.

Admins should demonstrate exemplary behaviour. If admins don't bother about consensus, the whole system falls apart, through sheer hypocrisy.  Chzz  ► 03:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC) why

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

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

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

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


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

None of these ANI discussions has the slightest tendency to be "dispute resolution". There is no WP:RFC/Malleus Fatuorum. I don't know whether there might possibly be some reasonable attempt — through formal mediation or on some user talk page or the like — to resolve (?) in dialogue with Malleus himself what is described above as Malleus' "long history of incivility, nastiness, and other sorts of undesirable behaviour". ( I know I'm putting that oddly — how are such matters to be "resolved"? — but that's the nomination as far as I can see. No suggestion is made of any desired outcome; that's left to the imagination, which seems (to me) to default to a hope for a lengthy or indefinite ArbCom block.  ) I'm not aware of any such attempt, and the nominator doesn't seem to be, either, or s/he would presumably have listed it. Perhaps the nominator took the requirement for previous dispute resolution to be more of a formality. That's not so. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Response to Casliber's offer to recuse
Casliber, you know Malleus from WP:FAC and have interacted with him about such matters, and therefore you're offering to recuse if people want you to. IMO those things make you well informed about all aspects of Malleus' editing, rather than at risk of being too "lenient", or whatever type of bias it is you foresee being suspected of. As a strong content contributor and writer of featured articles yourself, you will pretty much automatically have more experience of, and insight into, the frustrations of such editing (for instance, Randy-type situations) than do arbs who mostly breathe the rarefied air of Wikipedia space and on talkpages. That experience surely won't necessarily mean you'll be more kindly disposed to Malleus's lapses — it could work the other way, too, since you never seem to lose your own temper under the same kind of stress. (As far as I've seen. I don't stalk you — you could be having flamefests in obscure corners of the project, I suppose.) You and David Fuchs are the two people on the committee (that I'm aware of) who contribute lots of high quality content. The two of you are neck and neck as regards your edits to mainspace in proportion to your other editing; in absolute numbers, you're ahead of David (all per soxred's edit counter). Your own experience of the not-that-common kind of editing Malleus so largely does is especially valuable for this case. Please don't withdraw your expertise by recusing on some superfine scruple. I'd say the same to David if he too was threatening to recuse. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

I do not by any means intend to suggest that Malleus is in some way perfect. That several of his blocks have not been overturned are proof enough of that. What I do suggest is that Malleus's blunt, straightforward speaking manner and unwillingness to twist the truth to sound polite, have led multiple editors and administrators with surprisingly thin skins to become his Wikienemies. As a result an astonishingly large segment of the community, both Malleus supporters and Malleus detractors, have become embroiled in a slow-moving "block war" that has now lasted for more than 3 years. Things now seem to have finally reached a head. If ArbCom decide to take this case, I sincerely hope that they
 * 1) Thoroughly investigate the full history behind Malleus's block log;
 * 2) Take a look at the most recent blocks that set the match against the fuse: the indefinite block applied to a prolific editor with no discussion after another administrator had already decided against it, and the block of a week citing WP:LTA and AN/I consensus when a) Malleus is not listed on LTA and b) the only AN/I consensus was for him to be unblocked;
 * 3) Examine whether administrators who have had bad blood with an editor in the past are capable of levying fair and justified blocks against them in the future, and whether they should recuse themselves if it is found that they are incapable of assuming good faith.

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

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

Further: Mkativerata has summed up the reasons for desysopping here - they are very persuasive. Black Kite (t)  00:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will say this, though &mdash; I disagree with both Thumperward's initial indefinite block and Hawkeye's subsequent reblock. An indefinite block? There's no consensus for that, not even close. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's those kinds of admin actions that divide the community and create unnecessary drama.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to Risker's point, I don't think an RfC is the best course of action here. I doubt it would accomplish anything more than what we've already gotten at ANI &mdash; two distinct camps, one excusing Malleus's bluntness in light of his content work, and the other reiterating that nobody should be above WP:CIVIL.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by 28bytes
I am reminded of that old joke about the doctor and the man whose arm hurt. A man goes to the doctor and says "Doctor, every time I call people fucking cunts on Wikipedia, I get blocked." "Well, then," says the doctor, "don't calling people fucking cunts on Wikipedia."

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

Statement by Epbr123
The current situation is untenable and community is clearly unable to solve the problem, so an Arbcom decision on this is long overdue.

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

Statement by Guerillero
I urge arbcom to take this case. This is a textbook case wheelwarring and of a long going dispute that the community can't fix. I am a personal believer that the indef block was over the top and that the reblock was against consensus. I echo Steven's statement above, there may be a very small panel of arbs working on this case. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Malleus has requested to be relocked --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Risker
A RFC/U on malleus would be yet another pointless waste of everyone's time. Arbcom needs to look over the fact that we have not skipped through the hoops in the right order and the fact that we have skipped a few of them. This issue has hit AN/I so many times that a RFC/U would only create more drama. We are nearing WP:100 for this RFARB. I think that this speaks strongly enough of how divisive this issue is. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We passed 100 comments --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Additional Comment
Not particular in reference to MF, but about Civility in general. It is impossible to know the number of good contributors who have been run off by uncivil behavior by certain good "content contributors" with bad behavior if potential good contributors are scared off before their value is known or proven.

Developing good content should not be an excuse to poor behavior because it is impossible to measure the amount of good contributions that have not been contributed due to biting.--v/r - TP 16:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Plaintive urgings from Moni3

 * Figure out what you really want to do here, Arbs. If you want to look at this narrowly, reject the case and go for procedure and have an RfC/U for Malleus. I don't think that will solve anything--certainly none of the larger overarching issues this is based in.
 * I think you should treat this broadly and carpe diem, recognize that the intersection between policy that explains what excellent content should be and how editors should communicate with each other is a muddy morass and these conflicts will continue to arise unless someone in charge (har!) sets a tone for improvement. Define Wikipedia's Social Contract. Rename the ArbCom case "Social Contract" if you want to go nuts, and define the rights and privileges of editors. Editors who use the word "fuck" or "cunt" in any way, if you so choose, get blocked. Or whatever--just make it clear what admins need to do to enforce a collaborative atmosphere here. There it will be in black and white and no more confusion. However, please times infinity make it just as clear that the high standards for adding and maintaining content are also in black and white and they are the most neglected and abused rules on the site. Admins don't get involved in most content issues because it's too much work to dig through the finer points involved. It's much easier to block editors at their peak frustration when communication has completely broken down than jump in earlier to enforce the standards the site has already set.
 * Was the instigating incident in this case about content? Not necessarily. It was about Malleus pushing buttons at RfA. But Malleus' block log and both blocks leading to this incident are about "long term abuse", which is itself founded in content.
 * A basic level of respect has to be in place for editors to be constructive. Most editors build their foundations of respect in civility. I don't. Neither do a small group of others who build their foundations in building content. Without respect for the work that goes into articles, civility is meaningless: impotent efforts toward being nice for its own sake and bolstering the low self-esteems of superficial people while the reason Wikipedia exists suffers from embarrassing lapses in policy enforcement and policy itself allows articles to be shamefully abused by lazy editors who spend no time and don't care about what they're doing. I also recognize, however, that calling each other dickheads every day doesn't foster a constructive atmosphere either.
 * I've seen the argument before that some editors get off easily, special editors who get special treatment. They're allowed to use foul language while everyone else must suffer quietly in civility, because the special ones create content. This is a polemic and I don't quite understand the rationale for this view. There do seem to be attitudes that polarize editors into camps of civility-based and content-based, obvious in my comments here. If you want to do a mensch, Arbs, make it clear and make a statement. Build an encyclopedia. Do some work. Collaborate. Go to the damn library once in a while you lazy slob, and stop calling each other dickheads. Arbs, set the tone for the site. Look at the horizon and see that people shy away from this site because it has no credibility, the majority of people here do no meaningful work, and editors here are the nicest people on the Internet, which is to say, they call each other dickheads only when it gets really bad--not right off the cuff like at YouTube or 4Chan.


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

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

I must say, there is no reason for this to have gone any further, apart from the issue of admins who made an original assessment were overturned by one with what seems to be a grudge. This needs to be taken care of - in much the same way as consensus for editorial additions and removals, there needs to be a method to prevent this sort of behaviour in future. Is it not possible to:
 * Make some sort of definitive ruling that after X amount of time the matter is closed and admins must not then act?
 * If 3 admins say "do not block" and one says "block", how can it be productive that the one takes precedence?
 * Once an incorrect block has been made, how is it right that it can be used as data for a "this user has been blocked 15 times"?

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved BarkingFish
While I have nothing indeed to do with this particular issue, a couple of years ago I happened to (quite stupidly) warn MF for a personal attack on someone, and the response I got lead me to open a WQA. It was, without question, the biggest single mistake I've ever made on WP - I was promptly savaged by several of Malleus's followers, and it was made quite clear to me that apparently, I was the one in the wrong. I don't agree with the way MF operates on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't agree with the fact that he appears to be immune from any action because nobody has the balls to deal with him. I strongly urge the arbcom to take this case, and we get one ruling which is final, so everybody knows where they stand from now on. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Fetchcomms: So just because he gets things done, means he's immune from process? no no  no  no  no... NO. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  01:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Fetchcomms: OK, say we grant MF immunity because of his usefulness.  How long is it going to be before another long term editor in trouble with the ARBCOM claims that they should also be immune because of their "usefulness" and cites a ruling here as the reason why?  Nobody should be immune from anything, this is why we have the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, one of which is civility.  Be useful, yes, I don't dispute that - but don't be downright rude and get the hump at every little thing in the process. <font style="background:white;" color="blue"> BarkingFish  13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Nick-D
I'm pleased to see that it looks likely that the committee is going to accept this case. In addition to the issues around Malleus Fatuorum's prolonged incivility (and I agree completely with Coren's post above), I'd like to suggest two things which ArbCom may wish to consider:
 * 1) Malleus Fatuorum's block log is genuinely concerning: In particular, I note several instances where he or she was blocked for incivility and then unblocked within an hour or a few hour. Either he or she has been subject to unbelievably bad admin actions on multiple occasions, or, and more likely, other admins are being much too lenient. Whatever the exact situation, unblocking within such a short period after the block was instituted on several occasions is extraordinary - there's no way that there could have been a proper discussion of the block within those timeframes. I note that Thumperward's recent block was lifted before they had time to respond to the ANI post on it, for instance.
 * 2) The amount of abuse which is being directed at the blocking admins is highly concerning. Just a handful of examples are:, , , , . These kind of comments have well and truly crossed the line from fair criticism to outright harassment. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet?


 * If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice. I don't ever recall seeing him deliberately harass other users. I do see a lot of users taunting him on purpose, of course. Has Malleus ever called someone a cunt without them doing something at least worthy of being insulted? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  06:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It might be useful to have ArbCom to place sanctions on the abuse of Malleus or the mention of the MF account: For exammple, Certainly, an honest appraisal of the extent of the attacks on MF should accompany a discussion of the account MF, including both his human-failing of occasional incivility, usually in response to multiple attacks and stupidities.
 * as an alleged bad example of an WP editor (or as having other failings), which often occur at RfAs.

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

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

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

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

Reply to Elonka
I criticized both of Elonka's comments on MF's talk page, because they commented on old news and they did no conceivable good. I was not endorsing MF's earlier comments in those cases, but recognizing that Elonka was violating In comparison, John's discussions with Malleus are more effective.
 * The fundamental law of coaching: Deal with people where they're at.

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

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In particular, nobody is to engage in personal attacks or scape goating of Malleus or anybody else.
 * 2) In particular, MF also cannot engage in PA or AGF violations, regardless of provocation or prior violations of NPA, AGF, or civility (e.g. by baiting).

Reply to Casliber
Previous interaction with Mallues does not constitute an appearance of a conflict of interest, as rightly noted by a distinguished editor.

I should guess that most ArbCom members have had substantial discussions with Malleus. For example, I would think that NewYorkBrad's having received many put-downs from Malleus would make him a more likely candidate for recusing himself, but I trust in his fairness. CasLiber also enjoys the community's confidence.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Those two statements directly contradict each other. "A week was chosen as a period sufficient for the purpose of preventing further disruption to the RfA process" directly implies that the block was to stop Malleus from posting further comments at the RFA talkpage. Then the next line says that "Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked", which implies that it was actually for a completely different reason. Which is it and why is his explanation so inconsistent? <font color="#8C0099">Ooh<font color="#F166FF">Bunnies! Leave a message :) 07:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Buddy431
I would like to echo the comments by Fluffernutter: the community has failed with regards to civility policy (especially with respect to otherwise good contributors). This is what Arbcom is for. Declining this request would be shirking your duties. I remind everyone (to paraphrase something once said about the U.S. supreme court) that Arbcom is the final say not because they are always right, but because there is no one else to appeal to. This project needs a decision on this issue that cannot be over-ruled, except by the same body that imposes it.

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

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

Statement by JCScaliger

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


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

Statement By Buster7
Take the case! What editors seem to be missing and leaving out of their recaps of the incident is that Malleus was asked to cease and desist by a fellow editor and responded with a cold matter-of-fact No!. When reminded, by me, of common courtesy and to be a gentleman and retract his crude remark he again refused. To me that is where his incivility lies and why this case should go forward. This is not about friends and foes lining up to take sides. His utterances of cunt, fuck, etc. are secondary. This is about coming to grips with our existence as a community and our commitment and requirement to be respectful toward each other. Malleus crossed the line. When asked to be a gentleman and conform to civility standards, he flatly refused...3 times in the same thread. That's not because of cultural differences. That's a lack of anger management. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you might reconsider whether or not "the community feels Administrator:thumperward got it wildly wrong on this occasion" after the community makes a decision. Editors waving placards in the street is not a valid sign of community support, one way or the other. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) In AA, Drinking is not the problem, Drunkenness is the problem. Here in WikiWorld, swearing and cursing is not the problem, inconsiderate behavior is the problem. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Per your request, I will be glad to file (with your assistance) a well defined request relating to MF's two abuses of Editor Deb and his failure to consider fellow editors (present at the time of the transgression) and their reminders for common courtesy.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To Administrator John
 * additional two cents..
 * to Editor Sphilbrick

Statement by Seb az86556
Since I am not allowed to endorse statements, I have to write this out:

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom needs to figure out what this case is about; if it is only to be about Malleus, then drop, and have an RfC/U.
 * If ArbCom takes this chances and makes it about the wider issue, it will have to set strict rules and see to it that they will be enforced promptly, equally, unapologetically, and radically. It won't even matter what those rules are. Whatever they may be, the gray zones have to go. These rules must set for both content and behavior.

Statement by Rschen7754
I believe I'm person number 75 to make a statement; I'll save your time and say that I basically endorse Coren's statement. I don't necessarily advocate for an indefinite block of Malleus, but it needs to be made clear that everyone is to be civil; textbook example of a vested contributor. Hence one of the reasons I asked all 2011 ArbCom candidates question number 3.

That being said, I'd like to mention Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket, where Hawkeye7 took some admin actions that were not appropriate. Am I saying that he should be desysopped? Not necessarily. That's for ArbCom to decide. But, I thought it was worth mentioning. --Rschen7754 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Statement by EdChem
EdChem (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) AGK's comments are exceptionally insightful, I hope everyone considers them carefully
 * 2) On "issue 3", the need to deal with Hawkeye7's actions is only increasing - there was not only the re-block and the taunt, there was also the egregious assessment that consensus supported the action and the statement immediately above continues to defend this remarkable claim. The judgement Hawkeye7 has made makes me doubt his ability to assess any consensus and goes directly to whether he can retain sufficient community / ArbCom trust to retain the sysop tools.  The notion that the blocking policy supports claiming that a sanction is preventative when the "offensive" comments have been struck with MF's consent and an unblock has occurred is absurd; this fact indicates Hawkeye7's understanding of policies including BLOCK and WHEEL are deficient - hardly an acceptable situation in an admnin.  Note this could be dealt with by asking Hawkeye7 some questions and passing a motion or by a limited-in-scope case.
 * 3) I advise staying away from the vested contributor issue because it is really a community issue and any ArbCom pronouncement that is beyond a restatement of the obvious risks being a declaration of policy that just stirs up a huge mess.
 * 4) If you do take on the vested contributor issue, be certain that it will expand from just MF. Expect a hornet's nest sitting on top of a barrel of multi-headed poisonous snakes, etc, and my condolences to the incoming Arbitrators if the 2011 Committee chooses to take a case with the breadth of scope to invite the shit-storn that could evetuate here.

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

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

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

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


 * Image removed by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pdf: File:WMF StrategicPlan2011 24pp.pdf. Alarbus (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved ThatPeskyCommoner
I am absolutely not going to take either a pro-Malleus or anti-Malleus side in this case. In my view, what the Arbs really need to be looking at, here, is the root of all these civility problems. Meta-civility stuff. One other reason we really all need to know where we stand: anyone who's perceived as being a member of the "civility police" (and the fact that the term is used in a so-obviously meant-to-be-derogatory manner should tell us all something) is eaten alive by the anti-civility-police sector of the community if they stick their heads above the parapet and attempt to do anything about incivility. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First: we need some real clarification of what we mean, wiki-wide, by incivility. What is OK, what is definitely not OK, what is "borderline" (and how many times within a set period can one risk impinging on that borderline).  We need to know where we stand.
 * Second: Whatever we decide upon, it has to be the same standards for everyone. If it's "not OK" for a raw noob to say it, then it's "not OK" for our biggest content contributor, our most-respected Arb, or even Jimbo to say it.  And whoever says it, the community should back up whoever complains about it.  A community which has different laws for different classes is not a community - it's a tyranny.  And it will never, never get away from huge clashes between opposing camps to whom different rules apply.  Lord Denning put this extremely well: "Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy."  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Kiefer.Wolfowitz's comments
I couldn't agree more strongly with the idea of the RfA and associated talk-page ''entire community be placed on discretionary sanctions there. Violations of AGF/NPA can be dealt with by any administrator with short (escalating blocks)''. This is an area which seems to bring out the very worst in many editors, and is thus deserving of special attention. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved RegentsPark
I have no comment on whether there is a long term civility issue or not but this incident has been taken way out of proportion. Malleus used a word which is, in my opinion, unacceptable in ordinary discourse. However, he then acquiesced to its redaction and the matter should have ended there. The initial block by Thumperward was unwarranted as is the subsequent drama. I urge the arbitrators to refuse this case because there is no underlying cause for an incivility investigation in this particular incident. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On further review, I believe that Thumperward's initial block was against policy since he did not block for this specific incident. Blocks for long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds should only be made by consensus at ANI, through an RfC, or through some other consensus seeking venue. --regentspark (comment) 15:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@bwilkins: I think it useful to distinguish between using 'bad language' in wikispace versus using it in article space. I doubt if we'll lose any editors over the use of the 'c' word on WT:RFA ( isn't it for that sort of thing that people haunt that page in the first place :) ). Its use there is merely in bad taste whereas its use on an article talk page would be unacceptable. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question for BWilkins (and others)
Among BWilkins' otherwise clueful comment, I find this: Sure, maybe they're a good producer, they sell lots, but you've had an employee turnover of 75% over the last 3 years which in context implies that Malleus's behaviour has driven away hundreds, maybe even thousands of editors. Arthur Rubin makes the same point here. If this was article space I would stick a great fat on it. I challenge those taking this line to list, say, ten great content editors who have been driven from the project by Malleus. If there are so many, this should be really easy to do. If this proves impossible I request that these comments be struck. --John (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to 28 bytes
I was swayed by your pithy and insightful comment to write this addendum, lest my initial response above seem too unambiguously supportive of Malleus. While I still stand by my unblock as the unilateral indefinite block of an established user contravened both policy and natural justice, I think it is worth pointing out again (as I have done many many times in the past) how regrettable it is that Malleus has precipitated all this drama over the years. Although the way this was handled was unfortunate, we also have to recognise that none of this would have happened but for certain unforced choices Malleus made. User:GeometryGuy puts this very well here. If only we could somehow keep the brilliant content additions and the iconoclastic insights without all the "fuck"s and "cunt"s. Life would be so much easier without this aspect of Malleus's online persona. It is perhaps easier for those of us from a more robust linguistic background to tune out these "bad words" and ascertain the (usually highly accurate) point being made. While Malleus ought really to be able to tone down his language in the interest of collegial editing, it would also be great if some of our more easily-offended editors could toughen up slightly. "Fucking" is often used as an intensifier without rancour or controversy in great swathes of the English-speaking world and, just as we have WP:ENGVAR for the mainspace, we should also recognise the different values certain words have in different cultures. --John (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Nobody Ent and BWilkins
Nobody Ent, you are certainly entitled to believe that it is axiomatic that "incivility" drives editors off the project without them leaving any trace. However, I can certainly dispute that this is self-evident (as an axiom should be). This RfAr is focused on the actions of one editor, named in the title, and the consequences of these actions, rather than on civility and its enforcement in general terms. If you can find even one regular content editor who has been driven from the project by Malleus and demonstrate evidence for that with diffs then that would be an interesting contribution to this discussion. Your false characterisation of my point as Wikipedia should only address incivility if editors who not (sic) longer participate provide evidence is noted. Of course, that isn't what I said. If your point is true it should be easy to produce actual evidence to support it, rather than saying it is axiomatic. I am sure that Malleus regards it as axiomatic that people are forced off the project by over-zealous admins, hence his use of the unfortunate term that started this dramafest off. Far from being a Catch-22, this is a normal request for supporting evidence for your statement, and your inability to produce said evidence is bound to undermine the strength of your argument.

BWilkins, thank you for clarifying that your point was in relation to civility blocks in general and was not intended to relate specifically to this case. You say Any and all civility blocks need to be held up to the same standards, without fear of reprisal, and with full knowledge that it's an attempt to protect editors, and therefore the project, and I agree with you. But I would strongly argue that all blocks, especially civility blocks, need to conform with our blocking policy. In this case an established and productive editor was blocked indefinitely, apparently for this edit, without any apparent prior use of WP:DR or any centralised discussion. I would argue that this was not proper and did not lead to a good outcome as a result. --John (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Reply to Cusop Dingle
Suggest you take your attempts at censorship elsewhere. This is a grown-up forum where w We are discussing the use of "rude" words, and it would be absurd to ban their use here and silence those who have uttered them. I can appreciate that you might personally be offended by them, and that in your culture they might be considered unspeakable - but when such words are precisely what we are discussing, the onus has to be on you to decide whether or not to read them, not on the rest of us to not speak them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) (Strike words that are perhaps a little too antagonistic -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Casliber
@Casliber. Just recuse. You would add to the discussion, but you would feel torn as a regular FAC participant. There are enough arbs to hear this case, even if half the Committee recuses. I’m behind you whatever you do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, you have my support either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Brazen reminder from Hans Adler
Hans Adler 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

ArbCom may not take on meta issues like civility, but it does take cases. And thier ruling on these cases help shape our laws (i.e. policies and guidelines). This is one of the last major issues to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Therefore I have two questions that I ask of each arbitrator. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If not ArbCom, then who?
 * If not now, when?

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

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

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

As an aside, I'd just like to take a moment to comment on the comment above me by Coren, who is, at least for a little while, still a sitting member of ArbCom. In talking about MF, Coren, you fucking scare-quoted "editor" and suggested that "show[ing him] the door for good is self-evident"? Civility is one of our "effing pillars". And Wikipedia should be worried about losing editors; specifically, it should be worried about losing editors who have the skill and desire to actually write a high-quality encyclopedia, even if they call a nebulous collection of administrators "fucking cunts" from time to time. Wikipedia lost me as an editor, and the reasons for that have way more to do with this sort of response from an Arbitrator than any naughty four-letter word that MF might have uttered. It's tempting to make a comment that I'd consider a personal attack here, but I once helped build a compromise wording at WP:NPA, so in the interests of consistency, I won't. Rather, I'll just say this: I'm sorry I ever voted for you, Coren, and I hope the current Committee does not share in your temperament. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker et al.: Oh, and for goodness sakes, if you're going to do something with this debacle, don't do it by motion. According to the policy regarding cases-by-motion, the Committee can handle cases that way "[w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed". I don't think a substantially undisputed fact can be seen within 1Gb of Wikitext from here. Frankly, at some point, I'd expect someone to claim that referring to Malleus as MF is a personal attack rather than an abbreviation ... or employ it as one. Any case you open about any of this is going to be a Biblical clusterfuck, but that's why it's here in the first place, and that's why ArbCom gets paid the big bucks (zero, of course, but in a very large font). Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by uninvolved Richwales
I believe ArbCom should hear this case. This would provide an important opportunity to clarify the meaning and importance of WP:CIVIL — even if Malleus makes good on his apparent vow to leave Wikipedia for good, and more especially if he has a change of heart and decides to return. regardless of whether or not Malleus decides to return. ArbCom's attention to this case would also provide admins with much-needed guidance for dealing with complex and unclear situations where some of us may be acting in good faith but still be interpreting the issues differently. I think the "case" for hearing this case is at least as strong as that in favour of hearing the recent case involving. — Rich wales (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC);   rewording per Malleus's clarification of his position. —  Rich wales (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by probably-involved-because-my-name-is-probably-in-Malleus'-block-log-somewhere Bwilkins
I don't usually comment in these cases, but cases just like this are going to pop up again and again ad nauseum until someone finally says "hey, we actually take civility seriously". After all, that's the root cause of this filing, and every similar ANI/AN filing related to MF over time. In other words, this isn't about Malleus, it's about the lack of desire to actually define the tolerance level for civility.

I have two basic operating principles that I have been stating again and again since I started volunteering at Wikipedia:
 * everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, many just don't know it yet
 * someone else's incivility may explain your own incivility, but it never excuses it

Let me say this: there's no way in hell that I would really want MF off Wikipedia. He's knowledgeable, creates content, and doesn't typically put up with BS. Unfortunately, he's aggressively so, and has a short fuse - resorting to incivility quickly. Sure, some people like the "brilliant tyrant" type of personality - but they're usually well-paid to put up with it. Volunteers should never be subjected to it, at all - especially when those volunteers range from noobs to as-old-as-the-project-itself.

If you ran a place of business, and you had an employee berating colleagues with obscenities, how long would you allow it to happen for? Sure, maybe they're a good producer, they sell lots, but you've had an employee turnover of 75% over the last 3 years ... how productive is that in the long run for your business? Would you permit face-to-face transactions to occur in your workplace in the same manner they often occur on Wikipedia? The majority of countries have amended their practices to consider that the written word is as powerful as the spoken word (that's why you'll find that if I went up to a female employee and said "hey, nice tits" or e-mailed her saying "hey, nice tits" are both going to be dealt with the same way).

The written word has the same denigrating, chilling and insulting effect as the spoken word. Incivility drives off editors. It leads to a non-collegial environment. It's destructive to those involved, and to those watch. It sets a bad example for others, therefore breeding further behaviours.

Now, to the other side of the fence: I used to be active in WP:WQA (and yes, still spend a lot of time in WP:ANI. I will clearly state that some people's perspective of what is uncivil behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.  Where's the line?

I'm not trying to turn incivility into harassment, however, incivility does share many aspects with harassment principles. I'm going to borrow from McMaster University ... indeed, in many cases, harassment is incivility to the max either by the outright egregious nature of the action, or the continuation of related actions.

Incivility is therefore a vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known would would cause offence.

Blocks for incivility can therefore be tested against very simple concepts:
 * vexatious: "without reasonable cause or excuse...no legitimate purpose behind it" (and I highlight the explain vs excuse distinction - there is no legitimate purpose for incivility)
 * comment or conduct: a single word, or a series of exchanges
 * reasonably known: "a reasonable person in the circumstances would have known", even if the person themself claims otherwise
 * cause offence: this is probably what needs to be better defined for this purpose, although when combined with the above it becomes painfully obvious.

None of the above is new or novel: the test therefore the validity of a civility block is readily and easily measured against the above. If the civility block meets the test in whole, then the block must be upheld. This is for all intents and purposes wholly objective.

Some argue that long term editors have "rights". However, the argument can be made that long-time editors should know better, and that everyone has rights.

ArbComm probably has to choose if it's the former or the latter. They then need to emphasize the 4-stage test for civility blocks, and apply them equally across the board. Until then, they grey area causes confusion for all editors - not just MF. Where there's grey areas there will indecision and poor decisions. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 11:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to John

 * With all due respect, as the entire concept of my post emphasizes civility blocks as a whole as opposed to MF individually, it's difficult to make the connection you are trying to make. I have at no time said Malleus was responsible for thousands of editors leaving - my suggestion is that incivility as a whole is responsible for thousands of editors leaving.  Admins become afraid to make a civility block of an "established" editor because of the possible kerfluffle.  Any and all civility blocks need to be held up to the same standards, without fear of reprisal, and with full knowledge that it's an attempt to protect editors, and therefore the project.  (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 18:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Richwales from Malleus Fatuorum
Richwales is talking out of his arse. What I've said is that the block will end if and when I decide that it does, nobody else, not even the almighty ArbCom. And when it's ended I may or I may not continue to contribute here, again my choice. As for making a "vow", well, words fail me. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC) transcribed by Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia
The question of whether prolific content contributors get a longer leash for matters of civility was asked. The answer is yes. Taking a page from Kant's moral philosophy, would we allow that everyone could freely call others cunts if they, like Malleus, created masses of high quality content? Of course! Why? Because at the end of the day, Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia, and the majority of readers (bless their good fortune) have no idea about the festering sore that is the "community." Much like sausage, it's best not to ask questions or do research into how Wikipedia is made. Knowing that ruins the product. Whether or not the project's top contributors are throwing insults like shit in a chimp cage, Wikipedia's behind the scenes is an embarrassment and is unlikely to ever improve. Point is, the most important focus is on the content. Someone said Malleus is worth five admins. That's taking the best five, I'd say. The average admin isn't worth much, as they don't do much with content. I say this as someone who did a lot of quality content work before gaining adminship, then became mostly worthless for a while by my current standards. Last point on this, Malleus' block log should be taken into consideration. Not in its length, but in its details. Of all the logged entries, only about two blocks were left; the vast majority were reverted as inappropriate.

All that reverting is the issue. The persistent problem here is admins jumping at the opportunity to block him. And that's what it is. I was an admin, I witnessed backroom discussions. There simply are certain editors who admins like to target. When an opportunity presents itself, an admin with a personal opinion jumps at the chance to get involved and piss the editor off. Malleus knows this happens, and he takes advantage of it. Does he bait these worthless admins? Yes! There's not a policy against that. WP:ENTRAPMENT, yea, no policy against that. He fishes out the admins who need their bits removed, basically. I think someone else presented evidence showing that... being that a decent percentage of the blocking admins have been desysopped (and/or banned) by ARBCOM. My bit got swiped despite the fact that I never abused my tools. These admins blatantly did so. You don't block a vested contributor without warning or consensus. You can't fabricate consensus to block after taking part in the block discussion. You don't block when you're involved, period.

And Coren, you need to present some evidence for your claim that Malleus has run off valuable contributors. The score for that is currently Malleus: 0, Coren: 1. The fact that you want him off the project illustrates that you still value bullshit over content. We need more editors and admins who put content first. The rest of you can go. Lara 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Accept the case for two issues. 1/ The dynamic between sensitive admins and prickly prolific contributors; 2/ The wheel-warring that is inherent in that game. We all know the list of players is longer than the list of involved editors in this dispute. This case is an example of a broader problem, so look at the specific details of this dispute, but make decisions that don't focus on these players. That's my recommendation: attempt to remedy the larger problem by looking at the details of this smaller one. So the first issue requires looking into the baiting that takes place on both sides as well as the results of the bait being taken by either side, and also into what's building up to and otherwise contributing to the reactions that cause so much controversy (four letter words and premature blocks). It's a compounding problem, so that needs to be considered. The second issue which is about abuse of admin bits, and there is no question that tools have been abused not only in this case but in many others (with Malleus and other editors of comparable esteem) in part because of admins eager to hit the block button. Decide now what the appropriate courses of action should be for incidents like these, what factors should be considered before admin tools are used, and the punishment for abusing them in the way Mal's block log evidences. Once this is decided, have it ready for future use. Lara 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon
To cut to the chase, the community has been unable to bring MF under its norms of behavior and lacks a workable way to deal with it. It's hard to imagine any other group with a serious purpose that would let members call each other cunts with impunity. Any other website, private institution, or social space would have someone in charge to make a quick uneventful decision: tolerate the provocation? Disable the account? Apply probation, moderation, or an ultimatum? If anyone called someone a cunt on Yelp, or Quora, or Facebook, Flickr, Youtube, or the New York Times comments page, much less a library or publishing house, they would get an unceremonious time out. But here, where the inmates run the asylum, there are enablers. Factions form and pick sides, make accusations and collateral attacks on one another, question whether calling somebody a cunt is such a bad thing after all, use only-on-Wikipedia constructs like "wheel wars", "second mover advantage", "request for comment", and "preventative versus punitive" as instruments to tool for their obscure ends. All those arcane rules are besides the point, and useless to the task at hand. It's simple: MF antagonizes other users. Intentionally, repeatedly, after being asked to stop. Arbcom is in the ultimate position to ask him to stop. The rest of the nonsense about why the community's procedures are dysfunctional, and how some of the people who are supposed to be in charge should be punished for trying to be in charge, is a complete tangent. Just tell him to cut it out, and either he will or he won't. Proceed accordingly, problem solved.

As a matter of disclosure I've had a few run-ins with MF, a few negative, mostly positive, and when I look into his history I greatly admire his work. He's not the innocent victim of restrictive social mores here, he seems to enjoy the fuss. Truth be told the way he acts up is very funny sometimes if you see the humor. I wouldn't mind personally if he called me a cunt. But surely he has better things to do than goad his detractors. In his off-Wikipedia life he must be a member of groups where he has to behave. Think of this as one of those places. It's not too much to ask. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Resident Mario
I originally made the whimsical comment on the RfA talk page that spiraled far out of bounds to this nonsense. I reiterate what Ed17 said - Malleus is a veteran's veteran here, and blocking him would stand to lose us a lot. Although, with >80 editor statements, you probably already know that. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"><b style="color:#333333;">Res</b> Mar 23:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Waste of time: issue is not really that big...or anyone here that evil
Urge the committee to decline this request for arbitration. The whole thing is way blown out of proportion. Yeah, Malleus spouts off a little, but big deal. Especially this one. I'm not justifying the term...just so what...even if he said motherfucker, it is still a one off, with people that can generally handle it. Not him tracking people around, fucking up articles, calling employers, or other shit like that. And some of the gunning for him is probably not all from that, but from him being pro content, not pro social game. And voting oppose at RFAs.

Better to let that sort itself out or even not sort itself out. Really what is the crisis, requiring the the hundreds of man hours of a case? Even the admin blocking dispute was not an issue. A week is no big deal, one way or the other. Normal Internet forums throw out bans like that all the time. (I refuse to call them blocks--Wiki is strange with having block/ban mean different things.)

I'm not saying to puss out (you want to show your balls, go put Jimbo in his place, he seems to want power back), but just this is a waste of time and not called for. And both the social processes and even data/issue analysis would be better served outside of this forum, with an RFC. Rather than "run to daddy" (I guess ANI is "run to mommy"...but ARBCOM takes the belt off, so...) There are articles to write, vandals to block, presents to wrap, eggnog to spike, music to listen to, etc. Just let it go.

TCO (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To Wikidemon
Yeah, any normal forum on the Internet would just make decisions one way or another and have a chain of command and the like. The whole set of so many moderators (I refuse to call them admins) that don't have a heirarchy and can't coordinate is a mess. The entire rest of the Internet, seems to have solved this problem but we flail around with what Jimbo came up with, cause he probably wanted egoboo from people that got the mop. And there are other systematic faults in Wiki. But Arbcom sure can't redesign the moderation structure. (I don't think "the Community" can either...they never change anything. Maybe WMF could, but they won't probably...)

TCO (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

To NYB
Just recuse (and vote decline). You don't have time and are involved. We spend way, way, way too much time on these self-important moot court drama-fests. Let's write content or at least have more intelligent debates like they do at Volokh Conspiracy. The Wiki world will definitely go on without some pronouncements issuing forth from here.

TCO (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect
The old order changeth yielding place to new ... and again the issue of  "second mover advantage" is raised. I iterate my prior suggestion ( et al) regarding it. Collect (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.''

Which was given on a case page as well. Collect (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MZMcBride
Handle by motion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466
I like Malleus, and he is undoubtedly one of the most capable content contributors we have. And there is to some extent a difference here between British and Australian English and other types of English – I can "hear" Malleus when I read him. I use such language myself; his particular kind of diction is one that I encounter commonly in my local pub. However, we are not in our local pub here, and it's no use pretending or wishing otherwise. It's one thing to speak like that to your mates, but it's a different thing to speak like that to people who don't know you from Adam, and may come from a completely different culture. Even in the UK, in any real-life scenario, this language would be considered completely inappropriate in a professional setting where one is interacting with strangers (and even more so when interacting with strangers who come from a different country). I think the committee should take the case, and have a look at civility in the light of cross-cultural differences. At the end of the day, using four-letter words should not be a problem in Wikipedia if it's done on a user talk page in discussion with people one knows well, but it's out of place and harmful in community discussions and on article talk pages. -- J N  466  09:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth
Very briefly (I say more at User talk:Mkativerata/RFAR draft), my view is that the whole thing should be deferred until: (a) The new arbitrators take office (1 January 2012); and (b) Malleus's block expires or he decides to actually take part in this instead of (by his own choice) commenting by proxy from his talk page or other places. And in the week between now and the new year, everyone should just get on with other stuff. Which is what I'm going to do now. Also, some of those commenting above have started to discuss things among themselves and/or state things that are better stated within an actual case (if opened) or at a community-wide RfC on civility and/or specific editors. This place should really be only for brief statements on why a case should be accepted or rejected. There are already around 100 statements here. A bit less of the back-and-forth discussions on specifics that some have engaged in, and more focus on whether a case should be accepted or not, will help the arbitrators here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A few points: (i) The table Senra has produced, though done in good-faith, is not actually helpful. If I was having to decide whether to accept this case or not, I'd be rather narked that someone was producing and updating such a table. RFAR is not a public !vote session like RFA and never has been. For the record, the table misrepresents my views (I suggested deferring the case, not rejecting the case), but as it is going to be removed before the case is opened, that matters little. (ii) At various stages I would have been prepared to pull together diffs for an RfC on Malleus, but the sheer number of edits he makes actually makes this rather difficult, as does the requirement to have had two editors trying to resolve the same dispute (when the disputes are often separate but related to the same underlying conduct). My view is that when a block log reaches a certain length, an ArbCom or community initiated RfC to examine each entry in the block log should be a natural next step (with open-ended options for sanctions on the editor or the admins involved). (iii) I still think it would be politic for the case to only be opened after Malleus's block has expired (02:17, 29 December 2011), or for him to be explicitly unblocked when the case opens and also allowed to edit freely outside of the case pages. There are signs that Malleus might ask to be reblocked and/or refuse to participate in the case, so ArbCom will need to be prepared for that. (iv) Please define the scope of the case early on - some will wish to examine every entry in Malleus's block log, others will say some of the entries are too old, others will want to do a cost-benefit analysis of Malleus's contributions, some will want to examine past actions by the two admins named in the case, others will try and drag other admins into this. So please try and keep on top of things as regards the scope - the best thing to do would be to have arbitrators stating clearly whether evidence submissions are within scope or not, and to get some early proposals up to help define the likely scope of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by My76Strat
I think this is a case Arbcom should accept. My76Strat (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To Chzz
Chzz, in asking why should Arbcom accept this case, you well outline the importance and value of consensus. Arbcom should accept the case because over 100 editors have vested their time in commenting which produced a rather clear consensus that they should. My76Strat (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU
I believe this case should be accepted on the basis laid out by SirFozzie - All or Nothing; if anyone thinks "civility" is a greater issue than admins unilaterally reblocking then they are not fit to either have the mop or (possibly and) make judgements upon one individuals use of "coarse language". ArbCom needs to sort out what is permissible, in both and any other matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by SPhilbrick
This request has many problems. Has there ever been a case accepted where there is not a single diff supporting the allegations?

Yes, we all know, or think we know, which statement by MF was the precipitating event. Yet, that statement was not a personal attack, and was followed by exemplary dispute resolution.

Could we really be asking ArbCom to review a successful dispute resolution?

If not that edit, then the allegation is an ill-defined grab bag. Decline without prejudice, and ask for a well-defined request.

(If the requestor declines to rewrite a coherent request, the committee should consider accepting the wheel-warring allegation.)

I urge the committee to REJECT the ill-defined civility case, but ACCEPT the wheel-warring aspect. --<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Observations & comments by Ncmvocalist
All of the people (who are actually) involved in this could have handled the situation better, and they should settle their issues between themselves - and be pushed to do so. If these people cannot sort it out between themselves, or if they insist on the nuclear option, then let them have the full blast of it - let it be on their unwillingness to genuinely try to resolve unnecessary bickering.

As for those users who indicate that they will unnecessarily escalate disputes for their own petty purposes, they ought to be sanctioned at this juncture (this type of behavior is causing more problems, and unnecessarily complicating otherwise simple matters). I found an example of this foolish (or what some understandably characterise as 'incompetent') behavior in the ANI discussion - an admin was threatening to escalate if an unblock was made in response to the request; it is that sort of commentary which makes this project that much more undesirable to work on. Are we here to build an online encyclopedia or are we here to play an online game of cops? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by John Carter
Just about everybody who has been around for very long has, I think, at some point, encountered Malleus, including, to my own shame, myself. There are a number of issues here, some of which I think may be significant enough for the ArbCom to take this case. Based on all the above, I believe it may well be best if the ArbCom takes the case now. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This particularly incident is, clearly, not the first such. Others have said above that they believe an RfC/U would be pointless. I myself tend to think that such is probably the case.
 * 2) Others, like Jayen466 above, have commented that they have themselves most often encountered language like that of Malleus at a pub. I suppose it might be technically possible that one could argue that, perhaps, not knowing Malleus' history or backstory myself, it might be possible that language of the type Malleus uses might be the kind he himself has most frequently encountered in his life, and that he is, perhaps in his own eyes, speaking as civilly as anyone he knows. Maybe.
 * 3) There is the issue, raised by Sarek and others, that Malleus is a content contributor. This would not be the first time that content contributors have been given significant leeway - Giano comes to mind. Perhaps Malleus deserves the same degree of leeway.
 * 4) I finally note that a number of members of the ArbCom seem to have recused themselves, possibly based on earlier contact with Malleus. Honestly, I think, if the case is not taken, the number of ArbCom members who might have to recuse themselves later might be even greater. I tend to think that having the largest number of ArbCom members available to decide the matter would be in everyone's best interests.

statement by univolved thehistorian10
I believe that the Arbitration Committee is duty bound to accept this case. There is no history of such a case coming up before this Committee. Based on that, I believe that there are four unique questions to be considered:

1) When is an administrator considered to be using his powers excessively? 2) If an administrator is using his powers excessively, then how can he be adequately punished to reflect that excessive use of power? 3) What rules or mutual agreements are there which can explain the permissibility of certain language? If there aren't, then should such rules be drawn up? 4) How can we ensure that such cases do not flare up again? Do we need a charter of Wikipedia rights, rules and responsibilities to be written?

I will now provide my humble and reasoned opinion on each of these questions.

1) When is an administrator considered to be using his powers excessively?

Administrators exist to help keep the peace. That is something which we all know. We place much trust in them. We do not expect them to abuse that power. Yet, we have a case of an admin abusing his power somewhat. Hawkeye7 claims that he did not wheel-war in any way. I dispute this. A block was reimposed upon MF directly after the expiration of his previosu block. To me, that sounds like wheel-warring as per the policy notes. Wheel-warring is a practice which would earn a regular editor either a warning or a temporary ban. Thusforth, I must believe that if an admin is found to be engaging in wheel-warring, then he may be considered to be overstepping the mark and thus using his powers excessively.

2) If an administrator is using his powers excessively, then how can he be adequately punished to reflect that excessive use of power?

Administrators are not generally punished for any transgressions. They are considered to be above WikiLaw. I consider this to be unfair, and, in their consideration of the case, I would suggest that the Arbitrators consider implementing a regime which sets out the offences and appropriate punishment which can be meted out to any transgressions committed by administrators. We have no such system at this moment in time.

3) What rules or mutual agreements are there which can explain the permissibility of certain language? If there aren't, then should such rules be drawn up?

This third point creates a bone of contention between the English and the Americans. As far as I understand, the words "cunt" and "dick" are one and the same thing. Further, they are both used widely in British English. In American English, there is a similar non-distinction, but the Americans do not widely use either word - in fact, they consider them to be very offensive. There is no mutual agreement on this matter, which can create much argument between British and American editors. I believe that this has contributed to this issue.

I believe that to stop such arguments happening, there should be mutual code of practice, which contains agreed rules on what language is and is not permissible on Wikipedia. No such code exists at the moment.

4) How can we ensure that such cases do not flare up again? Do we need a charter of Wikipedia rights, rules and responsibilities to be written?

We have no current charter of rights, rules and responsibilities as one document. Yes, we have codified rules, but they are contained - in the main - in disparate pages - either separate from or part of the Manual of Style. We have no one document which explains - clearly and succinctly - what the rules, duties and rights of Wikipedians are. If such a rulebook was in existance, then it could be used to remove the possibility of this type of issue arising again.

Respectfully submitted - without taking any sides;

--Thehistorian10 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil
I believe that there are few longterm contributors to this site who have not at some point come across MF, and from the above it's clear that most of those encounters have not been particularly pleasant. It is my view that Thumper was acting in good faith blocking MF in order to improve the encyclopaedia, and that ArbCom can act to improve the encyclopaedia even further by accepting this case and issuing MF with a ban. I would like to preemptively respond to some comments being made of the "there is no problem" variety above:


 * Yes, MF's language and manner is probably about the level that one would expect to hear at the pub. And at the pub, perhaps it would not be a problem.  Unfortunately for him, as readers may have noticed, we are not at the pub.  I've been known to engage in some pretty salty language while having a beer, but I realise that it's inappropriate at a family barbeque, in the workplace, or on Wikipedia, so I don't bring it in with me.
 * I can assume good faith that perhaps MF does not realise that his language and manner is causing distress to others. However, after the first or second or third time he was asked to tone it down a little, he probably should have twigged that there was a problem.  After fifteen blocks, you have to realise the problem is not with everyone else, the problem is with you.
 * "Cunt", in the way that MF used it, is a particularly vile term, that's not just offensive in itself, but also has as its basis a rather negative view of women; that referring to someone as a female body part is an insult. Given the demonstrated problems that the project has attracting and retaining female editors, perhaps taking a no-tolerance approach to this particular vulgarity might set a positive precedent.
 * Yes, Malleus writes some good content, something which needs to be acknowledged. However, I think it's clear that the atmosphere of hostility that he creates drives other content editors away, leading to a net negative effect.

Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

Statement by Dank
Whenever the question is even raised of racist or, in this case, sexist language, I think it's important to start off by establishing a zero-tolerance position, before you start debating whether this word or that word is problematic. We inherit our instincts from our ancestors, and our ancestors were racist and sexist. Happily, Western culture is more tolerant than 50 years ago ... but this problem will never, ever, go away, and it needs to be tackled forcefully every time the issue is even on the table. I can't participate in this case because I'm involved up to my eyebrows and because these questions are above my pay grade. I acknowledge that being a frequent contributor at FAC and an admin makes me part of the problem, at least for some, and I want people to feel free to speak up at my talk page and at WT:FAC whenever you feel that I or we are part of the problems raised here. (P.S. I see someone's making a tally above, so to avoid a Signpost story implying that I and others were "undecided" ... Arbcom is currently unanimous for taking the case, and their reasoning makes sense to me, so I'm in favor.)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
Please accept this case to 1) encourage the community to use RFCs on the Malleus issue and for a clarification of the civility matter, and 2) to examine the admin issues that lead to unnecessary escalation of matters. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) With respect to Casliber's question about recusal:  we elect arbs who have experience with building content precisely so they can opine on issues affecting content builders-- not so they can recuse whenever a case involving content builders comes before the arbs.  I see no reason Casliber should recuse, and have no reason to believe he would act with bias.
 * 2) There has been no Request for comment on Malleus Fatuorum, and looking at his behavior in this instance will only lend itself to "tough cases make bad law" since his block log shows him to be a target of IRC-chatting admins, who then use his block log to justify further blocks. It appears to me that Malleus has been alienated enough by abusive admins that he no longer cares what he says, and findings against him in this case are unlikely to affect the outcome, which is most likely losing a valuable contributor because admins began to hound him years ago and he became increasingly strident.  I don't use language like he does, but I do understand that the issue is not his language, but the double standard that is applied to him relative to some abusive admins. On the oft-stated meme that Malleus gets partial treatment because he's a content contributor: bullocks.  For example  can say things like "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack. Admins crying about prying the dead mops from hands. Arbs spending 4 years plus in their silly little jobs. teen aged OTRS and CUs. Sandy with her little declining kingdom she is desperate to rule for life" and not even get warned-- some blocks appear to have much more to do with who one knows on IRC than what naughty words one says. TCO says essentially the same (but really sexist) things about admins that Malleus said, but Malleus is blocked long after the fact even though his comments weren't directed at any particular person, as TCO's were.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Thumperward's block long after an issue was settled should be examined; that's the sort of admin abuse that costs us good contributors and leads to increasingly aggressive retorts.  Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative-- this block certainly escalated matters.
 * 4) A good case is made on this page by many editors that Hawkeye7 has "lied" here, in his statement, to the arbs, and I don't find those arguments that Hawkeye7 lied to be lacking in logic.  Hawkeye7 was previously admonished in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket.  If anyone's actions is chasing anyone off of Wikipedia, I'll be the first to raise my hand to say that his flaunting of his own FAs in his block statement to Malleus (which was unprofessional), and taunting of Malleus to another editor, disgusted me to the point that I took a break lest I sign off here for good.  Hawkeye7 needs to be desysopped here.

Statement by GRuban
I have to agree with Dank. I can't imagine trying to attract more female editors but having to tell them that we consider it all right if one of our more prominent editors calls people "cunts", because that's just the way he is, and they have to accept it. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by J3Mrs
I speak as someone old enough to be the average editor's grandmother and an editor who has had nothing but positive interactions with Malleus Fatuorum. I don't follow the politics of this place and, embarrassingly, I don't really understand what this is about. I most certainly can't understand how new (or old) editors are driven away by him as the only way to find his comments is to go looking for them, why would they do that? I suggest those appalled by a bit of Anglo-Saxon language stop watching. If someone is going to consider what is civil, it needs to extend far, far beyond rude words and why an editor felt so strongly as to use them. When I feel disinclined to contribute it's not because of strong language, it's something far more malicious and underhand.J3Mrs (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by llywrch
Once upon a time I had an interaction with Malleus Fatuorum, and it was unpleasant. He didn't agree with me that the article on Guy Fawkes should contain a sentence mentioning its relevance to the movie V for Vendetta. (Some of our exchange on the matter can be found here and here. I don't remember if we discussed this matter elsewhere, but it is possible; our exchange on the Guy Fawkes talk page was not properly archived for easy access.) I believed I handled myself with exceptional patience with him; I had the impression that he was seriously thinking of leaving Wikipedia, & up to that point I had a favorable impression of him. my impression radically changed when MF went into gutter snipe mode, personally attacking me. I warned him about civility, to which he persisted in his stubbornness to accept any other opinion except his own as being valid, as well as complained that I was "bullying" him for warning him about civility. At the end, when I was considering whether the best course was to treat him like an unruly 10-year old -- viz., have him stand in a corner, wash his mouth out with soap, or bend him over my knee & spank him -- I took a deep breath, explained why insulting other Wikipedians is not constructive, & moved on to other things. This was not the only occasion of MF picking fights with Admins; he goaded, a respected Admin who isone of the few peacemakers on Wikipedia, until the latter finally lost his cool & told MF to go fuck himself. As a result, GTBacchus was blocked for 24 hours. And one can read countless snide complaints of "Admin abuse" or msiconduct from MF, in the archives WP:AN & WP:AN/I. In short, MF has an established & well-known practice of dishing out abuse, yet being unable to take it. He likes to bait Admins with insults, who have no other recourse than to take his abuse. He likes to insult anyone he thinks is not his intellectual equal. But I'd be quite content if, since he so enjoys calling other people "cunts" or worse, the rest of us are allowed to return his salutation without worry of being penalized for incivility. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Robofish
I'll keep this one brief. In my observations, Malleus Fatuorum causes more stress, drama and disruption than any other single user on the English Wikipedia. The sheer length of this page is evidence enough of that. While he has also contributed much valuable content, that should not excuse his bad behaviour or make him any less subject to the rules than anyone else. And while I don't doubt his overall good intentions in trying to improve Wikipedia, in the end one has to question whether a user who persistently demonstrates an inability to collaborate with others constructively is a net benefit to the project. I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Barts1a
I too shall keep this short. Two wrongs don't make a right. The original block that provided the spark to ignite this powder keg was the wrong move, Hawkeye7's reblocking was worse. I can't be arsed reading too much into this because there is just so damn much to read regarding this case! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved One Leaf Knows Autumn
Late to the hanging party. Let's pull way back and look at the bird's eye view. There are two issues: Malleus' behavior, and the alleged misbehavior of admins. Is there a double-standard in admins dealing with Malleus? It seems that it may be true in some cases. Those cases will need to be dealt with. Does that, however, excuse using the word "cunt"? No. Does the fact that the word "cunt" is apparently less offensive in Britain than in the U.S. excuse using the word "cunt"? No. And in the broader (and more important) context, does admin misbehavior excuse the chronic distrust, carping, ad hominem, and frequent escalation into genuine bitterness and enmity that we all have become familiar with? No, I am not even sure that the carping is limited to admins... As for Malleus, the problem is certainly not limited to unacceptable language use. We all have seen others bait him from time to time. It is not to his credit that he is often unable to ignore such baiting. And again, somewhat in Malleus' defense, he very often has the right side of an argument. It is not to his credit that he lets those escalate. The two problems with Malleus are: unacceptable language use, and the inability or unwillingness to walk away from conflict... I hate to be the bearer of bad news (or gloomy prognostications), but my personal opinion is that absolutely no solution that has been tried before will ameliorate this chronic problem. The existing solutions are: block him, ban him, mentor him, ignore him. All will fail to stop the unacceptable language use and the chronic bickering. If you ban him, you certainly and immediately lose one heavy-hitter of the first order, and quite possibly you lose other heavy-hitters who resign in disgust. Can Wikipedia afford to shed such editors? Mmm, seems undesirable at best. More importantly, banning does not seem appropriate, given that his actions, while unacceptable, seem to be done in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. If you tolerate him, however, you perpetuate the distrust etc. Mentoring would only chafe his pride, with predictable results. A custom approach is needed. I know that Wikipedia is not therapy, but to be honest, the only thing I could potentially see working for Malleus is to (alas, probably privately) talk out the big picture issues (not the details of this or any other spat) with people whom he sees as trustworthy, but who are not "on his side", and in fact who brook no discussion of "sides". The question is this: Malleus, without even one instance of alluding to the behavior of any editors (or admins) other than yourself, and under the assumption that absolutely no other editor changes at any time now or in the future, how can either you or Wikipedia (and not any specific Wikipedians) change in a way that lets you edit  (mostly) peacefully, and color within the generally accepted lines of "civility"? Alas, I know some people will say my comments are B.S. But... what else...? Hawkeye may have gone too far (I have an opinion, but withhold it), but if he is desysopped, another Hawkeye will take his place. It is a chronic problem. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked others, in vain, for diffs of people baiting Malleus. I look to you, OLKA, to provide them.  I do strongly endorse the second half of your post, from the words "The two problems ..." on and urge Malleus to give us a serious and constructive response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You want me to comb through years of talk page chaff? Ask not. I do recall instances, but not names. I don't think dwelling on the past (or even bringing it up) is beneficial, anyhow. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, let it go. It really doesn't matter, does it?  We are here with this situation, and we need to resolve it.  That means Malleus coming to the table.  I do endorse the text you added, a ban would not make sense, here and now.  That does not mean some weary time down the road after repeated ArbCom efforts to deal with the situation, that ArbCom then is required to say that certain things are off the table.  But that's not where we are.  Malleus should not be banned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Commment by uninvolved Harry the Dirty Dog
I too will be brief. I agree entirely with ThatPeskyCommoner.

Civility is what we make of it. It is pointless to get all wound up about what constitutes incivility in the greater scheme of things, creating lists of words and unacceptable behaviour etc. What I consider an unacceptable word or phrase, you might not. That is usual in any form of human interaction. Where I think WP:CIVIL should be invoked is in a scenario where I refer to you as (for example) a cunt because I don't happen to find that word offensive or uncivil (which is my prerogative after all). But if you tell me that you find that offensive and ask me not to refer to you that way again, I hope I would be civil enough to accede to your wishes. But if I persisted in referring to you in that way, I would expect to be sanctioned for incivility. And as ThatPeskyCommoner says, I would expect that to apply to any contributor. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog <font color="0000FF">WOOF 16:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
I am not very familiar with this case; I just wanted to note that civility is extremely important (see my linked essay for more on why). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124;<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me 13:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved waywardhorizons
After reading through the various statements, I see a lot of editors talking about policy. While that's all fine and dandy, and it's true that policy enforcement is necessary to maintain order, I'd like to offer up a different sort of perspective speaking directly from common sense.

Wikipedia is a working environment, one where it's editors are expected to behave in a professional manner. Anyone whose ever had a real job will (hopefully) know that part of being professional is behaving in a mature fashion, part of which having a good work ethic and behaving respectfully and with consideration toward ones co-workers. With this in mind and the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be such an environment, there really is no justification for Malleus Fatuorum's behavior. Aside from the whole "cunt" issue, Malleus obviously has a history of disrespectful behavior towards other editors.

I'm going to confess right here and now that I have a great deal respect for Malleus Fatuorum, and under normal circumstances I would have no shortage of admiration towards his ability to tell it like it is or at least how he sees it. But come on Malleus, do you seriously believe this kind of behavior is acceptable in a working environment, especially on Wikipedia where people are prone to be hyper-sensitive anyway? Far be it from some inexperienced peon like me who hasn't had enough to know what it's like to say I know first-hand, but even I understand that having to deal with all the nonsense here can be frustrating to no end. Hell, it's caused many people to abandon the project all-together. But many other editors here also experience that same sort of frustration and they handle it far more appropriately. You can argue the semantics of the civility policy all you want to, but even when you take that away there's still no real justification for personal attacks and offensive language.

By the way, being professional goes the other way too. Malleus's use of the word "cunt" was inappropriate, yes, but what was more inappropriate was the community reaction to it. I get that it's a very offensive word to some, but seriously? A whole ArbCom case over it? I thought we were here to edit an encyclopedia, not carry out a witch-hunt of editors that make us feel butthurt. Even an RfC/U would've been better and less of a time-waster. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to inevitable Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Before you bring this up, which I suspect you will if you see what I've written above, yes, I acknowledge my comments at that RfC were profoundly stupid and ignorant, written out of spite. If it weren't archived right now I would go back and redact them, but what's done is done. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility enforcement
Initiated by  Nobody Ent at 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 4
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
 * Request addition of While contributing to any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, Malleus Fatorum will limit his comments to the current candidate under discussion.

Statement by Nobody Ent
Since being topic banned from the Rfa talk page MF has periodically used the comments sections to aggressively engage other commenters; the most current example has resulted in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents; A civil request to correct an edit of another editors signature  escalated unnecessarily. Additional examples of comments not related to the candidate      Nobody Ent 8:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom previously found ...his comments are derisive and belittling. The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

The signature incident and reaction following were ridiculous. Fram should have simply fixed the signature glitch when they saw it, and Malleus should have looked at the diff provided and fixed it when it was pointed out. The resultant ANI thread turned out to be vehement, emotional, and unproductive. This suggests the situation described by Risker last December -- simply too divisive to continue as is -- remains essentially unchanged.

As a remedy to its prior finding, the committee topic banned Malleus from WT:RFA while explicitly " explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's."

Had the signature glitch occurred in the context of reasonable discussion, it most likely would have been dealt with appropriately. In fact, it occurred in the context of not of discussion of the merits of Ryan Vesey as a potential administrator, but rather following a demeaning statement regarding another editor Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought. To reduce the likelihood of future disruption, I'm suggesting the committee logically extend its current restriction of Malleus from the WT:RFA space to the WP:RFA space; specifically, that he limit he comments to the merits of the candidate rather than characterizations of the other participants in the discussion. Such characterizations:
 * have no bearing on appropriateness of granting the candidate the sysop bit
 * add to the verbiage a closing bureaucrat must evaluate while adding no value
 * have a moderate probability of initiating an off-topic, divisive side discussions.

I further suggest wording to the effect of Unnecessary comments in RFA discussions belittling Malleus Fatuorum may be removed by any administrator to minimize the probability of ongoing baiting.

All this is excessive nannyism and should not be necessary but evidence suggests that something is. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. is supposed to be a core Wikipedia policy. Nobody Ent 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick
The discussion of the WP:FRINGE guideline was germane to a question asked of the candidate. While ascertaining whether the questioner (as opposed to the candidate) fully understood the policy is a slight veer off-topic, it is far less off-topic than discussions in almost every other RfA. Plus it was interesting. A kerfuffle arose which had nothing to do with whether MF was discussing the candidate or someone else. If the Committee wants to rule that no one can ever engage in off-topic discussions, I have a tide I'd like them to order rolled back. If the committee entertains the notion that a specific editor should have the unique prohibition of staying narrowly on-topic, I think we need a far better argument than noting that a technical glitch turned into some harsh words elsewhere.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by
I was one of the editors who offered evidence for this sanction in the first place. Since it has been enacted, I have found that it is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it can be used to silence Malleus Fatuorum by moving discussions on a vote to the talk page - so long discussions sometimes remain on the RfA. The focus should be at WT:RfA specifically, which is where (in my opinion) the disruption occurred, not the subpages. I should also note that no uninvolved administrator has yet topic banned Malleus from a specific RfA (to the best of my knowledge). I would propose shortening the remedy to Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. I do not see the rest of the remedy as useful. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unimpressed at what this has turned into since I made my initial comment. Whilst I still stand by my comments, I do not approve of this request turning into what it's turned into. Yet another little drama fest, over nothing, with intense labelling by both sides. I'm seeing the merits of Volunteer Mark's Alpha or Omega options - though I'd suggest that administrators deserve blocks just as much as non-admins in Omega. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Br'er Rabbit
As, this was a case of Mally being baited by Fram.
 * "I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling."undefined
 * This is conduct incompatible with being an administrator. It erodes the desired respect of the admin corp we would, in theory, desire the general editor population to have. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion
I wanted to comment on, that User:Br& brought above. I've had to fix a lot of edit conflict messes from other editors, as they generally result in text getting inserted into the header of a page. I've never seen anything end up erroneously within another person's comment. I accept Malleus' eventual explanation that this was indeed a technical error, but I don't think there was reason to assume anything either way when Fram contacted Malleus. My first thought on seeing an edit like Malleus' would have indeed been to see how the editor would explain it when confronted. Fram without any accusatory demeanor, but simply asked that the edit be corrected. There was no baiting. Malleus nevertheless chose not to explain anything until the matter was brought to ANI, and instead responded with stonewalling and insults until then. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  18:37, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reply to all the present and inevitable comments that start with "I'm not excusing his behavior, but...": Yes, you are excusing it, in all the ways that matter.


 * Fram had what I think was a poor choice of words in his second comment, when he said the insertion looked intentional. His first notice to Malleus showed that he wasn't passing judgment, but Malleus' reply pushed Fram in the wrong direction. Indeed, nobody's perfect, but the majority of imperfect interactions don't generally escalate the way they do with Malleus, because his interactions in these cases are far more than imperfect.


 * The reaction from many is to repeatedly claim that this is just some drama that should be dropped. "I'm not excusing him, he reacted badly, but... [this won't get anywhere] [it's just drama] [everyone's making a big deal about this] [time to move on] [etc]" -- This is indeed excusing him. You're blaming everyone else for calling attention to his repeated pattern of poor behavior, no matter how many times he displays it.


 * What's worse than the mere words that Malleus produces is the fact that he takes advantage of everyone else's restraint. Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews. This gives Malleus extra impunity as he exploits the situation. It's kind of like a superpower -- he can do something everyone else can't or won't do. Malleus will either stop a discussion dead or bring out attacks from others, and both outcomes tend to help him -- he either gets the last word or successfully brings out the other guy's immaturity, making him look bad. Once Malleus starts making comments that have no substance other than calling people "twats", "aresholes", etc, those are the only two options.


 * There was a Family Guy episode where some high school students were standing around trying to think of something to do. One suggested, "Hey, want to go push the janitor, knowing he can't legally push us back?" Enter Malleus, our very own high school student, who gets to push us around whilst exploiting the fact that we can't push back -- and if we do, all the better for him.


 * So before we yet again say "I don't excuse him, but [insert comment that excuses him]," let's think. A little more than usual this time. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  20:54, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom: I'll make you a deal: If consensus is that that comment of mine you linked to is indeed on the level of Malleus' behavior, I'll gun for an indefinite block for both Malleus and myself. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  21:12, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If mirroring sanctions on another person from the other side should somehow make enacting them on Malleus easier, I hereby volunteer. I'd take a three-month ban, so long as Malleus gets it too. I'll gladly give up three months of my wiki-life to give three months of reprieve to the rest of Wikipedia from Malleus' vitriol. Yeah yeah, content creation, but I actually think maintaining the right environment is more important than retaining one good content creator. The former has the potential to retain more content creators and general positive contributions. Or you can ban us both from all corners of RfA, though admittedly I tend to stay away from there on my own already. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  18:54, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. No part of this is a joke. I'd do it. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  18:56, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Ched: If it could be said that every time Malleus calls someone a twat it's because someone else prodded him into it, then this has happened enough times that we can say Malleus is far too easily prodded. It takes two to tango. Being prodded, if it has happened (and I'm definitely not saying it has), is not an excuse for the type of behavior Malleus exhibits. I get prodded all the time, as do others, and none of us react that way. We're under the impression that we're expected to control ourselves and not fly off the handle whenever an excuse comes along. Either we're all mistaken and are actually welcome to act like children when someone presents the opportunity, or we're not and Malleus needs a clear and broad edict to shape up or suffer a lasting consequence. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  00:02, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky: Calling the other side the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade," in same post where you say you're sick of polarizing name-calling from us such as "fan club," etc, is pretty vexing. And in response to this exchange:
 * "Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying 'Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!' -- Boing! said Zebedee"
 * "Where's that 'vicious dog' comic strip again? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky "


 * I find these dismissive characterizations just as "uncivil" as the "names" you point out. A characterization doesn't have to be in the form of a name in order to have the same exact mocking effect you describe in your statement. <font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk )  12:18, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Parrot of Doom

 * @Equazcion: "Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews." - it's a shame isn't it, that you can't follow your own sagely advice. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
Malleus either actually needs to understand civility, or he needs further restrictions. As someone who regularly uses bad language (when appropriate) I find it increasingly difficult to understand why Malleus' behaviour hasn't started to improve to a level where we don't have to have an ANI thread about him every five minutes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets also be clear that the diffs recently presented on ANI aren't exactly borderline incivility. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @RexxS, even if we assume that Fram could have improved his handling of the situation (which I think is fair) that doesn't excuse the totally over the top rudeness towards User:IRWolfie- - and that rudeness was at a much more serious level that the minor inappropriateness of Fram's comment. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @RexxS's reply, I agree with you, and I agree with you that we do an extremely poor job of solving disputes productively.
 * With regards to our poor handling of disputes in general there does seem to be a tendency in cases (if Arbcom want some examples I'll email them, I'd like to avoid adding to the drama by naming names) like this for the supporters of the individual in question to try and pretend that there is no issue at all that is worthy discussion.
 * That makes it extremely difficult for anyone to agree any sanctions for popular users beyond an indefinite block, as even though they probably only make up 20% of the community, given (obviously) everyone else isn't in lockstep about appropriate sanctions it is difficult to propose anything serious and gain a consensus.
 * Some additional nuance and subtlety from those people would be extremely helpful - it is the sort of thing we expect already with regards to WP:NPOV too and that approach is much more likely to actually avoid the indefinite block that as fans of Malleus' work they clearly want to avoid.
 * In this case some level of private mentoring from someone Malleus respects to tell him to drop it, and/or a one month block to see if Malleus really does value contributing to the project and/or a ban from RFA might well work to allow Malleus to continue to be highly productive in other areas while ignoring those parts of the project where he has the most problems.
 * Lets not pretend that unless there is a substantial change in behaviour that unfortunately Malleus will eventually get an indefinite ban from the project. It might not be this month, or even this year, but it will happen as it has to others in the past. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
This was all precipitated by Malleus's argument with IRWolfie, specifically which not only suggested that IRWolfie should re-read the Earth article, but also managed to insert "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth" in the middle of IRWolfie's sig in the previous comment. Now nobody is going to convince anybody that that is anything other than a glitch. In fact, reading on, Malleus clearly didn't even realise it had happened. It just isn't the sort of thing Malleus does. At that point I have no idea why on earth common sense didn't prevail and somebody simply didn't remove the sentence from the middle of IRWolfie's sig.

Even if we allow that Malleus needed to know it had happened, surely the way to approach it would be to ask him on his talk page why – or if he knew that – he had inserted a sentence in the middle of IRWolfie's sig? Once somebody goes to his page and takes, with an assumption of the editing being "intentional", we know that common sense has been ditched again, and this is a trawling expedition expecting Malleus to respond sharply. Congratulations, he did. Why does anybody waste their time on moah dramah like this? Sometimes I despair for this project. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Eraserhead1: Yes, Malleus was rude. I wasn't trying to excuse anything. But I was saddened by seeing the escalation from retort to confrontation to ANI to RfAr Amendment.
 * [on reflection] Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures, when we could all damp down the growth like penicillin instead? Step away; forget about the slight; buy somebody a beer - Stella Artois for Malleus. We could really do so much better. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as an outside view: It's because everyone takes their work here as a personal goal or achievement. Having that questioned tends to bring out the territorial animal in all of us. Combined with the semi-anonymous nature of editing, people tend to let that out more often than they would offline. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
Here is the sequence of events for the current incident: I am an FTN regular and so I wished to determine how familiar with fringe guidelines the candidate was (I like to consider I am relatively familiar with them as I look at them and the related WP:NPOV often). The candidate answered the question, (whilst noting that he was not very familiar with them) and I was not entirely satisfied with the answer and I provided my reasoning whilst voting neutral. A simple two comment discussion between me and malleus about whether his answer was right or wrong resulted in this comment out of the blue:. When I pointed out the example I gave was is in WP:UNDUE I got this hostile reply:. This reply also changed my signature, presumably by accident and I fixed my signature here, and then went to his talk page to leave a comment on being WP:UNCIVIL, I noticed a thread related to my sig and commented there instead noting I had fixed it User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum. After noting his incivility, I had this directed at me: "Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything?" directed at me so I posted to ANI (the notification of which resulted in ). As I noted at ANI, changing my sig by accident isn't the issue here, it's the insults etc.

To my knowledge I have not interacted with this editor before this incident:. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee. It is not the same as poking a bear, At a normal discussion about policy & guidelines at Requests for adminship (related to an answer given by the nominee), Malleus disagreed with my interpretation, which then resulted in this and this, with no provocation. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
@Rexxs: "Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures" - Because when faced with entrenched viewpoints, the community is left paralyzed, and disputes go unresolved as a result. There is no other path left but escalation. And that, alas, is the problem we have with Malleus. I won't say whether today is that day, but Arbcom is ultimately going to have to make a choice between two significantly opposed camps. The first is that Malleus' editing contributions are enough to justify overlooking his behavioural problems. The second is that his behavioural problems represent a net negative to the project that outweighs his positive editing. We can quantify Malleus' productivity as an editor, but the damage he does through his behaviour is very subjective. That is why the community can't resolve the problem he represents, and that is why it will fall to Arbcom. I would suggest that the fact that more than one editor in the ANI thread has brought up the argument that "blocking is ineffective, so why bother?" is a good indication that the damage his attitude does has surpassed the good his editing does. No editor is irreplaceable, and it is well past time for Malleus' immunity to be ended. He needs to be told to either adjust his behaviour to match expectations, or he needs to be told to leave. Resolute 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy
I've seen MF being highly uncivil for years. I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints. I might not be the most unbiased person here (certainly not the most biased either), but MF has a very serious problem of not respecting other editors, not respecting policy he disagrees with, and acting like a bully to try to get his way. His recent personal attacks on any editor who tried to talk to him about errors he made are unacceptable, but also just his standard operating procedure here. It has to stop. (*See below.)

Someone asked what can be done about it because nothing so far has worked. The answer is simple, and the one Wikipedia has successfully used for years: increasingly lengthy blocks as the behavior continues. Some people have argued that doesn't help anything, but I would offer myself up as an example of it having worked. I tried looking for a list of my blocks by length and date but couldn't figure it out, be the short version is this: When admins could start doubling the length of my blocks, I pitched a fit, I complained about it being unfair, but, you know, after a while I had to choose whether I wanted to start acting more in line with what the community wanted so I could continue to edit here or whether I was willing to stick to my guns and get forced out. And while I'm probably always going to be a bit terse with people who aren't following policy, I'm making the effort, which is something MF cannot say. More importantly, I've not been blocked again for I don't even know how long, and any complaints have been the standard boomerang back on the person complaining situations.

Furthermore, this is what I was expected to follow, and what other editors who found themselves in similar situations had to follow, so I really do not think it's fair that MF has been allowed to not be held to the same standards.

If someone knows how to look up my block stats and wants to post them below my comments in this section as proof, and add any relevant observations, please feel free. Enforcement works, as long as it is done so consistently and fairly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the comment below and the post to my talk page asking for evidence of MF's long-running activities ignoring WP:NPOV policy and its WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE offshoots, I honestly thought this part had been done to death and was very well known from prior discussions. In fact, IRWolfie's evidence above, which is the primary reason we're all talking about MF again and I would have thought people would be familiar with, referred to it directly. The whole point of that interaction was the MF made a claim about how NPOV works here that directly contradicted what WP:UNDUE actually says, and when IRW called him on it he became personally abusive. This is certainly not new behavior -- not by any stretch of the imagination. If you want diffs beyond that, they can certainly be provided. DreamGuy (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm currently striking the whole of the offending paragraph for two reasons: First, because it ought not to stay solely on the basis of the one diff currently here, which taken on its own could just as easily be the result of ignorance of a fundamental policy he was arguing about instead of purposefully trying to distort that policy. (I do wish someone would come up with a tool for rapid sorting of entire contribution histories organized by keyword groupings, because the long way of trying to churn through everything is mind-numbing.) Second, because it's veering off topic anyway, and some people are using this as a distraction. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I can't very well strike the original mention and keep later ones... DreamGuy (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
Like so many processes here, the act of "seeking justice" is more disruptive than the act itself by a full factor or more. Being someone who has been on the receiving end of Malleus's disapproval at least twice (including my own RFA) I do seem to notice a double standard here. Malleus can be blunt, and frankly foul mouthed, so can other editors who would normally be warned instead of threatened to be blocked. We can talk of histories, but at some level each instance has to stand on its own. The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated. When he decides to vent and be rude enough to warrant a warning, everything seems to explode into a fury of activity focused on getting him blocked. This puts Malleus on the defensive, which doesn't bring out the best of him either, and the whole event spirals further down hill and pretty soon the "discussion" is more disruptive than anything he had done to begin with. It makes it impossible for any admin to take action or for him to get a fair review, and it ends up in a dogpile at ANI or here. It is the circumstance and not solely him that brings us to that point.

It is no secret that Malleus feels slighted by the system here, and there may be some merit to his claims as we are constantly reviewing and changing at Wikipedia, and there is always room for improvement, and for whatever reason, a crowd always follows. To be blunt, Malleus can be a pain in the ass at times, but he is worthwhile editor who may use crude language on talk pages but has done nothing but good in articles. It is difficult to get an objective action when he does something trout-worthy because there are so many eyes on his every move. We should be exceedingly careful when taking action to insure it isn't punitive. We should lead by example by being as neutal, civil and understanding as we are asking him and every other community member to be. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

 * @Dennis Brown: The difficulty with your The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated is that the reputation in question is only one side of a coin. Malleus is a net positive who has an excellent reputation if only certain people would look at the big picture. It seems to me that this really is a case of entrenched camps and, of course, those who have a negative opinion about anything tend to shout louder, not merely here on WP. I too have been called to ANI for incivility etc - on more than one occasion - and I too share the "call a spade a spade" attitude to which Malleus resorts. I suspect that the only real difference is that he has a higher profile than me. Oh, and he has a better command of the nuances of the English language than perhaps not merely myself but most of us. I was scared shitless when Malleus stepped in to do the GA review of Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) and, guess what, that was because I had seen so much about that negative reputation but never really had any dealings with the man. He was brilliant then, has been since and, yes, he is a real person with real feelings. I am not going to divulge personal stuff here but this man is incredibly considerate and really does empathise and hold dear his own life experiences. (I have met him once, but we barely spoke on that occasion because everyone else wanted a chat with him!). He is not some sort of "my way or the high way" automaton. While the language can be colourful, if I was subjected to the sort of ganging-up that often follows some minor disagreement or misunderstanding then I too would be telling people to piss off etc. Dammit, I must have a dozen or more quite big disagreements here every week.. What is most needed here is for the "regulars" in the umpteen debates for and against him to back off. Which is why I said nothing in the ANI thread that led to this report. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax
Heh, just refreshed this preliminary to putting my thoughts together. Hi Risker! :) May take a while, but on the way... Franamax (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I feel the one comment made to Wolfe was a typical case of someone getting a bit too frustrated when engaging in a discussion. The rest appears to just be people poking at Malleus with a stick to see how he will react, which is never a good idea. While the initial parties to the dispute may have done this out of ignorance, several who came in later clearly knew with whom they were dealing and, as such, should have known better than to provoke him with comments about his maturity. As it regards the suggested amendment, I see no cause for expanding the restriction. It already clearly provides for banning Malleus from an RFA where he is found to be engaging in the discussion in a disruptive manner and that remedy could have been appropriately acted on in this case. Unless Ent can provide a substantive reason for why the current remedy is insufficient I see no cause for implementing this suggestion. The appropriate place for raising further issues concerning this dispute would seem to be AE.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing
Quite aside from the hypocrisy of Wikipedia's double standard in immunizing experienced editors from behavior that'd get anon IPs indef blocked a hundred times over, what is the point of WP:CIVIL if it is not enforced? I am not only sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility, I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy of their supporters, who seem to have chosen sides more along the lines of "I like the guy so anyone asking him to follow Wikipedia rules is a HATER" than for any other consideration. That the very same people often are quite ready to jump on others for incivility, real or imagined, at places like ANI is doubly ironic. Either enforce WP:CIVIL or demote it to an essay, but don't for an instance fancy that it's a net gain to keep a hothead like MF on board, because we lose productive editors who either want no part of such antics, or want no part of a encyclopedia that falsely claims to have civility rules.

That being said, I'm militantly disinterested in the notion that he was "baited" and thus "had" to respond in kind. Quite aside that our rules forbid any such retaliation, quite aside that you'd think someone with such a long block log would have the basic foresight to make a particular effort to keep his nose clean, do some of you truly think that Wikipedia is a children's playground, in which it's de rigeur to respond to playground taunts in kind? Me, I'd rather believe that we are adults, who can be expected to behave in an adult fashion.

Finally, as far as PhilKnight's comments below are concerned, oh please. RfA is a "discussion," not a "vote?" Since when? Would Phil care to share with us the number of nominees who hit 75% and failed to be promoted, as well as the number of nominees who fell below 70% and gained the mop anyway? (If he doesn't, I'll be happy to do so.) This is entirely a headcount, and about as rigid as any Wikipedia has.   Ravenswing   04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum
I'm not sure how these AE thingies work, but presumably I'm meant to reply here rather on each individual statement? I only have a few things to say anyway:


 * I have a problem with editors like Nobody Ent, who store up innocuous diffs like this one to boost what at first sight looks like a long list of crimes. The real crime is that kind of dishonest misrepresentation.


 * I note DreamGuy's claim: "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." That is simply an outright and blatant lie, and the fact it is allowed to go unchallenged really does demonstrate the corruption at the heart of this civility enforcement charade. But even if it were true, what would that have to do with this request for an extension to my sanction, as opposed to yet another "let's kick Malleus while he's down" episode?


 * Jclemens claims that I have "a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees", yet anyone paying attention would see that I respond to people in exactly the same way they respond to me. If you want me to be civil to you, then don't try patronising me or taking the piss. If you do, then I'll give it right back to you, and no amount of ArbCom muscle will ever change that.


 * And one final point that may have escaped some viewers; the context for Nobody Ent's crusade to have me banned from something, anything, is an RfA in which I have supported the candidate. In what way could that be described as being "disruptive"? I'm not aware that the candidate has complained, so why has Nobody Ent mounted his hobby horse?


 * I missed the question that Jclemens asked below, "Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with", but I think I ought to do him the courtesy of answering it. I certainly do acknowledge that some see a problem that I don't, but I think that's because they're looking in the wrong direction, at the wrong things. As far as a "workable solution" goes, I'd suggest an automatic block for any editor starting an ANI topic like the one that resulted in this waste of space. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing; why is this request for clarification being allowed to degenerate into yet another "we need to get rid of Malleus" fest, as exemplified by the contributions of Resolute and DreamGuy for instance? What we need to get rid of is vindictive editors like them. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One more more thing, re Cracker92. Isn't it amazing how someone with only 45 edits manages to find their way here to post yet another character assassination in what is nominally supposed to be a request for clarification, not yet another show trial? Aren't these proceedings supposed to be clerked? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Scottywong. I suggest that you take your own advice and look a little more closely at both my and your own contributions to individual RfAs. Looking at yours, I see doozies like this: "Yes, god forbid an RfA candidate answers a question honestly. What was he thinking?", and "Neutral badgering appears to be the newest cutting-edge genre of drama generation" and "Don't mind him, he always does this ... Perhaps his username is more apt than I originally thought".. A little self-awareness might go a long way. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
It would have been nice if anyone had dropped me a note that I was being discussed here, but oh well.

I did not bait Malleus Fatuorum in any way, I saw that Malleus Fatuorum had changed someone else's comment (willfully or not), and wanted to draw their attention to it and see their reaction. If their reaction had been "oops, edit conflict" or "weird, no idea how that happened", then we all could have moved along. Instead, I got a very defensive reply. I considered that very telling, and said as much. No idea what was supposed to be "defensive" about that comment, but Malleus Fatuorum did all he could to make the situation worse. Looking at his other contributions from the same day, this turned out to be the standard modus operandi. The only thing I would handle differently the next time is that I would have blocked him for his severe personal attacks (against others, not against me). And now I'm off to ANI to see what was said in that discussion since the time I stopped editing yesterday... Fram (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(by the way, the automated edit summary for this page starts incorrectly: " /* */ "


 * Reply to Carcharoth; while your explanation probably makes sense, your solution doesn't. While it may be that he only highlighted it, there is just as much chance that he intended to include that bit of text in his reply. Removing the error robs him from that possibility (or at leaast makes it a lot harder to be aware that part of his reply ended in the wrong place). Of course, if he would have actually checked the diff I posted instead of going all defensive and needlessly escalating things, much could have been prevented, but he was so sure that he would never do such a thing knowingly that he failed to consider the possibility that he might have made an error, instead of the system (edit conflict handling) screwing things up: "it certainly didn't come from me." But he has plainly said that he never even looked at the diff ("I was accused of altering someone's signature, something I would never do, so I didn't even look at the diff."), and so didn't notice that he indeed altered someone else's signature, that it wasn't an edit conflict, and that his hostile reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted (but still moderate compared to many other comments he made that day). Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ched: "he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before." I'm not quite following you here. I noticed an edit from Malleus Fatuorum that seemed to be at first glance deliberate (it clearly wasn't an edit conflict). I notified him of what happened in a neutral manner though, to give him a chance to check, explain, correct, whatever. Instead, he reacts extremely dismissive and defensive, without even looking at the diff I presented. I considered that response to be quite telling of his approach, not the response of someone who had made a simple error but the response of someone who either has something to hide or otherwise has no interest at all in collaorating with others in a normal, neutral fashion. I don't see what was baiting about this. He had every chance to defuse this thing from the start, e.g. by checking what is said instead of shooting from the hip. He choose not to.
 * Please explain what "something that Malleus had said before" you had in mind though, as I haven't got a clue what you are implying with this. As far as I know, I hadn't directly interacted with him, I wasn't involved in some of the other disputes he was having, so I don't see what you are hinting at here. What had he said before? Fram (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to 28bytes: I didn't order, I asked. An order is what Malleus Fatuorum gave in his reply. If it would have been a simple straightforward edit conflict, I would have undone it myself, but it wasn't. I thought that much at least was clear by now. And I don't believe that the reactions one gets from one editor can be automatically extrapolated to all other editors. Fram (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Isn't it obvious what happened here? Look at the relevant version of the RFA in question and scroll right down to the bottom (that text stuck in the signature makes no sense). Malleus's response that added that text included the line: "I suggest that you re-read the Earth article, which does link to flat Earth theories". It should come as no surprise that the bit of text that ended up in IRWolfie's signature is a direct copy and paste from the Earth article of the sentence that includes this link (the text is present in this version). Surely what happened here (as User:Br'er Rabbit said above somewhere) is that Malleus had copied the text intending to quote it, or had highlighted it in some way while reading the article and noticing that the article linked to flat Earth theories, and some inadvertent keypress ended up pasting the text? I've done that in e-mails where the cursor ended up somewhere strange and I've been typing and not noticed I was putting text in the wrong place. There is also a common keypress that pastes recently copied text, which I've hit accidentally in the past. What is depressing is how things spiralled out of control from there. All that was needed was to remove the inadvertent text inclusion, and not even notify anyone, it was so obvious it was not intentional. Whether arbitrators want to spend time working out why things went downhill after that is up to them. The original filer of the request may (or may not) have a case to be made about the other diffs presented, but that is mostly being ignored, it seems, in favour of the current drama. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: "Ctrl V" is the key stroke for paste on Firefox and IE. Malleus began a sentence in that post with capital B. "Shift B" is adjacent to "Ctrl V" on my keyboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another keystroke I'm thinking of, one I hit by accident a lot, but can rarely work out what it is as by the time I look down, my fingers have moved on... Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One further point. Reading a couple of the comments here and on user talk pages, there does seem to be something of a generational and cultural conflict here. By that, I mean that some of the animosity seems to arise from attitudes of contempt that are openly expressed (towards those that contribute less content and those who are younger). Some of this seems to be motivated by a desire to 'reform' the community and prompt a change in attitudes, but there is fine line between that and fomenting conflict and battleground attitudes. It is better to write about such things in essays and consider how to gather support for changes that could help. Just sounding off about things in various locations in the middle of random discussions doesn't actually achieve anything. A prime example (and I apologise to Malleus for bringing it up here, but it needs to be said) is this. What exasperates me is the idea that any teenager (or the more impressionable of the early 20s university student demographic) reading that will be anything other than annoyed by that. You don't change attitudes in teenagers by railing at them. You just have to let them grow out of it. Ched in his statement below seems to be asking ArbCom to take the role of parents to teenage children, which is something that is completely unmanageable. Going back to what Malleus said on his user talk page, the image of someone on the internet telling 'kids' on Wikipedia to fuck off is laughable. It's like a red rag to a bull. You just have to learn how to handle yourself on Wikipedia, rather than trying to adapt Wikipedia to suit you (see the George Bernard Shaw quote Malleus provided in that diff). Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
All of you, find something better to do. Volunteer Marek 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh screw it, I'll tell you what I really think.

As the guardians of The Wikipedia the ArbCom faces a trilemma. There's really only three possible ways out of this recurring nightmare. Ok, it's actually only a good ol' fashioned dilemma, since two of the options are simply mirror images of each other, but I always like describing a situation as a "trilemma" since that makes it sound a bit more sophisticated. So anyway, here's your options:

The mirror image options, call them Options Alpha and Omega involve slapping the people who do this hard enough so that it doesn't happen again, at least for awhile. The only difference is whom the mighty hand of the ArbCom decides to "admonish". If you choose to follow this path turn to page 68... wait no, if you choose to follow this path then in all honesty the best thing you can do is just flip a freakin' coin and then commence with the smackin'.

Option Alpha s - get it over with and indef ban Malleus from The Wikipedia. There'll be gnashing of teeth, complaints about how Courcelles is the new Enver Hoxa (I'm being careful here to avoid violating Goodwin's Law), complaints to Jimbo, people ripping their clothes off in public and wailing like banshees about how The Wikipedia is now ruined for all eternity. But if you just put that little "Do not unblock without permission from ArbCom" (often used on many a less famous user) in the block summary then, after three months or so everyone on this site will be like "Malleus who?". The Wikipedia has short memory and given our current retention rate, as well as all them valiant efforts from Sue Gardner at recruiting new editors, at that point we'll probably have 90% new editors anyway.

Option Omega - go the other way, desysop the fuck (as in desysop them very very strongly) out of all the damn admins who keep bringing this nonsense up, as well as slap all the lesser peeps with a three month site ban. Wait, that's actually milktoasty. No, desysop every admin that has commented on this page so far, on whichever side, and three month site ban any of the lesser peeps.

In the first category this would mean desysopping (like fuck) User:Worm That Turned, User:Sphilbrick, User:Resolute, User:Nikkimaria (you don't get off easy just cuz you're replying to others' statements rather than posting one of your own. Revolutionary justice!), User:Dennis Brown, User:Franamax and User:Fram (I would appreciate it if any of the admins that have commented above would politely get in the appropriate de-sysopping que).

Additionally you would need to three month site ban User:Equazcion, User:Eraserhead1, User:HandThatFeeds, User:IRWolfie-, User:DreamGuy, User:The Devil's Advocate, User:Ravenswing, User:Br'er Rabbit as well as of course... well, myself since I'm in the process of being just as guilty as everyone else, and of course User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Nobody Ent.

That kind of knocking of noggins' together should make it clear to everyone that creating this idiotic drama, on whichever side is just not worth. Of course if you think that this is too much of a purge you could just flip that coin (I know you guys have one, only way to explain past ArbCom decisions) again and desysop, say, 3 out of the 7 administrators, and three month ban 5 out of the 11 non-administrators above.

What would happen then? Well, his three month ban aside, Malleus would probably do a little jig and there'd be some talk on some talk pages about how Malleus fought the law and won or something, but the law is unjust anyway. But in, hell, not even three months, with anyone scared to try and get him blocked again, Malleus would either a) get bored and go back to content editing which is why The Wikipedia keeps him around in the first place, b) get bored and fade away from "the project" like many before him or c) keep talking to himself and his closest buddies in some corner of The Wikipedia that everyone else can safely ignore. Wait - in regard to outcome c)... why isn't this already happening?

Ok, those are the two mirror options but sometimes, having observed an ArbCom case or two I have a feeling neither is going to happen. So you can go with the other corner of the trilemma, the Option ü-lambda (yes, I am aware those two letters are not even in the same alphabet but I'm complicated like that), which stands for "Option Uber-Lame" for those of you who dislike diacritics or something.

Option Ü-Lambda involves the outcome that always occurs but being so brutally honest about what it involves so that the appeal of engaging in this drama is significantly decreased. Basically it means saying to everyone: "You know how the saying says that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as a farce" (I think I got that wrong but whatevers). Well, what happens if it keeps repeating itself again after it's already been repeated as a farce? History, tragedy, farce... what happens after that? The stupid idiocy we're in that's what. "Farce" is far too noble of a word to describe it with.

So just say it. "We are not going to do crap to anybody because taking an actual stance on this insanely stupid controversy would endanger our chances in the next ArbCom election or might otherwise piss off too many people. Hence we will follow the usual way of The Wikipedia and make pronouncements and pontificate but otherwise do nothing. Thank you for playing, see you next time, but please try, just try to realize how pathetic all of this is". If the ArbCom can just take a leading messianic role in admitting it's ineffectualness and patheticness in the circumstances of this case, perhaps others will too, and sincere heartfelt chest beating mea culpas will result. And the sound of a thousand fists beating against a thousand guilty chest will drown out the wolf cries of the githyanki and usher in a new scarlet dawn of a new millen .... ah sorry, getting lost there. Basically, maybe it will be enough to make at least some of the people involved - Malleus and his friends, his enemies, random passerbys and the ArbCom itself, and hey, me too - stop and think "Wow! I'm being a petty idiotic shit here".

Volunteer Marek 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
So I'm looking through the diffs provided by the complainant above expecting to see cunt and fuck-bombs left and right, but instead see stuff like "Fix it yourself" and "I'm actually rather staggered that 25% of the currently active admins can even string two sentences together, never mind take an article through FAC", "You are either joking or innumerate", etc...

My first thought was, "what does innumerate mean?", followed by a trip to Webster, and then a second thought of "we're here for this?" This is milquetoast even by drag-Malleus-to-Arb/ANI standards. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
Here we go again--the predictable ArbCom follow-up to an equally predictable ANI thread. Something goes wrong, Malleus Fatuorum says something wrong, next thing you know we're calling for his head. I read things like "[editor X is] sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility" and can only think "whatever". The generalization is unwarranted, and that MF's supporters are hypocrites is really a personal attack which will no doubt be overlooked. (If I, for instance, were such a hypocrite, it could be proven by my blocking non-MF editors for similar infractions--I challenge anyone to find such examples; the same goes, I have no doubt, for admins like John.) Whatever MF has said in this minor issue is within accepted limits, at least in my book, and if actions can speak louder than words I invite anyone to hear what's being said by starting these repetitive ANI threads: if anything's disruptive it's those escalations. As for this particular request: I do not consider this to have been filed in good faith, with the intent of improving the project or as a desperate attempt to try and resolve the situation, as it was phrased on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cracker92
It's always someone else's fault when it comes to Malleus isn't it? He always gets away with blaming his immature inability to control himself on the other person / the system / the cabal. Nobody else gets away with this when it comes to 'civility enforcement'. At this point, his special treatment is so blatant you're just rubbing everyone else's nose in it now. I'm a wikiholic with many thousands of edits behind me - but I contribute here inspite of the daily examples of unfairness like this - the stats show that plenty of other experienced contributors who aren't as dumb as me and have voted with their keyboards, finding something else to give their time to. It's time arbitrators found an effective way to deal with Malleus. If that means changing policy so that everyone else has the freedom he does, then make it so. If that means banning him and putting a marker down to his enablers, make it so. But for the love of God, do something, before you kill the project through sheer inertia, depriving it of the very people who are needed to continue it. Cracker92 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the above editor is not using the account that he's made "thousands" of edits with. He either needs to give full disclosure of his own history, or erase his comments here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this editor is not a bunny rabbit either. Nor has he disclosed his previous account that I can see from his fun factory of a user page. We all know that genuine new users don't create their user page first, then master subpages with their second edit, then start rvv'ing all over the place. You demand has no basis in policy, so I'll be taking option #3 - ignore it. Cracker92 (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you already know, but not everyone here might, your situation is being discussed at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to thread comments here, are we? How about sectioning off this procedural comment?  (oops) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what should be done is to erase this entire section, as the editor is totally out of line to be hiding behind a redlink while complaining about someone else's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's all see the 'red links can't complain about blue links' policy please, before we give your demands any time. Cracker92 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist
Armageddon Sikkahim!, the new production from The Wikiville Amateur Dramatic Society (WADS) now showing at the Arbcom Theatre, revisits the real-life vicissitudes of small-town writer Patrick O'Dingaugh whose habitual outspokenness brings him into conflict with the town's Civility Police and members of the local Community Church of Pollyanna. His past conviction for blunt speaking while editing an encyclopedia formed the basis for the tragicomic ''Beastly! Beastly! Beastly!'', staged by WADS earlier this year to mixed reviews. In Armageddon Sikkahim! a connected but even more trivial incident is inflated into another screechingly silly melodrama in which O'Dingaugh is exposed as Satan, the townspeople flee, and the town dies. Rumored next in the O'Dingaugh series: O'Dingaugh Ate My Baby!  Writegeist (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon
@PhilKnight, Newyorkbrad, et al: not acting on the requested modification preserves the status quo of no response to Malleus Fatuorum's latest incivilities. Discussion has been shut down three times on AN/I, twice by an administrator hostile to civility enforcement who accuses those asking for civility of disruption and acting in bad faith), and finally by a nonadmin because there will be no administrative response now that Arbcom is handling it.

Is Arbcom handling it?? What guidance does Arbcom have for the administrators and community when this happens again? Nothing? Malleus does not acknowledge that he should stop, and will surely call some other editor an asshole, worthless clown, waste of space, or idiot in the future. May he be blocked summarily? Only with consensus? May the block be overturned? Admins presumably had the discretion to block Malleus at the time to prevent disruption, but that's stale now. A block would have met opposition, likely a wider dispute, possibly wheel warring as in the past. We've reached a bizarre state where the very discussion of civility is summarily shut down, with participants accused of bad faith and threatened or chastised by partisan administrators who are supposed to be helping. Is the aggrieved editor tendentious and deserving a block for complaining? I urge Arbcom to say something, if only that this level of civility does not merit action (and why). Forget this particular modification proposal and how it was brought. What happens next time? Should the sanction be modified, or enforced at all?

To state my biases, Malleus and I don't cross paths but I have a strong civility expectation of the project. So I admire his contributions and shy from his name-calling from afar. Collegiality and support make it worth venturing from the more cordial environment at say Quora or Yelp, and fleeing the more chaotic blogs and news sites, to contribute hundreds of articles as I have. The occasional abuse I suffer and witness here make me question my commitment. NONE of these sites would condone name-calling of the sort Malleus indulges, not a one. They summarily delete abusive comments and after due warning block or ban the offending user, no drama, no hand-wringing, and no soul searching. Nor would any professionally run website accuse people of baiting, tag-teaming, or plotting for pointing out obvious violations of their abuse policy. Are we in such a la-la land where this is even a question? Even when directed at others, abuse poisons collaborative pages where we're trying to work.

ArbCom ought to weigh in because inaction in the face of trouble is probably the worst choice. When it does, I urge them to consider that the vast majority of users, those who write the articles but do not flock to the notice boards, probably value a civil place to contribute. It is after all one of our founding principles. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
As long as the Arbitration Committee condones (by lack of asserting a firm hand) this childish behavior of provoking and prodding established editors then this type of drama can be expected to continue. I'll agree that Malleus could have easily turned the tide with a "wasn't intended, feel free to fix it" rather than the sofixit approach. On the other hand; Fram is no N00b here .. he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before. Br'er Rabbit and Drimes pretty much nailed the basics above here. And in a sense I agree with NY Brad in the "Not impressed" comment - except that I /AM/ impressed ... just not in a positive way. As long as the committee allows these children to run amok tormenting people who actually contribute valuable content to the project - then you'll have to be prepared to deal with this juvenile drivel from the "puling masses". If you cater to these immature editors rather than offering a firm guiding hand .. then expect to hold court to "Lord of the Flies". It's up to you folks .. I really don't care anymore. But if you're gonna sit "on high" and pass judgment, then ya damn well ought to step back and be objective. — Ched : ?  23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)



Statement by Carrite
My sense is that Malleus's enemies are tag-teaming and baiting him in an effort to get him banned and that he hasn't quite figured out how to push back without fouling. He's such an intelligent guy, it's really not that hard. In any event, if discipline is merited it should be directed towards whomever brought this idiotic proceeding and for those who have been baiting Malleus on his talk page. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Keilana
Let's all go write articles. Malleus is damn good at it. We are here to write an encyclopedia, yes? Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by LadyofShalott
Dreamguy said, "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." What!? I've never seen Malleus do that, nor do I think I've even seen that alleged about him before. Diffs are required for such a strong claim of wrongdoing. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><font color="#ee3399">Lady <font color="#0095c6">of <font color="#442288">Shalott 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pesky
I'm only butting in here to pick up on the point (already noticed) about anyone who's not in the out-to-get-Malleus brigade at the far end of this (and similar) deeply polarising situations being referred to as "fan club", "enthusiast", "enabler", and all those other derogatory, demeaning, belittling [add thesaurus here] terms which are so often uncivilly slung about every time something like this rears its head again. It's both (in many cases) completely untrue, and (in most cases) pathetically polarising and moronic. Yes, moronic. Name-calling is incivility. And it's still incivility when the names are "enthusiast", "enabler", "fan club", "supporter", or anything else along those lines. And, personally, I'm sick of being called names like this by people who either don't "know", me or hardly "know" me, every time there's a conflict. Doesn't anyone accept the possibility that there are actually some good-faith editors in here who'd really like this stuff to be approached in a mature, reasonable, flexible-minded, mediated, think-outside-the-box, constructive (as opposed to destructive) way? So, Arbs, please take note of all the unwarranted personal attacks on the motives, credibility, and personality of the intellectually mature and constructive. And take a good hard look at this kind of incivility which is undermining the strengths of what is allegedly an intellectually-mature society. It's insidious. It's pervasive. It's contemptible. And it's increasing. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Boing! Said Zebedee: Where's that "vicious dog" comic strip again? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Geogre/Comic ;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Scotty: if you compare MF's questionable RfA remarks, stated as a percentage of his total edits, with the same stat for many, many others who make (or have made) similar-type RfA remarks, I think you'll find it's nothing out of the ordinary. Very probably even well below average. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Adding: Equazcion has just pointed out (very astutely, and calmly, and correctly), here and on my talk, that in labelling anyone as the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade" I fell into the exact same pattern of name-calling myself! Mea culpa. Yes, I did. My apologies, I shouldn't have done that. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Discusssion with Fram

 * Fer gawd's sake! I lost count of the number of times I've accidentally put something in the wrong place a long time ago!  If you check the history of this page, you'll even notice that I did it here, too.  And removed it with an edit summary of "bugger; I put that in the wrong place!"   <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So someone responds like I do, and someone else suggests that the person who noticed it could fix it. Yes, if I notice that someone's left a coffee-ring on a shelf, I wipe it up myself.  And if someone irritates me in here, I tend to look and see if Hanlon's razor is applicable, rather than  shrieking over here or at AN/I about it. But we're all different.  Nuking London would annihilate the litter problem.  But it's an OTT reaction, don't you think?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been a good question to ask at the time. Adding: something along the lines of "There seems to have been some kind of glitch / ec thing here: not sure how to clean it up, could you take a look please?" <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm not really interested in helping someone who gets so defensive and impatient without even checking what my post was about. I wouldn't call "Fix it yourself." (with the edit summary "jeez!") a "suggestion" or an invitation for further questions. Fram (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying "Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes
I have lost count of the number of times I've silently fixed somebody else's edit conflict, inadvertent misplaced text-paste or accidental rollback. That would have been a good approach to use here, instead of confronting someone on their talk page to "see how they might react." I would think that from Fram's extensive interactions with Rich Frambrough, he would know that people do not, in fact, react particularly well to being ordered to fix something.

Why anyone was motivated to start an AN/I thread over this utterly trivial argument – much less drag ArbCom into it – is a mystery to me. This can and should have been resolved entirely on the user talk pages of the editors concerned. I would love it if ArbCom were to give some guidance to that effect to the people who decided to escalate this dispute and spread it to AN/I and here. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong
I don't have much to say, but I feel there is a relatively widely-held opinion (with which I agree) that Malleus' contributions to anything related to RfA are usually more disruptive than not. For whatever reason, he seems to have a problem with the majority of users who have an admin bit. I think the situation would be further simplified by extending Malleus' topic ban to any page starting with either "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" or "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship". In my opinion, the topic ban should have been that broad from the start. A quick look at his recent RfA edits shows a consistently combative and disruptive attitude (which is somewhat normal for Malleus, but not welcome at a place as sensitive as RfA). <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#227722;letter-spacing:0.2em;">-Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#774477;">| talk _ 02:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * This is a reminder to all editors that they should comment in their own sections only. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Recuse -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. My initial impression is that Malleus Fatuorum's conduct is problematic enough to justify the continuation of his current restriction, however, I'm disinclined to limit his involvement in the Request for Adminship process, in what after all is a discussion, as opposed to a vote. If his conduct substantially deteriorated, then I think we have to look at banning him from the entire process, but I'm not convinced we're at that juncture just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Malleus has such excellent editing skills, as demonstrated by his content contributions over time, and such a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees, as demonstrated by his discussion contributions over time, is vexing. I do believe we tried the "can't you please just get along with others?" approach last time, and while there's nothing terribly worse than last go-round in the evidence, I don't see how things have particularly improved on Malleus' part, either. I'm open to ideas on how to "fix" the problem, and specifically from you, Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to hear from Franamax. Could a clerk please ping him? Malleus, I assume, knows about this request. Risker (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by some of the user conduct here, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would improve the situation, so I don't support action on this request. Regarding the broader situation, I suppose the takeaway is that those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to spend too-large portions of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. What I have said to Malleus Fatuorum before, and now repeat, is that I respect his view that serious editors should spend most of their wikitime on content creation, but the way in which his wordings sometimes inflame and prolong disputes has predictable effects that are inconsistent with that goal, and if for this reason alone, he should reconsider his approach. (It is well-known that Malleus Fatuorum has low regard for me, so he may not take my thoughts seriously, but that is neither here nor there.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On my talkpage, Malleus Faturoum has disagreed with the last sentence of my comment. That being that case, I hope he will give the balance of what I have said very careful attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked back at Malleus's RfA contributions since August last year and I find that he engages in a robust manner, joining in as well as initiating discussions, and sometimes picking out points in other people's comments and responding to them. Other than this I have found no other clear instances of incivility, and no clear evidence of Malleus doing worse than other regular RfA commentators. I have seen him being accused of badgering when joining in a discussion thread or asking for clarification of someone's comment. However, RfA is a discussion process, and sometimes it is helpful to engage with others in that discussion to clarify their views - this is not badgering. While I feel it is worthwhile to offer a reminder/warning to Malleus to ensure that comments he makes anywhere on Wikipedia are not personalised in a manner that any reasonable person would read as insulting and unnecessary (such as "you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought"), I don't think his general involvement in RfA is such to make a restriction. If people are concerned about the robustness and general tone of discussions on RfA, that is a matter for everyone, not just one user. I'm not in favour of this amendment, and I feel that "should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA" is sufficient, and encourage admins to carry this out and Malleus to accept that if he insults someone in an RfA he will be told to take no further part in it.   SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the impression everyone's moving on. Ultimately the main thing is that the big wheels' keep on churning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Silk's points are worth taking to heart. Banning a user from a discussion process on account of their behavior does not address the root of the issue in any way; editors should be held to the same standards of conduct no matter where they are on the project. I encourage uninvolved admins to use the case remedies as necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility Enforcement (Hawkeye7)
Initiated by  Hawkeye7 (talk) at 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 7.3.1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Self, no confirmation needed


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
 * In the light of the recent dramas, it has become impossible to re-apply for the administrator permissions through the RfA process. I therefore request that this remedy be modified to remove this restriction.

Statement by Hawkeye7
ArbCom made it clear that I had to either go through the RfA process or cease editing entirely, as is the long established custom for desysopped editors. Unfortunately, the reopening of the case and the attendant drama has made it impossible to use this mechanism, as it will only become another forum for continued drama surrounding Malleus Fatuorum.

@ Newyorkbrad : Looking over the past year, I completed 6 Featured Articles, 9 A class articles, 22 Good Articles, and 50 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, assessing articles, closing A class reviews, and writing articles and reviews for the newsletter. Assisted at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. Was involved as an instructor in two Wikimedia Australia workshops. I was an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic games in London, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Engaged in outreach to Oceania in regard to sports and people with disabilities.

I am willing to give an undertaking right now that I will never block a username.

@ Hersfold : I note the clarification that I am not under any kind of ban, and am free to continue editing. This is much appreciated.

@ SilkTork : A number of editors have suggested that I run through another RfA. However, I am unconvinced that, in the light of recent events, it would be desirable. My understanding is that a successful RfA would still require approval by ArbCom.

I would like to thank the editors who have commented below. I find myself in agreement with everything that has been said. I have been very saddened by recent events, and, like many others, need to reconsider my participation in the project.

I would like to withdraw my request at this time, without prejudice to its being resubmitted at a later date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds
This statement comes off as ludicrous, quite frankly. Arbcom never insisted Hawkeye cease editing. I'm baffled as to where that comes from - but what the motion ultimately boils down to is "please allow me to be resysopped, either at the 'crats noticeboard, or by arbcom". The recent drama is not recent at all, as evidenced by the fact that the case Hawkeye is seeking to amend is an existing one. Yes, there is some new drama - but frankly, if you thought any RfA of a desysopped user was ever going to be drama-free, I've got a bridge to sell you. The drama is long-standing, and Hawkeye should know this, because Hawkeye was one of the people involved in it which is why he was desysopped. That behaviour did not speak well of an administrator, hence the tool removal. Quite honestly, this request doesn't speak well of the user either. Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dank
I was working on a statement because I wasn't happy with what's been said so far, but NYB's comments pretty much cover it. If I had blocked Malleus and had been desysopped for it, I could easily see myself coming back to Arbcom and saying: in the current environment, an RfA would be very imprudent, since it would become, in part, a referendum on Malleus and Arbcom, which wouldn't be fair to me. But NYB's suggestion to wait till after January 1 to explore options seems like the right course of action. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
I put the following cards on the table:
 * I previously interacted with Hawkeye7 in relation to the Racepacket/Netball GA debate
 * I opined on the Civility Enforcement case observing Hawkeye7's previous sanctioning for poor judgement in commission of Administrator privileges

Being thus, having read the final decision I read this as a "Under a Cloud" scenario and therefore consider it imprudent to ask for ArbCom to restore privileges. The community should have an opportunity to ask questions of the candidate and to come to a consensus regarding the candidate. I do think that the campaign should be very strictly limited to the merits of the candidate and should be moderated closely should it begin to digress into other topics unrelated to the matter at hand. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * The requester could always petition the closing B'crat to actually judge, as it is B'crat's job to assess RFA voting patterns. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 02:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * ...What in particular makes you think RfA will be doomed? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no long established custom that desyopped Wikipedians have to cease editing, and Hawkeye is most certainly allowed to continue editing. Secondly, if Hawkeye7 wants to regain adminship, he is required to go through another RfA, and the recent discussion about Malleus Fortnum doesn't in any way affect this restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not banned, you're perfectly free to continue editing, and encouraged to do so. I don't believe that the Malleus situation would have any impact on a future RfA for you. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, and given I can't imagine any circumstance I would support this Committee returning adminship to anyone instead of referring it to RFA (unless we really screwed the pooch on a level 1 emergency desysop), my opinion on this request is obvious. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't run, or even pass RFA, or even that I'd oppose an RFA, just that I'd never support giving adminship back here. Courcelles 18:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments:
 * As noted, Hawkeye7 is perfectly entitled to continue editing. In fact, he has been editing during the months since the desysopping passed, so he's obviously aware of this. Obviously he meant to say he thinks he's not able as a practical matter to become an administrator again, not that he's unable to edit.
 * There have been several instances in which this Committee has restored adminship to an administrator we had desysopped, without a new RfA. Contra to Courcelles, I see no reason why we shouldn't do this in appropriate cases.
 * Turning to the merits of the request, I opposed Hawkeye7's desysopping when we voted it in the Civility enforcement case. Though I wasn't especially happy with the reblock he was desysopped for, my sense at the time was that the entire incident (which arose from a civility dispute involving Malleus) would have blown over and been forgotten, except that there had been a similar incident the month before, so we felt compelled to accept a case. I don't want to say Hawkeye7 was a victim of "wrong place, wrong time," since he made the decision to put himself in that place at that time, but there was still an element of bad luck in his being singled out.
 * Although my vote was against desysopping, mine was the only vote against desysopping, so I might very well have been wrong in my analysis. And Hawkeye7 had been admonished by the Committee in a prior case, albeit for a different sort of issue.
 * Hawkeye7's request to be restored to adminship is a bit too cursory for my taste. A well-written request would address what the requester has learned from the case in which he or she was desysopped, what he or she has been doing on-wiki since then, and how he or she would handle the tools if they were restored (which in Hawkeye7's case should definitely include a promise to avoid controversial blocks).
 * Therefore, ordinarily I would ask Hawkeye7 to expand on his statement to include this information. However, right now in the middle of the ongoing Malleus contretemps is very bad timing for a request to reopen an aspect of the prior case involving him. In addition, we have the arbitrator elections coming up, and sometimes there is value to having a request for amendment considered by a Committee that includes some new arbitrators able to take a fresh look at the situation.
 * Accordingly, my vote is to decline this request without prejudice to a new request after January 1st. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times have we restored adminship without a full RFA, and when was the last time it was done (Ignoring cases where the tools were temporarily removed, such as through an emergency desysop or temporary injunction)? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two that I can think of are GlassCobra (2010) and Coffee (2009). I don't see any others in the motion archives, but I haven't searched exhausively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time." That would seem to allow ArbCom to review and reverse a sanction, such as a desysop - and that would make sense. If on reflection, changing circumstances, new evidence, etc, it appears that a sanction is not appropriate or no longer appropriate, then coming to us first to reverse or amend the sanction would be the right thing to do. However, I would be wary of encouraging desysopped admins to use this route for requesting the return of the tools. The process of going through RfA is a sound one, as the community prefers to have admins in which they have confidence. An RfA confirms that confidence. If an admin can only regain the tools by avoiding RfA, then they patently do not have the community's trust. ArbCom returning the tools when it is clear the desysopping was inappropriate is a different matter, but in this case the request is because Hawkeye7 feels the community would not make a fair judgement. A successful RfA would be much better for everyone than ArbCom restoring the tools; and trusting the community and making the right judgement (which would include the timing of a request for return of the tools) are qualities that some Wikipedians look for and respect in an admin.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

While Malleus Fatuorum has done a remarkable job of sticking to the letter of this topic ban and has largely avoided the RfA talkpages entirely, there is concern about the spirit of this given a very simple workaround: instead of using the talkpage, he discusses matters directly on the RfA, regardless of how relevant they may or may not be to the consideration of the candidate. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bagumba#Oppose], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518072117&oldid=518070969], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516719316&oldid=516719167] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516704810&oldid=516704724] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516739185&oldid=516738695]

Now I have tried moving some such discussions to the talkpages in the past as I do not believe they belong on the RfAs themselves, but with ones in which Malleus Fatuorum is involved, this has been contested and reverted due to the fact that he is banned from said talkpages and thus would be unable to continue to participate in these discussions. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150898&oldid=518149802] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150724&oldid=518149572], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&diff=516742093&oldid=516741881] Given that holding irrelevant discussion on an RfA itself can be disruptive just by being there regardless of who is doing it, however, I have to ask - is this appropriate? As he is banned from discussion on the talkpages, should that not include a ban from similar discussion on the RfAs themselves?

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


 * Malleus Fatuorum, Jc37, both of you... please stop. You've made your points; let someone else sort it out, eh? -— Isarra ༆ 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754: I didn't even realise he was involved. Added. -— Isarra ༆ 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber: How is an extended discussion of a candidate's grammar helpful, or telling someone their support is 'wrong' and then calling them a dishonest twat, as well as discussing various folks' ages, relevant to the candidate itself? -— Isarra ༆ 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the motion and the general direction this is going, I would ask that everyone here please consider that the incivility in question is not the purpose of this request, despite the original case it pertains to, but merely an ongoing issue - the purpose here is the topic ban. Yes, banning Malleus Fatuorum outright would resolve that same as any of the other alternatives presented by myself and MBisanz, however given what we have here I would hesitate to believe there is enough evidence in any direction if a full ban is indeed warranted considering the incivility on top of everything else. Please, take great care with such discussion; though it may well be merited I would argue that perhaps this just isn't the place for it. -— Isarra ༆ 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Uninvolved statement by jc37
Because RfA is a hybrid between consensus and voting (as a page where extra tools or responsibilities are requested by an individual), there is a mild ongoing tug-of-war of sorts between those who want the page to solely be a "vote" with minimal commentary, and those who note that it is a discussion page like any other Wikipedia discussion page.

The current loose consensus is that discussion is allowed, but only as long as it stays civil (with NPA), and stays on the topic of the request and the contributions of the requester. General discussions about RfA, or anything else off-topic are generally moved to the talk page.

As for Malleus, in my experience, for the most part his comments have appeared to have been on topic, but I think his "civility" could be subjectively argued at times. I'll leave that to others to determine. - jc37 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @MF - I'm having a hard time remembering the last time (if ever) I've interacted with you malleus, so not sure what "witch hunt" I'm supposed to be a part of. I also noted that I would leave it to others to determine concerning your "civility".
 * For the most part, I would be willing to chalk much of your comments up to your "forthrightness", but there have been times that I've seen your comments and cringed at the seeming harshness. So defining "civility" in this case could be considered subjective. I personally tend to align with WP:EQ. and that we should have open, collegiate discussion on Wikipedia. (I favour politeness, but accept that it's not always possible, or even always advisable.) At times, I'm not sure I would define your comments anywhere near "collegiate", but to be fair, it's often because others' comments may be just as questionable. So anyway, like I said, I think I'll leave that to others to discern. There's enough other things I can help with on Wikipedia. - jc37 02:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF - I'm reading my comments, and reading your responses. Somehow I'm not seeing the need for such responses malleus, so in at least this one instance, always would not seem to apply.
 * I have no feeling of "witch hunt" or "drum beating" towards you malleus. I'm merely expressing my experience.
 * Though at this stage, I'm seriously wondering if you're attempting to hoist yourself by your own petard... - jc37 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF - The simple truth is that you're here to disrupt Isarra's perfectly reasonable request for clarification by turning it into yet another civility witch hunt. - (re-reads my initial comments) No, if you'll re-read you'll see I was commenting about the current state of RfA. I honestly was originally attempting to stay non-committal about the civility of your comments.
 * Incidentally, I'm wondering how telling someone to "button it" on a discussion page is considered open, collegiate, or civil?
 * Hence why I'm wondering if you're doing this to yourself intentionally. I did nothing untowards toward you, and you jumped down my throat with both feet. - jc37 03:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmph. I've appreciated Malleus' input on forums such as WT:GAN; he has a good understanding of what quality is. But his refusal to adhere to what the rest of the community has to adhere to has unfortunately resulted in this ban motion. A bit sad. --Rschen7754 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see above that there has been some discussion of the discretionary sanction I invoked. I would like to make it clear that I did it to nip any disruption in the bud, not to stop past disruption. Malleus' comments were, in my opinion, only verging on disruption though the volume appeared excessive. Despite a little grumbling, Malleus confirmed that he didn't intend to edit the RfA further anyway, and the candidate withdrew soon after at my suggestion. Indeed, in adding me to this request, Isarra pointed out she hadn't even noticed I'd done it. In other words, a good outcome, Malleus could not do something he didn't intend to do anyway and the world didn't end. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Malleus is not "banned from editting the pages", he's topic banned. If someone moves his comments to that page, it could also be seen as a violation of the topic ban. Malleus did the right thing by removing that violation. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, I find your remedy disappointing. It doesn't deal with the issue, just cuts it out. Malleus may be a figurehead of incivility, but that allows him a unique pivotal role in improving it, should he decide to. I do wonder if you are trying to put forward a show of power, with the election looming. Your seat is up for renewal, isn't it? <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * for clarification, SirFozzie has confirmed that he does not intend to stand for re-election. This doesn't change my statement, the "show of power" can be just as relevant for an arb who knows his term is up. I find the remedy disappointing, just as I find the supports disappointing. Jclemens, your comment regarding Malleus status as a Wikipedian is uncivil and verging on a personal attack. Just because it did not use swearwords does not make it pleasant. It is unbecoming of an arb, an admin and even a wikipedian, and I endorse the entry in your blocklog referring to it. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Courcelles: are we really going to call [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&diff=518150724&oldid=518149572 this undo] (read: no content added) a "crystal clear violation of the remedy" when MF obviously did it to ensure he wouldn't be in violation of said remedy?

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best solution here is really not to have a lengthy of discussion of whether and how Malleus's restriction should be expanded or tweaked or modified. It is for Malleus to eliminate the need for this debate, and the need for any continued restriction on his participation, by expressing his opinions about the candidates, whatever they may be, in a much less shrill, less hostile, and less argumentative fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (To Malleus Fatuorum:) I take your point, but it's also true that in some instances, the types of back-and-forth RfA discussion we are talking about have been extended and turned sideways by the way you say things. In that regard, why do you think it is that you, alone of all the people who comment on RfAs (above the "RfA troll" level; you're certainly not that ) have been the subject of this much criticism and this unique remedy. Although you set a higher bar for candidates than many of us, you are hardly the only oppose vote in most RfAs; frequently your oppose lines up with dozens of others, and you are not the only one who doesn't channel Caspar Milquetoast in opposing. Do you think the fact that there is concern about your RfA participate in particular is just arbitrary, or is there something untoward going on that I honestly don't know about&mdash;or might part of the issue rest with yourself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted to Malleus's talkpage, speaking to him directly in a fashion that wouldn't belong on the arbitration page. I am not unduly optimistic that this will improve the current situation, but I thought it was worthwhile at least to try. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without in any way retreating from the concerns I have posted on this page, on previous installments of this page, or on Malleus's page, I specifically disagree with one of my colleague's comments below that "it's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community" and that "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian...." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was offline for the past few hours and am catching up on the discussion. I want to express my disagreement with the suggestion that a couple of editors have offered, to the effect that some arbitrators' comments or votes on this matter may have been influenced somehow by the fact that there is an arbitrator election coming up, meaning that some arbitrators may be running for reelection while others know they will be leaving the Committee at the end of the year. There is no basis known to me for reaching any such conclusion. Whether or not one agrees with how any specific arbitrator has commented or voted on this request (and there is obviously quite a lot of disagreement), I am sure each arbitrator has done what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the encyclopedia and its community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole saga has become genuinely strange and I hope it ends soon. Quite a number of people need to take deep breaths at this point. I approve of the new direction the motions have taken, but I urge in the strongest possible terms that if it's motion 2 that passes, everying please use your very best efforts so that we don't all wind up bac on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by RegentsPark
The simplest solution is to lift the talk page ban on Malleus. Not only is the current ban ineffective, I don't see his comments as particularly problematic. On the contrary, he often asks questions that are pertinent and worth asking and which no one else appears to ask. Pointing out the vacuous nature of a comment, challenging a support !vote to explain itself better, these are all useful things. Granted he could phrase himself better ("dishonest twit twat" is not exactly a relationship building comment) but these comments are made on Wikispace where, hopefully, editors are more experienced and are, or should be anyway, less likely to run away just because someone was mean to them. Barring examples of rude or crude remarks on article space, I think we should recognize that the occasional editor who pushes the limits on Wikispace is an asset to the project because he or she forces us to think a bit more and to be just that extra careful about what we say or how we !vote. When that editor also happens to be a prodigious content builder, we should count our blessings and move on. No sense in cutting our collective noses to spite our own face. --regentspark (comment) 02:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold. While "dishonest twat" is not a nice phrase, MF's use is not as gratuitous as it seems. It was made in response to an exchange that followed I knew the substance of your edits prior to seeing the post's as well. Just remember, being well-known does not imply well-regarded which, while it avoids scatological terms, is not up there as a model example of community building behavior. It is well worth bearing in mind two things (1) Malleus is not exactly talking to himself in most of these exchanges, and (2) it is only human to respond angrily to a personal attack. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

This level of incivility on this thread is unacceptable, and is surely only representative of comments on other threads (such as "dishonest twit"). I don't know Malleus well enough to request any particular action, and a simply remedy may suffice, but this should certainly be taken into account. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  05:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@GFHandel - I left that as a disclosure, as I have no opinion whether he should be banned, blocked, topic banned, or whatever. I'm simply pointing out what I believe is incivil rhetoric on this thread, and this thread is regarding civility. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  18:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus - IRC? Thats the Internet chat form thing right? I've never used any Wikipedia IRC, don't know where I'd set one up, and don't know how to. Ask every editor here if they've seen me on an IRC, they'd tell you no. A little WP:AGF would be nice. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by GFHandel
One of the seminal books I've read is, surprisingly, "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams. You wouldn't think that a book of cartoons would have such an influence, however near the end of the book is a chapter discussing "OA5" (which stands for "Out at Five") in which Adams muses that "the key to good management is knowing what's fundamental to success and what's not". He develops the idea by asking the reader to look around their company and identify activities that are at least one level removed from the fundamentals of the company. Adams illustrates his "one level removed" point with examples: "if you are testing a better way to assemble a product, that's fundamental; but if you're working on a task force to develop a suggestion system then you're one level removed", and "if you're talking to a customer, that's fundamental; if you're talking about customers you're probably one level removed". Humorously, he speculates that "you will not be missed if you are abducted by aliens" if you are involved in activities such as "Quality Faire", "ISO 9000", "Policy improvement", "Writing vision statements", "Writing mission statements", etc. Why was the book seminal to me? Because I quickly learned to steer away from "one level removed" activities in a business, and to respect and support those who were not "one level removed". It is very easy to get caught up in "one level removed" activities at Wikipedia, however I suspect that the outside world would treat with some amazement the banning of an editor who is the antithesis of the "one level removed" phenomena. In contrast, I picked (at random) one of those who supports the ban, and wasn't surprised to find that they had made less than seventy article edits in the previous twelve months. Therefore, and with probably insufficient respect, I know whom I would be proffering to the alien abductors (in preference to Malleus) if they ever come looking around these parts. That sentiment is driven purely by the existence of the first and (in my opinion) most important pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. GFHandel &#9836; 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jethro B: You wrote "I don't know Malleus well enough...", so I'm curious how much research you did before commenting here? For example, are you aware that (as I enter this) Malleus has made 137,979 edits (including 83,578 article edits)—which places him 83rd on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits, has created 112 articles (of which three are now FA and four are GA), has performed 244 GA reviews, has 321 entries at the Project quality task force, is always ready to help anyone who asks for assistance, and does his best to help maintain balance at one of the most oft-criticised processes at Wikipedia—the RfA system that has led to this ruckus? Now that you are aware, do you see any grounds for accepting that Wikipedia is a melting pot, however no matter what is postulated at pages such as this, the basis for our work is to build an encyclopaedia for our readers—and that perhaps, based on the above information, Malleus' motives are aimed primarily at that goal? GFHandel &#9836; 06:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment by Guerillero
No, just no. If MF is banned indefinitely I will place money on the fact that is will be exactly like the OR ban that should have expired after a year. It will never come off. Sure, he can appeal but the appeal will never get off the ground. This coupled with a indefinite topic ban from speaking about adminship. This is way over the top. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by pablo
That motion is ludicrously over-the-top and just demonstrates again how far this request has been diverted onto the old familiar track of "blame bad Malleus". Seems to be the easy option for the arbs, but does the project no favours. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 15:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens — with absolutely no remaining respect — it is time you resigned. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo

@Drmies — yup. Unbelievable, but true. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Arbs — there is absolutely no (scientists estimate < 0.1% of fuck-all) clarification emerging here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 23:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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

In the last month, MF has done more than a dozen good article reviews, greatly improving people's submissions and helping them to be better editors. He is polite when approached in like fashion, knowledgeable and willing to share that knowledge. He's busy doing all this collaboration everyone keeps making noises about. I almost said something about this a week ago because while people are talking about doing another GAN backlog drive, he's working on it every day. Forget cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is more like cutting off your head. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And we did this. Over and over again.

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

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

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

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

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


 * 1) Is Malleus Fatuorum's behavior destructive to working environment beyond the accepted imperfections of fallible human beings?
 * 2) If so, can Malleus Fatuorum's behavior be changed, by his or another's actions, or limited in some way that diminishes the problem?
 * 3) Is that mechanism available for use?
 * Leaky Cauldron, Wikipedia's arbitration system isn't a court, (really, it isn't a system) and doesn't follow court-like rules on scope, questions presented, or anything like that. It tries to solve problems. In point of fact here, the immediate issue was that the topic ban was flawed in some way, and what was immediately demonstrated was that the underlying issue that provoked the topic ban was still a problem and was still not solved.--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, it is more vital for volunteer projects to maintain good behavior, not less. After all, we don't offer money to the volunteers to make up for the downsides. Civility isn't about language qua language - it is about how people treat each other.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * JClemens, saying that a fellow contributor "has never been a Wikipedian" is at least, if not more insulting and destructive to collaborative editing environment as anything that Malleus has said here. It is the kind of language reserved for stalkers, child molesters, and other predators. I'm also astounded that you're willing to brazenly declare what Malleus is or is not interested in. Its also a deep irony that your excursion into political theory ends with you saying that a ban is the result of "self-selection." While of course Malleus is most responsible for his behavior, the arbitration committee is still accountable for its actions and decisions. If a ban is justified, take full ownership of that decision.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, even including "vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators" Malleus still is not one of those people. He is someone who has both tried and succeeded at improving Wikipedia. Even if we believe that he is not a good fit because of how he treats others, there is no joy to be had here, and any such a decision should be made with a heavy heart. Please see MONGO's eloquent statement on this point. I am not and never had been a believer that "content creation trumped, excused, or otherwise made up for chronic incivility" which you can see in my comment above, my blocks, my comments here, especially here and here. I am however, a believer that civility is essentially treating others with respect, and that you cannot help but teach by example. You are not treating Malleus (among others) with respect, and you, as an Arbitrator, are enabling disrespectful behavior at least as much as those you have drawn battlelines against.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I am very disappointed with all four of you.

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

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

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

Statement by Peter cohen
I see a nose being cut off to spite a face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Statement by Ched
My thoughts are very much along the lines of what Floq has stated more concisely than I can. I'll also add a couple points that I've considered. Malleus is very much our own creation, and the elephant in the room is more how he was treated from day one, than how he treats others. People are not treated equally here. Policies are not enforced in a consistent manner. Honesty is not something that is respected - and more often than not the place is run on who can game the system the best. In the end, Malleus does more in article creation, improvement, referencing, and cleanup than just about any 10 other users put together. The fact that he's painfully blunt at times upsets people; but when you talk to him, rather than at him - you'll quickly see that you'll usually get as much respect in return as you offer. I've disagreed with Malleus at times - but discussion with him has always been fruitful. He explains why he thinks and feels the way he does. He also listens to anything put forward in a respectful and intelligent manner. I agree that he has a low threshold for Bullsquirt - but this project is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia; not role-playing games. The original request here as I understand it was for some clarification on how to deal with discussions being moved to a venue where he's been told he's not allowed to participate. Now we're talking about banning him. Self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps - but a witch hunt nonetheless. We are a very diverse group of people, and our cultures vary greatly. If we've created something distasteful, then we should be trying to fix it rather than throwing it out. If we're trying to build a better playground for children, perhaps you take this "ban him, block him" approach; but, if you're trying to build factual, mature, encyclopedic project - then there are times where children must be told their behavior is not acceptable. Sometimes the best way to do that is to simply call "a little shit", a little shit quite clearly. The short version is: I disagree with banning Malleus. —  <font style="color:#000080;">Ched <font style="color:#FF0000;">ZILLA  20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Jclemens. I fully agree with many others here that your statement is one of the most ill-considered things I've seen from any member of the community.  That you are unable to be self-aware of the obvious subjectivity of "civility" while you spew such nonsense boggles the mind.  The really scary part is that you have a voice in the judgment of others.  —   <font style="color:#000080;">Ched <font style="color:#FF0000;">ZILLA  04:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Sir Fozzie: While I greatly appreciated your efforts to reach across the isle and find a common ground - I strongly disagree with the "My way or the highway" approach. I ask you to reconsider the impact to the project rather than to one's own ego here.  Thank you. —   <font style="color:#000080;">Ched <font style="color:#FF0000;">ZILLA  04:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

2007 24 Hours of Le Mans − 	Churche's Mansion − 	Didsbury − 	Danbury − 	Edward Low − 	BR Standard Class 6 − 	BR Standard Class 7 − 	Somerset − 	Ray-Ban Wayfarer − 	BR Standard Class 8 − 	Poh Ern Shih Temple − 	Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series − 	John Brunner − 	Santikhiri − 	IARC − 	Bernt Michael Holmboe − 	Robert of Melun − 	Arthur Eve − 	Nabulsi soap − 	Robert Winchelsey − 	1915 Singapore Mutiny − 	Blyth Power Station − 	Bert Trautmann − 	Anahim hotspot − 	Steve Lukather − 	Imperial War Museum North − 	St. Boniface General Hospital − 	The Woman's Bible − 	Münchausen by Internet − 	Halkett boat − 	Royal Prerogative in the UK − 	Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford − 	Ljótólfr − 	William H. Prescott − 	The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle − 	Green Lake (Texas) − 	Jevons paradox − 	Hyde F.C. − 	Glastonbury − 	St Margaret's Church, Ifield − 	Tracing in English law − 	Dongan Charter − 	SECR N1 class − 	Line Mode Browser − 	David Watts Morgan − 	George Murray − 	Mike Jackson − 	Capel Lligwy − 	Kidwelly and Llanelly Canal − 	Michael Lachanodrakon − 	Thomas Jefferson Hogg − 	River Don Navigation − 	Phoronid − 	GJ 3634 b − 	Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) − 	HTTP cookie − 	Medieval Merchant's House − 	Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood − 	Home theater PC − 	Eastcote House Gardens − 	St Gwenllwyfo's Church, Llanwenllwyfo − 	1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season − 	Ariel (The Little Mermaid) − 	St Llibio's Church, Llanllibio − 	Coat of arms of Singapore − 	Obsessed (2009 film) − 	St Beuno's Church, Aberffraw − 	The Time of Angels − 	Prince George of Denmark − 	Meermin (VOC ship) − 	South Stoneham House − 	New Forest pony − 	Droeshout portrait − 	Edward Pulsford − 	Elizabeth Cresswell − 	Sakib − 	William Robinson Brown − 	John Van Antwerp MacMurray − 	Charles T. Hinde − 	Stanisław Żółkiewski − 	Strontian − 	Constance Stokes − 	Serpentine (lake) − 	Albigensian Crusade − 	SS Christopher Columbus − 	Leeds Country Way − 	ARCHER − 	Isaac Newton's religious views − 	Bramall Hall − 	Mayslake Peabody Estate − 	Nethermost Pike − 	Gorgosaurus − 	Oliver Typewriter Company − 	Albin of Brechin − 	Thomas Brassey − 	Cold War − 	Biglow Canyon Wind Farm − 	Justus − 	Laurence of Canterbury − 	Ælfhelm of York − 	Draining the Everglades − 	Cinema of Pakistan − 	Marine debris − 	Horse − 	PowerPoint animation − 	Click4Carbon − 	Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford − 	United Arab Emirates − 	Rochdale Town Hall − 	Lady of Quality − 	Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Olympics − 	Burnham-on-Sea − 	Randall Made Knives − 	History of Trumbull, Connecticut − 	Ninian Edwards − 	First Crusade − 	Bill of Middlesex − 	The Tale of Benjamin Bunny − 	Goodrich Castle − 	Wood End, Atherstone − 	Seven Gates of Hell − 	Statute of Monopolies − 	Dunston Power Station − 	Eastbourne manslaughter − 	London Road Fire Station, Manchester − 	Park Crescent, Brighton − 	Joseph Moir − 	Jutland (horse) − 	Temagami greenstone belt − 	Edward Sainsbury − 	Walter Gilbert (cricketer) − 	Nailsea − 	Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 − 	Richard Basset (royal justice) − 	The Women's March on Versailles − 	Harry Bassett − 	Nailsea − 	Camak House − 	Howard Zinn − 	The Case of the Dean of St Asaph − 	Turban Head eagle − 	St Anne's Pier − 	Moral rights in United Kingdom law − 	St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth − 	Louise Nevelson − 	Claverton Pumping Station − 	St Nicholas, Blakeney − 	Golden Domes − 	San Diego–Tijuana − 	Worcester city walls − 	Worcester Castle − 	Josce de Dinan − 	Hugh de Neville − 	1890–91 Sheffield United F.C. season − 	Madrona Manor − 	HubSpot − 	Photovoltaic power station − 	History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985) − 	John Struthers (anatomist) − 	Tanisha Thomas − 	Guttorm of Norway − 	Saga (comics) − 	Augvald − 	Kent Ridge Park − 	Johan Derksen − 	Manuscript culture − 	Tommy Johnson − 	Newcastle town wall − 	Sitakunda Upazila − 	Andover F.C. − 	Skerryvore − 	Mangalorean Catholics − 	Wrought iron − 	Elias Zoghby − 	LNER Class A1/A3 − 	Ho Yuen Hoe − 	Gerard − 	LSWR S15 class − 	Fagernes Airport − 	Underwire bra − 	San Juan Creek − 	Process Window Index − 	1346 − 	T2000 − 	Museum of Bad Art − 	Nicolo Giraud − 	Sigtrygg Silkbeard − 	Buncefield fire − 	Bronwyn Bancroft − 	Queen (band) − 	Seneca Falls Convention − 	Yamsay Mountain − 	Radstock − 	Ashokan Edicts (Delhi) − 	Armero tragedy − 	Brereton Jones − 	The Sleeping Girl of Turville − 	Sheila Varian − 	Vangjel Meksi − 	Sutton Wick air disaster − 	Brabham BT49 − 	Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange − 	Muckaty station − 	Aberdaron − 	Quistclose trusts in English law − 	Rivington − 	Bentworth, Hampshire − 	Express trusts in English law − 	Olivia Shakespear − 	Somerset County Cricket Club in 1885 − 	St Deiniol's Church, Llanddaniel Fab − 	Franklin half dollar − 	Koninginnedag − 	Harpy Tomb − 	Golondrina point − 	Soyuz TM-30 − 	Free and open source software − 	Hadleigh Castle − 	Voltage doubler − 	1893–94 Small Heath F.C. season − 	Mavis Wilton − 	Forth Valley Royal Hospital − 	Old Church of St Gwenllwyfo, Llanwenllwyfo − 	Hillingdon House − 	The Vicar of Bullhampton − 	Trustee Investments Act 1961 − 	Dunster Castle − 	Walking Liberty half dollar − 	Wood End, Atherstone − 	Carlton Hill, Brighton − 	Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) − 	St Mary's Church, Llanfair-yng-Nghornwy − 	All Saints' Church, Shuart − 	Kingdom of the Isles − 	Charles Boycott − 	Bosa of York − 	Carr Hill − 	Sweet Tooth (novel) − 	Hibiscus (restaurant) − 	SM City Davao − 	McEwan's − 	Abuwtiyuw − 	1991 FA Charity Shield − 	Team Bath F.C.

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

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens + 	− 	 Chat Moss + 	and this many good articles: − 	 Cotswold Olimpick Games − 	 Cottingley Fairies − 	 Donner Party − 	 Gilbert Foliot − 	 Geoffrey (archbishop of York) − 	 Greater Manchester − 	 Green children of Woolpit − 	 Gropecunt Lane − 	 Gunpowder Plot − 	 Guy Fawkes − 	 Halifax Gibbet − 	 Jersey Act − 	 Manchester − 	 Manchester Mark 1 − 	 Manchester Mummy − 	 Manchester Ship Canal − 	 Melford Stevenson − 	 Moors murders − 	 Pendle witches − 	 '''Peterloo Massacre − 	 '''Poppy Meadow − 	 '''Roy of the Rovers − 	 Samuel Johnson − 	 SSEM − 	 Sale, Greater Manchester − 	 Samlesbury witches − 	 Stretford − 	 The Green Child − 	 Theobald of Bec − 	 Trafford Park − 	 Towns in Trafford − 	 Wife selling − 	 Wilfrid − 	 William Calcraft − 	 William de Corbeil − 	 William Cragh − 	 William Warelwast

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

1996 Manchester bombing − 	 Alan Turing − 	 Beeston Castle − 	 Bradford Colliery − 	 Chester Cathedral − 	 Didsbury − 	 Ferret legging − 	 Malkin Tower − 	 Manchester computers − 	 Manchester Liners − 	 Manchester Martyrs − 	 Margaret Thatcher − 	 MediaCityUK − 	 Ordsall Hall − 	 Paisley witches − 	 Robert Tatton − 	 Salford − 	 Simon Byrne − 	 The Coral Island − 	 The Princess and the Pea − 	 Tickle Cock Bridge − 	 Workhouse

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


 * Without responding here to your argument, I do note that I've removed your large, icon-punctuated, bold-printed list of articles. Please do not re-add that list, though you should feel free to link to the full lists or do anything else that isn't POINTy or distracting. Thanks, AGK  [•] 21:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course! We can't have anything like actually significant content contributions get in the way of banning somebody, can we? Bloody hell, I'm so pissed now I can hardly type coherently. I'd best step away from this before I type something I regret. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

Melford Stevenson Poppy Meadow Roy of the Rovers Malkin Tower


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

Meermin (VOC ship) South Stoneham House New Forest pony Droeshout portrait Edward Pulsford Elizabeth Cresswell Sakib William Robinson Brown John Van Antwerp MacMurray Charles T. Hinde Stanisław Żółkiewski Strontian Hugh de Neville 1890–91 Sheffield United F.C. season Madrona Manor HubSpot Photovoltaic power station History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985) John Struthers (anatomist) Tanisha Thomas Guttorm of Norway Saga (comics) Augvald All Saints' Church, Shuart Kingdom of the Isles Charles Boycott Bosa of York Carr Hill Sweet Tooth (novel) Hibiscus (restaurant) SM City Davao McEwan's Abuwtiyuw 1991 FA Charity Shield Team Bath F.C.
 * This doesn't include all the copyediting he has done for various editors. Hope this helps. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection by Ceoil
Per Reaper Eternal. This has turned into a pincer movement, and the speed at which it is being executed is breathtaking. You have now backed him into a corner and know full well that 6 months will in effect be a lifelong exit. Chilling indeed. Whats being missed is that MF has a point, is typically right in what he's saying, but gets gamed into corners like this. But whatever, well done guys. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark - Yes you have stated it well, Fozzie's motion goes far beyond what the filing party was seeeking and now four editors have decided themselves to extend a clarification to a ban, imo in the face of the express and often strongly stated openion shown on this page. This maybe in their remit, who the hell care enough to dig through the verbatage on policy pages to find out, but its certainly worrying. It looks from the gutter like an extension of (leap from?) the powers entrusted. Futher, reading below Phil, 6 months, 3 months, both would have the same effect, a life long ban, but if it makes you feel better. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold - I suggest you have lost sight of the goals of the project in favour of decorum in its bywaters. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * GFHandel = are you really surprised that the people so quick to enact the ban hammer are those who are interested only in the project as a ploitical area, and have pitiful content work to show for themselves. Its all show show, and nothing bnehing it. Wiki for these four specific people is power not education. There is the disconnect, which is why in a way this is so dissapointing of Fozzie. 00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, with all due respect, get bent. This all reeks of the communities sensiblities being important than the content being delivered, and once again we are faced with the problem that that the loudest voices arguing for the sake of the community are those that contribute the least to the actual you know, words any end users reads. Long as we have rules and stuff. Navel gaze ad reductum. 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As JClems was so wanton and free with his thoughs here, I went and and asked him on his talk, what in the hell he was thinking. This was the response;
 * person) (is || is not) (status), where status is an abstract concept with a non-trivial definition, is fundamentally a statement of an idea, even though a person is the subject of the sentence. Or, if you like, the proposition could be phrased as a proof: "Wikipedians follow all five pillars; Malleus does not follow pillar 4; therefore, Malleus is not a Wikipedian".* 
 * This is an elected arb that has the ability to block an editor with MF'S form and histotry? Or maybe Im just a fucktard in the trenchs that deserves nothing more than a joke answear to my conserns about a friend being blocked. I dont think thats how the arbs views the community in general, but is that civil? No, its insulting to my intelligence. Its not on, at all. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Futile plea by 28bytes
Is this the spot where uninvolved observers can request ArbCom not ban one of our hardest working editors? If so, I'd like to do so, futile though it may be, given how these things tend to snowball so quickly.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sitush
I agree with the comments of numerous people above, the most recent of which being Ceoil, Reaper Eternal & 28bytes. There is something really, really wrong with how this Request is being handled and it does not reflect well on Arbcom. I didn't intend to sign up to a system where a small group of people could ignore a larger group and even hold a !vote that was closed to the rest of the community on a matter that was not referred to them by that community. The ban motion is an abuse of process, imo, and the manner in which the general discussion was allowed to become twisted off-topic very early on is symptomatic of a deep-rooted problem that is not Malleus but rather systemic. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven people can over-rule consensus? Fucking shit, is all I can say. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark - your proposed motion is sensible. It addresses exactly the clarification that was sought in the request. I hope that one of the arbs spots it. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise that I am repeating myself here but have people actually seen the proposal made by RegentsPark in his statement? In particular, have any arbs seen it, given the noise going on here? Has any clerk mentioned it to them? If not, could they? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Modernist
This is a bad move and a mistake. Drop the stick; count to 200 and modify the proposal. Six hours, maybe six days might suffice...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Second thought - just drop the stick...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per TK - MF is an intelligent, important, productive and valuable asset to Wikipedia and he does not inspire copycats and a band of apologists like a recently banned editor did. Wikipedia should protect the valuable assets it still has before all are lost. The pettiness and the backwater dramatics need to be placed in context with the creative power that Malleus has generously delivered to all through his hard worked article writing...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @JClemens - staggeringly off the mark; counter productive and plain wrong...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold - Something I don't understand here - concerning who has standing in this project and why - this arb/editor has only a grand total of 2877 edits in 18 months? And went missing from this project for something like an entire year, and who really didn't have that many edits to begin with. This editor's article contributions are slim to nearly none, and he's passing judgement on an important, prolific contributor who not only creates article work but who also inter-relates with scores of other editors; no-holds barred...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite - Right on!...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaper provided a very long list of articles where Malleus has made critical contributions. Even as this drama-fest is going on he is continuing to make such contributions. Blocks are meant to be about prevention, not punishment. So, what are we preventing exactly? I encourage the Arbs to consider that sometimes sanctions are a source of far greater disruption to improving this encyclopedia than the conduct for which an editor is being sanctioned. Under these circumstances, a ban of six months for an editor whose longest blocks have never exceeded a week and who continuously makes valuable contributions seems more like preventishment.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hersfold, speaking from experience, what causes me distress is not some guy calling me a "dishonest fucker" or some other throw-away insult, but admins acting like it isn't a big deal. That Malleus gets repeatedly threatened with blocks, or actually gets blocked, in these situations is a pretty good indicator that his conduct is treated like it is a big deal. Unfortunately, more than a few editors seem to be capable of spewing all manner of vitriolic rhetoric at their opponents in full view of admins and engage in blatant harassment, but their conduct is left alone because the object of their vexatious commentary is not seen favorably by the wikilite. Civility and disruption are far too often used as a catch-all for vexatious actions against editors because all other policies fail to justify the actions desired by those pursuing a personal vendetta. What we have above is not really people crowing about incivility from Malleus being ignored, but him not getting the "punishment" they desire for whatever reason.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by wctaiwan

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

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

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

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

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

As wrote (my bolding): "Malleus made a personal attack, it was removed, it was not replaced, he was topic banned from the RFA, and made no more edits to the RFA. The motion below appears to be a response to the idea that the previous sanctions failed and the community can't handle this on its own... except the previous sanction did work, and the community handled it just fine on its own. If you were planning on sitebanning Malleus the first time he "disrupted" an RFA, why in the world did you go to the trouble of creating this remedy?"

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I have no confidence in the current Arbitration Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ArbCom, For this specific case, I am unable to provide any ideas on how to proceed. I do think that you should all tread carefully, though I do have some sympathy for you all. This really is a no-win situation. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes! 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement with Pesky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Clerk notes

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


 * MF: There are, obviously, ways to express yourself without resorting to name calling and such. And I believe all the back and forth is actually off-topic, pertain to this request. Let's -try- to keep it on topic, without this spiraling out of control. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KW: (1) I would said I did, but consider it was via a mailing list I can provide you no proof of that. (2) I said what I said just now because MF responds with a little more hostility (for some reason), and I feel that there are better ways to state himself without having to do so. The back-and-forth off-topic comment was actually meant for all parties involved, not just MF, but considering I appended it to a comment at MF, I can see why you would think it was only directed at him. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KW (part 2): It seems I missed something in your original statement. Clerks were told to remove instances of personal attacks on here by MF, and I personally determined that it'd be better for him to self-edit, rather than me doing a (comparatively) blanket removal. And I was, in a sense, trying to make sure things aren't heated enough (to the point of a siteban being proposed, for example). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Okay, awaiting more statements, but, I've got to say that Franamax has one thing absolutely right, so I'll quote that; "Malleus is at absolutely zero risk if someone else moves their signed posts to talk, only if they place the post on talk themselves." Someone's post can't be moved to a page they're banned from, and then blocked for violation of a topic ban, that would be a huge miscarriage of justice. Courcelles 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Though this looks like a crystal clear violation of the remedy... (The remedy is not that MF is not allowed to take part in WT:RFA discussions, it is he is not allowed to edit the pages, full stop.) Courcelles 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF What in the world does that have to do with your violation of the topic ban? Especially since the record shows you were not blocked for the infraction? Courcelles 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mongo, you are mistaken. The remedy says "indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.", this includes both the main WT:RFA page, and the talk page of all individual RFA's, and any other pages that might exist with their names starting with that string. Courcelles 05:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754... if he doesn't change, at all? I suspect there will be a motion much like SirFozzie's below, and it won't have any trouble gathering the votes to go through.  We can debate if it should pass in this scenario, but it almost surely would. I feel totally confident saying we won't sit here and keep on carving places on the project Malleus is banned from, because, after a while we won't do that for anyone. Courcelles 04:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles is correct, there is no violation if someone else moves the posts. Of course, such movement doesn't enable subsequent replies from Malleus, so it would be effectively ending his participation in the discussion.  Which begs the question... if it was a "discussion" suitable for the talk page anyways, why should it ever be moved back to the main RfA page solely to enable Malleus' participation? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Truthkeeper, baiting someone else into incivility is inappropriate, but ultimately, it is the "baitee" who is responsible for his or her own conduct. I think the committee and the community in general have been appropriately lenient, if not perhaps a bit too much so, when people have veered into incivility for understandable reasons... however, there comes a point when such excuses, levied on another user's behalf, ring hollow. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @NYB, you're of course welcome to disagree with me, and you certainly won't be the only arbitrator to do so, but I've said what I did for a very specific reason: Policy-based consensus needs to take into account the policies that the community is simply not allowed to challenge. BLP, Copyvio, CHILDPROTECT... these are all not subject to community consensus, and I think it's high time we recognized, out loud and in public, that all the pillars are just as non-negotiable.  Fact is, the reason we've had such a hard time as a committee is that there are a handful of arbitrators who don't see things this way.  I would challenge you or any of the others to articulate an ethical and internally consistent argument explaining why editors can be allowed to ignore the fourth pillar in isolation, but  anyone ignoring any other pillar is quickly banned without much fanfare.  Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754, the intent is not to insult Malleus; he has made plenty of positive contributions here, and the point is to actually acknowledge them... while at the same time noting their insufficiency in the absence of fourth pillar-upholding behavior. Believe me, this is not simply about Malleus in my mind, but he's the one guy who's contributed enough such that the differences of opinion over civility vs. content contributions have placed him in the spotlight... again, and again, and again.  I'm not sure how many times I've said I wished that Malleus would simply stop being rude and continue his positive contributions, and I've been far from alone in that desire.  BUT, given that he hasn't ever really responded to such encouragements, admonishments, or the like... my statement stands, as much as I wish I had never actually needed to make it. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754, the target of my statement is not Malleus; it would have been entirely possible, and a lot less hassle, to simply sign my name in support of the motion. The "not a Wikipedian" comment is a statement of reality as I see it, articulating my pillars-centric view of the expectations of Wikipedians. It's more important, in my mind, for discussion to be framed in such a manner than it is to ban Malleus. The community has banned plenty of other editors in the past; the committee's role in actually banning people should continue to wane as the community continues expanding its tools to do so. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai, While you might limit the ranks of non-Wikipedians to "stalkers, child molesters, and other predators", I think I was pretty clear that I included in that category "Vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators"--that is, anyone who fails to follow one or more pillars flagrantly. As far as comments "destructive to collaborative editing environment", I personally believe those who have supported Malleus on the basis that content creation trumped, excused, or otherwise made up for chronic incivility have contributed far more to the sitewide neglect of the fourth pillar than Malleus himself ever could have. Malleus, after all, is just one editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Recuse. See statement above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My first thought is as follows: The topic ban was placed on MF to minimize the disruption caused at RfA. As this request shows, the method we used has not removed the disruption. It is time to consider a harsher method to make sure the disruption stops. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, you have two options. A) Cease the personal attacks or B) Face the consequences (up to and including blocks/bans). I cannot say it plainer, you have been given more rope then just about any user I can remember during my time on Wikipedia. You will abide by policies against such attacks, or you will face sanctions for violating those policies. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @MF, I would say your continued presence causing these issues is inherently disruptive. Your method of collaborating with other users, as proven in this request and elsewhere, is inherently disruptive. You have been given more then enough leeway with your opinions on RfA and its processes, and working with other editors, and you've used all of it up. SirFozzie (talk)
 * @MF: This is where I disagree with you. YOU are the cause of your problems, this "Firestorm in a teacup". You have been unduly confrontational, and have stooped to attacks unworthy of someone of your ability. You are and have been disruptive in this (and other) areas. The fact that you see nothing wrong with calling other people dishonest fuckers, dishonest twats, etcetera is mind boggling. You wouldn't act that way to people's faces without people confronting you on your behavior, so why do you think that you could get away with it here? SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * $MF: In a work environment (which one could somewhat reasonably compare Wikipedia to), you have to work with people you find disagreeable. Just like in a work environment in which you would likely face termination if you called a colleague a "dishonest fucker". So yes, you can call people that if you wish, but don't be surprised that there's consequences to such actions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that MF is being brought before us again.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also concerned that Malleus's name is coming up yet again, but I don't think a clarification request is the proper platform to do anything other than address the specific issue being raised. It sounds as though that could be achieved simply by banning Malleus from RFA entirely. I reject the notion that copying Malleus's - or any topic-banned editor's - posts to a page they are banned from participating in directly is appropriate, however. Firstly, it creates a loophole in the topic ban. All User:TopicBanned has to do is find User:WillingAccomplice who will transfer posts from any page over to the topic-banned page, and the restriction is rendered superfluous. Secondly, if the discussion belongs on a page where User:TopicBanned is prohibited from editing, that probably means that User:TopicBanned has no business contributing in the first place. If the discussion gets moved because it was started in the wrong place, the same still applies. Thirdly, it prevents User:TopicBanned from disengaging from the area they were previously problematic in, which I thought was the whole point of these restrictions in the first place. If copying a post in this manner were to occur, then no, User:TopicBanned cannot be faulted (unless they directly requested the copying, which is a different matter), but whoever copied the post should be subject to blocking for what amounts to aiding and abetting. The only legitimate exception I can think of is the practice of copying an appeal of some sanction (and replies to comments to the same) to the appropriate noticeboard for community comment and review. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark: I can think of no circumstance on Wikipedia where calling someone a "dishonest twat" would be an appropriate comment and not deserving of a block. "Dishonest twit" isn't much better, but Malleus said the former. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark: Sorry, but I can't see that comment as anything but an indirect way of saying "Well, I don't like you either," which isn't much of a personal attack, certainly not deserving of Malleus's retort. But YMMV, I suppose; thanks for taking the time to calmly explain your position. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus: Insulting other editors is inherently disruptive, and I have no other way to describe your "dishonest twat" comment. The other diffs cited are rather similar. If you believe that insulting people is not disruptive, then I do not believe that you have a place on a collaborative project. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognize there's an issue that good faith editors could move comments to a Request for Adminship talk page, and by doing so, infringe the topic ban. Similar to SirFozzie, I think we should consider modifying the remedy to prevent this issue, while still allowing Malleus to take part in the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isarra, each of those comments to Malleus you linked to were pertinent to the RfA candidate. However the hopscotching between wiki and talk page is a problem. Not sure what to do about that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum

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

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


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


 * Support
 * As I stated above, we have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to work around MF's habitually incivil behavior. However, his behavior (both in the recent request, as well as here) has shown that MF has decided that he does not need to comply with Wikipedia's norms and policies when it comes to working with other editors. Thus, this motion. We've tried to manage the situation. We've tried to work around the situation. It's become clear that these efforts have not effectively resolved the situation, and that's why we're here. In this case, I preferred a time limited ban to an indefinite with appeals every six months because this way, MF can come back and if his behavior with other editors (even those he vehemently disagrees with) improves there's no further actions that need to be taken. I'm sure that MF would consider any ban that required them to ask the Committee to edit would be indefinite as in permanent, which is not what I want. SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before things get out of hand, I disagree vehemently with JClemens's "Never was a Wikipedian". I will state flat out that Malleus has done a LOT for Wikipedia. My thoughts on his behavior (and what might be required to curtail this behavior) do not in any way denigrate what he's done on the content side. I think the best reaction possible is that MF listens to Brad, myself and the other people who have urged him to correct the behavioral issues, and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I will go so far as to say here what I said on his page. If he promises to try, I would fight any efforts to put him under "Zero tolerance" or any such remedies. I know it can be very hard to maintain one's temper when angered, and I am fully willing to forgive occasional lapses as long as it's not a continuing pattern. But that's contingent on him meeting us halfway.
 * Unfortunately, Malleus has decided that he would rather be banned then meet us halfway, and thus, I have to reluctantly un-strike my vote. We gave Malleus every chance here, all he would have to do is soften his edges a bit. That apparently is not possible, and thus, we have to move on. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was afraid that matters would escalate to this point (a case request followed by another issue within a couple weeks) when we were deciding the Civility Enforcement case. I proposed a ban against Malleus at that time, but was the only one to support it, as the rest of the community felt that the issue was more localized and the community could handle any problems elsewhere. It seems clear now that they can't, however, and so no other option save a full, indefinite, site ban remains to us. To Malleus, I strongly advise you to reconsider how you interact with others on your return to the project should this motion pass, and immediately should it not. It is the nature of a collaborative project that you're not going to get on with everyone, but responding with such vitriol will only serve to further inflame issues. To those who oppose this motion, I strongly advise to you that you work with the rest of the community to form some means of properly enforcing the Fourth Pillar and establish some expected standards of decorum for this project, so that matters like this can be resolved with much less drama and more equitably in the future. To that last bit, yes, I would not be surprised if in the noise we did miss some nasty attacks directed towards Malleus which prompted some of his responses. Does that justify Malleus's actions? No, two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when you're under sanction for those same wrongs already. Do Malleus's responses justify the attacks? Same thing applies, except that I'd imagine the vast majority of those making the alleged attacks aren't under any form of sanction - thus making action on the Committee's part somewhat premature absent a full case (which we already did earlier this year). So if you don't like it, do something about it yourselves. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred a case in order for us to look at alternative solutions as I dislike having to remove a hard working and useful contributor, but as there is no stomach for a case, and as it is clear that MF is continuing to behave in an unpleasant and disruptive manner despite ArbCom sanctions, then I will support this. If someone wants to write up some kind of workable topic ban that forbids MF from ALL talkpages (other than GAN related and his own userpage) as well as adminship pages, I would prefer that. Perhaps a topic ban from all non-main space pages, except for FAC and GAN related and his own talkpage?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (General, not about Malleus) Letting people edit an article, but not that article's talk page is a recipe for disaster. That would let people get into editing disputes, but prevent them from resolving them. (The reverse, you can edit talk pages but not articles can work, but not that.) Courcelles 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I would have preferred a case, so we could discuss and fine tune solutions, and research aspects of MF's behaviour; see if claims that he is "baited" are true; examine the behaviour of others toward MF. Does anyone know off-hand if he engages in disruptive behaviour on article talkpages? I know he can be abrupt to the point of hostility at times, but does this occur (at all? - much?) on article talkpages? If not, then perhaps allow participation on article talkpages? When the sanction to topic ban MF from RfA talkpages was proposed I was not in favour as when I researched into his conduct there it was robust, but not excessively so - and his conduct did not seem to be inordinately inappropriate to the level and flavour of the discussions taking place. What is clear, though, is that disruption is in attendance with MF when he has the space to give his personal opinions - particularly of other users. I have been disappointed that a user who has such wide respect (and there is a lot of support on this page), should - even when sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility - continue to be needlessly hostile to other users. None of us are here to be insulted - each person adds their own contribution in their own way, and when a user makes a mistake there is an appropriate way to advise them of that so that they remain motivated, on task, and learn from the experience. Making a mistake is never a problem - it is how we and others react to the mistake that matters. I recently became aware of this discussion in which an experienced and respected GA reviewer felt so intimated by MF's comments that he was talking about giving up reviewing completely. It would be worth examining this incident to see what had led to that decision. There are other such moments regarding MF. Comments above where people are responding as though this motion is about one incident are perhaps either not aware of MF's profile or are wishing to only focus on that incident to make this motion appear unreasonable. I have a lot of respect for MF, and have never had any problems with him. I have recommended him a number of times to other users for conducting GA reviews or doing copy-editing, particularly where some thought, care and intelligence were needed. I would much rather we find a solution which allowed MF to contribute, but which encouraged him to avoid areas which get him into trouble. Failing that, a six month ban is preferable than to allow matters to go on after he has been brought to ArbCom for the third time this year. We would be sending out a very bad message if we let this go without some kind of response.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pausing to look at other options.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and I agree with this motion. Making decisions by motion is most distasteful, unless we are merely making minor improvements or changes to an existing sanction. However, while this is a heated issue, it is also very simple (and therefore compatible with decision-making by motion). Due process aside, the only legitimate response to the issue is also very simple: as an influence on Wikipedia, Malleus is a net negative. I don't believe I've ever came across a contributor who is so disruptive and who has also lasted so long without the community or ArbCom banning them; admittedly, there have also been few other cases where a contributor is, variously, so disruptive and beneficial. More relevantly, I don't believe we can continue to accept this kind of behaviour from Malleus. It's time for him to go. If this ban passes, I hope that he will learn to conduct himself appropriately before returning. AGK  [•] 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * LC, you make the incorrect assumption that MF's conduct does not directly damage the willingness of editors to continue contributing. As you know, an axiom of Wikipedia policy is that helpful contributions do not excuse disruptive behaviour. Do you disagree, do you believe that Malleus has not behaved disruptively, or do you object to the motion on some other grounds? I am willing to read your rebuttal, if only you will explain it. AGK  [•] 21:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If Malleus promises to interact with other editors in a proper manner, I would be minded to pursue some remedy other than a site-ban. For Malleus' benefit, this is the sort of thing that has broken my patience (and, I presume, that of my colleagues who support this motion). Whether or not an editor's challenge of your changes or comments is correct, you owe it to less incisive or experienced editors to phrase your responses in such a way that the interaction is not made disgustingly unpleasant. You know how to speak to other editors; we only want you to make a credible effort to do so. AGK  [•] 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In essence, I mostly, but not entirely, agree with my colleagues above. I consider this motion to be acceptable, if a little harsh. If another motion is proposed for a lesser amount, such as 3 months, I'll support the other motion as my first choice, and make this my second. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Following discussion on the mailing list, and on my talk page, I'm indenting my vote in the hope we can agree on a less harsh remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Malleus has never been interested in upholding the fourth pillar, even if you presume that he has a differing interpretation of what constitutes civility. He has had plenty of chances to do so, and has intentionally avoided behaving in a collegial manner despite those chances. It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, at some point in the past abandoned whatever commitment he had to the fourth pillar, and ceased to be a member of the Wikipedia community.  The pillars define the community and the project, and are not subject to wholesale redefinition (though refinement goes on constantly) by the community; they are our social contract with the WMF, our readership, and each other. Those who say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, conduct shouldn't matter if someone is contributing content" are guilty of promoting the first pillar over the fourth.  As such, it is appropriate to recognize that it is in embracing all the pillars that an editor is truly a community member.  Vandals, POV-pushers, self-promoters, and copyright violators are all eventually shown the door if they will not reform their behaviors and work with ALL the pillars ALL the time.  Civility is no different, and while we can argue about whether Malleus was provoked, or justifiably upset at real wrongs, or started from a different set of cultural expectations, he's failed to self-reform even though he's clearly capable. Thus, Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been since ceased to be a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I'm not voting at this point, because I would like to see what comes from the discussion initiated by Newyorkbrad first. However, I take serious exception to your statement that "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian", and that we are acknowledging such a statement. You are making that statement personally in your individual role; the Committee as a whole is not. Risker (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Amended the statement based on comments on my talk page. Risker, I'd extend my invite to Newyorkbrad to you as well... If you think my statement is incorrect, feel free to articulating a basis for differentiating among the pillars. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I have already asked you to post the views you have expressed to the Committee on your talk page or in the current RFC. Feel free to edit them, however, I believe that given you are now acting as if the community agrees with your undisclosed position on civility, that the community has the right to know what those views are. Risker (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've articulated my views--that the civility pillar is as non-negotiable as copyright--in the above vote. Since the pillars define the community, it is not up to the community to agree with the pillars or not, any more than it is up to the community to agree with copyright issues. The assertion that I have some "undisclosed" position with respect to civility is simply not true--I've articulated on-wiki the same reasoning I articulated on the list. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we will disagree then on whether or not you have really disclosed your position. The community gets to interpret the pillars, and they're edited on a regular basis as interpretation changes over time. None of the pillars say "you're not part of the community unless you unfailingly follow all of these rules at all times"; keep in mind that the fifth pillar is also part of the foundation. Risker (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I know what you're referencing, but you're mischaracterizing it: my position is entirely public; the thought experiment on its implications is not, just like the rest of ArbCom internal deliberations. The fact that you'd call for disclosing such is curious and problematic, especially given some of your own comments in the discussion.  On the specific question of rules vs. principles, however, Malleus still loses.  One pillar can't usurp another, and while good editors can differ over the particulars of what is uncivil, Malleus' conduct over time is sufficiently consistent that WP:PACT applies, and the only substantial disagreement seems to be whether his admitted incivility is excused by his admittedly top-notch content work. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It stopped being a thought experiment when you started using this formulation in your voting. Risker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fozzie articulates my point of view fairly well. There's the canard thrown around that "competence is required", and that extends handily to conduct. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The comments were pertinent and the real problem lies with RfA itself. The amendment was needless and some discussion of mechanics was required. Later exchanges can be written off after an all-round souring of the atmosphere. The net negative seems to occur after a new discussion (such as this) is opened in a venue such as here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * God no. Perhaps I'm the only Arb who has done a job where you regularly got cussed at, but we need to knock on the head the idea that the standard is a workplace, with the editors as employees who can be disciplined for inappropriate language. No-one gets paid to work here, and some people regularly rail at what they see as 'the management'. This is what started all this lot off. I hesitate to say the appropriate model is a pub (Malleus' language would certainly get him thrown out of several taprooms of my acquaintance if addressed at mine host) but swimming pools (in the Uk at least) all have signs up saying 'no petting, no bombing, no running, no ducking'. There was no need for anyone to plaster a similar notice on this RFA, or to keep going when someone said "are you looking at me sunbeam." As to sanctions, I would have said the existing one worked - other that explaining to Malleus that he can't be blocked because someone else transferred his comments to the talkpage. I dont know if anyone was actually sanctioning him for trying to 'fix' that, but if so they need to have a bit more understanding of the underlying issue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why would anyone want to participate in a project - or anything - that's as much work as Wikipedia is, where they don't get paid, and it's apparently permissible for people to swear at you if they disagree with something you said? I'm not understanding the Britishisms, but nobody said that this has to be a workplace, and it's been long established - or so I thought - that Wikipedia was based on a collaborative environment. The sort of profanity and incivility Malleus uses whenever someone gets on his bad side (which frankly doesn't seem too difficult) is by definition corrosive to that environment and thus completely incompatible with it. This is the third time this year Malleus's conduct has been raised to this Committee - the first time we let him off with what amounted to a slap on the wrist, the second time we ignored him completely. If we continue to do nothing, we establish that this sort of conduct is perfectly acceptable. That is not the impression I got when I joined Wikipedia, nor is it the impression I'd expect one to get from reading about the pillars or our civility "policy." And if that is what we establish, that is not a project I am willing to contribute to. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's quite a common situation. Because if you are relying on volunteers you sometimes have to put up with the idiosyncracies of said volunteers. Because in Malleus's case, he doesn't go off at everybody - he doesn't go off at genuine content creators, at well meaning newbies, at people who ask for his help. He doesn't engage in random abuse, he doesn't target people for being black/gay/female/young/welsh or whatever. What he reacts badly to is being 'handled' by 'the management' (as he perceives it) - this is much, much less of a problem for the encyclopaedia than civil POV pushers skewing articles by eliminating their more forthright correctors, spammers, advertisers, political censors, sly vandals, Randy in Boise and anything that affects the continued creation and maintenance of accurate content. Do I wish MF would avoid taproom language - yes. Do I think editors are leaving the project in droves because he uses it - no.  If the cuss words are really such a problem, then go to the community with a swear box solution - 24hr block for every word on the list - and see if there's any support for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I might add that on most volunteer projects, you don't get to tell someone who has worked on it for years that they've never been a real part of it because they use foul language. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I commend to all the statements made by User:Littleolive oil above. I do wish certain parties (it's by no means just Malleus) didn't use quite so much bar-room language, because some people are genuinely upset by it. But I still believe that bullying is more of a problem than cussing, and something that we deal with very poorly, because it's much harder to identify and prove someone is bullying than it is just to point to the swears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While concerns have been raised regarding Malleus' ongoing participation at RFA, I have seen no evidence that these concerns extend to his participation elsewhere in the project. In light of that, a full ban seems unnecessary; if Malleus' participation at RFA is disruptive to the point where the existing remedy is insufficient—and I'm not yet convinced that this is indeed the case—then it should be sufficient to simply bar him from participating at RFA at all.  Certainly, it would be unfortunate to lose his valuable contributions in other areas because of a dispute in what is very much a non-essential area of the project. More generally, I'm not in favor of fixed-duration bans as a remedy in cases of this sort.  The subject of the ban is unlikely to undergo a dramatic change of heart merely due to the passage of X months—particularly as the ban expires automatically, without any requirement that the subject demonstrate a change in behavior either prior to or upon his return.  If someone's conduct is so bad as to warrant a long-term ban, then the ban should be indefinite, and should require that the subject demonstrate that the problem which led to it has been resolved prior to returning; otherwise, all we're doing is giving someone a few months to stew over how the evil Arbitration Committee is oppressing them. And, finally, to address the point raised by Jclemens: Malleus is a Wikipedian; he has always been a Wikipedian; and he will continue to be a Wikipedian even if we ban him.  We cannot strip away someone's identity by motion, nor declare them an unperson because they no longer follow our party line. Kirill [talk] 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This does not in any way address the issue that was brought to us. The answer to the original question is "Yes, Worm That Turned did it right". It is a pitiful shame that we on the Committee do not regularly prune out irrelevant commentary from requests like this; it leads to bad outcomes on a regular basis. I agree wholeheartedly with Kirill's last paragraph. Risker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, no matter which way this goes, Kirill's last paragraph is dead on. Labels are... I sort of think a waste of time, at least in trying to deny someone else a label they desire to claim when there is no harm in just letting it rest. Whether Malleus wants to wear this label of "Wikipedian" is for him to decide, not for us to take away, even if we vote to ban him. We can disagree on whether he should continue to enjoy editing privileges without ever going down that road again.  My mind on all of this is very, very conflicted.  If Malleus continued with his conduct at the level it was at, I feel like this was an inevitable happening.  But this, in this manner, at this time... I can't support it.  Lets do something about the problem presented in the request and make the last clause of this motion a separate vote.  See if that solves things. I think I realized on my last drive today (I'm moving house at the moment) that expecting Malleus to say he would change was not likely to happen.  What I think will happen if this motion fails is that he will silently work on his conduct and use of language.  If he does, we all win here.  If he doesn't, then there will be people who can point out my naivety.  Whatever. I'll propose something I think might work and solve the question asked of us in a few moments. Courcelles 04:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain

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


 * Discussion
 * Torchiest, we've tried things short of a full site ban to resolve this. Malleus's behavior has been repeatedly before the Committee, and he was sanctioned and warned to not repeat them in the Civility Enforcement case. It is just not on to refer to people you disagree with as "dishonest fuckers", "dishonest twats" etcetera. Malleus has been given every opportunity to change the behavior, and has not. This is the logicial conclusion of these steps. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting the motion, but I really would like to see where this conversation goes before voting. Malleus clearly values this project very highly (anyone who puts in the time he has here has to), so the question is not, and can not be, is he a Wikipedian; of course he is. What we need to decide is whether he is willing to work to conform his behaviour to the standards of the project.  The Civility Enforcement case should have been a clarion call to do this, but this motion right here is the last one.  You can, and so often do, work in an excellent manner without insults.  This isn't a witch-hunt, of the six Arbs in support at this time, three of them voted against banning Malleus earlier this year when they had the chance, none of us want to do it.  That said, we need a thoughtful commitment to really work on these issues -- not perfection, just better -- and we can move on. (Perhaps with just the second part of this motion, extending the RFA topic ban actually going through)  As this sits at 6-2, and 7 supports passes it, perhaps anyone who hasn't voted yet should just wait, sleep on this, and see where the talk page comments go.  If we have to do this, pass this motion, we can do it over, or even after, the weekend... (not that anyone wastes time reading the "Courcelles is about to go to bed" ramblings anyway ;) ) Courcelles 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also noting the motion and awaiting the outcome of the discussion on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page before voting. Risker (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)

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

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

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


 * Support
 * Lets TRY and find something that works without tossing Malleus to the curb. Maybe this will, maybe it won't, but lets slow down and THINK about this.  Other ideas, lets talk about them; and feel free to copy-edit the heck out of this idea. Courcelles 04:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with this, and I think Malleus could probably do so as well. Risker (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At least it clarifies the situation at RFA - threaded comments should be removed altogether rather than removed to the talkage - which was what got us here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This addresses the original concern, at least. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the best we can do, but I accept that the Committee have no stomach for a full case, and this is something that we can try. If it doesn't work then the new Committee can have another go next year. (And if someone else offers something better in the next few days I'll go for that instead).  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Risker, although I shudder to see that "!vote" has now entered the Committee's official lexicon. Kirill [talk] 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Worth trying to address it in less drastic steps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This will succeed only if Malleus voluntarily improves how he interacts with other editors. I'm willing to try this motion out, on the understanding that we are giving Malleus a "final final chance". AGK  [•] 12:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Discussion
 * I think we require time to look at MF's conduct in RfA to see exactly how bad it is; we need time to consider MF's behaviour in other areas of Wikipedia to see if the flares up occur just in RfA; we need time to look at when and why MF flares up, to see how much truth there is that MF only responds when he has been unjustly provoked; we need time to work out appropriate solutions. And if it is decided that MF is topic banned or site banned or has a language restriction imposed, then we need to have the rationale for our actions because without that rationale there may well be some disaffection.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I understand the thinking behind banning MF from RfA, the recent case request did not emerge from RfA. We know that MF is occasionally hostile, and we know that on some of those occasions there is extended drama and conflict. We also know that MF is under sanction and has been admonished for incivility. We also know that despite this, he has continued the conduct that has caused concern for some parts of the community. As such a total siteban makes some kind of sense. I'm not sure a ban on just one part of the site when detailed research has not been carried out as to how much of his incivility relates to this part of the site in comparison to other parts, is satisfactory. I can see that this current incident has arisen from RfA, but that's only because the case earlier this year emerged from RfA, and a sanction applicable to RfA was drawn up. But if the case had resulted from the recent case request rather than the one earlier in the year, then would we have applied an ANI topic ban instead? I don't have the time at the moment to conduct the research, but my feeling is that the situation is a little more complex than just RfA.
 * I am however considering accepting this motion as I don't want Wikipedia to lose a valued contributor if it can be avoided. I am concerned about the impact of incivility on parts of the community, as that is a serious issue - but we really don't know who is driven away (if any), and who are not joining (if any). There is strong support on this page for MF, that cannot be ignored. And at the same time, a curious low level of participation from those who are concerned about incivility. It may have something to do with some of the comments that some of my fellow Committee members have made, and people not wishing to be associated with those comments; but that is speculation. The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want. And the emails I have got have not been clear.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Request for amendment (August 2014)

 * ''Original request

Initiated by  Protonk (talk) at 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 4


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Eric Corbett
 * Drmies


 * Information about amendment request


 * Topic Ban, AN discussion, user talk discussion
 * Per this request, the topic ban on be amended to exclude 's talk page.

Statement by Protonk
I'm filing this request as an uninterested party, as it appears WP:CONEXCEPT forbids Drmies from allowing Eric to speak about RFA on his talk page. As such, the discussion on AN cannot result in any useful outcome.

Statement by Eric Corbett
I wasn't asked about this, and I don't want the terms of my topic ban to be amended. That's all I have to say on the matter. Eric  Corbett  20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by Drmies
Thanks but, since Eric isn't interested, no thanks. Let's file this very quickly. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Yeah, as per Drmies. A well-intentioned consequence of a thread elsewhere but now obviously not appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If the proposed amendment isn't even something Eric is interested in pursuing, I don't see why we'd need to consider it. I'd therefore decline, without prejudice toward Eric making any requests of his own in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Seraphimblade and Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with my colleagues.  Roger Davies  talk 06:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per everyone above. T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what we need to do here. Decline. AGK  [•] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was recused the last time this was here. I'm not going to agonize over whether I'd still be recused, as my comment would be "I agree with everyone else" anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for amendment (December 2014)
Initiated by  Hawkeye7 (talk) at 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Self, no confirmation needed


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement

Statement by Hawkeye7
As of December 2014, I have contributed to 39 Featured Articles, a featured list, 75 A class articles, 178 Good Articles, and 163 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, being re-elected to a fourth term in September 2014. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and written articles and reviews for the MILHIST newsletter. I assist at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have also written and maintained the MilHistBot and FACBot used by the featured article and MILHIST A-class article processes, and for updating the MILHIST announcements page. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball and rugby, and the games in Sochi in 2014. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 on a scholarship from the Wikimedia Foundation. I also ran, albeit unsuccessfully, for the post of president of our Australian chapter.

In all of these activities, the loss of my admin tool set has been keenly felt. It is embarrassing to have to file constant requests for admin assistance, and painful to watch DYK run late because I cannot reset the queues. I am not seeking to have my admin status returned; merely to be restored to being a editor in good standing with the community by having the verdict against me vacated. Per WP:CLOUD: ''exceptions may exist in some cases, for example reinstatement may be by Arbcom appeal or perhaps consensus was reached to leave the matter a particular way at the time. This often happens in cases where passage of time is needed to decide what is fair, where demanding reaffirmation could actually be seen as unfair or impractical''. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

An earlier request in 2012 so I could be a candidate in the ArbCom election that year was dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a later date, on the grounds that ArbCom was fully engaged in that year's elections. I was hoping that the community might adopt proposed measures to supplement or replace the RfA process. Chances of reform have now dimmed, but I chose to wait until after a recent case had close before refiling. ArbCom have criticised me for being a poor politician, but I have always tried to do the right thing, and I hope that the Committee will consider this request.


 * @Thryduulf I am asking for the verdict against me to be vacated. The last sentence differs from the conventional wording, "may regain the tools via a request for adminship". In my case, ArbCom retained the right to overturn the RfA verdict. It also precludes the use of an alternate mechanism in the event of reform of the RfA process.
 * @Newyorkbrad Thanks for your comments. You will be sorely missed when you leave ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade The admonishment was part of the Racepacket case. A conflict between an editor (LauraHale) who was a close friend of mine, and one called Racepacket spiralled out of control, with Racepacket harassing her, and attempting to contact her employer about her Wikipedia editing. This resulted in an RfC/U, and then an ArbCom case. My part was quite minor. The Olympics Project decided to rename one of the articles she was editing, and had up for GA review. Racepacket jumped in, and the GA bot became confused, resulting in multiple copies of the review being generated. The tools were needed to fix this problem, so I stepped in. When Racepacket interfered, I blocked him for 48 hours while I repaired the articles. It was very wrong of me to do this. Another admin (Ironholds) reviewed my block, found that it was improper because I was WP:INVOLVED, and switched the block to a more reasonable one of a week. When the case went to ArbCom, my bad block was again reviewed, and I was rightly admonished by the Committee. There was only one admonishment. Ironically, while the case was ongoing, ArbCom put a stay on my content work, so I only did admin work for a time. ArbCom criticised me for issuing very few blocks, so I became more involved in this area. Racepacket's one year ban was subsequently extended after he made comments about me on another Wiki, which ArbCom did not choose to share with me. Every now and then one of his socks shows up, and I file another SPI.Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade The second case, which happened a year later, involved the editor now known as Eric Corbett. I had never had any interaction with him before, and knew nothing of him. When I came in, he had been blocked by one admin, and then promptly unblocked by another. He then said this, and I blocked him. The case went to ArbCom, which defined wheel-warring as "undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator". At the time I believed that I had not done this, but ArbCom ruled otherwise. The one week block was not overturned. During an appeal for admin assistance I said that Eric seems to be a koala (an Australian military term meaning a protected species). This was considered an egregious personal attack, but I had not meant it that way.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade I would prefer never to block anyone again. Ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio giuliano You seem to have forgotten that you wheel warred by lifting my block without any attempt at discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio giuliano Citation required. Point me to the section that says that ArbCom clerks are above the law, and I will give you one of my signed golden apologies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs I have not been in any trouble for three years, but that means little because the case continues. I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf I found some more:
 * MONGO 2 (January 2008)
 * Tango 2 (October 2009)
 * Herostratus 2 (June 2010)
 * Jéské Couriano 2 (August 2011)
 * PumpkinSky (October 2012)
 * MONGO 3 (November 2012)
 * Piotrus 2 (May 2013)
 * There were two successful ones, both in May 2011, neither of whom had been desysopped for cause:
 * SarekOfVulcan (May 2011)
 * HJ Mitchell (May 2011)
 * When ArbCom votes to desysop, it does so with the expectation that the admin may leave immediately after their desyop. Up to 2010, 13 out of 29, or nearly half, did so. (This is not counting 13 more who were also blocked.) Since 2010 though, only one has done so; another 11 chose to stay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @ GorillaWarfare: (1) I am not going to run for ArbCom. (2) The remedy specifies only RfA, so if another mechanism is put in place, it is not available to me. (3) ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time So the clause about RfA can be removed by a vote by ArbCom. Therefore, the result of any RfA would be subject to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth The practice of desysopped admins leaving was brought up by in 2011, so there was an assumption (well-founded) that desysopped admins will leave. It has now dropped to 1 in 12, which is about the same as editors leaving after being rejected by RfA. The Arbs would have that figure in mind when making any decision about desyopping. (Some of the desysopped admins have since left, but it is not possible to tell whether or to what extent their desysopping entered into the decision.) Another change since 2010 has been the interpretation of WP:CLOUD by the bureaucrats, which is now less literal and more expansive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox I was asking for permission to not have to use RfA, which is broken, and I felt that ArbCom's handling of the case, which has gone on for another three years, was a compelling reason. Are saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should either face RfA or leave? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @NE Ent That's a good reason, but he could have and should have asked me to lift the block instead of "undoing each others' administrative actions without ... discussion with the initiating administrator". Salvio's comment was directed at me; it was not a ban or a restriction on Eric, who was perfectly entitled to do what he did, which was to go on editing as usual. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The relevant remedy reads, in full, "Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time."

Given the last sentence, I don't understand what is being asked of the committee? It seems clear to me that ArbCom has declared that it has no objection to the community giving Hawkeye7 admin status following a request at RFA whenever they (the community) feel he can be trusted with the tools - there is no need to get the committee's permission to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not reading the power of veto in that sentence that you are, particularly as the "conventional wording" post-dates your case. RFA reform has been in discussion for a long time, but serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process first emerged long after your case so the intent of the restriction is clearly only to distinguish between requesting adminship from the arbitration committee and requesting it from the community (or from Jimbo).

In any case I don't see the need for this to be vacated - at most replacing the final sentence with the now standard wording or "Hawkeye7 may regain the tools following a successful request for adminship at RFA or alternative community-sanctioned process". However, I think all that is actually needed is a clarification from the Committee that the wording used here means the same thing as the standard wording.

To avoid the issue arising again in future, it may be worth the committee explicitly stating (by motion?) that if the community sanctions an alternative process or processes to the current RFA (whether a direct replacement or not) then any editor who has been desysopped by the Committee with instruction/allowance to reapply at RFA or by "request for adminship" may use such any alternative process (they would be entitled to use if they had never held the tools in the first place) without explicit permission from the Committee. I would strongly encourage them to use better wording than that though! Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such list, but I've looked through all the closed nominations from 2014, and this year there have been three former administrators who stood at RFA. All of them resigned under a cloud rather than being actively desysopped, and all three were unsuccessful: It's now 2am, so I haven't looked at 2013 or earlier and probably wont get time to do so for a day or two. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan 3 (resigned March 2013, self-nominated at RFA January 2014)
 * Piotrus 3 (resigned November 2009, nominated by Malik Shabazz and Cirt in February 2014)
 * Mkativerata 2 (resigned February 2012, self-nominated August 2014)

"Are [you] [Beeblebrox] saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should either face RfA or leave?"


 * I think it is clear what is meant here:


 * If you want to be an administrator again on the English Wikipedia you must ask the community.
 * You can ask the community at any time.
 * You can ask the community by way of an RFA
 * If or when an alternative or replacement process for RFA exists, you may use that process to ask the community to grant you adminship
 * Arbcom will not overrule the wish of the community expressed at RFA (or other community process)
 * Arbcom will not grant you adminship without you having asked the community at RFA (or other community process)
 * Arbcom will not vacate their original ruling, because it was accurate at the time and does not prevent you asking the community for adminship at any time.
 * Editors who have been desysopped by the arbitration committee have the following options available to them:
 * Appeal to Jimbo
 * Appeal to the committee (iff there has been a mistake or new evidence arises)
 * Ask the community for adminship at RFA (or other community process)
 * Continue to improve the project as a normal editor
 * Leave the project
 * Option 4 is, for editors who have not also been banned, always the preferred outcome in the short term. Longer term, options 3 and 4 are equally desirable.

Speaking personally, I'm starting to perceive your attitude as expressing a lack of trust in the community because they might not agree with you that your desysopping was a great injustice and the project needs you back as an administrator. It also feels like you are trying to use your adminship as an ultimatum - resysop me or I will leave and never come back, and see how much worse off the project will be without me. None of which are traits I look favourably on in admin candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Harry Mitchell
I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist and DYK and I have the utmost respect for his work. He has made some mistakes in the past, and I won't dispute that the events leading up to the desysop were—shall we say—not his finest hour, but I thought at the time (and, now that I know Hawkeye better, have no doubt) that the 'personal attack' was a misguided attempt at humour with no malice intended. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (as near as makes almost no difference, three years' worth—half a lifetime on Wikipedia). I believe Hawkeye has redeemed himself, and has amply demonstrated his trustworthiness. If we had a suitable process for (re-)appointing administrators, Hawkeye would be an admin again. But the standards at RfA have little, if anything, to do with what would make a good admins and more to do with extracting a pound of flesh from candidates in retribution for perceived wrongs by the candidate, RfA, Wikipedia, The System&trade;, or something else.

Although I understand the reluctance to get back to reinstating removed admin rights, ArbCom does have the ultimate ability (ArbCom giveth, ArbCom taketh away, blessed be the name of ArbCom!) to do so, and I would echo Anthony's comments that devolving such authority to the community (while in principle an idea I heartily support) while the community has no functional process to make such decisions would be unwise. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An analogy comes to mind that, to me, nicely addresses the jurisdictional/constitutional argument against this request: for ever other remedy, ArbCom retains the sole jurisdiction to vacate the remedy. ArbCom is not in the habit of posting appeals by editors it has site-banned on ANI, nor does it tell editors topic-banned by arbitration remedy to appeal to the community, so why would it insist that an admin desysopped by remedy go through RfA (which, as a side issue, is a broken process that is the greatest act of masochism on Wikipedia)? It seems out of sync with all other arbitration remedies. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Hawkeye is crystal clear that he is not asking the Committee to restore his admin bit. Why then is almost the entire response from the Committee discussing Committee re-sysopping? Of course if the Committee were to take such action it would be welcome, no doubt, but perhaps it is better to focus first on the question of restoring the more intangible but more important "good standing". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Eric Corbett
Hawkeye7 demonstrated quite clearly at the recent GGTF ArbCom case that he has not moved on and is still carrying his grudges around with him. It would be a grave mistake for him to be re-sysopped without undergoing an RfA. Eric  Corbett  18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested policy link from NE Ent
Arbitration/Policy states "The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages." Obviously an editor has to be unblocked if the committee desires they participate on case page; Salvio's unblock statement made it clear the purpose was not to allow the individual to return to editing the rest of the project. NE Ent 21:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The record of Salvio's unblock is clear [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMalleus+Fatuorum]; he unblocked Eric at 10:51, 22 December 2011, "Clerk note: I've just unblocked you for the limited purpose of responding to this request.", Eric replied he would not participate and requested a reblock, which 28 bytes did at 18:08, 22 December 2011. Eric made no edits outside his talk page during that period. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20111223000000&limit=13&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Malleus+Fatuorum&namespace=] NE Ent 12:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Civility enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Hi That is indeed a stellar body of work. It is true that we still have jurisdiction over the case but, even at that time, the committee was moving away from reinstating sysop privileges (something it had once regularly done) and leaving it to the community to make the call. There is no bar to you going to RFA and this is touched on in the remedy discussion. ArbCom has been seeking for some time to return peripheral responsibilities (which it has had foisted on it as part of a delegation of God-King powers) and, regretfully, this is one which I would be very reluctant to resurrect.   Roger Davies  talk 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As far I can see, the last time ArbCom resysopped someone was in 2009. Since then, the updated Arbitration policy has been ratified, giving ArbCom authority in its own right and incidentally superseding our earlier authority as a delegation of Jimmy's powers (which includes the power to sysop). In the process, the policy limited ArbCom's jurisdiction to removing sysop privileges. However, we do have the authority, as part of our ongoing jurisdiction over cases, to restore the tools when we withdrew them because a fatal error in an earlier decision. We have never been down this route because truly fatal errors are rare and because we are not in the business of re-writing history for the dozens of former admins who were desysopped by us or resigned under a cloud. The sysop/desysop process has three components: (a) community consensus, which determines who may receive the tools but not who may lose them; (b) ArbCom, whose decisions determine when an admin loses the tools but not who may gain them; and (c) the bureaucrats who independently and after due diligence execute the sysop/desysop process and we have no authority (apart from a vague term in the "Management of websites" section of the Terms of Use) to compel them. What ArbCom certainly does have the jurisdiction to do - always assuming that sufficient cogent arguments and persuasive examples would be provided to convince arbitrators to accept - is hear a case about serious conduct issues arising at RFA, the resulting toxicity/dysfuntionality of the RFA environment, and the consequent misapplication of policy/guidelines there. In such a situation, ArbCom could issue temporary injunctions, mandate a binding RFC to resolve the issues, or impose procedures to ensure that RFA is policy-compliant, and issue injunctions in the interim. In other words, while ArbCom cannot resysop desysopped individual admins by fiat, it can do something within the framework of a case. Roger Davies  talk 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction to this request differs from Roger's in that I would be open to restoring adminship to an administrator we had previously desysopped where circumstances warranted, consistent with decisions this Committee has made on occasions in the past. ¶ In this instance, I cast the sole vote in opposition to desysopping Hawkeye7 in the original case in February 2012 (see, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision). My view at that time was that while Hawkeye7 had significantly mishandled the incident that led to the case, there were mitigating factors, one of which was that the matter would likely never have come before this Committee at all if it had not happened to involve a particular editor, and another of which was that I saw little likelihood of repetition of the incident. ¶ If Hawkeye7's description above of his contributions since February 2012 is a fair one, which I have no reason to doubt but on while I will await community input, I believe that more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct we found, and I would be inclined to vote to grant this request. ¶ That being said, based on evolution in this Committee's practices in recent years, I anticipate that this approach might not receive majority support from my colleagues. In that event, I hope that the community would be open to a new request from Hawkeye7 at RfA (particularly if he agrees in such request to avoid controversial blocks). In addition, if the community were to create a new or revised approach to selecting administrators in addition to or in lieu of RfA, nothing in our prior decision would bar Hawkeye7 from applying and being considered under such approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For crystal clarity:
 * (1) No one is disputing that Hawkeye7 is eligible to file a new RfA at any time if he chooses to, and that if he passes the RfA, he will be an administrator again without any action required by this Committee. In the past, on occasion we have imposed "do not resysop without ArbCom's permission" only in a couple of cases where heavy non-public information was involved in a desysopping. This is not in that category and we specifically did not make that statement here.
 * (2) No one is disputing that if the community creates a new avenue for selecting administrators, in addition to or in lieu of RfA, then Hawkeye7 is eliglble to apply for that avenue without ArbCom's permission either beforehand or afterwards. The wording of the remedy adopted several years ago, long before the current discussion about potentially replacing or supplementing RfA, was not at all intended to lock in the then- or now-current RfA system. If anyone thinks there is genuine as opposed to theoretical doubt about this point even after this thread, we can pass a motion, but I think it would be the height of bureaucracy.
 * (3) When I initially read Hawkeye7's amendment request here, I took his statements about how he could use admin tools again, has contributed well in the past three years, and didn't think RfA was really open to him as a request that we restore his adminship. If that is not what he meant, I think the clarification we have provided has achieved the purpose of his request. I remain open to considering terminating the sanction and restoring his adminship by Committee motion if he were to make that request, but the point is moot if it is not what he is or was requesting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Newyorkbrad I actually believe the committee should, in some cases, move to restore an administrator's status. That said, although I have never interacted with him directly, my one memory of seeing Hawkeye on the encyclopedia outside the original case gave me a dim impression of him. On balance, I am undecided about this appeal. Although I disagree with the shift towards non-motion adminship restoration, I am also not minded to grant the petition for this particular user. I will continue considering and will read further statements with interest. AGK  [•] 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf says, "serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process" – RFA is unfit for purpose, as the entire project accepts, and it is therefore an unsuitable recipient of the committee's delegation of powers. AGK  [•] 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Close with no further action. AGK  [•] 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be minded to at least consider such a request. As AGK says, we all well know the current incarnation of modern RfA has its issues, to put it mildly. However, I would want to see the request, rather than say "I've done great things on articles and it's been a while since the issue," directly and specifically address the issues that led to both the initial admonishment and later desysop, and explain how Hawkeye7 intends to ensure that a third such incident will never happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The FOF was accurate and the consequent remedy was appropriate. In light of this, I think we should not vacate the relevant part of our decision. And, although I agree that the RFA system is broken and that it's far too difficult for good users to become administrators, I recognise that the principle so far has always been that the community grants the tools and ArbCom may review their use. ArbCom's remit is very limited and does not include the power to interfere in how the community appoints administrators, even if we were to consider it dysfunctional. I can see us regranting adminiship when we made a mistake, or when new evidence comes to light which should have been taken into consideration but wasn't or other, similar, and exceptional cases. This, in my opinion, is not one of them and I don't see why we should treat Hawkeye any differently from any other editor who wished to become a sysop simply because he already was one before being desysopped for cause. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I most definitely did not wheel war and I'll thank you for removing your unfounded accusation. Being one of the case clerks, I unblocked Eric for the sole purpose of allowing him to participate in the arbitration case about him, as was (and is) customary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio on this matter. I don't see the original FoF and remedy to be incorrect. As such, Hawkeye can reapply for adminship via an RfA at any time, but I don't see where it's acceptable for us to return it by fiat at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to why you're asking for the verdict to be vacated. You said above that you're not looking to have your admin status returned. You also say that ArbCom has the right to overturn the result of your potential RfA, but I don't agree that that's included anywhere in the remedy. The only reasons you seem to mention are so you can stand for election to the Arbitration Committee, or pursue re-adminship, neither of which is prevented in the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad that 'more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct'. I also agree with Hawkeye7 when he says 'I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances.' It would be better for ArbCom to recognise that a new RFA is difficult to near-impossible for desysopped admins, and to leave open a pathway for reinstatement of tools in some cases. However, given the resistance to that expressed by arbitrators here, what I would suggest Hawkeye7 do is the following: (i) make a list of all the times when the tools would have helped you in your routine activities around Wikipedia; (ii) At some suitable point, make a request for adminship and point to that list (if necessary, pledging not to use the blocking component of the tools); (iii) if the request for adminship fails or narrowly fails, then continue to make a list of the times when it would have helped you to have the tools, and continue to make your case to the community and/or ArbCom that someone needs to reform things so that we aren't in the silly position where routine use of the non-controversial components of the admin toolset are denied to long-term contributors who are clearly here to work on building the encyclopedia. (The same applies to any other editor who might struggle to pass RFA, but clearly would benefit from being able to use parts of the toolset). Incidentally, does anyone here know when the last time was that a desysopped admin made a request at RFA (both successful and unsuccessful)? Or even a complete list of such cases. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Thryduulf and Hawkeye7 for the examples. There are some other examples I am aware of where an administrator resigned the tools under a cloud (to be complete, those examples should be included as well) and didn't manage a successful return through RFA (the example I remember because I participated in the second RfA is Sam Blacketer 2). I agree entirely with what Newyorkbrad said in his 15:07, 9 December 2014 comments. Hawkeye7 is wrong to say that there is an assumption that desysopped admins will leave. The default should be that they stay and carry on building the encyclopedia (as Hawkeye7 has done), regain their good standing through their own efforts (as Hawkeye7 has done, IMO), and at some future point submit an RfA again if they wish to do so (this appears to be the sticking point). That is how it should work in theory. I think it can work in practice as well. RfA is not so broken that it rejects those who demonstrate a clear need for the tools and allow enough time to pass. I didn't participate as an arbitrator in the case where Hawkeye7 was desysopped (I wasn't on the committee), but I would likely participate in and support a future RfA if Hawkeye7 chose to file one, purely on the basis that granting the tools should not be such a big deal. The admin tools should be able to be taken away easily and returned easily, not built up to be something difficult to obtain and difficult to take away. Finally, if such an RfA passed, ArbCom would not be able to step in and overturn the result without justifying such an action (and from what I've seen, there would be nothing to justify such an action). ArbCom have not retained jurisdiction in this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that RfA is not fit for purpose - RfA is a place where you have to show the community that you're good enough to be an admin. There may well be better processes, but we don't have them yet - and RfA keeps the right people out and lets most of the right people through. Secondly, I do not approve of Arbcom reinstating the tools. The community absolutely needs a proper voice in such matters, and RfA is the right place to go. I would be willing to support a "statement" that sufficient time has passed that Hawkeye7 should be allowed to run through an RfA (which is not required, but may help), but I would not support vacating the Arbcom remedy. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Hawkeye wishes to be an admin again, he will need to ask the community to trust him again, and the way to do that is through RFA. I don't see a compelling case here to vacate the remedy, which on no way stops him from filing an RFA whenever he wishes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly (might, pending review) support this user's RfA, but I'm not in favor of vacating the remedy. NativeForeigner Talk 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)