Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence

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

Kaldari could you mention if any of those personal attacks are against non admins?
Whether or not Malleus is attacking non admins is important I think. You might not think the distinction is important, but the arbitration committee might find it useful. --ScWizard (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted evidence where he attacked two non-admins. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who he makes the attack against is immaterial. He shouldn't be making personal attacks, period. That's just my two cents on it. SirFozzie (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SirFozzie. Nevertheless, as a mute point, Yes, MF has been aggressive against many non-admins, diffs are already present within the case, and a comprehensive list would be ridiculously long. Has it been tolerated far too long? Yes! Should MF be immune from sanction because his content editing is remarkable? Absolutely not! My76Strat (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is how you feel, and the other arbitrators feel similarly, then it's pretty clear what the result of this case will be. --ScWizard (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should he be targeted for sanction when similar behavior from other users is ignored? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it will be quite useful to examine Kaldari's diffs with respect to what kinds of pages they occur upon. I say that because one thing that may be worth considering (I've raised it on the Workshop page) is a topic ban or similar editing restriction, short of a full site ban. If we find that there are certain places where civility is disrupted, then those might be places from which to restrict Malleus. On a quick read-through, a lot of the diffs are on his own user talk, or the user talks of his friends, where arguably they don't do much harm. A couple are at WP:RFA, which is something that Risker and SirFozzie specifically asked me about. Some, but I think not many, are on talk pages of articles where Malleus was helping with content improvement; I think that those are of particular interest in terms of assessing his value in improving content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that we should assess a users value with regard to policy enforcement is such an oxymoron, I cringe internally each time I see such a paring. We only need to no what is acceptable, (the rules) and what are the consequences (fairly applied with equal resolve). My76Strat (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the 28 personal attacks I listed, only 4 were directed towards admins. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My76Stat's evidence
My76Stat wrote, ''Alleging Hawkeye made a derogatory statement is an unacceptable conclusion. At best, an editor can only positively define their actions, not the motives of another. The only truthful statement Mkativerata can make to this regard is that they perceived the comment as derogatory.'' Now isn't that the fatal flaw with civility/NPA? In some cases, it is clear what is a civility issue but that line isn't always clear. What offends me may not offend you. Hell, sometimes it's the who who makes the comment more than what the comment is! Two users use the same word, from one it is a term of affection from the other an attack.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True to a point. But is that a "fatal flaw" or just the legal hole that people can lawyer through in the interests of defending the obviously indefensible. That grey areas exist, shouldn't prevent us calling black, black, and very-dark--grey, near enough to black to make no whit of difference. Anyway, if "cunt" is your idea of a possible term of affection, then I remain affectionately yours.--Scott Mac 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunt may not be the most civil term, but is calling an unnamed group of admins cunts really a blockable offense? That is where the gray line emerges.  Now fucking cunt at a specific person, that is hard to ignore.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cunt has been the most seriously taboo word in English for centuries and remains so for the vast majority of users." See pg 110,An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geoffrey Hughes.Buster Seven   Talk  00:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that's a direct quote, you should put that in parentheses, you know, and give a page number. While you're at it, read the rest of the entry--it's fascinating, and the brief quote doesn't do it justice. Seriously, one of these days someone should write an article on Gropecunt Lane  and get it promoted to FA. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I read the entry, 3 years ago.Buster Seven   Talk  15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Drmies, and perhaps if they write it well enough, they should also be permitted to insult who they please, how they please. It has been suggested. My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GRuban highlights an important point
If MF had the persistent habit of hurling racial insults at his pleasure, I can not imagine an advocate suggesting he is so valued that we should actually tolerate such conduct. It is troubling that so many are willing to condone his misogynous conduct, which clearly contravene the institutional goals of Wikipedia. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The goals referenced are that of WMF; there's no evidence they are the goals of the English Wikipedia.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, having an editing environment where women and men feel equally at ease ought to be our goal, whether it is or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really can't agree with the idea that MF is misogenist, at all. "The hatred or dislike of women or girls" ??? Where did you get that idea from?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, I did not say MF was anything. I did say his conduct, in the example shown, would contribute to a misogynous environment, a thing Wikipedia would be remiss to condone. My76Strat (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Balloonman may have introduced sarcasm
Stating MF "is worth a 100 of the rest of us", is grossly inaccurate and can only be reconciled as sarcasm. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * you're right, I forgot about all of the editors who make one or two edits then disappear... the number is probably closer to 1000 ;-)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I interpenetrated the sub-group called "the rest of us" to mean the group of participants to this case. My comment is framed from that perspective. My76Strat (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My subgroup is the wikipedia universe. When viewed against the people who contribute to wikipedia, then he is clearly worth 100 if not a 1000 typical users... the subpopulation that contributes here is probably (for the most part) in the top 10% of all users.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RE Balloonman
In response to your evidence, I doubt that there are only a handful of useful contributors when Wikipedia is so huge and growing each day. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, what I said "as his value to Wikipedia equaled only by a handful". And that is true, only a handful of users have the history he does and the dedication he does to this project.  While some great users come and go, very few have stayed or are likely to stay as active as he has for 5+ years.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I misread you. Sorry about that. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NP--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, you say at one point in your evidence that Malleus is worth 100 of the rest of us. I'm tempted to respond "speak for yourself". Now please don't get me wrong (either about what you meant, or about what I'm really worth!). I know you were pointing out his excellent contributions, and I actually am in agreement with you about that. But I think one of the things that the Arbs are going to have to figure out here is the extent to which we should or should not treat some editors as being "worth" more than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am speaking for myself ;-)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus is worth no more than five of me. Maybe six. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not even one of you, because I'm not an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All editors are invaluable! Comparative valuation is the nexus of discriminatory practices. While you are entitled to make self deprecating comments, in jest or otherwise, you are certainly not worth any measure less. While I won't stand silent while some elevate you above others, I would, and will speak against anyone, if ever, attempting to minimize you to a lower realm. I do not know what compels you to comment directed insults at clearly identifiable targets, but that must not be allowed. If you absolutely must, then take your block in stride. The easiest fix to this entire process, as it relates to you, is to stop the practice. Comment on content, not the editor. My76Strat (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding. Sorry Strat, you've left Mr. Rogers' neighborhood a long time ago. These editors are not valuable. And look at this: Special:Log/block. Ask yourself if those editors are valuable. I hate to complicate it even more, but some of those in the latter category may actually be blocked unjustly. Mind you, we're talking about editors, not about human beings. Bambifan may be a wonderful human being, but is not an "invaluable editor." To be frank, a lot of us are not invaluable, and some of us are more valuable than others. Not all editors are good, Strat (not all Strats are equal either--I'll take a pre-CBS Strat over you, sorry). Not all editors are as good at writing as Malleus, and not all editors are as helpful as Mandarax (or Malleus, or Ucucha, or...), or as nice as the Lady, or as beautiful as me. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably am over focused on human qualities. Admittedly, if I have a question I seek an answer from someone I believe will produce a correct answer. But a comment, framed as an insult and directed against a named individual, itself attacks the human qualities of the perhaps "less valuable" editor. Fred Rogers is dead, children are watching Family Guy, and teens prefer songs with explicit lyrics. That doesn't mean an insult should now be treated as a shortcoming of the insulted party, and enforcing civility doesn't mean Wikipedia should run like Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood. (I'd be the first running for the exit). It simply means a pre-CBS Strat is much more valuable than mine. My76Strat (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, yes, some editors are more valuable to Wikipedia than others. Now if you want to talk about a metaphysical or philosophical discussion about the value of a human life, that is a different discussion.  But when discussing the value to Wikipedia (which I explicitly included) then you have to admit that Malleus' contributions to wikipedia are significantly greater than those of 95%+ percent of wikipedians.  He has been involved both directly and indirectly in getting most FA articles passed---both in the review and revision process.  He is active in the GA process.  His contributions to the project are more long lasting than most of ours.  To the project, yes, he is more valuable than most (that's not to say that an argument can't be made that he's harmful as well... but the value of his contributions is significant.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the placement of MF in the top 5% of contributors fits with a 20 times figure on his value to Wikipedia as an editor. That seems to me to be about the right ballpark, if such guestimates mean anything at all. Geometry guy 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Top 5% is a gross underestimate, that's the top ~6.5k active contributors. If there were six and a half thousand editors being half as productive as MF the wikiverse would crumble under the weight of FA noms  Jebus989 ✰ 23:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an enchanting thought, but I am hardly persuaded. Rather than the crumbled wikiverse which you describe, I envision the chaos of a 6.5K magnitude increase in pointy drama, compounded by the misappropriated editing energy of those party to it. My76Strat (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Any more examples SL93?
Biting someone who tries to give you a barnstar is certainly an example of misbehavior. It's notable that he was not blocked in this case though, which furthers my point about incivility towards admins being met with disproportionate force.

It's also worth noting that while Malleus's manner was abrasive and completely uncalled for in that case he did not personally attack Warburton1368. He did personally attack Demiurge1000 though.

I'd be really interested in learning about more examples of incivility towards or attacks on non admins. --ScWizard (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not a personal attack, it is still uncalled for as you said. The barnstar giver even said that it hurt him, but Malleus didn't care and continued. I think that is just as bad as a personal attack. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to find an example from the same month where he told a non-admin to fuck off, but I will look for it tomorrow. Telling someone to fuck off, no matter what Malleus' supporters say, is always incivil. There are better ways to get someone to leave you alone. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sometimes telling someone to fuck off is proper--if, for instance, it is the only thing they seem to understand. Editors who have as many edits as does MF (or yours truly) sometimes run into situations where nothing else can be said to a persistently wrong editor. Sometimes people just don't get it, and sometimes they really just need to fuck off and to be told so. Admin or non-admin abuse--pshaw. Look at the circumstances surrounding Kaldari's block--that's worthy of an FU. As is pointed out by John on the main page here, most of MF's blocks were bad blocks, and to be blocked again for some bullshit is aggravating. Peons can't block back, you know. Look at how many fools and jerks think it's fun to swing by MF's talk page to gloat. This whole situation disgusts me, and that it's an opportunity for all of those folks to unload on a content writer whose contributions they can't hold a candle to makes this even more awful. Good luck going through MF's 100,000+ edits, SL. I hope you find what you're looking for. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus is much too free with phrases like "f--- off", although Kaldari's list shows that most of the incivility doesn't include swearing at all. Most of that incivility doesn't involve "persistently wrong editor[s]", either. Nor is Malleus always right – the confrontation on my talk page shows he's often transparently wrong, even if you agree with his main conclusion. Generally, "go away", or if necessary "go away or I'll resort to dispute resolution", gets better results than "f--- off". Art LaPella (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Go away or I'll resort to dispute resolution"--I'll keep that in mind. I saw that conversation a couple of weeks ago. I think "Jeez" was indeed the proper response to your transparently silly civility complaint, and I think it's a good thing you've kept your finger off the "Block Malleus" button. Sometimes accusing someone of incivility is itself an act of incivility. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At least it was "Jeez", not "f--- off". Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Such discussions are the initial stages of dispute resolution. A more diplomatic response would be: "I've made the point I felt needed making here, but I don't want to get into a lengthy argument about this. If we can both move on, let's do so, otherwise we need to discuss this calmly and see if we can agree on anything here." Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that well known content contributors can do as they please which seems to be the main argument for him. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious from MF's block log that he can't do as he pleases. Really. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But he never gets a full block. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you check your facts. Malleus Fatuorum 06:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

From the evidence page: Evidence presented by SL93
SL, I think we've gotten along well in the past, but that section just pisses me off. I don't know how you got it as wrong as you did, but you did. Look at what precedes the conversation on MF's talk page (your diff, I believe): Forth Valley Royal Hospital is nominated for GA and MF picks up the review on 31 July, when the article looks like this--really, like shit. It doesn't even have a lead, and I'd be embarrassed to even put that up at DYK. Four days later, it looks like this. Feel free to look at the history--you'll find one or two familiar names in there. Now, Warburton comes by to thank MF on his talk page, which is a nice thought--but he thanks him for copyediting. I mean, for fucking copyediting. SL, if you think that the difference between this and this is copyediting, then you probably had someone else write your freshman comp papers for you. To be thanked for copyediting in this particular instance is truly an insult, and that MF only said "So you think I just copyedited your article?" shows that he has more restraint than any of you lot give him credit for. "Thanks for copyediting" is a complete denial of all he has done for that article, and he doesn't get to pin the GA star on his vest. Demiurge's response is typical (Demiurge also seems to think that turning water into wine is a matter of copyediting), and again MF limits himself to an expression of some bewilderment--so if anything is to be regarded as disproportionate, it's your attempt to turn this into some kind of evidence: an excellent piece of work gets done away with as "copyediting," and a fair question in response is taken as a declaration of war by someone who was just looking for an excuse. And this is evidence of what, SL93? Of one thing only, perhaps: that writing quality content is merely a question of copyediting. Shit. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmies, one thing that troubles me here is the blithe acceptance that it is acceptable to review the history of an article and call early versions "shit" and later versions much better. That is undoubtedly a true statement, but it does nothing to help encourage editors who might indeed be producing "shit" (as you call it). Whatever happened to (as well as improving articles) helping other editors improve their writing? If someone you didn't know from Adam called an article you wrote "shit", would that encourage you to improve your writing or would you be offended? You might use the insult as motivation to improve, but others are more sensitive and will (not unreasonably) be offended. It is not just Malleus that engages in this sort of "look, I've improved your shit article" conduct (possibly under some misguided 'improving the article is the be-all-and-end-all and whether or not this involves insulting other editors doesn't matter' rationale). Have a look at the example here and here. Note that Malleus said in the first discussion linked: "It's a pity that I have no power to drive away the crap editors, only the good ones." The correct place to discuss the quality of articles is on an article's talk page (or some actual review process), not among a group congregating on a user talk page (which promotes insularity) where some editors feel they have free rein to say what they like (reminds me of the complaints some people have about IRC). That this incident was used nearly two months later as an insult just makes matters worse (I raised that matter here). If Malleus and a group of others had spent a whole week improving all the articles that went through DYK, and also provided helpful guidance to the editors concerned, that would be great. Taking one article and using insulting language about it is less helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * MF didn't say "shit," I did, and if anyone involved in the article is insulted (not you), then I apologize. I meant "shit" in comparison, of course, to the pearl that was promoted as GA. Now, if all you got out of my note here that I used a bad word, then I guessed I totally missed my point. In fact, I'm sorry I used the word, since it seems to give you an opportunity to sidestep the argument, which is that SL's piece of 'evidence' is a crock of, well, you know. How often have you been accused of driving away editors? Drmies (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was good of you to apologise here and below. My point was less the use of bad words, and more the use of superlatives. I wouldn't have described the version you linked as "shit", but then I wouldn't have described the GA version as a "pearl" either. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To whoever (Warburton? Edinburgh Wanderer? Demiurge?) is more or less responsible for the above-linked version: I apologize for referring to it as shit--that was uncalled for, and incorrect. It's not shit. It's not a GA, of course, and I don't think it should have been nominated as one, but it's not shit. I'll be more careful next time. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A thank you is a thank you no matter if it is off a bit or a lot. I do think that Malleus could have just corrected the editor instead of being like that. I may have pissed you off, but I find that surprising. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to jump in here - have been watching this and am frustrated. Drmies is right. I followed the incident, I looked at the article in question, and what Malleus did was re-write and not copyedit. When he was "thanked" for copyediting, he asked whether that's what he'd done -clearly he'd done much more to bring the page through GA. To have someone rewrite a page for you, help bring it through GA, and plop a copyeditors barnstar (which anyone can get for a basic number of edits at the GOCE) can be considered incivil to be frank. Civility is not all about rude language and I hope this case doesn't devolve into an issue of profanity. In other words, I don't necessarily think this is evidence of incivility against Malleus who in fact spent a great deal of time working on the page. Refusing to work on the page would have been incivil - but he helped significantly and he didn't have to. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever thought that the editor could have been confused about something? I took the assume good faith route because of the editor's second response. There was nothing else that could have caused me to assume he was trying to be incivil. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're asking for a community ban because of this specific incident, when in fact Malleus wrote and added an article to the encyclopedia, then my reaction is the same as Drmies'. I think that trawling his talk page to find "incidents" of incivility without a full investigation of what precipitated the issue also doesn't show good faith. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that he should be banned for every incident altogether instead of getting away with everything just because of his contributions. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look at your incoherent post again and just say what you mean without any lather. What on Earth does "every incident altogether mean" anyway? If I was to agree to whatever that means would you as well? Malleus Fatuorum 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, how would you react if Malleus insulted you? You became pissed off because of my post. You also called me either dumb or lazy when I said that you were acting like an asshole earlier. I took it back, but would you be fine with it if you were on the receiving end? SL93 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points: MF didn't call anyone anything. Second, if I said "thanks for the copyedit" when it is so blatantly obvious that he didn't just copyedit and he would call me an asshole (which is not something he's used to doing, I believe), I'd have to accept it. If I'm called an asshole by MF because I acted like one, I'd accept it, yes. I think this GA nomination brought up a lot of things that are wrong with the process: reviewers (and content editors in general) are expected to act like copyeditors, and when they turn water into wine they get thanked for fishing a fly from the cup. Going through the guy's entire history is ridiculous--you want to bring up things he got blocked for already? Punish him again? Even if (as so often turns out to be the case) the block was uncalled for? (See Balloonman's comment on "premature knee jerk blocks" on the Evidence page.) You're helping turn this into a witch hunt. In this case, your evidence is evidence of nothing against MF, who at least in this exchange acted very appropriately and showed more control than I am capable of. I would have turned that GAN down in the first place, and he didn't, out of a genuine desire to be helpful, to show other editors how to write Good Articles. "Thanks for the copyedit." C'mon, man. This particular incident is misread and misrepresented, and the entire case against MF is blown out of all proportion. Even if he did inappropriately referred to a section of a group of editors as cunts, what's it to you? Or me? He could be talking about me, for all I know--I haven't unblocked him, ever, even when I thought the block was wrong (I'm a sheep that way, I'll admit). People do worse things to me in traffic and in the classroom--I deal with it. So could you, if you chose to. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He always gets unblocked before the block expired. Second of all, he did call Spitfire a cunt in a diff that was already provided by Kaldari. . SL93 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hawkeye7 block just expired today without him having been unblocked. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, one. Big deal and people are calling him to be admonished or have his admin title revoked. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed my evidence. I will work on other things while this discussion ends. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you SL. I think you also have an interest in this process being as fair as possible. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Having been through a similar experience as detailed here&mdash;when I was thanked for my "little fixes" to an article I did a complete rewrite of, including resourcing and significantly expanding in order to save from deletion&mdash;I can attest to how insulting it is. I wasn't sure how to respond, because I wanted to say something to the affect of "Really?! Little fixes? Are you kidding me?" But I decided I didn't have time to even discuss it. I can't blame anyone with the gumption to let someone know how offensive it is to have high quality work devalued. Lara 03:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifying other editors mentioned
Is there an expectation that any editors mentioned in evidence or examples (like the one I provided above) should be notified? There are at least three editors relating to the example above that I could notify (asking them if they agree or disagree with what I've said), but given the large number of examples that may be used in this case, that could involve a lot of notification. In the initial statements, Elonka mentioned an incident where she warned Malleus about something he said in a discussion in response to what I said, but I only noticed that because I was reading the request. There may be diffs on the evidence page pointing to examples where those involved are unaware that the examples are being used (and possibly misrepresented) in an arbitration case. Where does the current balance lie as regards the need for notification? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just do what you would do in any other case.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think notification should occur. Its a bit like a class-action suit. Every stockholder is notified, even those with only one share. Let them decide if they want to participate. I'm sure there are many voices out in WikiWorld that would like to be heard if only the knew that other editors with the same experience would listenBuster Seven   Talk  15:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange evidence submissions
The way the evidence is being presented here (in some cases) is strange, and I'm unclear how it is going to help the arbs. One of our best content contributors (one who not only wrote a gob of FAs, but reviewed many and helped many other editors write them and numerous GAs as well) is most likely gone, so what are people hoping to accomplish by putting up evidence of his "civility" issues after that horse already left the barn? Is anyone going to look at the issue of what, if anything, admins and the RFA process did to lead to the end result and what kinds of findings the arbs can make to help put an end to involved admins blocking punitively instead of preventatively, and using an existing block log to justify more blocks? The arbs can't write our civility policy, that's the community's job. What is astounding about this case is that so many editors are rushing to throw in their two cents, yet dispute resolution completely failed here. No one ever started an RFC on Malleus, no one ever worked to clear up the civility policy, and no one heeded Geometry guy's pleas on the last Malleus ANI for admins to ... well, do what admins should do instead of just jumping to block people. With the kind of evidence being presented here, how are people thinking their evidence is going to contribute towards any meaningful findings to improve civility enforcement or the issues that lead to the friction between admins and content contributors? If the goal is to be rid of Malleus, that's already pretty well accomplished, so I hope someone will put up something here that the arbs can work with that will lead to findings that will improve the situation where admins are quick to block and unblock, but slow to understand issues, gain consensus, or encourage appropriate use of dispute resolution processes. At the rate this is going, I don't see what the arbs are supposed to work with. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because Malleus has commented about 60 times since his "farewell", and other editors have quit repeatedly. Art LaPella (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, but for those who want to rid the Wikipedia of Malleus, that's still not the point-- that will happen if it happens, but how will that address the underlying problems and the kinds of findings the arbs need to make for this to be a useful case? People say worse things to me weekly-- I don't go running to ANI, and they don't get blocked.  Yet Malleus was a target.  Is ridding the Wiki of Malleus  going to stop any of that?  If so, great, because I'd like to know why others can routinely say worse things to and about me and not even get a warning, and why it's ok for admins to target certain editors while ignoring others.  IF folks want to make an example of Malleus, great-- articles will be affected, while lesser quality editors will continue using Wikipedia for their playground while adding nothing to content unless this case proceeds in a way that the fundamental problems are addressed in findings.  This case isn't moving that direction.  The admin problem needs to be solved, too.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Warning: satire Sandy, what is wrong with you? Don't you get the fundamental difference between incivility to an admin and incivility from an admin? end of satire . I'll be adding a part two to my evidence (was waiting for the bot to do the word count thing). ArbCom can't actually fix this, but I'm reasoning hopeful they won't make things terribly worse. They're some of our better admins, imho. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it has as much to do with to or from an admin, as it does with how much time one spends on IRC and how many IRC friends one has. That's where most blocks are cooked up, and I can fersure tell you that some editors who have lots of IRC friends can talk to me or others however they want, while if I say "boo", they'll dig up a newbie friend to come over and have a "friendly chat" with me.  It's all about IRC and a social game.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)b
 * Why, why, why does this IRC-based conspiracy theory always turn up? It's getting to be like Godwin's law! And it so often seems to turn up coming from people who don't seem to hang out in IRC ... 99% of what happens there in -en is mundane chatter and play.  There's the occasional !admin stalkword from someone needing an immediate vandal-block, or an immediate page-protection, but as often as not the conversation is either nonexistent, or about gardens, clothes, food, drink, RPG's, pets, or almost anything else under the sun.  Why is there no "it's all part of people emailing each other privately" conspiracy? or "phoning each other" conspiracy or "meeting up" conspiracy?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is logging prohibited, if it's so trivial? It would be so easy to prove that there is no IRC-conspiracy - I mean, except for the fact that every time the logs get released there's some embarassing "please block this person I don't like" "Ok, do this to get them mad, and then I'll block them for you," bit to be found, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no real clue as to why logging is prohibited, except that people haven't given permission for their writings to be reproduced. But seriously, I'm very, very often logged in, and I keep a wandering eye out on what happens, and I'm not seeing what you;re obviously seeing.  Maybe you could point us to several examples of the kind of thing you're quoting here? And, if you can, then maybe everyone can consider exactly how often this happens?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You ask that I review IRC logs and point out the bad actions. I'd be happy to do so - please provide me a full month worth of en-admin and en logs in any machine-readable format. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I'm not asking you to review IRC logs, and I'm quite sure that you know quite well that asking me to provide you with logs is inappropriate. I'm asking you to substantiate your comment of "every time the logs get released there's some embarassing "please block this person I don't like" "Ok, do this to get them mad, and then I'll block them for you," bit to be found, and all".  Please do so, then we can all see what you;re talking about.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Adding: in other words, .  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strange, when I find something Malleus wrote on a talk page it's likely to be strikingly hostile, but you (Sandy) presumably encounter him much more than I do. I wonder how an evidence page could support an "everybody does it" defense that makes Kaldari's list look mild by comparison? Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting an "everybody does it" defense. And since I clearly know a different Malleus than you, and know him to be one of our considerably best and most helpful editors, all I'm asking is how this case is going to come to useful findings, and pointing out that the problem goes beyond Malleus-- the admin factor needs to be accounted for.  One gets tired of seeing the constant meme that those of us who know another Malleus defend incivility-- I certainly would never say the things he says, but I do understand how he was driven to Wikicide by partial admins.  If those admins want to chase off one of our top contributors, can we get them to either stop, or do the same to the unhelpful idiots-- just apply sanctions equally, and get in the Wiki and off of IRC chat rooms? What I'm saying is putting up all the Malleus diffs folks want to is not going to resolve the underlying problem, and the Malleus "problem" is already solved-- admins killed him years ago.  How do we get admins to work equally on the "real" problem editors, and how do we get the community to work on a civility policy rather than targeting one editor?  If we don't answer those questions, this case will come to nothing that won't happen all by itself (meaning, Malleus gives up, admins continue doing what they do, some good, some bad, and rude editors with friends on IRC continue to get away with it, while editors with enemies on IRC get targetted). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Malleus I know best (but not very well) is the Malleus I met at Did You Know and WP:ERRORS, and in both cases there were no admins to provoke his behavior (that is, before I asked him to be civil). Art LaPella (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you're suggesting that DYK is the kind of forum that promotes civility, particularly since one DYK regular told me to shut the fuck up long ago, and quite got away with it :) :) Then another accused me of vandalism and misused the revdel tool.  Difference being, I followed dispute resolution and did the RFC, that was never done on Malleus.  If those folks act up again, the RFC is on record.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect, this is precisely why this is at arbitration. Some see Malleus as a toxic editor who's been given far too much rope because of his contributions, others see him as basically a victim of admin bullying and double standards, who was doing nothing others don't do. Which is true? Well, that's for both sides to present evidence and for the Arbitration Committee to sort out. Objecting to the evidence being submitted, because one of these perceptions is correct is simply beggaring the question - you won't get agreement or we wouldn't be here. If the evidence fails to convince the Committee it will be disregarded. (I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying)/.--Scott Mac 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scott, you're heroically missing the point. Malleus should be blocked. Regularly. In fact, if ever there was a poster boy for "cool down" blocks, he's it.  He does, and probably always will, tend towards reacting to children, childishly.  He's a rude bugger AND he's a victim of clique-ish crap and double standards.  And guess what?  You can't fix one and not the other. Being an admin is a hard job.  There are too many who are not up to it.  Block Malleus whenever he does wrong, but ALSO get rid of the kiddy admins.101.118.34.227 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm just saying that presenting a bunch of "oh, look how naughty Malleus is" diffs won't get anything done in this case. The arbs didn't seem to want to see that kind of case when several of them mentioned that an RFC hadn't been tried.  I'm reminded of FT2's request long ago on another case:  I think you're all going to be disappointed in the findings, after pouring a lot of effort into presenting evidence, if the evidence doesn't hone in on something that will lend itself to a finding beyond yielding to the wishes of those who want to rid the Wikipedia of Malleus.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd seriously rather submit Malleus to the pitchforks of an RFC? It would be better, surely for Arbcom to settle it, and either tell his detractors to leave him be, or otherwise. In any case, you are either right or you are wrong. I'm guessing the "other side" are hoping for something else. Arbcom will decide.--Scott Mac 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 in Strange evidence section
SandyGeorgia, while you may not be (suggesting an "everybody does it" defense), you are appeared to be advocating for an "everyone should be allowed" reality. In my opinion, that places would have placed you on the wrong side of this issue. It now appears to me that I had at first misconstrued your comments to mean something they apparently did not. Being capable of error, it appears I have erred. I apologize to the extent I have aggrieved. My76Strat (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Refactored for clarity. My76Strat (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're reading, but it's not what I'm writing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is the land of the false dichotomy. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's an attention span issue, or related to the increasingly large presence of folks here who don't build articles, don't know anything about building articles or consensus or collaboration, and can't do much except come to the table with pitchforks or blocking tools (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). My76Strat's response is typical of the kind of ignorance that predominates every time this issue surfaces, where some see the bigger issues, others just see that big naughty Malleus.  I've no idea what My76Strat is reading, it's nothing that I wrote, but I'd be perfectly happy on a Wikipedia where no one gets to mention my name along with "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack", and as long as admins avert their eyes when they or their friends do it, while going after content contributors who don't suck up on IRC, I don't see how this problem is going to be solved, and Wikipedia won't just continue to be a place where children play games more than adults write encyclopedic articles.  I wonder how the arbs plan to craft any sort of useful finding out of the evidence being presented.  You can block and ban all you want, but that won't solve the underlying problem and it sure won't get articles written.  Tough cases make bad law, and there has never been a case before the arbs of such a highly prolific and helpful contributor as Malleus was (I think I gave a decent defense in the C68 omnibus case, but Cla68 doesn't nearly measure up to Malleus' contributions); anyone want to look at the factors that contributed to his Wikicide? Nah, that would just be too much work, wouldn't it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your rant doesn't help here. And that selective quote, along with the comment "my name" is, frankly, misleading. I view TCO's rant as also being extremely unhelpful, and full of pretty silly invective, but the quote in question (given fully) "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" doesn't seem directed principally at you (had it been it would be outrageous), but also at "Admins, Arbs, teen aged OTRS and CUs." As for looking at the factors that contributed to Malleus' "wikicide", I trust that's exactly what arbcom are looking at. But if there are other things you think they should examine - present them. Stop poisoning the well.--Scott Mac 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Describing Sandy's comments here as poisoning the well is like saying she's pouring arsenic into the cyanide. The well has already been polluted, slowly over time, by the "no one noticing" a TCO's comment, or calling admins on the shut the fuck ups, the fuck offs, and the oh, you wasted our time bringing this to ANIs carping and sniping which goes on nonstop.Nobody Ent (Gerardw)
 * I had some idea you were a clueful editor, but the post above is frankly astounding. Malleus was routinely blocked for using "naughty" words directed at no one in particular, and yet TCO gets away with a sexist remark in the same paragraph that uses my name twice, and you defend and excuse it in the context of the Malleus case.  Do you not see that this is precisely the dilemma that needs to be resolved?  What TCO did here is FAR beyond anything Malleus did before his final wikicide, and gazillions of admins were aware of it, yet no one even warned him.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not having studied the reasons Malleus was blocked, I have defended nothing. Am I blind? No, I've not looked - and not claimed otherwise. I hear what you are saying - I hear what others are saying. All I'm saying is that is precisely the matter that is being arbitrated - so simply repeating it as if it were a knockdown argument takes us no further. (BTW, to be clear, had a seen that post of TCO's I would not have ignored it, but I'm not acting on a month old complaint. If others were aware of it, and said nothing, that is indeed reprehensible.)--Scott Mac 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so everybody knows, the main difference between TCO's block log and Malleus's is that TCO doesn't have as many people to unblock him. And for what it's worth, I did redact TCO. Art LaPella (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandy's complaint that no one seems to have confronted TCO is well made. It is, I realise, a little belated, but I have issued a stern warning.--Scott Mac 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointy as hell and not justified by policy the absence of the formation of a policy on the point. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]
 * Pointy? Assuming you are invoking Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point How is it "disruption"? And I'd say WP:CIVIL justifies me warning a user.--Scott Mac 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you warning him over? "However, I simply want to make clear that the remark is utterly unacceptable, a clear breach of civility, and the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive."  How is it a clear breach of civility?  There is no personal attack.  Your remark that "the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive" is particularly pointy given that your attention has been drawn to  policy the absence of the formation of a policy on language in civility. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]


 * Sheesh, I'm glad you understood the issue, but I sure didn't want a warning issued weeks (month?) after the fact-- it's the point of the thing, that Malleus was targeted for what others do routinely. How can we get that to stop, and get sanctions to be applied more evenly? I can assure you that plenty of admins knew of that post ... but warning him now isn't helpful ... the point is that Malleus was routinely blocked for what EVERYONE does all the time, and then his block log was used as an excuse to block. Look at his very first block-- a most definitely involved admin blocked him for using the word "wikilawyer"-- in those days, Malleus was probably innocent enough about Wikipedia to think it would all get sorted out and he was still optimistic about Wikipedia ... admins cured him of that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no prissy when it comes to civility, but we do need to draw a line somewhere - particularly with macho language that tends to create a hostile environment. That no one questioned TCO at the time I genuinely find appalling. As I've said, I haven't looked at Malleus's blocks, were I to, it is quite possible I would agree with you. However, given that the matter is now before arbcom, I'd suggest you make your case to them. Trying to convince me, or arguing here with Malleus's detractors, is only going to raise temperatures without shedding light. That's really all I'm saying.--Scott Mac 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And I was only presenting it as an example of the very double standard that Malleus railed against and what led to his disillusionment with Wikipedia (that what was applied to Malleus didn't apply to others), not asking for a warning. Oh my. It was only supposed to be an illustration of the dilemma we should be looking at here, and how Malleus was hounded for what others get away with routinely-- and that means others who do far less for the encyclopedia than Malleus does. You know, this is another demonstration of the symptom of the disease that ails Wikipedia-- block, warn, sanction, admonish instead of discuss, learn, collaborate.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you collaborate unless you are willing to discuss and let people know when they overstep? You complained that "TCO gets away with a sexist remark". The point is not to block or sanction, it is to create an environment where people don't do that.--Scott Mac 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, with all the edit conflicts, I just finally read your "stern warning", and it's more discussion than warning, and not as stern as you and Fifelfoo led me to fear. Anyway ... it was supposed to enlighten and inspire others to tackle the dilemma in a way that will lead to productive case findings, not lead to a new kerfuffle :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we create an atmosphere where we work together to tackle these things on talk pages then perhaps we can avoid the next arbcom case and its case findings. Despite Fifelfee's extreme position, I suspect that there's actual a fair amount of common ground about over the line invective. If we can get past the polarised positions and start talking, perhaps we can make some thing better - although it is too late for this particular case, which is now best settled by arbitration.--Scott Mac 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm here to maintain a freedom of expression in language, including figurative phrases, that is so fundamental to my being that I'm out of the project if it goes. The conduct behind "Editor X is a Y" is problematic for all non-demonstrable Ys.  Utter reprehensibility, the core gender non-specific content of "cunt" on a person is an unacceptable Y.  So is WP:DICK for that matter.  So is many many things.  I'd also like to see the encyclopaedia wide invective tone down; the IDHT/anti-consensus conduct seen for the deeply anti-encyclopaedic incivility it is; and for the climate that prevents invective and other incivilities to be educative rather than disciplinary.  Some kind of wikikitten that actually works.  And to ensure that we kitten people into better, more collegial editors, for their unacceptable conduct, not for their word choices.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still catching up after edit conflicts-- point of order, Fifelfoo, I just clicked on your links and see that you are linking to a discussion at the Village pump, but referring to it as policy. WP:CIVIL is policy-- a village pump discussion is not as far as I know.  Again, these are the sorts of things we should be sorting on the evidence page so the arbs can make relevant findings. I raised the question of whether admins claiming Malleus's language was directed at others were applying an even standard across the Wikipedia, relative to TCO's post, which specifically mentioned names, when Malleus rarely did, as an example, but a village pump discussion is not policy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Struck and amended on the point of policy) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't policy, it's pillar, and the village pump discussion was overwhelming snow. Which is a primary reason why the initial Malleus block was bogus.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 in Strange evidence section

 * I've been thinking about this all evening and I'm confused, perhaps in the same manner as Sandy. The case is called "Civility Enforcement". Do the arbs want evidence and arguments regarding civility in general or only examples of Malleus' incivility? The evidence put forth so far underscores Malleus' incivility, but is this to be a very narrow case (which could have been taken care of through an RfCU), or is it a broad case? If the latter, then it involves policy such as WP:Civil, which I believed was outside of ArbCom's remit. It would be helpful to get full clarification because I suspect I'm not the only person who is confused, though it's entirely possible I am. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect they avoided using a specific editor's name to avoid the inevitable drama. They would probably say if you asked.  My reading of the comments by arbs in deciding to accept the case is that this is a broad case, not a narrow one.  YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Their actual statements are Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement -- I'd interpret them as indicating a broad case. I think there's also indication of a realization ArbCom can't actually just fix this themselves, but the outpouring of comments (100+ editors) compelled to try to do something. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the evidence isn't going anywhere useful (that is, anything the arbs didn't already know), but I'm not sure just how to go about turning this case into something that will be useful in solving the long-standing problem of uneven civility enforcement. We can't force editors to use dispute resolution, to use RFCs, to work on clarifying the civility policy, and none of those are in the arbs' remit.  We can't force admins to act evenly.  We can't fix ANI.  Can we?  If so, how do we approach any of this?  And we can't get back the Malleus that we had in 2008 before he became an admin target.  So exactly what are we doing here, and why did the arbs take the case?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That Malleus has long gone, you're right; all you're left with is a cynical bastard. But perhaps the ArbCom might like to consider if it's proper to block editors for using words like "wikilawyer" and "sycophantic". Fat chance of that though. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clerks considered similar in relation to workshop... their consideration was that similar invective was not uncivil. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So why was I blocked for using words like "wikilawyer"? Because there's no plausible explanation of one of Wikipedia's five policies? Whose fault is that? Malleus Fatuorum 06:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other administrators for not desysopping hard enough, fast enough, early enough. All administrators for not adequately and publicly starting RFCs to resolve civility issues.  All administrators for not enforcing IDHT, competence, baiting as civility as anti-encyclopaedic.  Users like me for retreating from culture into areas where other editors are expert, where quality and encyclopaedism rule, and where 15 year old Randies and Randettes don't piss nightly, drunkenly, up against the pillars like monkey trying to exceed Buddha's reach.  I only thought our civility problems were in Central and Eastern Europe, where two well read editors can disagree on topicality, weight and source interpretation with the hostility of two hundred years of post-enlightenment debate on what freedom is.  I didn't realise that we had added bits en masse to individuals with a sub-under-graduate level of debate and competence; or that we couldn't shake together uninvolved admins of quality if they were all single and we ran a bachelor's and spinster's ball on a sleep-in-someone-else's-ute basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Applause from the peanut gallery. So, back on topic, how is the evidence being presented in this case going to help the arbs make findings that will address these issues?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3 in Strange evidence section
Perhaps my comments are "ignorant". I am curious as to what specific information you believe I am unaware of that would cause me to change my position. To be clear, my position is that we should be tolerant when editors are commenting about content; we should quickly intervene when editors are directly insulting other editors. While I can accept an editor saying, "your comment is idiotic", I can not accept the same editor saying "you are an idiot". Therefor, please tell me; what am I missing here? My76Strat (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the difference between the two statements; it strikes me as a particularly American way to soften the blow. "You're a valued contributor and I am REALLY interested in what you have to say, but that particular comment, alone among the other bouquet-fulls of flowers you've produced for us here, was idiotic." BTW, there is nothing in "your comment is idiotic" that dictates it's about content, and you should realize that this is a simplification of the discussion: such events as we're staging now are rarely directly about content. MF said something about administrators, and we all say things about administrators and idiots and IPs and policies and whatnot, that's part of what we do here. What you're missing here is that it's not as simple as you suggest. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My76, you specifically said that I am "advocating for an 'everyone should be allowed' reality" which is utterly untrue and not based on anything I wrote, and is typical of the type of ignorance and IDHT that we see in all of these "civility police" or content contributor discussions. That some of us see the double standard and want it to stop doesn't mean we advocate that everyone should be allowed. Nor does it mean we think content contributors are exempt, which is the other frequent and ignorant meme thrown around in these discussions.  And, what we should be looking at is why some admins do next to nothing to help content contributors, plenty to make things harder on them, and often seem able only to use their block button as soon as a naughty word appears, while allowing non-naughty horrific behaviors to destroy articles and the editing environment here.  Those are typically the same admins who jump to civility blocks, since they only have a hammer and don't even understand how to build content-- hence the division between the civilty police and content contributors, which doesn't at all mean that content contibutors think other content contributors are exempt.  Making an example of Malleus-- which is perhaps what some editors presenting evidence want to see-- because he drew the wrath of the IRC-chatting admin corp by highlighting this double standard, while they turn their backs on friends who do the same-- will not solve the underlying problem.  Getting Malleus blocked or banned will not address anything that led to what ails Wikipedia, or why we've alienated one of our very best contributors to the point of Wikicide.  The problem will repeat if the underlying issues aren't solved, and the evidence in this case wasn't going in a direction that would lend to that (although Moni3 has made a stab at it).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I concur with your observation. I disagree that this issue is so complicated that a simplified analogy has such little value as to be idiotic. I actually do believe this is a simple question. Therefor you now have seen the depths of my idiocy. SandyGeorgia, you have convinced me that I must have misconstrued your intentions. From your above comment, I have no reason to believe you are advocating the position I attributed to you. I will next strike my comment as it appears inappropriate. My76Strat (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad we came to a better understanding, as that will help advance the issues that need to be resolved, and why I disagree with Carcharoth's take on how this page was going.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "the division between the civilty police and content contributors" ?? Is is not possible for someone to care about both civility and content? Do the civility police all fail to contribute content?  Are "Civility Police" and "content contributors" mutually exclusive subsets of editors? And who, exactly, are "the Civility Police"?  I find the term itself disturbing - it might seem that it's  being applied in a derogatory manner - hardly likely to motivate people to care about civility-policy-clarifying and equal-application-of-enforcement at all, if all that's going to happen is that they get labelled as "Civility Police" and a distinction is drawn between them and "content contributors".  And note that Police and Policy are extremely closely related words ;P  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Calmer discussions?
I've just read the above section, and the anger and frustration is coming in waves off the screen. Is it not possible to calm down and have a slower discussion where people take more time to explain what they are saying instead of letting off steam? Releasing pent-up frustration on a talk page like this in a stream of consciousness might help in some ways, but if people are going to agree or disagree with what is being said, it needs to be presented in a way that is easier to understand. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You presume much (including that others don't understand what you don't understand). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first up, edit summaries of "baloney" (as you used here) aren't going to help, are they? I was referring to a few posts above, but the 07:54 one by Fifelfoo will do for now. You replied to that with 'Applause from the peanut gallery', followed immediately by "back on topic". You seem to be agreeing with me that off-topic rants won't help here. Or are you saying that what Fifelfoo said there actually helps (in your words) 'the arbs make findings'? If so, someone will need to break down what Fifelfoo said there into comprehensible chunks with evidence - are you volunteering to do that? I think the time is better spent looking at the context of each block in Malleus's block log and trying to work out what happened each time. And by that I mean actual diffs, not just hand-waving of the "what a terrible block log" or "poor Malleus" type. I would be prepared to do that, but only if Malleus is prepared to help with that. Trying to present his block log in context can't be done without his input. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, just for the sake of clarity, is this case about me or is it about civility enforcement? Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need to ask the arbitrators that (and good luck in getting a clear answer). My suggestion that there be a proper look at your block log (or similar block/unblock cycles) arose from comments elsewhere and from reading comments on this page such as the one by you where you say: "But perhaps the ArbCom might like to consider if it's proper to block editors for using words like "wikilawyer" and "sycophantic". Fat chance of that though." Sandy says something similar above when she says: "the point is that Malleus was routinely blocked for what EVERYONE does all the time, and then his block log was used as an excuse to block. Look at his very first block-- a most definitely involved admin blocked him for using the word "wikilawyer"" My point is that if people are going to constantly say that your block log is full of examples of terrible blocks, or the converse, then some actual evidence needs to be presented to that effect. And better evidence than has been currently presented. Pick one of your blocks and I'll do my best to look into the history of it and you can see if what I come up with is a fair presentation of what happened. Or pick a random civility block of another editor if you want to move the focus away from you, and I'll try and do the same there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Last I heard it was a farce in which you won't be participating. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not going to help either. Could you please strike or retract that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think an editor should be blocked with no discussion on any noticeboard for a comment that was redacted with their consent three hours prior to the block ?? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't. I saw the discussion that led to the redaction, and thought the matter should have ended there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is asking a question about the scope of this case "participating" in your universe Gerard? And why do you hide your username? Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, he struck that comment at my request. Can we move on from that and get back to what I said? I was serious with that offer, but it won't go anywhere without input from you, as I said before. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To the extent I am a participant, it is about civility enforcement and should apply to everyone. Because you have been named a party, published examples by you are in evidence. Ironically that affords you a unique opportunity. Explain why you should be allowed to insult other editors in an environment where we ask that you not. Or acknowledge your own error in this regard, renounce and cease the practice, and lets move on. As productive an editor as you are, I believe a wp:civil version of yourself would be 10X more so. Imagine that. My76Strat (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, fact is, I don't believe any other editor can contribute the needed evidence if you aren't participating, and yet I fully understand that you probably don't care to. I looked at your first block, and it was so clearly an overreaction from an involved admin that it screams, and yet, from there on it all went downhill for you. I doubt that any one of us can take apart your block log as well as you can, so I'm coming to the conclusion that if you want to see Wikipedia change for the better, you're going to have to put aside what everyone who knows you knows is your hurt heart on your sleeve over some unfair treatment, and do the work here. I can say that because similar happened to me, I had to sit on it for a year, and when the right arb case came up, I had to spend a solid six weeks generating the evidence that resulted in justice being served and that abusive admin being desysopped, which is probably partly why I don't wear my hurt heart on my sleeve as you do even though I was a victim of similar. The choice is yours-- I don't think we can do it for you-- I don't know the circumstances behind every block in your log, but the first is pretty disgustingly clear. I also suspect (although who knows) that if you want things to change, the arbs will state that your language may need moderation (recognizing that your final f'ing C is best viewed as a Wikicide post after years of enduring undue attention to your every word)-- question is, can the arbs craft something that will solve the underlying issues, will they ask for that in exchange for you moderating your language, that will then subsequently allow attention to other editors who do worse, hence ending the double standard. I dunno, but I don't think we'll see anything happen here that will lead to anything good if you aren't on board. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sandy said this much better than I did above and on Malleus's talk page a few days ago (the comment about how arbitration cases where named parties don't participate end up a mess). Malleus, even if you don't care to listen to me, please consider what Sandy is saying here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I to be the poster-child for this case? Is the far worse incivility of others (who happen to be administrators and therefore are allowed to get away with it) to be ignored? Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's your choice. Do you believe any one else here can effect the kind of change needed?  I doubt it.  If you let this happen, I suspect that most of us will give up, and we'll come back in a few years and see a place really and truly and completely run by children who can't and don't build content.  Carcharoth-- timing.  Those of us who know Malleus know how much others misunderstand him.  You said some things too soon.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll make a statement in a day or two once I've investigated the details of what I want to say. Not to save my neck, but the necks of others who may in the future fall foul of Wikipedia's disorganisation and inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a good man, Charlie Brown (but some of us already knew that). OK, I've been in two arb cases where no doubt I couldn't have done it alone-- I only got through them because of the kindness of others who helped me find diffs and evidence.  If you're on board, and if you ask for whatever help you need on your talk, I have no doubt many will be willing to help locate diffs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Another PoV
Most readers and editors will have no idea of the politics or the way wikipedia is run. What affects readers is the content, much of which is sub-standard to say the least. So consider this, Malleus Fatuorum is not the cause of disruption which is caused by those who choose to be offended and exhibit their desire to be offended by watchlisting his page, stalking his edits and jumping up and down in attention-seeking attempts to do create the drama on which they thrive. That Malleus is usually right is irrelevant and fuel for the fire. What do you do if you don't like a tv programme? Switch off the tv, find another channel. What do you do if you come across someone you don't like much? Avoid them. What do you do if the newspaper has pictures you don't approve of? You buy a different one. What do you do if your party loses the election? Moan a bit and get on with it. What do you do if Malleus comments on admins? Hold a grotesque show trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.159.133 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks
Why should an indefinite block be only considered as "long term"? If it contains an unblocking parameter, such as "until xe retracts and/or renounces y", in can be of very short duration and the length in time is dependent on xe, not the clock. My76Strat (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, in practice, the run of the mill editor who ends up getting indefinitely blocked lacks the competence and/or desire to make the necessary adjustments sufficient to write a successful unblock request. (Not sure of the context of your question so I am not intending to imply anything about a specific editor.) Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical question
Could an arb or clerk please explain how on Earth Malleus can be expected in a case like this to put up evidence limited to 500 words and 50 diffs? How does this work, and what can he do if he intends to submit evidence-- there is no way to do that in 500 words. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness, he should take as much space as he needs. What did you do? Leaky  Caldron  18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In a case years ago, I put up evidence that would exceed today's bot-checked limits. I think some link to a subpage, but I'm unaware if that is still allowed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He should post what he feels he needs to. I really doubt if anyone is going to censor him, under the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If a user does need more than 500 words and/or 50 diffs to get their evidence posted, the drafting arbs can work with the user to establish an exception for the user for this case, on a case-by-case basis. The bot is set up to allow for such exceptions as needed. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Email evidence
Moni3's section mentions emails - if anyone feels that they have evidence that by its nature should remain private, please send it to arbcom-en-b@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org, not to the main mailing list. Due to the high number of recusals, we're using the alternate mailing list for this case. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After the events of this year, I'd never email any arblist (alternate or not) again. I would email individual arbs I trust.  Not that I have anything to email in this case, but I understand Moni3's position on this (she won't either, that is).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That works too, but do understand that if it's pertinent to the case, it's going to get forwarded to a list eventually anyway so that all arbs voting on the case can review it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I'd hope not without permission! --Errant (chat!) 03:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone wishes to submit email evidence, they need to do so on the understanding that it will be circulated to all arbitrators active on this case on one of the Arbcom mailing lists for review and consideration. If this condition is unacceptable to the sender, then they should not submit the evidence. Risker (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on evidence
It seems there is some general confusion - or perhaps lack of understanding - about what sort of evidence we're looking for here. The Arbitration Committee is working on setting up some clearer guidelines for submitting evidence in general, but my thoughts on this are thus (subject to being overridden by the Committee as a whole): In this particular case, what I'm interested in seeing is evidence focused around the following points: While the incident that prompted this case did focus primarily on Malleus's conduct and that of the administrators involved in that situation (and there will likely be some user-specific remedies with regard to that situation), this is intended to be a broad case that will clarify aspects of existing policies or recommend to the community ways the policy can be improved. Evidence submitted that focuses on the Malleus incident should, as much as possible, be framed to fit within at least one of those four points.
 * The evidence page is for direct evidence - demonstrating actions that have been taken, preferably through diffs or log entries, or providing a faithful timeline of one's perceptions of events.
 * The evidence page is not for:
 * Responding to others' evidence. It's common for evidence to be posted to contradict evidence provided by another party. Provided it fits into the above category, that's fine, but just stating "So-and-so's evidence is obviously wrong" belongs more on the evidence talk page.
 * Interpreting evidence. Your evidence submissions should state only facts: "Editor 1 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]. Later that day, Editor 2 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]". Analyzing the cause or effect of these facts ("Editor 2 was retaliating and normally wouldn't post such attacks") isn't for the evidence page, and belongs in the Analysis section of the workshop page.
 * Asking questions. The parties can be asked questions in the appropriate section on the workshop page; general discussion can also take place at the bottom of the workshop. Questions specifically to the arbitrators can be directed to our individual talk pages or the mailing list (as above, use the -b list for this case please).
 * Soapboxing. If you believe that the Committee should focus on a certain aspect of a certain policy in the case, post a workshop principle to that effect. Long-winded speeches to that effect on the evidence page are difficult for arbitrators to get through when determining their votes, and distract from the actual facts of the case.
 * How civility has been enforced in the past, and the varying degrees of community support in regards to those attempts
 * Inconsistencies in how civility has been enforced
 * Administrative disputes that have arisen that center on civility enforcement
 * Specific difficulties with the civility policy as it currently stands, and how those difficulties have impacted the above three points

Again, however, this is what I'm looking for, and other arbitrators may wish to see other evidence, and as I mentioned my general thoughts on evidence in particular are subject to being overridden in the near future. In the meantime, though, hopefully this serves as a helpful clarification for everyone involved. I'll point the Committee to this section and ask them to add to this as needed. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is helpful ... but should have come days ago. We've already got a sprawling evidence page, and a sprawling workshop page. Considering the record number of people opining on the arb request, I do wish the arbs had gotten a handle on this sooner, with exactly the kind of post you've made here (which is what I was trying to get at in my Strange evidence post above).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I wouldn't normally consider posting this evidence, but Hersfold asked for it, so I'm doing it. I hope there's a bot that will notify all the admins I mention, 'cuz they are incidental to this case, and must I really do all of those notifications?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have to act on the assumption that other people are just as sensitive about having their names mentioned without being notified as you are :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you're aware and I posted to TCO-- allrighty then, I've got nothing better to do :/ But these admins who took no action are incidental to the case.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like that many, and I'm sure you can cut and paste a note and people won't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be about 50 more if I also named the admins who undeniably see every post on my talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wouldn't include me. Right now I have your talk page watchlisted, because Dabomb hadn't selected a TFA and I dropped you a line about that, but generally I don't.  I don't have any delegate's except Dabomb's, actually, on a regular basis.  I clear out my watchlist irregularly, I try to keep under 100, but as I monitor my FA's, I've had to raise that.  I do have TCO's, correct, but unless something catches my eye, I don't click on it.  I don't do as much back and forth chatting as you.  Like I said someplace, my talk page is the working part of backstage, and the dressing room is someone else's.  (I do chat now and then, usually with Connormah, but it's not a major attraction of my talk page).  And I've replied to your comments on the workshop page.  Doing anything nice for New Year's Eve?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I hope the point is still conveyed, Mally is watched like a hawk, but even after a personal attack is redacted at DYK, and in spite of his block log, TCO gets different treatment ... Mally is an admin target, regardless of whether we can prove who saw the attacks or not-- in Mally's case, they go looking, but since I'm past 500 words .... New Year's Eve, nursing better half's miserable cold, hoping I don't get it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, just recovering from last trip. My flight out of O'Hare was badly delayed and I got home at 2:15 this morning.  Tomorrow morning, make a start at clearing up reviews promised.  Let me just state my general position.  I've made it clear how I feel on wheel warring.  I was glad that ArbCom took this case because I feared a blow up between factions (not organized, just people taking sides), and that a lot more damage to the wiki would be done.  I feel that all this can be resolved with Malleus giving a little and admins and the community giving a little.  That is why I wish people would just let Malleus speak to this, and we can get down to the nitty gritty and talk this out.  Maybe I walk the world like Mr. Magoo, but that is my honest opinion.  OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful comments and discussion noted. Geometry guy 02:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding here both to what Hersfold said and what Sandy said.
 * (A) On the point Sandy raises about how she wishes "the arbs had gotten a handle on this sooner", re-read what I said a few days ago here (point iv). I said: "'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.'" What is probably best now is for arbitrators to direct whether evidence should be rewritten, removed, or consolidated. That is the only way to get the case back under control.
 * (B) On the point about inconsistency in enforcing civility standards, one question that could be asked is not only why are others not blocked (or warned) for comments similar or worse to those Malleus has made, but why some of the comments Malleus has made did not lead to blocks (though they may have led to warnings). There is one example I can think of straight away (because I was the one on the receiving end). This examples is indirectly in evidence, but difficult to find as it is lost in the crowd somewhat. But would such examples be helpful? Would examples of others getting blocked for similar actions to those of Malleus be helpful (i.e. examples of consistency, rather than inconsistency)? The point is that there are examples of many types of inconsistencies, to the point that it is probable that there is inconsistency everywhere (both in terms of harsh blocks and lenient warnings or inaction). But how do you show that inconsistency is greater for some editors than others? That is much harder to prove.
 * (C) There is also the issue of degrading the editing environment - a kind of social incivility (or lack of sensitivity to how others might react). Somewhere on the evidence page is a section mentioning two userboxes. I noticed the use of an image in the earliest versions of one of those userboxes (warning: NSFW image, includes nudity). I felt strongly that use of this image was not appropriate and felt justified raising it on the editor's talk page even though this was days later and another editor had persuaded them to remove the image. My post was swiftly removed, followed by a discussion on my talk page, but it did lead me to ponder just how much standards differ between editors. It is not strictly civility, but it was spawned by the events that led to this case. Would that sort of example be useful in evidence?
 * On a general point, if you want details of everyday enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of civility, the arbitrators could do worse than ask for or devise an automated way to find examples and/or do surveys that involve more than just the people following this case. I think bot-generated or script-driven searches based on certain keywords have been done before. At the least, it should be possible to search recent block summaries for variants of the words 'civility' or 'incivility' or 'uncivil', though that might not be helpful as I suspect the arbitrators want examples involving established editors. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the significant factors about incivility is how it's not just words -- it's about construction, intent, and context . I've seen indicated some editors were far more offended by a targeted "star collector" description than banal naughty words. Therefore this is not a bot job. 03:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed. Which is why I brought up other examples and am asking if any arbitrators think they would be useful in evidence. The three examples I have in mind are: (a) A comment Malleus made to me where he was warned but not blocked - is that inconsistent or not? Others are asserting in evidence that Malleus gets blocked for things that others don't get blocked for, but the converse is also true, Malleus fails to get blocked for things that others would get blocked for. (b) Inappropriate image use degrading the editing environment and an inconsistent response to that. Is it more offensive for naughty words to be used or for images involving female nudity that are supposed to be used for educational purposes being used for shock value in a form of political protest? (c) The third example (which I raised elsewhere on this talk page) is editors calling the writing of others 'shit' or 'primary school level'. To me, that is a far more corrosive form of incivility than any number of naughty words. It may be true, but the bright-line rule here must be to improve articles and help others improve their editing without ever needing to resort to insults or promoting an 'us and them' mentality (good editors versus crap editors). If someone is editing poorly, try and help them and then work out where to go if that doesn't work. Don't resort to invective and insults in an attempt to 'drive them off'. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you made it clear that it wasn't me who made the comment about "primary school level writing", as its inclusion here makes it seem as though I did. Similarly with the female nude image you mention. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not actually in evidence (and might never be). I'm happy to clarify here that the "primary school level writing" and image issue was both nothing to do with you, though they are both indirectly connected (the former originated from a section on your talk page, and the latter was one of two userboxes created to support you). Personally, if I was you I'd have been embarrassed to have a userbox like that, with that image on it, created with my username on it and I'd have said so to the userbox creator. If you are willing to discuss the other example, the comment you made to me where you didn't get blocked, I think that can be usefully compared to comments you made at WT:RFA that did get you blocked. In the former case, it was between two editors (you and me) and I think only one other, late at night (in our time zones) on someone else's talk page, and the editor whose talk page it was (SandyGeorgia) swiftly removed the whole thread, so less people would have seen it than if that had happened elsewhere. In contrast, lots of people were following the WT:RFA thread and lots of people watch that page anyway. But I didn't mind what you actually said (it made me laugh more than anything), what I really minded was that the focus would be on what you said and not what I said. You obviously disagreed with what I said, but I was really hoping that some of the issues I touched on in that post would get discussed (I may write it up in an essay at some point). As it turned out, you swearing and Sandy swiftly removing the whole thread, was about as effective a hiding of what I'd said as is possible. Of course it's not really hiding it, as I can restate my argument from there (and have done so since then), but it was more the brusqueness of it all.  Anyway, one of the ideas that I might have mentioned there, or elsewhere, is that it would be useful for Wikipedia to have a real 'pub' location, or the equivalent of 'Speaker's Corner', where people can argue and engage in back-and-forth in colourful language, and where long (and sometimes rambling) posts (like the one I made there and am making here) are tolerated more. That might ease some of the pressure on locations such as article talk pages and village pump, and formal community discussions, where more moderate language and focused postings would be expected. Currently, lots of the banter and social elements (and aggravation) spill over to user talk pages, and I'm serious when I say that this isn't the best set-up. Think of the difference between a house party, a pub, and a crowd in the village square. Possibly, long ago, the village pump served this function, but it got split up into sections and is now more like ad hoc discussion groups than water cooler talk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the right locations existed on Wikipedia, some of the tensions would end up in places more suited to resolving such tensions. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Asserting evidence
I am new to this process, I think your instruction line which reads "Write your assertion here" could mislead an ignorant intellect toward more colorful writing. It confused me, and I'm simply ignorant. My76Strat (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Some company arrived at my house prior to completing the above thought, and I saved it prematurely in haste. Seeing it seems more like sarcasm than truth in a way but I was truthful, albeit incomplete. I did mean to elaborate further to ensure clarity. And indicate, I felt it wasn't an assertion at all you were looking for, but rather simply evidence. I do honestly think this line should change. My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus has run off new editors/contributors"
Several users have made this claim, including an arbitrator. Can we see some actual evidence of this? So far (and I may have missed something, in which case I would very much appreciate a diff) all I've seen is a couple of letters in The Economist, which included anecdotes unrelated to Malleus, and one from someone who seemed unclear on how Wikipedia operates. This accusation needs to be struck in every instance unless there is solid evidence to support it. Similarly, the claim that he's run off female editors. Lara 03:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Workshop page has a specific section for the interrogation of the quality of evidence. I have interrogated the claims attached to The Economist Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed. I'll post similar there. Thank you. Lara  05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Tbhotch explicitly claimed to have been run off by Malleus. Fortunately he appears to have returned to active editing, despite the retirement banner. Not really hard to figure out which of our "best article writers" User:Dayewalker was attacking as an "unrepentant shithead" in his "farewell address" following Dayewalker's unsuccessful RfA which Malleus opposed. All of the others I'm aware of who explicitly or implicitly blamed Malleus as a cause for their departure have returned to active editing under their old usernames or new ones.

But, of course, many times when someone quits the project in a huff, they lash out at various people they've butted heads with, so it's not really accurate to presume that Malleus has "driven them away" so much as it is they've left, and included him among the (sometimes numerous) people to whom they've sent a parting shot on their way out the door. 28bytes (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Several users have made this claim" - I hope you don't mean me? I certainly haven't met any prospective editor who has been driven off by Malleus. In fact, that's kind of what happens when people are driven off - we don't meet them. All we can see is that new editor numbers are dropping. And when we conduct studies about why that is, well, that is what the studies tell us - people don't become new editors because we have a hostile environment. --GRuban (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a reasonable request. 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)  05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just be clear about one thing; if the environment here is hostile, and I'd agree that it is, that environment wasn't created by me. And to be perfectly frank the idea that I've ever driven off any new editor is so far from the truth as to be slanderous. Sure, I've upset a few administrators, as is obvious from this show trial, but can you name even one new editor I've driven off? Diffs should be easy to find, just look through the contributions of recently registered editors and see if I ever interacted with them. But if your argument is a more general one, that the toxic atmosphere here has driven off new editors, then it beggars belief that the blame for that should be pinned on me. Malleus Fatuorum 06:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malleus, and this is an important point. Geometry guy 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that good points were made in the above post. I just think it would be tenuous trying to resolve these things working together, and impossible as adversaries. My76Strat (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GRuban, I do mean you, along with others. I'm not sure why you would think your claim would be excluded from my objection. It's now been added to the Workshop page. Nobody Ent, I don't care about what you think is cool or uncool. Synthesizing a conclusion that any user has run off other contributors during an arbitration proceeding (or any other time, for that matter) "isn't cool." It's a baseless accusation and could, in some circles, be considered a personal attack. Lara 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would characterize me as one of the "others". If so, you would be wrong as I have never accused MF of "running off" any editors. I did comment on misogynous conduct but that is rather different. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you haven't made a claim that Malleus has run contributors off the project, then I'm not sure why you would think you were included in my objections to such. To be sure, I don't see on the evidence page where you have made any claims even remotely close to what I've objected to (or close to what you just stated, for that matter; I see only irony). On the original request, I find that you didn't really say anything at all in your comments there. Swinging by the workshop, I just find more unhelpful comments from you that in no way relate to what I've objected to above. Assuming that you're aren't pretending to be dense for the sake of provoking drama, perhaps you would like to diff me to the exact comment you felt could be interpreted as you claiming Malleus has run people off the project. Lara  16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't made such a claim either, actually. And you'll note no lack of diffs in my evidence. And yet you say that you do mean me. I've documented that Malleus has been firing shots in the air, and you want me to withdraw that unless I produce a dead body. Is it too much to say that firing shots in the air is bad in itself? It's not even as if he didn't hit anyone, he wounded Deb, rather severely. Are you with Balloonman, claiming she isn't worth more than 1/100th of him? --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've made claims unsupported by your links and concluded, "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was working hard to cause the specific strife and misogyny that drives off new, and especially female, editors." I'm not arguing semantics with you. As for my opinion on Deb's value, I don't have one, as I have no knowledge of her contributions to the project. Generally speaking, though, I've long been of the opinion (a stated many times over my years here) that no one has a right to be unoffended. If one's delicate sensibilities get ruffled by colorful language, it's a personal problem. Lara  01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC).
 * I see your point. I've trimmed the section to merely the statements directly supported by the evidence I've presented. I hope it is now acceptable? --GRuban (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'll strike my concerns on the workshop page. I don't know that Malleus' two reverts (one restoring the entire section and another restoring his entire comment) made several hours apart constitutes edit-warring, but I'm sure the arbs will sort it. Lara  14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a comment where I supported the evidence presented by GRuban. I wasn't sure, since you indicated he has taken this position, which I have not directly seen, if perhaps you might also interpret my support as being more than it was. I see no good faith in your malformed comment "you're aren't" with regard to me being dense. The template is unconvincing. My76Strat (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't, but that seems pointy when the reality is I really was hoping you weren't being dense on purpose. And I do apologize for the typo. How embarrassing for me! Lara  01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Describing someone as "severely wounded" for an internet post is ridiculous to the point of self-parody. It has a different meaning in parts of the uk, it wasn't directed at Deb, and Malleus agreed to it being redacted. That Deb, or anyone else, chooses to continue to be offended is not Wikipedia's problem. Multiple editors explained UK usage to her; she gave no indication of accepting their statements and continued to insist she was right -- which is an innuendo implication the other editors are either stupid or lying.  Nobody Ent 18:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)I don't know how to interpret such repeated insistance without concluding the editor repeating their assertion believes the other editors are either mentally incapable or not being truthful. Nobody Ent 18:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think characterizing Deb as someone who "chooses to be continue to be offended" is necessary, helpful or accurate. 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking that, I sincerely appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Deb "chooses to continue to be offended". Man, those women, always so offended. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to "explain UK usage" to someone you get a bunch of reliable sources, not a bunch of Wikipedia editors who reside in the United Kingdom and think they can speak for 62 million people. Wait, Deb was implying that someone was "either lying or stupid"? How did you arrive at this conclusion, Gerard? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The links provided include both wikitionary and wikiquote -- are you saying their sources are not reliable? Please use my current Wikipedia username or reasonable abbreviation ("NE" works). Nobody Ent 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and its sister projects are considered reliable sources now? You think that if fictional characters Rents and Sick Boy call each other and other men "cunt", that proves that cunt is a non-sexist term in the UK? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Premise: "Cunt" is sexist epithet directly at women throughout all of the English speaking world, including the UK.
 * If there are geographical regions or subcultures within the UK where it is a more generic insult often directed at men, the premise is false.
 * Four editors who reside in or have knowledge of the UK stated their experience was it was a generic insult often directed at men.
 * If the premise is asserted to be true, the four editors' statement must be false.
 * If the editors statement about a relatively simple matter is false, they must either be lying or too stupid to know they're wrong. Nobody Ent 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim made by the "UK editors" you keep mentioning is that, in the United Kingdom, the term is not sexist. Deb (and others) questioned the opinion of the "UK editors". This can have several reasons. Please explain why you accuse Deb of implying that other editors are either stupid or lying. And then refactor. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He just laid out exactly what you're asking him for. Lara  01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What he did is fail to understand the situation: a group of editors claim to know how people in the UK (all 62 million of em) use a word because they, the editors, use it this way, but do not offer any sources that document usage in the UK. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, did anyone claim that everyone in the UK uses the word? Also, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone living in the UK wouldn't be aware of its common use in "this way" considering I, as an American with a few British friends and a love of British comedy, can see (particularly by the latter, considering the former is extremely limited anecdotal evidence) that the c-bomb isn't a bomb in the UK. More of a sparkler, really. Lara  02:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension, Jennavecia, a useful skill (i.e., I did not write what you think I did). There are some people who argue that, as Brits, they did not know that the c-bomb is a bomb in the US. This strikes me as an exceedingly difficult to believe scenario – do these people read or own a telly, do they have access to the internet? – but what can one do? AGF and all that. Also judging by the sources presented by other uses, yeah, it is a bomb, even in the UK. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Striking per request on my talk page --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, condescension noted and appreciated. I like feisty discussion, so I'll bite! I don't have a problem with reading comprehension. You seem to have difficulties in properly conveying your thoughts, if you're seriously claiming that "how people in the UK (all 62 million of em) use a word" could be taken in any other way than to mean everyone in the UK. I mean, okay, so World Bank says the population of the UK was 62.2188 million as of December 12, 2011. And you said "62 million", so I guess you're right and I was totally off because clearly your number leaves a solid couple hundred thousand people in the UK not using the word. So me reading "everyone in the UK" was really unfair. My apologies! In all seriousness, though, for your source concerns, see the new section below. Lara  04:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a simple question because I missed much of this episode, the AN/I thread was quickly closed and and a request for arbitration quickly opened, without diffs for anyone who might want to follow the breadcrumbs: did anyone, at any point, try to explain the situation to him? Did anyone take a moment to take a deep breath and explain? If so, I'd like to see a diff. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent 04:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record... Malleus probably has run off editors. But equally for the record, so have I and so have most long term established records. So has the RfA process and the FA process and the GA process. People leave the project for all sorts of reasons. Interactions with specific users is par for the course. So a claim that somebody has run off editors, doesn't really mean too much... you also have to ask, what did that contributor bring to the project? Some editors we are honestly better off without... (And before somebody starts spouting, no all editors are equal, remember what some of you want---some of you would like to see Malleus leave and never come back.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Intuitively and based on the presented evidence, Id judge the C word and cussing in general would indeed drive some of our more sensitive editors away. But empirically, no x-editors seem to give bad language as a reason. I often tell folk I meet about my Wikipedia hobby, and some respond by saying they tried editing up but soon gave up - the reason always being either their new articles were deleted or more often just as folk keep reverting their edits. In this |official study on why editors leave wikipedia, it doesnt cite bad language as even a minor reason for folk leaving, though it does mention aggression.  The study mentions helpful editors as a reason to stay. No ones saying Malleus isnt often helpful, and looking through his contribs he almost seems to be rather chivalrous (not a surface chivalry of course :-) ). Quality content is a big part of why we attract so many readers. All things considered, evidence seems to suggest Malleus is likely a big net attractor of editors?  Not saying he ought to be allowed to aggress RfA or have immunity from blocks, but sanctioning him beyond perhaps a short RfA topic ban would seem to risk a great loss for the project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources to support the claim that "cunt" is used as a non-sexist term in the UK
Irvine Welsh's Glue uses the word no less than 322 times. In an interview published in The Gardian, it is written: "Welsh counts himself as a man who is against swearwords. Yes. You've got to accept, he says with the air of a man who is convinced but quite happy for you to please yourself, that the meaning of words changes through use and abuse, and becomes something else. For instance, so far as he is concerned, fuck and cunt are not swearwords. Should he say,'What a fucking lovely day', he is merely emphasising the loveliness of the weather. Similarly, if he says, 'I got completely cunted in the pub last night', it means he got plastered rather emphatically. The point is, where he comes from it would be offensive to use the term to mean female genitalia. Apart from that, it's a good, blunt word, a cosh of a word. Unlike prick, which is so insubstantial, it flies away in the air. But none of these words is used to shock. They're just emphatics, nothing to get alarmed about."

In his book Trainspotting, which was also made into a popular film, the word is used no less than 100 times. In an article by UK author Christopher Nosnibor, he writes about a seminar he gave to first year undergrads on the book. In his article he states, "Having lived in Scotland for a number of years, I can vouch for he fact that they’re a sweary bunch of cunts, to put it mildly." (The essay is a good read. I recommend it.)

Then there is the 1976 record Derek and Clive (Live) which includes the skit "This Bloke Came Up To Me" in which the word is used 36 times in reference to two men exchanging the word repeatedly and directed at each other.

In an article about another Derek and Clive skit known as The Cunt Sketch, British-American author John Derbyshire writes, "In England the word, though still deeply taboo — there, as here, I think it is the most taboo of the taboo words — is much more frequently heard, especially in reference to a person the speaker finds disagreeable for one reason or another." He goes on to cite Kingsley Amis's Memoirs, in which he details the arrival of Tony Benn to his home, explaining, "At the first sight of the present arrival the thought flashed into my mind, "Who is this English cunt?" The distinguishing adjective is important. There are Scottish cunts, there are even Welsh cunts, and God knows there are American cunts, but the one in question could have come from nowhere else but this green and pleasant land. Something about the set of the lips."

Kate Allen, "A London-based journalist and political activist", a writes in her blog (another good read that I recommend): "But really 'cunt' is no different to 'dick' or 'prick' its taboo comes simply from its origin as a 'naughty' sex-related word. Opposing the use of 'cunt' is itself sexist, because it grants more respected status to a woman's genitals than to a man's. The extra level of offensiveness that many people perceive the word to carry implies a squeamishness about women's bits - this attitude is in itself sexist or even misogynist! We're beginning to get over that squeamishness, reverting the word back to its original meaning and reclaiming it as a descriptive term. This is a positive action, removing its negative connotations."

In an article in New Statesman, Laurie Penny recounts a story from her childhood wherein she at the age of 11 (c.1997), for the first time using the word in her life, refers to a male schoolmate as an "utter cunt" as he physically harasses her.

Stuff White Brits Like, a spin-off of Stuff White People Like, has #69 (tee hee) on the list as "cunt". It is explained: "From Shakespeare’s ‘country matters’ to every second word Malcolm Tucker pronounces, the word ‘cunt’ is deeply embedded in white British culture. While using it as a descriptor of female genitalia is frowned upon, it is entirely acceptable to use this word as an insult for people in a variety of circumstances. Between friends (usually male), it is a jocular moniker. If you are describing Keane or Razorlight, no other word will do them justice. Aimed at a Tory politician, it is deadly serious, as demonstrated by Jarvis Cocker’s best song of recent times, (Cunts Are Still) Running the World. ... Brits call someone a cunt on pretty much a daily basis."

Sonicyouth86, is that good or would you like more? That's just plucking from Wikipedia and the first six pages of a Google search. Lara 04:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm deeply suspicious of those claiming something like: "Brits call someone a cunt on pretty much a daily basis". I've lived in the UK all my life (London) and I don't encounter people using that word on a daily basis, and I've always seen the word as offensive and wouldn't use it myself. But then I only use a few of the milder swear words in general when talking to people, and only as intensifiers. Maybe I was brought up too well and move in polite circles? :-) Seriously, I hope there will be some push-back against the meme that seems to be taking hold that this word is taboo in the USA and OK in the UK. For many people, it is not OK to use the c-word in the UK. I wouldn't even use it among friends, partly, I admit, because they would be shocked to hear me use it. Of course, there are subcultures and regional variations across the UK (e.g. Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow). Hopefully those in the USA can understand that the UK is not a homogenous whole sometimes known as England... (that's a joke!). Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The meme is pushing back at the concept that the fact Malleus used the word at all means he must have been using the highly offensive misogynic connotation, as opposed to the milder equivalent to "dick-which-is-really-okay-because-we-have-that-essay-variety." Personally, I don't think cunt or dick or moron or even subtler insults like "Reading comprehension, Jennavecia, a useful skill" should be tolerated but I that's not the current Wikipedia consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think baseless accusations like "Deb implied that they were stupid or lying" should not be tolerated. Terms like cunt or idiot or windbag or arse or zealot are an embarrassment, but I do not necessarily consider them block-worthy. But when you have a persistent pattern of such personal attacks and when they come with such adjectives as dishonest and mindless etc., then that becomes a problem in need of swift correction. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a humorous blog, so I wouldn't take it in entire seriousness, but it does stick with things that are actually popular among whichever group of people&mdash;in this case White Brits&mdash;it's writing about. They just make it funny. Also, I agree with Nobody Ent. I make no claims that "everyone in the UK" uses this word. In fact, I'm fairly certain that no one has made such a claim... of course, it could just be my reading comprehension. ;) (A reference to the above discussion). Regardless, this is very much about showing intent. It is common, if not in your circle, in the UK for this word to be used in ways that are not common in the US. This is evidenced through both anecdotal evidence, which is equally as valuable as yours, and in many, many popular cultural reference of which I've just touched the very tip. Lara  05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lara, please provide a diff that shows exactly where and what words used by GRuban constitute the allegation you have made with this section. I just don't see it and I'd like to know what we're dealing with here. You have mentioned "synthesis" and "baseless allegations". Let me see the diff. My76Strat (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've quoted it like three times. It's in the beginning of my comment to his evidence on the workshop page, and it's quoted to him in a conversation where he asked for clarification. Just read what I've already written. Lara  07:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lara, what are your views on this, especially Malleus's two edits to the section "Referring to women"? (read the actual section, not just the text on top in the diff) Also these are interesting if not definitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be worth asking Malleus to respond to.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's to respond to? The very existence of this case proves my point. I've never claimed I was unaware that some might take offence at seeing the word "cunt", particularly Americans, who seem to manufacture offence on an industrial scale. But I don't believe that means we have to be restricted to a vocabulary unlikely to offend the most zealous of Bible-belters. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)How did "Bible-belters" get into this? "Cunt" is the "most offensive word to a majority... particularly disliked by women" . Those perpetually offended Americans, right? No. This was an investigation of broadcasting in the UK. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would make for an interesting study in enculturation, come to think about it. Lara  16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're supposed to accept that cunt isn't considered sexist in the UK so Brits can call people cunts on Wikipedia.
 * I'm suspicious of this line of argument, as these examples seem to be apologies for using the word, not a documentation of actual practice. Claims that it is offensive to take offense (that one is being sexist for opposing sexism) are particularly pointless, and seem to come out of ignorance or denial.  Perhaps in England as in America (and indeed in this discussion) there are those who stubbornly resist that society has for the most part condemned the comparison of objectionable people to female genitalia as a remnant of age-old misogyny.  It's one thing to overstep societal bounds through ignorance or carelessness, it is another to push those bounds because one does not agree with them. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming tiring. The section title speaks to the purpose of the evidence. The claim has been made that Malleus' use of it was sexist and/or misogynistic and that his intent was to shock and/or offend those he was in discussion with. That set off a discussion about whether or not use of the word in the UK is less offensive than it is in the US, the different contexts in which it is used in the UK vs the US, and the frequent targets of the word in the UK vs the US. The argument is that it is the most offensive word in either American or British English, but that it is not as shocking in the UK as it is in the US. It is also commonly used in a more jovial manner and/or between men in the UK compared to the generally sexist use of the word directed in an abusive way at women in the US. I did not present evidence of the latter, for I am not necessarily in disagreement with that point generally speaking. However, your argument suggesting I am ignorant or denying anything is beyond insulting and offensive. And this from someone who rarely becomes either insulted or offended. Minority groups frequently "take back" words that have been used to disparage them. Whether it be "nigger" or "queer" or whatever else. The point of that particular argument is clearly explained in the quote I gave. It also speaks directly to the double standard on the project wherein it's completely acceptable (in practice, if not in policy) to call someone a "dick", but highly objectionable to call someone a "cunt". What is it about dicks that makes them less offensive to be referred to? Because it's more common? Because it's linked to an essay? Or because a dick is less "nasty" than a cunt? Those are the questions that particular piece of evidence goes into and an important question for participants of Wikipedia to discuss if the continued application of that particular double standard is to be endorsed by this case. Lara  15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "double standard" here. You argue in the evidence section the extreme position that recognizing sexism is itself sexist and along with others here appply a simplistic fallacious argument that words with symmetrical meanings should have identical usage.  I don't approve of "dick" either and I would be happy to see a rule where editors don't call each other dicks (I think there already is one).  But the answer to the rhetorical question about why "cunt" happens to be treated differently than "dick" by wider society can readily be found in the evidence section, googling, or reading some historical or feminist literature.  Cunt is by the majority account the most objectionable obscenity in the language, and also generally considered sexist whereas dick, usually, is not.  It has to do with society's attitudes towards women's bodies and sexuality, a history of mysogeny and exclusion, or something like that.  It's not our place to delve too deeply into the reasons here, we can simply note that the outcome.  Wikipedia is not creating or passing judgment on those attitudes, nor is it Wikipedia's place to be at the vanguard of changing societal norms, it is responding to them. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't rhetorical, and I'm really uninterested in the enculturated responses that don't actually answer the question of why. In fact, that's why I asked the question. To make people think beyond the trite, to respond with more than, "Because that's how I was raised," or "Because society tells me I should be offended by it." Why are you offended by the word? And why is it more offensive than dick? If you can't answer those questions, there's a need for introspection. Further, the 'that's just how it is and we're not going to do anything here to change or overcome it' attitude is also offensive. Lara  18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lara, before answering just want to say I think your well presented evidence is more than sufficient to suggest MF may not have been aware of how offensive the use of the C word would be, and its doesn't look like anyone has rejected the idea that it may be more common to use it in mixed company in Manchester. On the other hand, the solidly sourced evidence provided by editor Slp1 and several others seem to show beyond doubt that the C word is far and away the languages most offensive word even here in GB. Looks like you already accept this is generally the case? The word can be used light heartedly, but a crucial qualifier you used above is "between men". One often hears it in changing rooms after Sunday league footy or in pubs when no women are present - but very rarely in mixed company,  and even then almost never without an apology for the unguarded use of poor language. As the word seems to be in a class of its own, much more offensive than the f word, maybe in future any who use it can be subject to an automatic 3 day block or similar?


 * On the perceived double standards, I agree with Wikidemon that the important thing is the actual social standards in the real world. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign for social change, but we do ought to respect existing standards if we care about a collegial editing environment and attracting diverse new editors.


 * To answer your why question - at surface level the empirical fact is that words relating to womens parts, when used figuratively and in public, are invariably meant insultingly or at best neutrally. Even the much less offensive word 'pussy' is commonly used to suggest someone is unmanly, 'Tit' often means silly, etc. Whereas the male counterparts are generally used as a moderate insult at worst, and often as a complements. 'Balls' is very widely used to denote courage, and admittedly less often 'Dick' is sometimes used as a complementary term for positive aggression. ( perhaps as in a "Dick of Pornstar proportions" ?) This difference is part of why the C word is so often offensive to women, even in places like GB where its very rarely used with sexist intent. Taking your why question one level deeper, whats the reason for the difference in word useage? Its partly a cultural artefact of more sexist times. It also reflects biological differences in the things themselves – hard / soft, active / receptive, the female parts also being more nurturing but also messier. And theres the fact that in modern societies the feminine virtues tend to loose out to male ones (in our fallen world, all other things being equal, someone who excels in courage and aggression is likely to get the better of someone who excels in gentleness & sensitivity). Theres some interesting attempts underway to correct this, such as Brazils President Rousseff who has made recent speeches on the need for an approach to world affairs that balances female and male qualities. If efforts like these succeed and with the passing of many decades for the cultural artifacts to fade out of consciousness, then and only then will the perceived double standard come to an end. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. No, I kid. Thank you for your reasoned response. I find your argument both convincing and disappointing. Disappointing in that the double standard surely seems far from ending. Lara  20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who uses it for the first time as part of a disparaging other people should be asked to rephrase and not use it again. Nobody Ent 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum has been asked to rephrase his comments and abide by the Civility policy many time. He does not like that. What now? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dick" of course is also acceptable as a common nickname for Richard. I am not aware of "Cunt" being a diminutive for any woman's name.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously presenting that as a valid argument? Lara  18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply point it out. And I had asked for your opinion about some links I give further up in the section.  I would value your response.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I don't see the relevance. As for the above, I don't see the point of the first link. He's not denied that it can be considered sexist when directed at a woman, and he didn't direct it at a woman. For the second, that's a long list of uses of the word by various users. In fact, I am pretty sure the first result is one of my comments. This is a good example of the word being used without warnings or blocks, no? I suppose the point is to demonstrate his extensive history on WP with the word. That would seem to favor his side more than yours, though. Perhaps you could explain your thoughts and intentions with that link, and then I can more effectively comment. As for the last one, did he claim to not know Americans are shocked my the word? I would think a cursory glance through his edits/talk page (and evident to anyone who knows or otherwise interacts with him regularly) that he is aware that Americans tend to be significantly more sensitive to trivialities, like strong language, than some others. But he's made several other similar comments about various other swearwords and slangs, so why should we conclude that he was aware that this particular word would be so much more offensive than any number of others when, where he lives, there is a much different standard for and frequency of using the word? Lara  18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Me? I'm trying to limit side issues, if we have a smaller number if areas we disagree on, there's hope of resolving this without retirements, which is what I am trying to do, despite the sniping I'm getting.  (There's at least one quite happy to throw me, and another, under the bus).  I am hoping we can more or less agree on what Malleus meant by his statement, even for those not prepared to take his word through it.  Thus I'm giving external evidence which shows that he meant it strongly, but there's no indication in anything I've posted that it was meant to be misogynistic.  Can we agree?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is evidently confusion here. I did not mean to come off as snipey. I am just confused, it seems, and I must be misunderstanding your line of thinking wrt these links. Knowing your purpose and conclusion with each of the links would be helpful. Putting that aside, based on what I've seen and what I know of Malleus, I agree that there was no misogyny in his use of the word. I also find it likely that he meant the word to be considered a strong insult to a group of administrators, but not to shock or offend those in the discussion. Lara  19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jennavecia, are you familiar with the work of Mr. Welsh? Let us consider Trainspotting. There is this conversation between Renton and his mate/enemy Sick Boy. Renton calls him a "sexist cunt". Sick Boy, who is a dastardly villain sometimes known for speaking words of wisdom replies: "the fact that you use the term 'cunt' in the same breath as 'sexist' shows that ye display the same muddled, fucked-up thinking oan this issue as you do oan everything else" (Welsh 1993: 34). See also here. It is a bit like calling someone a "homophobic fa**ot". "Cunt" is sometimes applied to men in the United Kingdom? So what? That term "fa**ot" is sometimes applied to heterosexuals. Does not make it any less homophobic. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your example. It does not negate the facts of my evidence. Further, use of the term "faggot" as an epithet is not, in itself, evidence of homophobia (which is a stupid word that will hopefully soon fall out of common use or become defined in a way that matches it etymology). That isn't to say it isn't offensive or inappropriate, but that is an entirely different discussion that if you care to continue now or at a later date is welcome on my talk page. Lara  15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I see sources like the "Cunt Sketch", fictional characters in novels, links to www.thefword.org.uk or stuffwhitebritslike.co.uk, and your own analysis of it all, but I do not see facts. "Fa**ot" is not generally considered a homophobic insult? I rest my case. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have yet to present a case. And for the last part, I extended an invitation to an appropriate forum to discuss it. If that's beyond what you are able or willing to do, so be it, but stop attempting to engage in that discussion in this forum. It's inappropriate. Back to the relevant discussion, I think well-known popular culture references are strong to support the argument I've made. You do realize that you haven't actually presented anything to invalidate my evidence, right? Calling it laughable and and setting up distractions doesn't count as countering. Lara  18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking more deeply into Wehwalt's questions above, I read that section of the article, clicked on the citation, and got to this article in The Guardian (a fairly well-respected and mainstream newspaper here in the UK. I suggest people should read that article.(oops, sig ... comment left at  14:48, 5 January 2012‎)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That Guardian column is a fluff piece so it's not worth too deep a look. Here's a more serious look by a British author at what the word says about the female body and sexuality.  You'd be hard pressed to say the topics covered are non-sexist. = Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "That Guardian column" is at least a bit recent. The link you gave there has stuff dating from 1971, 1987, etc., even though the book itself was a 2006 publication.  Times have changed, and we have changed with them.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom is going to let Malleus and his enablers play these games, they don't deserve a seat they sit in. Where are the grown ups? Is this Wikipedia or 4Chan? I suppose if I start calling people "Fags" or "Niggers", then claim that where I live it's ok to use those terms and they don't really mean what everyone thinks they do, then provide sources(and yes, there are sources that give differing definition on those terms), we will have an ArbCom case? What we have here is the usual drama, and I loathe to post on these drama boards, surrounding the behavior associated with Malleus. An admin blocks Malleus for personal attacks, disruption, or incivility, and the hoards fly to ANI to get him immediately unblocked. A friendly Admin does the deed and others sit and watch in disbelief. Not even counting the times where the Admins don't bother to take any action because they know what will happen. It's a useless endeavor sure to be overturned. The real ArbCom case should look into the unblocking of Malleus and look only into the Wiki policies that got him blocked. They should look at the admins who unblock him, and those that block him. If there are those that are "out to get Malleus", they should be told to stay away. I honestly hve no idea if they exist or not, but I do know the Malleus enablers exist. We see them flock to ANI. The Admins who fit into this category should also be told to stay away from any Admin action. It's inexcusable to call people "Cunts". Period. There are no sources that make it ok. None. It's common sense and feigning as if it's ok where you come from and you don't understand what the words means in America defies credibility. It has the same meaning in every English speaking country, even if there are other meanings. ArbCom members need to be the adults here and put a stop to this bullshit. And quick. This page and the other pages are filled with excuses and counter reasoning on a simple matter. There need not be one reply after the other, this is a simple case. So people need to grow up and treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia and not as if it's 4Chan. Especially those who sit on ArbCom. Dave Dial (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave Dial, are you classifying all my input over here as that of a "Malleus enabler"? If so, would you like to re-think that one? I'm sure other people here would also take at least a little exception to having their motives for wanting the entire civility fiasco sorted out categorised as "Malleus-enabling". Classifying other people as "Malleus-enablers" is hardly a good-faith interpretation of the motives of people, about which (unless you are a long-distance Internet-telepath) you probably know little or nothing. Adding: and if, with your statement of "ArbCom members need to be the adults here and put a stop to this bullshit" you are implying that you consider other editors here not be adults, then perhaps it would be wise to re-think that one, as well. Also your comment "people need to grow up". Doesn't that one strike you as being, perhaps, just a little uncivil? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling those who are scouring the internet for any bit of information to make it seem ok for one editor to classify other editors as "cunts" a "Malleus enabler" is the least harsh descriptor I can think of. So no, I don't wish to change my thinking on this. It's an insult to the intelligence of all the editors who are not involved in this case and who are watching it in disbelief. Believe me, I wish I didn't feel the need to make my above post. I respect most, if not all, the editors who fit my descriptor. For Christ's sake all that was needed was for Malleus to apologize and state he will dedicate himself to editing in a more civil manner and not use the word again. That would have taken care of the indef block, without the need for another week block after he was improperly unblocked. Now we are all supposed to wade through this garbage filled with editors trying to find sources that excuse one editor from describing others as "cunts". Give me a break. People should be ashamed at the amount of wasted time and space in this case. Ashamed. Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I've got to endorse the substance of the currently-hatted comments, if not the heat. It strains credulity that people are trying to argue that it's okay to call people cunts on Wikipedia, much less that cunt isn't an offensive word used to denigrate women.  That's not a serious attempt to discuss, more like grasping at straws through the flimsiest of sources and most illogical of arguments. It so happens that most of those playing devil's advocate here are defending Malleus on all other grounds and railing against those who are perceived to favor some action in the case.  Call it motivation or whatever you wish but this looks to be people taking sides, not people trying to resolve something.  If you find yourself doing this in good faith, and there's no reason to suspect anyone here of anything other than good faith, I think you'd do well to take a few steps back and consider just how farfetched some of the discussion has become.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not OK to call another editor any name which is meant derogatorily, is it, really? And the sources, getting back to the nitty gritty, weren't about saying it's ok to call people cunts, they were pointing out that it's not necessarily mysogenistic or a a sexist insult.  Depends where you come from.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge Editor Dave Dial did not participate in any of the varied discussions @ Civility enforcement until the above hatted comment. It is a reminder that, while a few dozen editors hunt the archives for pitchforks and knives to use against each other, the rest of the community is watching. And, as is evidenced by Editor DDs' comments, they don't like what they see. Those that are interested in the long-term success of the encyclopedia should give voice to their opinions. This case will come to a decision soon, and all modifications will cease. Before it closes there may be no better opportunity for editors that have been on the sidelines as spectators to step onto the pitch and let their voices be heard read. --Buster Seven   Talk  09:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who is arguing that it's okay to call people cunts on Wikipedia or arguing that it's not an offensive word. I think, at least for this section, that wildly miscategorizes the arguments considering they are about non-misogynistic uses. Straw men and all that. Lara  12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular section is more philosophical than others, although if it isn't intended to undermine the axiom that you can't call people cunts in public, it's not terribly germane to the case. Plenty of participants are making the argument elsewhere that calling people cunts is okay, or harmless, doesn't raise concerns of sexism, is legitimized by cultural factors, or should be tolerated for some other reason.  I've questioned the judgment of those making those arguments as being tainted by advocacy, so to avoid being uncivil or partisan myself I'd rather not name names.  It's all over the case, in the evidence and workshop section and their talk pages.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the important point was to get past the accusations of mysogeny and sexism. It's a bit like someone getting a "fair cop" for being in possession of sufficient cannabis for his own use, but then having it shouted about that he was a dealer in heroin. Neither is right,  but one is much worse than the other.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what the evidence showed, it might be relevant. But it is a sexist, misogynist term, and for those who don't find this blindingly obvious, the observation is supported by the overwhelming weight of the sources.  The fact that it's possible to use it without a sexist intent, or that some people and places don't think it is sexist, doesn't change that the word causes hurt and offense here among the general community regardless of what the speaker intended.  And if the speaker were previously unaware of how offensive it is, something I find implausible, that defense of ignorance goes away as soon as he was asked to stop.  If you're hitting someone on the head, "I didn't know it was considered wrong" ends as soon as someone tells you it's wrong.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is obvious that some refuse to acknowledge that mere use of the vulgarism "cunt" is even potentially offensive to any (excepting perhaps citizens of the USA who are said to "manufacture offense") Why is it so hard to acknowledge that minimizing Deb's valid opposition to it's use by demeaning her lifestyle is anything less than misogynistic. Is it even possible that those in support of MF could acknowledge the existence of a better way. My76Strat (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You said: "it is a sexist, misogynist term, and for those who don't find this blindingly obvious, the observation is supported by the overwhelming weight of the sources". Yes, in America, it's considered to be sexist and misogenyst.

But not everyone knows the ins-and-outs of other people's culture. It's still "blindingly obvious" to you - despite the fact that we've had, here on this page, multiple people saying that in the UK it may be a bad word, but it's not considered to be misogenist / sexist. You said: "if the speaker were previously unaware of how offensive it is, something I find implausible...". Just hold fire a moment and think about that one. "Something I find implausible." You're implying that all the UK people who've chipped in here, including females, are lying, here? You're implying that Malleus is lying here? Why should UK citizens know the nuances of word-use in America any more thoroughly than American citizens know the nuances of word-use in the UK? I'm not approving the use of the word, but I find your "something I find implausible" statement actually to be a heck of a lot more offensive.

So - take the level of offence you feel about the word "cunt", add some, and that's how I feel about what you just did. You just publicly impugned the integrity of every Brit who's said it's not that way here, and we didn't know Americans felt that strongly about it. Now that's offensive. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 06:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that many take offense that people making these 'arguments' about pretending to not know it's an offensive word think the rest of us are unable to see the farce for what it is. Oh, you think he's calling people that are pretending to be ignorant of the word and it's offensiveness liars? Nahhh, in America it's a term of endearment to not believe it's raining when someone is pissing on your leg. Dave Dial (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That, too, is offensive. People from different cultures see various different swearwords differently. OK, it's a "generically offensive" word, but we've already had a big discussion elsewhere on whether swearing is allowed or disallowed.  Please, guys, just take it on board that the word "cunt" in the British culture does not have the same overtones as it does in the US culture.  Nobody's pretending to be ignorant of the word or that it comes into the category of "offensive words".  But in the UK it's nothing like as offensive as it clearly is in the USA.  I'm sure we have words in the UK which are considered, here, to be more offensive than they are over there, too.  Sarcasm is really not appropriate here - I very rarely actually get angry on Wikipedia, but refusing to believe that different cultures apply different "qualities of offensiveness" (for want of a better phrase) to different words, and then basically calling us liars when we tell you that we honestly didn't know that Americans viewed it as misogenist and sexist, where to us in the UK it's just another swearword, and no more sexist than twat, prat or Berk - all of which refer to the exact same part of the female anatomy - is deeply, deeply offensive.  It really is.


 * And here's something for you to think very deeply about: Deb objected to Malleus's use of a word. Everyone's piling-on because it wasn't immediately removed.  Now I've just said, here, that I found something very offensive.  And you have just added to the offence, and made it worse.  Pot, kettle, black.  If you think when someone has said they're offended that the offending comment should be immediately struck, please don't do an even worse thing yourself.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion veers off track by attempting to direct it's focus to American, British, and other regional norms. Regardless of how plausible it may be that an unknown dichotomy existed in word choice and usage, It is Wikipedia norms we are comparing to civility, and collegial expectations. It would be nothing less than implausible to suggest you, MF, or any other wiki-user with a similar degree of involvement was so far out of touch with policy intent to believe Debs reasonable assertion should be met with chastisement. My76Strat (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My76Strat, I'm not saying it was right. I'm just saying that other things can be worse, regardless of the inclusion or not of any given swearword.  And one of those things just happened here.  It's actually an excellent illustration of how someone can give serious offence without swearing at all.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding, to give some perspective, I'm an older-generation female. I'm English.  I have school-age grandchildren.  And I'd far rather be called a cunt than a liar.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my own evidence, I attempted to illustrate why I believe it was not the mere use of the vulgarism which drew community ire, but rather the interactions which ensued. This is an important distinction. My76Strat (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is; you're absolutely right, and I'm in total agreement with you on that. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming as a case in point to be offended by a statement that your conclusion contradicts the evidence is more than a little silly. I'm not buying the cultural relativism argument, that's all.  I haven't seen a convincing demonstration that the word is okay, or not degrading to women, in British culture, and numerous claims and sources to the contrary.  We look to be in face palm territory.  How should I know why people are making implausible claims?  Part of the beauty of civil conversation is that you're supposed to prevail or not based on the strength of argument without questioning the other's good faith in making it or taking personal offense just because they don't agree with you. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Claiming ... to be offended ... is more than a little silly." You haven't seen a single demonstration that it's not considered to be particularly degrading to women, in British culture? "Part of the beauty of civil conversation is that you're supposed to prevail or not based on the strength of argument  without questioning the other's good faith in making it" I'm a woman, in British culture. I have been for decades. The word is almost always used about / to a man, in British culture. But it seems that regardless of what you've said there about the "beauty of civil discussion" (the bit about "without questioning the other's good faith") somehow isn't applying to this particular conversation. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I was offended, and said so. The offence was added to.  I was more offended, and said so.  Then I was told that "claiming" to be offended was silly.  "More than a little silly", in fact.  Anyone noticing any parallels here?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No parallels at all. You say you're offended that I don't give credit to the notion that British people calling each other cunts is fundamentally less offensive than Americans doing the same.  Well, sure, I'll grant that you may feel a sense of personal outrage.  Some people are outraged by injustice, others are outraged by poor fashion choices or misuse of kitchen appliances, perhaps some people are outraged by the letter M.  What you seem to be missing is the other half of what it means to be offended, namely that the thing you sincerely object to is reasonably judged by a relevant social group to be something worthy of contempt.  Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I don't think there's much of a parallel between women overcoming centuries of bigotry and mistreatment, and British people striving for the world to understand their use of curse words.  I'm not offended at all that Malleus called people cunts, I just recognize that the term is considered deeply offensive by many people and as such using it creates an unwelcoming environment for people to go about the business of editing the encyclopedia.  We've gone into some of the reasons, that putting women or men down by reference to female body parts is a manifestation of societal disdain for women, their bodies, and their sexuality, an evil that is not entirely gone.  We've gone through evidence, much from British sources, linking the offensiveness of the word to that history.  You can agree or not, but there's plenty to say that the word is offensive in England just as it is in the US.  We've also gone through evidence that the word is not so bad after all in England because people say it in informal social settings without meaning anything special by it.  I don't give that evidence much weight because it seems to be either self-reported by editors weighing in on this case, or breezy opinion pieces by columnists making arguments against accepted wisdom, and in both cases directly contradicted by other comparable sources (some English Wikipedians and news columnists say it is offensive after all).  Further, even if English people don't think the word is offensive that doesn't give them a free pass to use it on Wikipedia.  Perhaps they just don't have as much concern as Americans do in this case for stamping out old remnants of sexism from the language.  Then it becomes a debate on values, not on language and culture.  Even if the word really meant something different in England than it means in the US, we're not in England right now, we're in a broader social space that encompasses English speakers worldwide, and I don't think the world is going to grant a special exemption for England to call people cunts here.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see your points here, about using the word (at all, possibly), but you must have missed mine, I think. You say here:"the thing you sincerely object to is reasonably judged by a relevant social group to be something worthy of contempt"


 * I sincerely objected to having myself, and all the other people who've said that in the UK it doesn't have the misogynist, sexually-demeaning connotation that it has in the USA, basically having our words publicly doubted and found to be "implausible". Effectively calling a bunch of your fellow editors liars comes into the category of  something "reasonably judged by a relevant social group to be something worthy of contempt".


 * The point is not "it's not offensive here", the point is "it's not considered misogynistic here". Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a question for you, Wikidemon. In the thread below, it was said:
 * "I vigorously reject any suggestion that I was aware it was considered to be misogynistic in the US." I hope that will put to bed the accusations otherwise. I accept Malleus' word on this unreservedly and hope everyone else will as well. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And you replied:


 * Agreed. That suggests that this whole matter is better resolved through WP:TROUT than anything else, preferably smoked and on a bed of field greens. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC


 * You agreed that Malleus's word should be unreservedly accepted. Why, then, do you now think the people in this thread, eight days later, should not have their word unreservedly accepted?  And does that scepticism ("Something I find  implausible") apply to all of us, or just some of us?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still believe that TROUT is an appropriate remedy for Malleus in this case, as long as he gets the message. There's no reason to make a scapegoat out of him, and no reason to believe he intended anything sexist - although he clearly accomplished a sexist result through his provocation.  That sort of thing happens all the time when you use strong language carelessly.  If you throw darts blindly about the room, sooner or later you're going to hit someone on the head and it's no excuse that you didn't mean to hit them. What changed my opinion slightly, in my very next post, was that Malleus subsequently said that he intended to offend people, and dismissing those who he offended as having victim mentality and likening them to religious conservatives.  In this case Malleus did intend to hit people in the eye with his dart, now he's telling them to stop complaining about it.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, TPC posted this discussion as case evidence that I'm supposedly offending her through my participation here, something I think is beyond the pale of civil discussion and that I've asked her to remove. I'm not going to engage people in earnest discussion of the issues raised by the case if they're going to run to the evidence page to try to turn my comments against me.  In rereading this section it appears that what she's offended about is a simple reading comprehension error on her part over the following passage: the word [cunt] causes hurt and offense here among the general community regardless of what the speaker intended.  And if the speaker were previously unaware of how offensive it is, something I find implausible, that defense of ignorance goes away as soon as he was asked to stop.  I hope it's obvious that the "speaker" I'm referring to is Malleus, not every British person on Wikipedia, who TPC imagines I am personally accusing of being a liar with that statement.  I'm not accusing anyone of lying, Malleus included.  He chose to admit rather than deny that he knew he was causing offense and intended to do so, he just denies (and I believe him) that he knew the specific modality of his offensiveness would be construed as sexist and, more importantly to me, he said it's not his problem that he chooses to offend people.  Anyway, if anyone's going to try to make me a party to the case for not buying that it's okay to call people cunts if you're English, I'm out of here.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like that you say "There's no reason to make a scapegoat out of him, and no reason to believe he intended anything sexist - although he clearly accomplished a sexist result through his provocation." I think his later comment was that he didn't mind using an offensive swearword, but wasn't using it in any kind of sexist way.  In many places and sub-cultures in the UK, "some x's are cunts" is only two degrees worse than "some x's are pricks" or "some x's are pillocks".  It's obviously not a nice thing to say - I agree with that.  But the sexist / misogyny accusation levelled at him was caused by a cultural divide. If you've grown up where the word isn't that much of a big deal, you can get a bit defensive when people suddenly come at you with a "shock, horror! Evil sexist person!" response which you just weren't expecting.  "Don't swear" is the expected reproach, if any - but "You misogynist, sexist man!" was just as unexpected as falling over a dragon.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have we just been talking at complete cross-purposes here? Is that where the trouble is? The section was headed "Sources to support the claim that "cunt" is used as a non-sexist term in the UK".  I though that that was what we were talking about. And when you said "And if the speaker were previously unaware of how offensive it is, something I find implausible", I understood that to mean "And if the speaker were previously unaware of how offensive it is," (i.e. that it was offensive in a sexist, misogynist way) and then saying "something I find implausible".  I didn't read your sentence as meaning effectively "And if the speaker were previously unaware that it was offensive", which is apparently closer to what you meant, if I've understood you correctly here.

Look, I wish we could just go and have a beer somewhere! I think we're both getting ratty because of a crossed wires thing. You said "supposedly offending her through my participation here" just up above. The word "supposedly" is implying some kind of deceit, again. Maybe you just don't mean the same things by qualifying words like "supposedly" and "claimed" that it appears you mean. The "supposedly" implies that I wasn't offended by the "implausible" thing, and was just pretending to be! I was offended because it appeared that you were disbelieving us!

Where I come from, people use words like "implausible", "claimed", "supposedly" as scoff-words; words which carry a heavy implication of dishonesty, pretence, and lying. And, where I come from, "simple reading comprehension error on her part" is ... can;t think of a suitable word. Here, in print, on screen, we don;t have emphasis and tone of voice and so on to help us with cues. I read your sentence in a different way from the way you wrote it - but then looking at what it appears that you meant, now, I see your sentence as being ambiguous; open to misunderstanding. That's not a "reading comprehension error" - it's a simple misunderstanding of an ambiguity.

Can we call a truce? Can we just accept that we've misunderstood each other, and we don't need to hurl blame around and apportion fault for this? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do find it interesting that the substance of this thread and even MF's reasonable denial that he ever anticipated his actions to be construed as misogynous are premised upon and require the continued insinuation that only "Americans" (stated many times but I believe the intent is to indict residents of the US) were insulted. Without any apparent concern for validity, these geographical assumptions fly about as fact, and float heavily as an aspersion meant to disparage some, simply for their domicile. To what extent would the enabling argument be diminished if Deb turned out to be British? What research obliges the offended parties to be cast in such light? It is certainly reasonable, upon looking at Deb's user page, to assume she is from Wales, and even easier to ask her if it is to be such a mitigating factor. My76Strat (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an only Americans thing, it's just a cultural difference with probably a lot of grey areas. AFAIK Deb is British/Welsh, and I can't recall whether she just disliked the use of the word in general or perceived it as misogynistic.  But, from all t his, it does seem very clear that different folks have very different views, and even if all our current editors remember this (if they read it!), we will always be getting fresh editors from all areas, who will be just as uninformed as to each others' local-interpretation and local-weighting of any given cussword.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (more ec) Truce is good, thanks! I committed a reading comprehension error / unwarranted resolution of ambiguities of my own, when I didn't see that your comments were based on a different interpretation of what I had said.  A claim is an assertion of a potentially disputed fact, implausible means that upon a review of incomplete facts it does not appear likely.  I personally use those words in a way detached from emotional judgment.  Dishonesty and lying are something entirely different than making a claim that contradicts evidence or saying something implausible, that implies a conscious awareness that what one is saying is untrue plus an intent to deceive.  Lying is wrong in a way that being incorrect is not.  In this discussion and many others some people are saying the opposite of what others are saying.  That doesn't mean one side is lying.  Maybe they both agree and don't know it, they're both right in a sense, or they have different judgment, experience, or values, or don't remember things the same way, or in this case they're reading the same words to mean different things. (ec) Okay, I'll parse it out.  If the speaker (Malleus) was not aware of how offensive (that the degree of offensiveness passed a threshold of acceptability) calling people cunts, he became aware after he was informed.  I found it implausible that he was not so aware, and in fact he says he was aware he was causing offense.  He isn't denying that he was being offensive and knew it, he's denying that he knew people could take the language as sexist and he's disputing that administrative remedies were justified.  I'm not clear on the last point, I'm not sure what he wants if anything as far as the outcome of the case.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay, truce! [sigh!] Language is so dependent upon inflection, pacing, and body language! I'll strike that "evidence" out, as it's clear this whole thing just arose from mutual misunderstandings.  Have a beer!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the way forward
So, Malleus called someone a cunt. This can be a pretty mild epithet in certain contexts in many parts of the English-speaking world, which doesn't excuse the fact that it's still a breach of WP:CIV here. However, these squabbles over civility breaches by otherwise productive editors, once taken to ARBCOM, invariably chew up huge chunks of everyone's time, deepen hostilities and disillusionment with the project, and produce little or nothing in the way of useful outcomes.

The way to resolve recurring issues of this nature is not to hand the problem to ARBCOM, because ARBCOM doesn't really have the power to resolve them; all it can ultimately do, apart from sanctioning this or that miscreant, is issue recommendations to the wider community. These are no more than temporary fixes, waiting for the next round or the next group of opponents to repeat the whole saga.

The only way to get a permanent resolution to such problems, IMO, is for the community itself to agree on a better defined process for handling these issues. This might mean, for example, having a clearer definition of what constitutes an actionable incivility for which an unblock may not be made; having a defined and limited set of sanctions for such incivilities, at least for vested contributors; and possibly having a better defined process in which unblocks for incivility may be made.

The definition of insanity, after all, is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different or better result. For recurring problems regarding processes, the best solution is a clearer set of rules governing those processes, not endless repetition of the same predictable dramas arising out of confusion or disagreement over the ill-defined existing processes that give rise to the problem in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * MF has called at least one person a "cunt" perhaps others. In the "Food for thought" thread, he did not call anyone a "cunt". He did use the word, as did others in the same thread, but did not direct it at anyone. This thread was cited by Thumperward when placing the original block. Thumperward's block was improper. I intend to submit evidence to this regard. Although MF has in the past deserved a civility block, his conduct in the cited thread did not rise to such a necessitating level. Regarding the "Food for thought" thread, MF is an injured party. This really complicates things as far as I am concerned. My76Strat (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Maleus' nonspecific use of the "cunt" epithet has already been mentioned in evidence and everyone's aware of it, but if not it wouldn't hurt to point it out. However, what you might be missing is that calling people cunts in the abstract is still offensive and highly objectionable to some people, as it's a sexually demeaning term.  You might want to compare that to using the N-word or calling people "retarded", as opposed to saying that someone is a "a creepy stalker".  In the latter case nobody is going to claim offense on behalf of the ax murderers you're maligning, because that's not a class of people people judge worthy of respect, so the incivility is only if you're referring to someone specific.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it any more "sexually demeaning" than "dick", which seems to be widely accepted around here - see WP:DICK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because whether it is sexist or not, calling someone a dick is a relatively minor reproof. "Don't be a dick" is a fairly common expression.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should that be? "Dick" is a slang word for penis, while "Cunt" is a slang word for vagina (and in history, it was a perfectly acceptable term). If one is worse than the other, where is the sexual equality? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and where I live, "Don't be a cunt" is fairly common and usually an equally minor reproof -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is evidence we're not actually a civil community. Note dick specifically says calling someone a dick is being a dick. Nobody Ent 17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we don't treat ax murderers civilly, then we're not actually a civil community. Non contributive editors should be reverted, warning, ban and blocked as appropriate, but in all cases treated civilly. It's not that hard. Nobody Ent 17:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It might or might not be more sexually demeaning. It is however, without a shadow of doubt, extremely offensive to an overwhelming majority of the general public in a majority of English speaking regions. That Wikipedia appears to have a number of puerile editors who think it is perfectly acceptable - and use any politically correct, wikilawyering, equality-based or free-speech justification to brandish it about like a badge - is to the detriment of the project. It's a disgrace.  Leaky  Caldron  17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here, but have you actually visited that "majority of English speaking regions", and gathered actual evidence that it is "extremely offensive to an overwhelming majority of the general public" in them? You might be right, but just as I can only go on my own experience, I'm curious as to the extent of your experience -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I made it up as a piece of WP:OR just to provoke a few politically correct, wikilawyering, dicks to bite. I don't think that you are in the slightest bit curious and would denigrate whatever personal evidence I presented. It can be acceptable down the pub with your mates, it might be fine in certain domestic settings and in a few work place environments. It is not acceptable in writing to, with or about a bunch of complete strangers and that's what we do here - try to work with strangers - collaboratively. Leaky  Caldron  18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia projects Wiktionary and Wikiquote both document non-sexist usage of the in the UK. Nobody Ent 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Majority or not, it was extremely offensive to Deb, and she stated as much. That should have been enough to get Malleus to withdraw it. It wasn't. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Had it been aimed at Deb, yes, I'd agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't start censoring ourselves every time someone displays sensitivity to language. She was offended by a word used in reference to not her. Too bad. Good therapy for getting over reading a bad word is improving an article. How about that? Problem solved, a benefit to all. Lara  02:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Leaky Caldron. It's such a shame you're not more familiar with WP:AGF. (Oh, and it does seem a little ironic for you to be calling other people "dicks" in this context). Bye -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Happy to see this was just a misunderstanding, and happy to redact this reply - I really didn't mean any provocation by my earlier comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor Deb was upset that a Veteran Editor would use such a crass word and asked him to retract it. True, it was not aimed at Deb. It was aimed at every editor present and ever will be present. The swearing was not civil. The refusal, 3 times, complicates your defense. An Encyclopedia of Swearing states that the word is taboo. The word was accepted publically but in the Middle Ages. The famous Gropecuntlane was renamed to Magpie Lane in the early 16th Century. --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand Tittle Cott Bridge was renamed Tickle Cock Bridge in the 20th century. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "It was aimed at every editor present and ever will be present" - no, it was aimed at admins. I can accept that some people were honestly offended by it, and I'm not criticizing them at all for that, but accusing Malleus of sexism was grossly unjust. I know some people insist on inferring intent from the word itself, but those people are simply wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only known fact is that it was "read by every editor present" and some of them were offended, regardless of gender. Leaky  Caldron  00:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The words Malleus used are not a primary concern to me, and I believe the initial civility block was an inappropriate application of policy. Subsequently, however, Malleus disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, and Wikipedia completely failed to contain the drama that erupted, hence this case. To go forward, it is essential to understand how we came to be here. Geometry guy 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "disrupted Wikipedia to make a point", are you referring to the comment to Spitfire? 28bytes (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not specifically. I intend to summarize the evidence for this assertion in the next day or two: however, anyone willing to take the time and effort to peruse the edit history could do the same, and I don't believe Malleus would contradict the factual basis for such an assertion, as he is an editor with great personal integrity. Geometry guy 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will wait for your evidence. 28bytes (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completed as promised. Geometry guy 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geometry guy. Your evidence answers my question. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of order: isn't it generally accepted that editors are inclined to mouth off a bit after a block - and particularly after one which was hardly the best example of good judgment? I'm sure I remember this being explicitly pointed out somewhere - that one should generally ignore any immediate post-block incivility?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the original block was unwise, or overdue in coming, is at issue in the case. One thing, though.  If one doesn't want to be blocked again, best not to double down on the untoward behavior that lead to the block that was just lifted.  Whether the original block was valid or not, some would consider that a WP:POINTy thing to do.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Howdy"
Where I live, "howdy" is a perfectly innocuous and harmless thing to say. I use it greet people occasionally. If, however, I used it on Wikipedia and it was pointed out to me that "howdy" meant "you are a faggot" in New Zealand, I would stop using it to greet people on Wikipedia, even if, in everywhere in the world but New Zealand, it is a perfectly harmless thing to say. I would not tediously argue about what an unfair double standard it is that we can say "hey y'all" but not "howdy" since they're both informal greetings.

I assume that Malleus did not know when he used the word "cunt" that it is used exclusively in the US for two purposes: to describe a body part (rude but not a big deal) and as a quite hateful sexist epithet directed at women (quite a big deal and pretty much on par with an intentional racial slur in US culture). Fair enough. But he knows now, as does everyone who's reading this. Now that you know, have some respect for the US editors for whom this is a quite serious sexist insult and recognize that it's not just another "private part" word interchangeable with "fanny" or "dick" or what have you. In return, if I inadvertently call an editor a word that's a sexist, racist or homophobic epithet in another English-speaking culture, please let me know and I'll stop doing it immediately. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy, 28bytes! I agree, and would add that it is useful to examine whether Malleus, or any other user in a similar circumstance, had prior on-Wiki experiences that would have already educated them about how a word would be received, and also useful to examine what edits the person subsequently made, whether they softened their position upon finding out about the offense that was taken, or whether they provoked further. In the interchange with Deb, I think both these factors look rather bad for Malleus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe Malleus was not familiar with the US usage. (And why should he be? He doesn't live in the US.) From what I've seen from his interactions with other editors (male and female), he is not the type of person to intentionally direct sexist language at people. I'm more concerned about the unfortunate reluctance of other editors to recognize that this is indeed an extremely sexist epithet in the US, one that should never be directed at other editors. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? --Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly don't think he's unfamiliar with the word, just (I hope) the baggage it carries in the US. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty convincing, Wehwalt. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Convincing of what? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy to you too, Malleus! Explained in my evidence. Please prove me mistaken. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistaken about what? Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My position that (1) there is no reason to conclude that you are a misogynist, and (2) there is reason nonetheless to conclude that your comments got in the way of moving productively towards consensus, and that you are quite intelligent enough to have known that they would do so. That's the part of it most relevant to this discussion thread; the rest is in my evidence on the evidence page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving towards consensus for what? The relevant discussion was about the number of edits administrators made, what possible consensus could emerge from that? And everyone seems to have ignored the fact that the posting that resulted in my indefinite block began "We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings." Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, would that your posting had stopped there! Arbs: please compare this discussion with the second part of my evidence. Further information: Miranda warning. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that thread is somewhat complicated by the fact that the word is a vulgarity and insult in the UK, albeit not the hatefully misogynistic one it is in the US. The article appears to be solely concerned with the anatomical meaning of the word to the exclusion of its use as an insult. I think Malleus was right to defend the article on the grounds that, vulgar or not, it's OK to write excellent articles about such things. That doesn't necessarily imply he knew or cared what the word meant in the US. Maybe he did. Maybe he did, but did not fully appreciate the misogynistic baggage the word has in the US. I continue to believe he was not aware of the sexism and hatefulness it conveys to US English speakers, but it's certainly possible I'm wrong. I hope I'm not. It would be tough indeed to defend someone who was deliberately misogynistic. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think something need not actually be deliberately misogynistic to be something that gets in the way of moving towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously I know exactly what the word means, but I vigorously reject any suggestion that I was aware it was considered to be misogynistic in the US. It certainly isn't here in the UK, and in fact I've only ever heard it applied to men, never women. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I vigorously reject any suggestion that I was aware it was considered to be misogynistic in the US." I hope that will put to bed the accusations otherwise. I accept Malleus' word on this unreservedly and hope everyone else will as well. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That suggests that this whole matter is better resolved through WP:TROUT than anything else, preferably smoked and on a bed of field greens. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...But Malleus contradicts the denial here. Assuming what he says the second time is true it doesn't leave much room.  He used a sexist epithet either in the course of being deliberately offensive, either through careless disregard of the word's meaning, or intentional disregard. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. What I have denied is that I was aware that some in the US consider the term to be misogynistic. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it appears many editors, especially but not exclusively American, appear to be unwilling to step outside their own cultural perspective and assume enough good faith that the word has more than one connotation. Needles and I both have an "eye" but obviously those are different things. Nobody Ent 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The word has many connotations everywhere. So what?  Here's a story.  An immigrant from a hypothetical nation is seen beating his horse.  When told that Americans are horribly offended by that he says "I honestly was unaware that beating a horse is considered animal abuse in America".  When asked to stop he says "I was unaware you would be offended, but I refuse to be constrained by Americans' manufactured offense over such things". - Wikidemon (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is hard for me, because I do respect you 28bytes. But it must be said. You were somewhat remiss as an administrator yourself upon entering the discussion. Where you should have said something similar to what you said in this thread, you instead joined the fray with your own boys club humor. I am of the opinion that administrators should take an oath prior to receiving the tools. And I think that oath should require your core to be proactive in supporting institutional goals. If your edit had delivered the proper admonishment, as it should have, this case would be entirely different than the reality I am forced to see. My76Strat (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My76Strat, you are entirely correct that I should not have joined in that discussion. It was an attempt to be light-hearted, but after a good night's sleep I realized it could be construed as condoning or endorsing the language, so my second edit the next morning was to withdraw it. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, My76Strat! Who's forcing you? This issue should be immediately resolved! Lara  02:45, 2 January 2012 (UTCand)
 * Redacted - My76Strat (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

28bytes analogy is not an accurate reflection of the case at hand. Please go read the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence in some detail. Nobody Ent 20:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I fear you are missing the point of the analogy. It is not directed towards the events leading up to Thumperward's block (otherwise I'd have put it on the evidence page.) It is directed towards editors who on this page (and elsewhere) continue to be bothered that we can (sort of) call people dicks but we can't call people cunts, even after having it repeatedly explained to them why that is so. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, both are wrong, right? Nobody Ent 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We shouldn't be calling people insulting names, whether they're misogynistic, racist, or simply just rude. 28bytes (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot of agreement along the specific lines just drawn: "We shouldn't be calling people insulting names". The harder question also being asked is should we even use such language in a non-directed, jest manner? And furthermore how do we best handle such non-directed, jest communications when, and after a good faith editor has expressed disdain regarding the offensive nature perceived? Some seem to suggest we advise the offended party to get out a little more often and take in the real world, a bit to much like a celebratory roast for me. Others indicate we should emphatically consider the feelings of every imaginable group or sub-culture and it digresses to PC Scrabble. The answer must lie in some compromise. Can we get there? Do we even want to? Should we even want to? I can't answer these questions or even imagine the answers without help. So please, if you can; My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the point of the help template. Lara  05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thank you, no, I understand its use. Consider this more of a dense brain fart. My76Strat (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy, 28Bytes! I'm going to turn one of your phrases around, because it applies just as much the other way about. You said: "editors who on this page (and elsewhere) continue to be bothered that we can (sort of) call people dicks but we can't call people cunts, even after having it repeatedly explained to them why that is so."  The other way to look at it is: "editors who on this page (and elsewhere) continue to state that we can (sort of) call people dicks but we can't call people cunts, even after having it repeatedly explained to them why that is either wrong or debatable." It's all too easy to lump one group of editors together as Complainers and the other group as Explainers, but in this particular instance you could put either bunch into either group; the distinction is purely in the eye of the beholder.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an interesting way to look at it. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving these sections from the evidence page
The following sections have been moved here from the evidence page as they do not appear to constitute evidence but instead appear to constitute the personal opinions of the editors involved. Evidence should normally include diffs or other references (internal or external) and should be largely factual. Please refrain from editorializing; prior to the opening of this case, over 100 editors provided their opinions and editorialized comments, and much of the non-factual information has already been said many times over. Risker (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculoncous way to ignore the fucking issues there. Disgusting. Arbitration is a joke. --Errant (chat!) 09:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The hidden result of the way Malleus talks to his peers
Just before ...... I requested "common courtesy" and was rebuffed by Editor Factoreum  I was trapped in the thought.."Do I respond as a Veteran fellow editor and support Editor Debs' simple request, or should I, for the hundredth time, hold back because of fear of Editor Malleus' potential reprisal." To me that is at the heart of the way Editor Malleus behaves. His tactic is intimidation. Not just of the editor he is berating but anyone else in the vicinity that may be thinking about commenting. His bruising comments are intended to harm or at the very least to create fear. It is not pleasant to be at the receiving end of his whip sharp tongue. No one needs to be molested, punished, disquieted or called into question for differences of opinion.
 * Note:I did not include diffs in my original posting of the above comment. I foolishly referenced the Editor above me. With the move from the evidence page to the talk page, that connection is gone. For anyone interested, these diffs will take you to the vicinity of the incident that precipitated this Case. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  10:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Should consideration be given to Malleus' exceptional contributions?
No. Because Malleus is 'summa cum laude' in the classroom (articles) does not give him permission to be a bully in the schoolyard (talk, etc.).

Cunt: Taboo or innocent buzz word?
Taboo! The social history of profanity and foul language lives in the English spoken world. But Wikipedia deals with the English written world. Is it really necessary to dredge the linguistic sewer of the spoken in order to communicate in the written? What is really being communicated when editors use "charged" words like cunt?

Comment regarding Editor Berean Hunter's Evidence
User Hunter states that there was no American present    when the admins are cunts statement occured. I'm American. But his point is still valid.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding previous evidence by Editor Nobody Ent
Editor Nobody Ent's sequence of events at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence contains a distressing interpretation. The thread includes Nobody Ent's characterization of my request of Editor MF to be a gentleman as "condescending". It was not. Not when I made it and not now. Perhaps Editor Ent has an issue with authority and views any stern comment as condescending. I don't know and I don't care (how Ent views it). That's his authority issue. Not mine. I didn't comment at the time Editor Ent posted since I realized that most other editors would see it for what it was-- sour grapes. My request to Editor Malleus Fatuorum was from equal to equal...peer to peer. The "Wikiplosion currrently in progress" was not triggered by Editor Thumperwards block. Had Editor Malleus acquiesced to 3 requests none of this would have happened. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  09:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding the purpose of Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Any day this Case will come to its conclusion, all the varied proposals will be presented and action will be taken. That action must speak to the workable and forwarding dialogue between editors that must occur, everywhere in WikiLand, in order for the encyclopedia to grow. With more than a million words presented, what becomes obvious is a singlemindedness (consensus(?))to deal with the inconsistant enforcement of the Civility policy (WP:Civil), and, that cursing and swearing do not help to create comeraderie and mutual respect. Words have the power to be used as weapons: to attack friend and foe alike. They have the power to inflict unintended harm. Certain words have the power to derail a conversation so severely that it never gets back on track. Every individual editor is entitled to work in a peaceful environment where mutual respect is the order of the day not the order of the High Command. This case and the discussions during its run may be the turning point to begin to create a civility policy that provides unison rather than controversy. Maybe a way can be found where Editor Malleus Fatuorum is granted permission, from on high, to be a curmudgeon as long as, when challenged he redact his  misunderstood comment.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus' Behavior

 * 1) Malleus can be an ass (or as he prefers arse.) That is not to say that he is one, but rather he acts like one. He can be one of the rudest most demeaning users. He scorns NPA and CIVIL.
 * 2) Malleus can also be one of the most helpful users on Wikipedia. I have never seen him turn down a request for help---although it might simply be a high level review.
 * 3) Malleus is clearly in the top 1% of users here at Wikipedia. Both for the good and ill. He is one of the best editors/reviewers we have---and is worth a 100 of the rest of us.
 * 4) Malleus is smart enough to know that his actions/words inflame situations and tend to bait specific responses.
 * 5) Malleus particularly likes to cast dispersions about the admin core.
 * 6) That being said, most of the individual blocks against him are frivilous. I've tended to side with Malleus when he is blocked because individually the cases lack merit.
 * 7) While I believe the specific incidents resulting in blocks have been weak, there is an inexplicable history of abuse and incivility coming from Malleus that can’t be ignored.
 * 8) At the same time, the loss of Malleus to the project would be a serious one as his value to Wikipedia equaled only by a handful. Which I hope doesn't happen.

Admin Response
IMO, since civility blocks can be so subjective, the default should not rest upon "first/second mover" but rather upon the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If consensus does not exist to maintain these blocks, then it should be lifted. This is only fair as to allow the accused to defend themselves.
 * 1) Admins seem eager to jump on Malleus for any little infraction. Comments which would garner a warning for most end up with blocks for Malleus.
 * 2) Blocking Malleus is an exercise in futility; Malleus is (rightly or wrongly) in a special class of user that has been immune to backlash. This stems in part (IMO) from premature knee jerk blocks.
 * 3) Other admins seeing an overstepping of bounds tend to come in and unblock. This is often referred to as second mover advantage.
 * 4) This has created a gnashing of teeth between admins and users---particularly those for and against Malleus.

Hawkeye7's reblock

 * 1) Hawkeye provided a detailed rationale for his reblock, the principle reason was "per consensus".
 * 2) He did not cite continued civility issues until it was pointed out that consensus to reblock did not exist.
 * 3) If he had cited Malleus' use of "fucking cunt" his actions would be tolerable.
 * 4) Since he didn't I have questions about his rationale and judgment. I also have concerns about his revisionist history.
 * 5) I do not, however, consider his comments at ANI as presenting a COI against his taking action.

Initial block/unblock
May not have been the best, but both clearly acted in good faith.

Evidence presented by ErrantX
I suppose this really is an issue we need to resolve.

We are really bad at de-escalation
The community as a whole has significant problems in avoiding escalation. The example that led to this case demonstrates the issue exactly. Malleus' comment was perhaps not the most constructive, it got a bit of "backlash" and then was redacted and the section closed off. Common sense suggests that should be the end of it.

This is in no way an uncommon situation; it is rare to see admins on AN/I (for example) de-escalating situations - by closing down threads and putting everyone back in their corners. Arbcom should, in this case, make a strong statement suggesting use of the minimum amount of dispute resolution to resolve issues.

Civility is not simple
Curse words are a lazy way to consider incivility. Rudeness can appear in many forms from simple assumption of bad faith, to taking an action without thought of others "feelings", to being persistently annoying (that last one is especially overlooked)

It's generally disappointing to see someone being pushed and prodded by another editor use a curse word and end up being the one admonished. Arbcom should issue a strong statement endorsing the view that curse words are simply an expression of frustration, stress, etc. and should be viewed in that context.

Curses can be uncivil
When directed at people, particularly with venom, cursing can be uncivil. As can any phrasing (for example; the Koala comparison). As with modern law we Arbcom should direct administrators to look into the intent of a comment - was it supposed to annoy, abuse or upset?

Some people are offended by curse words in any context
In this context WP:NOTCENSORED really comes into play. I have things I find upsetting or offensive. We should exercise discretion in our comments - but there should be no requirement to self-censor by default because of the sensitivities of others. Especially if that person is a third party to the discussion (as often happens).

About sexism
Cunt is not a sexist word. Perhaps it once was, certainly it can be used in such a way. But it is disappointing to see people attempting to solidify the word as a sexist epithet in general. Part of being a progressive community should include rejecting the modern forms of sexism such as "women are offended by ABC words" and "XYZ word is sexist in any context". The response to the pseudo-sexism has been encouraging so far, but a strong comment on the matter by Arbcom would be helpful. --Errant (chat!) 16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not about the word itself. And no one is speculating on behalf of women or assuming they would be offended. A female editor entered the discussion and stated that she was offended. There's no guess work here. It was the manner MF chose in responding to this editor, and others, which encroached civility. I join you awaiting a strong statement from ArbCom. My76Strat (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm offended by the fact the editor responded to MF with a scare quote "senior editor" and assumed her parochial point of view was universal instead of assuming good faith. Nobody Ent 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? How much? Please forgive me questioning your assertion, but did the blood drain from your face, did you avert your gaze or walk away, did your adrenal glands open, your heartbeat quicken, your stomach become queasy? Do quotes really scare you that much? Geometry guy 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no to face, gaze, definitely didn't walk away, adrenalin and heartbeat probably went up, stomach is rock solid, so nothing there. The point is, in every interaction each editor has a chance to choose to (try to) deescalate, be neutral or escalate a situation. The phrasing and scare quotes were not "descalate." They were confrontational and demanding. The probability of their request, or the follow on, of being successful in getting the words redacted, was asymptotically approaching zero. As an attempt to goal was getting the words redacted it was poorly executed. Consider:
 * It's in my evidence section.
 * If you had actually read the evidence section, "administrator," you'd have seen the diff.
 * Same message, vastly different tone. Nobody Ent 23:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But no effect on my heartbeat, and I would have responded in much the same way as I did, with thanks for setting me straight. (Incidentally, I did read the evidence section, but yesterday i.e., 1/1/12: the section is kind of long, whereas my memory is not!)
 * Rather than supposing that another editor was being confrontational and demanding, is it not possible that they were genuinely shocked and chose their words badly? Part of the point of my comments is that it is easy to criticize with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, less easy to make optimal edits in the heat of the moment. That doesn't just apply to MF, it applies to everyone involved. As Malleus himself might put it: sauce for the goose... Geometry guy 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with that. (In hindsight, the "hypothetically" I in my request was a little too cutesy, and I got a well deserved snarky "unhypothetically" back.) I'm just frustrated that I keep reading "MF was asked to redact his comment" as if that request were done in a neutral AGF tone. I'm also frustrated that mere weeks after a Village Pump discussion where the snow consensus was we don't have a speech code with "forbidden", MF is being criticized ex post facto for violating it. Nobody Ent 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree with you that some criticism of MF has been way off-base. Regarding my own response to the situation, see also the "here" comments linked from my evidence. Geometry guy 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that some criticism of MF has been wrongfully framed with biased intent. How much agreement do you suspect I would get after also stating that at times I have seen some pretty disingenuous comments made in support of MF. My76Strat (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a general comment gets you nowhere, I recommend making a more specific one. I have tried to very specific in my criticism of MF's actions, and some of the comments in support of them. Geometry guy 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course deb had the right to dislike the term. And ask for it to be redacted; though she was fairly uncivil in doing so. Malleus, being Malleus, refused to acquiesce (bonus points for getting the film reference there). And so the merry dance began. Being offended personally is one thing. I am responding to the modern sexists who then descended on the conversation decrying "cunt" as the last word in sexism. At no time did Malleus appear to be sexist, cunt is not by default a sexist word (no matter how much the sexists claim it to be) and, thus, anyone making the claim is skirting a very very fine personal attack line. --Errant (chat!) 09:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I think I'll just comment here that I had never heard the phrase "scare quote" before Nobody used it, nor had I come across the concept of someone being scared by having something they had said quoted back to them. (I'm still a bit puzzled by this idea.)  However, my use of quotes was the result of my being unaware that there was such a concept as a "senior editor" within wikipedia.  It was only later that I realised this is some kind of recognised but unofficial "award" that contributors can make to themselves, to show they've made x number of contributions.  Deb (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised both G'guy and Deb have not previously heard of scare quotes and misunderstand its meaning to be taken literally from its name. Scare quotes don't scare people. Scare quotes are used to question the validity of a word used, basically. In this case, it appeared Deb was mocking Malleus' senior editor status (not an award, but a signifier of experience). She's stated that was not her intention, so that matter should be considered resolved. Lara  15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I am familiar with the concept of scare quotes, but quotes can be used in many ways: the use-mention distinction, attribution (perhaps non-specific) and uncertainty being a few others. Text-based communication is even more fraught with ambiguity than the verbal or face-to-face kind, and it is all too easy to read intentions into a post which were not there. My comment was not about being scared, but about how it feels to be deeply offended by something, and the associated issue of taking or expressing offense too readily. For instance, at User talk:John just now I noticed the phrase "GG is nothing but a trouble-maker" and felt it in my gut, but then scrolled up to see that the reference was to another user, not me! Part of assuming good faith is assuming good intentions, and that editors generally mean well: a comment that seems snarky, for example, might simply be an attempt at humor that misfired. Geometry guy 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe again it's a Brit thing, but what we (used to?) call "quotes" over here, and (some?) people now call "scare quotes" are (were?) frequently used over this side of the pond simply to give the nuance of a concept, or an unofficial name. Just as I've used them here.  There's no good-faith way of interpreting them automatically to mean anything derogatory, such as only being used to question the validity of a word, if one takes into account differences in the use of language and presentation of language across different English-speaking and English-writing cultures.  "Two peoples divided by a common language" is clearly just as much of a problem now - maybe even more of one - as it ever was.  And, by the way, I'm English.  It's the English language.  To insist that a non-England-based version of the English language must be in any way "more correct" is a kind of arrogance, surely?  Not aimed at anyone in particular, just at the concept that seems to say that for some reason English people can't use the English version of the English language without giving offence to non-Englanders.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between several usages of double-quote marks. One is to denote that one is referring to the word itself.  For example: People say "irregardless" when they mean to say "regardless". Scare quotes are used to distance the author from, or to question or impugn the credibility of, the word or its application.  For example: You said it was abusive, but these "children" were vandalizing my car.  A third case is a quotation: When you said "editor in good standing", I knew what you meant.  But people often use quotes haphazardly.  My two peeves are when they quote themselves: Our pizza is "so delicious" you'll come back for more -- or create a straw man argument by making a scare quote or quotation out of something that nobody ever said: This "shining example of Wikipedia editorship" just created a lot of unnecessary drama.  If someone actually used that phrase, one could properly quote it in order to reference it.  If it were a frequently used term, one could use scare quotes to mock it (though that's kind of snarky).  But if nobody ever said it, it's an empty expression.  Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that some editors still believe that Editor Deb and I were uncivil when the incident happened speaks to how far we are apart in our understanding of what comprises civility or incivility. Providing quality data for the public good while maintainig mutual respect is possible. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

cherry picking
Re Hawkeye7 evidence: There's more than one cherry to pick from the Wikipedia article. Nobody Ent 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunt: "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
 * Is that the primary definition for the word? If it is not, what is the primary definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary? My76Strat (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you'd know, OED3 (and 2) records words based on first use; which refers in OED2 (1989) to the female genitals, the second definition OED 2 (1989) to a despicable person, esp. women. Users of the OED know its habits regarding currency and ephemeral uses.  Other dictionaries may supply more insight.  If we compare OED 2 (1989) to Oxford Dictionary of English 3 (2010), a use dicitonary, we only get female genitals and a unpleasant person.  Similar grades of Oxford dictionary for Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and American supply similar insights—though curiously the English and Australian dictionaries don't include the use warnings that the Canadian, New Zealand and American dictionaries by Oxford do. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response. My76Strat (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting variations, guess us Brits & Aussies are the least polite! My76Strat, in the New Shorter OED (1994), the primary meaning is 'The female genitals, the vulva'. The 2ndary meaning is given as 'A very unpleasant or stupid person'.  Despite being a 10Kg 2 vol book with almost 20k pages, the NS OED gives the word less than 2 cms of space, dismissing it as "coarse slang".  Also of note is that all the root words end in either an 'a' or an 'e'.  By taking those off, the English version has a harsh, closed off, guttural sound that creates a nasty dissonance between the word sound and what it represents . (Compare with the much more fitting word sound of pussy or vulva). Women can be more sensitive to this kind of thing which is another reason why they often dislike the word. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Canada doesn't appear to have an equivalent to the Macquarie. New Zealand has the Heinemann New Zealand dictionary, which isn't readily accessible for me.  The Macquarie's definitions have been noted in evidence.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it's entirely fair to infer that Aussies and Brits are the "least polite". Maybe we're just closer to the roots of the word, and view it in a not-very-dissimilar way to dick, prick, tool, arse, twat, prat, Berk (the last three of which, incidentally, mean exactly the same thing, anatomically, as cunt does), and so on.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the word has been unnaturally horrorised by the people who now find it so offensive. In a similar way that not terribly long ago it was considered "unseemly" for a female to say the word "leg", and table and chair legs had to be draped to avoid giving offence (because, for Heavens' sakes, they had the same name as those unmentionable things which females have which go all the way up to their unmentionables ....).  And I recommend the book Unmentionables: From Family Jewels to Friendly Fire - What We Say Instead of What We Mean to editors - it's very funny!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've been to the British side of the pond, and the only conclusion I can draw from this is that none of the Brits who view us Americans as "soft" for swear words have ever actually been here for very long. If you really think Americans can't handle swearing, you should go to a Yankee-Red Sox game; your ears will be melted off if you're not ready (being a Yankee fan, I'm all too happy to contribute to it).  As should be evidenced by the notice atop my talkpage, we aren't all the bunch of prudes we're being made out to be.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "all the root words end in either an 'a' or an 'e'" - that is interesting. AFAIK, "cunt" was the original English name for that part of the female anatomy.  And the original English name for the male counterpart was pintle. (cf. the plant Cuckoo Pint).  In search of polite euphemisms so that the general public weren't offended by references to these unmentionable parts of the anatomy, during our most squeamish/prudish phase, medicos resorted to use of the Latin terms - but even there, they had to avoid the Latin for [pintle, dick, prick] *delete as appropriate  which was phallus  because too many people knew what it meant.  So they double-euphemised the thing and came up with penis  which I believe meant "tail". Same happened with "tit" (usual pronunciation of "teat"), which was replaced with "breast" (original meaning being as in a breast of chicken, etc.) Language is a truly funny thing. It evolves, constantly.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Opportunity
We have a huge opportunity here with this case. There is a very large contingent of our community willing and wanting to voice their views, opinions, and feelings on a very large scale. We are a very diverse culture, coming from all ends of the world. We see words, phrases, and comments in very different ways. A very large portion of the community is speaking here, speaking their minds, their thoughts, their feelings. Something said in a small town in the United States can very easily be taken very differently in London England; and a concept that someone is trying to portay comes across far differently than what was intended. I think that this case could well be a defining moment in Wikipedia history. What I believe is important is that not only do we express our own personal opinions, but rather that we read, listen, and try to understand the point of view of our peers. We may not agree, but it is important that we listen. Many people have made very good points on both sides here ... but the bottom line is that for the most part - we are good people trying to make the world a better place by sharing knowledge. I would hope that no individual person is singled out as a scapegoat and hung out to dry here. There has been more than enough "blame" to go around. Hopefully the AC collective group won't try to "make an example" of anyone, but rather wrap their collective heads around the big pictue. The people here are good people. They do their best to improve this project. We are a wonderful thing as a group, but we must understand that we are not perfect. People will shine a bright and harsh spotlight on our failings at times. That should not be viewed as a bad thing, but rather something that we need to improve upon. — Ched : ?  04:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we have a "Like" box, to agree with comments such as the above? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! +7 Ched, that was a very welcome observation. Please let me add that one part of a constructive way to go forward is to move away from ascribing motivations such as misogyny and the like, and to move away from arguments of the form "this word is OK where I live"/"this word is not OK where I live". Instead, it is fair to look at how editors conduct themselves after being questioned over the use of such words: do they escalate or deescalate the situation when they become aware that there has been a reaction to what they said? Note that in, for example, the Noleander case, ArbCom decided that the effects of a pattern of edits matter for the purposes of dispute resolution, in ways that the motivations do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is there isn't really one Wikipedia but several; the editors I see here urging high standards for civility are not the same ones responding to users at ANI. I find it sad and ironic that here, where most of the users are experienced, there are arbitration clerks working hard to ensure the discussion stays civil; on the other hand watching the reaction from supposed-to-set-example admins to a hapless newbie who makes a bogus post at ANI is like watching chum being thrown into a shark tank. Stanford prison experiment meets Lord of the Flies. 100+ editors commented at the RFAR about MF and the wheel et. al -- a typical discussion at WT:Civility or WT:NPA might attract 5 to 20 on a good day. The recent village pump discussion on profanity has been mentioned several times, and it was overwhelming "no bad words." I wrote on this very subject in November User:Nobody_Ent/Notes_on_civility. Nobody Ent 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * +7 Yay! I would hope that no individual person is singled out as a scapegoat and hung out to dry here. There has been more than enough "blame" to go around. Hopefully the AC collective group won't try to "make an example" of anyone, but rather wrap their collective heads around the big picture. Some sense being talked here!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well said Ched! On current evidence dont see any need for any sanctions beyond admonishments, and at the request stage the community as a whole seemned to want Arbs to tackle the general civility issue. I hope your sweet of voice reason receives due consideration! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly few editors appear to be looking at the bigger picture, preferring to look to the minutiae of single words and some appear to be using the page to make personal attacks. A large part of the page constitutes a witch-hunt to get rid of a single editor. Civility is not clearly defined, I've had incivility directed at me and sometimes I have given as good in return. I think I might even have been reported to one of these boards for naughty people but wasn't even informed. Because no witch-hunter generals watch my every move, I got away with it, but I doubt I would if I were Malleus Fatuorum. Countless incivilities of all sorts are committed on a daily basis so what should be being investigated is how to deal fairly with those that come to public attention. J3Mrs (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many editors are the looking at the bigger picture; much of the discussion on words in based on the unfairness of throwing MF under the bus for language only slightly more incivil than the unfortunate community norm. It is ridiculous that fairness to MF requires a discussion not of whether cunt is offensive, but how offensive it is on the scale of Wikipedia approved insults and putdowns. Nobody Ent 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe I'm looking only at the bigger picture - because so many of the "little pictures" in the block log are clearly caused by the dysfunctionality of the bigger picture. This kind of problem is going to keep on recurring until the bigger picture - a decent, properly thought-out, well-written, unambiguous and sensible civility policy - not a horse designed by a committee kind of mish-mash which is  and this is the most important point of all  unequally enforced.  And, it would appear in many cases, deliberately and cynically unequally enforced. A community which is prepared to condone poorly-defined rules being applied to suit the taste of the person / people enforcing them doesn't deserve to be allowed to rule itself in that area.  This has been going on for way, way too long.  And people have been turning a blind eye to it for way, way too long  for many and varied reasons.  To chuck in a couple of almost-mandatory Godwin's law quotations / references: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [Wikipedians] to do nothing", and "Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me".  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me even only moderately well would expect me to admire a comment like Ched's here. It almost goes without saying that I do, but now I have said it. :) Geometry guy 01:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said previously, I don't think any approach adopted in previous AC/ANI etc. cases will help ameliorate this problem. Since no existing approach is suitable, a new approach is needed. A new approach requires new ways of thinking; thus I agree with Ched. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Manipulating events
It seems wrong to me that the administrators who made bad blocks on Maleus and were overturned, are now allowed to run riot in the way they attempt to sway the course of events here. The most obvious is Elonka, who arguably made the worst block ever on Malleus. Everywhere on the workshop page, Elonka vents what seems like an endless wrath,  advocating draconian retributions in all directions. Then there is Kaldari from the Wikimedia Foundation, also the originator of another inexcusable block, trawling diligently through every entry Malleus has made over the last 12 months, 26000 of them. This is more than the lifetime edits of most administrators, and certainly more substantial than the lifetime edits of most administrators. She finds here and there, with no consideration of context, that Malleus loses his cool every thousand or so edits. Some of the examples, like these:    , seem quite tame to me. Not too bad, I would say, given the way Malleus has become a target for the type of editors who attack him. This certainly sends a nasty message to content editors about what the Wikimedia Foundation thinks of them. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is better that editors make there case here so the community can reach consensus. By linking to many comments which are merely mildly incivil or snarky and less so that what transpires on WP:ANI, Kaldari merely shows the weakness of her argument. It's my understanding Kaldari is not functioning as an WMF employee here, so their opinions are there own, not the foundation. As far as what the foundation thinks of us  -- they provide massive amounts of storage and bandwidth and mostly encourage us to self-govern. Nobody Ent 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the fact is that the WMF continues to employ her, even though she makes controversial and divisive attacks on certain content editors. That is tacit endorsement by the WMF. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really hope that the Arbs will be able to notice which of the admins venting here are part of the subset that has dished out extremely poorly-judged blocks, and bear that in mind. I'm not saying that any bad-block justifying "See, I was right all along!" mentality is at work, but it might be.   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Epipelagic: So "keep it up, let everyone see what a shit you are" is a tame attack? I'd hate to see what you consider a legitimate personal attack. I've replaced a few of the weaker attacks with better ones, BTW. If you see any more weak ones, let me know. It only takes a few minutes to find new ones. Kaldari (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Attributing that to me is not an honest response. Where did I make any comment at all about that? Show me the diff where I said it "is a tame attack"? You just made that up to suit yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said that this diff seems "quite tame to me". It's at the top of this thread, 7th sentence. Kaldari (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right and I was wrong. I was not looking at edit summaries. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This line of argument won't carry weight with Arbcom. Evidence is evidence, it does not get discounted because of who provided it or how much effort they spent compiling it.  Nor is "think of all the babies he didn't rob" a viable defense for baby robbing, however many tempting babies one may encounter.  Best leave well enough alone, let people vent. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence ... does not get discounted because of who provided it ...  ???? That depends on the arb looking at the evidence, no?  It doesn't appear that you were in on some of the same cases I was in on ... arbs are human, too (don't look now :) and some of them may have biases.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, is it "Malleus loses his cool every thousand or so edits" or "It only takes a few minutes to find new ones"? That simple question of fact should be easy to answer. Pick any day at random, such as my birthday July 25, and see what Malleus said that day, and do we really have to read a thousand edits to find another zinger? Well no, we don't: here's the first one I found. Art LaPella (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What a fun game, Malleus incivility birthday bingo! He didn't commit any incivilities on my birthday last year so I guess I lose :(  Anyway, I agree that there's a seeming conflict when an employee of WMF engages in an oversight role as an admin or participates in dispute resolution.  But I don't think ArbCom could tell WMF what to do about its moonlighting rules, that would have to come from WMF.   - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus incivility birthday bingo-- the best thing to come along on Wikipedia arb pages since date-delinking! OK, I played, and found on my birthday that Malleus spent most of the day editing articles and no instances of anything even remotely related to "incivility" no matter one's definition:  he improved (seriously) about six articles, helped out a lot of other editors, was incredulously restrained in response to something a bit off from Wehwalt, and said nothing that was even fun on his talk page.  I guess my birthday was a dud.  Anyway, more seriously, I can't decipher why the first post in this thread states that Elonka made one of the worst ever blocks of Malleus-- could someone fill me in?  And, the Kaldari thing here is most curious; I do hope she doesn't speak for her employer or that her employer isn't paying for her vigorous pursuit of one of Wikipedia's top contributors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming surreal, but the game of Art LaPella bingo is quite revealing. On my birthday last year he made seven edits, two of them with AWB and five flagged as minor. Of the remaining two, one was a reply on his talk page and the other was a minor tweak to the manual of style. And this is perhaps what's at the root of what's happening here; editors like Art simply have no idea what it's like to be at the coalface of article creation. Of Wikipedia's five pillars only one seems to be on the radar of too many administrators. The example of Kaldari is also revealing, because his hostility is rooted in a long-running discussion about whether or not the practice of wife selling is misogynistic or sexist. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The less one edits articles, the more time one has for Wikipolitics. Since the WMF isn't on board for quality in articles, at least we can get some popcorn and watch the politicos jockey for position and power.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. I imagine that Epipalegic confused Elonka with Gwen Gale. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ah. I supposed I had missed something from the time before you changed the spelling in your name-- do block logs follow name changes?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how powerful your friends and enemies are, but I don't recall being blocked under the "Fatuaram" variant. Which incidentally I changed to "Fatuorum" after someone claimed that it seemed to apply only to female idiots. That's how much of a pathetically hopeless misogynist I am. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the rest of Wikipedia presumably prefers us to outshout each other, birthday bingo really is more scientific. For October 31, I believe these should have been rephrased to avoid personal attacks:   (see edit summary) (rephrasing some nastygrams like  would have arguably been harder considering the provocation). I agree that I don't create articles; I'm a copy editor, and in my behind-the-scenes way I may have helped settle down places like the Manual of Style, and you probably missed my Simple English contributions. Art LaPella (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the brighter side, Malleus is presently being much more constructive than in our last encounter, so thank you for that. :) Art LaPella (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the brighter side, birthday bingo has led me to interesting discussions and revelations, and I thank you for that! It takes considerable time and planning for Wikipoliticos to do what they do best, while the rest of us are hard at work, ignoring off-Wiki childish games.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it quite telling that Art is very evidently completely blind to his own incivility in his patronising comment above ... ah wait! It didn't contain any naughty words, therefore it's perfectly acceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing that really puzzles me here, and I hope the arbitrators pick up on this and pass a principle on the matter, is the way in which people keep commenting unnecessarily and gratuitously on Kaldari's employment with the Wikimedia Foundation. I may have missed it, but I'm not aware of anywhere where this has been shown to be in any way relevant. Yet people seem to be willing to use this matter to poke Kaldari, and some keep mentioning it time and time again, trying to make out that anyone who is employed by the WMF in some way speaks for them, represents them, or should be held to some higher standard. Specifically, Epipelagic saying: "Well the fact is that the WMF continues to employ her", horrifies me. It borders on saying that you think someone should lose their job, and saying that should, IMO, be a bannable offence. The fact that it is the WMF and not another company or organisation that is doing the employing shouldn't make any difference. If you have a (legitimate) problem with Kaldari as a WMF employee, go to the WMF. If you have a problem with Kaldari as a Wikipedia editor and/or admin, deal with that on-wiki. Don't mix the two. And on a more general point, if people feel free to bring up someone's employment with the WMF every time they get into a dispute with a WMF employee, you will see less WMF employees willing to edit regularly on Wikipedia - is that really what people want? Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I've struck part of the above following discussion on Epipelagic's user talk page. See comment and apology made here, and further responses to be posted below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am astonished by this, Carcharoth.
 * I don't remotely "have a problem with Kaldari as a Wikipedia editor and/or admin". All WMF employees should very much be encouraged to get accounts and contribute to Wikipedia and participate in content debates or as admins. In fact, I would almost make that a condition of being a WMF employee, and I would totally oppose anyone throwing their position in their face when disagreements about normal editing issues arise. But that is not the case here. You know very well this a highly controversial and politicised issue which has nothing to do with editors disagreeing about routine editing issues. Kaldari is participating, in a very prominent and uncompromising way, on this highly controversial and politicised issue. The WMF is not just any other employer. It is funded to facilitate and develop directions for running Wikipedia, and naturally it influences policy in all sorts of ways. If it wants to lead policy on controversial issues, it should be transparent. It should not have employees trying to influence debate on controversial and politicised issues within particular Wikipedia projects, unless it declares that is what they are doing.
 * It never crossed my mind Kaldari should lose her job. I didn't suggest that, and I wouldn't want that (unless she wanted that). Even if I were to suggest that, which I most certainly wouldn't, what threat could that possibly represent to Kaldari? Do you really think the directors of WMF would call an emergency meeting and say: goodness me, Epipelagic thinks we should let Kaldari go; quick, we must sack her? What I was querying was, since the WMF continues to employ her, should she be trying to influence policy as controversial as this in debate on the English Wikipedia? If the WMF responded: "Yes, this is the stance we want", then what Kaldari is doing would be fine. The debate would then be directed in other directions. It has nothing to do with sacking her.
 * You say that for expressing these views, I am bordering on something for which I should be banned. I am stunned, truly. Particularly coming from a recent arb. That is the granddaddy of personal attacks, and I have no idea where this extraordinary anger comes from! --Epipelagic (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, lest any of us doubts that it is possible to be a WMF employee and also be an excellent editor and also not go disrespectful with the unpaid volunteers, we only need consider Moonriddengirl/MDennis-- it's possible. That Kaldari added a cn tag to one of Malleus's statements on talk did it for me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, comparisons with Moonriddengirl/MDennis are not an exact analogy. They perform very different roles. Kaldari is a developer working on the fundraising software (see his page on the WMF wiki), essentially a backroom position. MRG/MDennis is employed as a liaison with the community, which is an outward facing role that requires interaction with the community as part of the job. MRG/MDennis has said explicitly in various places (I can dig up a diff if needed) that there are restrictions on what she can do or say written into her contract. I'm assuming (and Kaldari can correct me if I'm wrong) that there are no such restrictions for him, or they are far less restrictive. You and others may disagree with that, but if that is the case, then it is not fair to hold them to the same standard, or rather, hold them to the same standard, but make it independent of whether they are employees or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just realized Carcharoth is not just a recent arbitrator, he is assessing this case as a current (past) arbitrator. I'm speechless! --Epipelagic (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief comment here to correct any misunderstanding. I am a former arbitrator (or 'recent arb' as you put it), but from 2009 and 2010 (and the last few days of 2008). I've been happily off the committee for over a year since the first few days of 2011 (and I left all the mailing lists as well, the main one obviously, but the functionaries one as well). I don't know what you mean by 'current (past) arbitrator', but I'm not one of the recently departed arbs staying active on the case if that is possibly what you meant. My comments here are no more or less privileged than anyone else's, and if there is one thing I do object to it is treating people differently because of positions they hold or have held. It shouldn't matter if someone is a WMF employee or a former arbitrator, everyone has the right to comment here and not have that difference waved in their faces (albeit here it seems this was a misunderstanding). Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the crux of this whole debate (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement) for me. Whether Wikipedia "editors" (in the general sense) like it or not, there is a hierarchy of privileged editors working in this same space. They all need to work together; collegiately, as our North American colleagues are fond of saying. In my own personal opinion, "any" editor that has more privileges than any other editor must hold themselves to a higher standard than those with less privileges. If they don't, such as appears to be being discussed above, then this leaves room for dissension -- Senra (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The crux of the matter is that we have yet another example in Carcharoth that the civility policy is used to stifle unwelcome comment, nothing at all to do with civility. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With the amount of frank and open discussion going on in this thread, it should be clear that no stifling of unwelcome comments is happening. If you ever think I'm stifling comments, please take it up with me on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to add my shock to this. Foundation employees most certainly should be held to a higher standard. The highest standard, actually. It's sort of ironic: A lot of this case has to do with claims that Malleus is protected by editors and admins who respect his content work. Care should be taken to avoid the perception that a foundation employee is being protected here by clerks and arbs. It's beginning to seem that anyone who airs concerns with his edits should be banned or otherwise censored. Lara  19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've been an active member of the Wikipedia community and an administrator for many years before I was hired by the Foundation to do software development. My job has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or interacting with the community. I write extensions for the MediaWiki software. The continual harassment that I have received (over the past several months) due to being a Wikimedia Foundation employee is uncreative baiting at best and bullying at worst. I've had about half a dozen people imply or state outright that I should be fired. All because I have the audacity to try to enforce the consensus-built policies of this project, not as a WMF employee (which I have a separate account for), but as an administrator. It's funny how so many people insist on "respect" for Malleus, but don't think that any of the long-time contributors that Malleus attacks should be entitled to the same respect. I don't go around saying other editors should be fired from whatever job they have simply because I disagree with them on Wikipedia. If anything, that merely shows a desperation to silence your critics in the absence of a legitimate rebuttal. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone demanding that you be fired, but for the sake of clarity I'd appreciate it if you made it very clear that I have never demanded that you be fired; there's far too much unsubstantiated innuendo on these pages already. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you have never stated that I should be fired. I would like to point out this thread that you started, however, which was part of my employment-related harassment. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that the disclaimer I have on my User page (which they practically require you to add if you're hired from the community) seems to have the opposite effect from what is intended. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your disclaimer goes some way towards settling this issue down, Kaldari. However, when you choose to take strong positions on issues as political and controversial as this one, it might be a good idea to refer readers to your disclaimer at the outset of the debate, and reaffirm that your views are your own and not part of some WMF initiative to influence that particular debate. The issue is not that different from the conflict of interest that would arise when, say, a co-editor of a book wants to contribute to a Wikipedia article about the book. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll try to be more explicit about the separation in the future. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough, but Kaldari's disclaimer has been there for ages, presumably since he began employment with the WMF (in 2010, I think). Epipelagic's comment that Kaldari's disclaimer "goes some way towards settling this issue down" seems to imply that Kaldari only added the disclaimer in response to all this, which is certainly not the case. I know from what I've read elsewhere that WMF employees are required to add that disclaimer to their 'community' accounts, which is why I was so puzzled when people kept harping on this matter (I thought to myself "were they not aware of that disclaimer on his user page?"). I was also puzzled as to why Kaldari hadn't said explicitly earlier (to some of the innuendo) that his comments on civility were nothing to do with his job. I suppose there was a presumption that this was obvious (it was certainly obvious to me, but I should have realised that those referring to Kaldari as 'she' might not have fully looked into the matter of what they did at the WMF and whether it was related in any way to civility matters). Similarly, when I commented in some policy discussion a few years ago when I was an arbitrator, it felt obvious to me that I was commenting as an editor, not an arbitrator, but from what some people said back then it seems that this wasn't as obvious as it seems and explicitly saying in discussions which 'hat' you have on really can help. Really, though, is all the back-and-forth between Kaldari and others (with the mentions of him being a WMF employee) all due to misunderstandings and failures to read/understand that disclaimer? That's rather silly if so. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And is it your view Kaldari that this comment of yours immediately before the topic you link to was an impeccable demonstration of you showing good faith? Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that because I'm a feminist, I have the same POV as Nick, which isn't at all true. The sum total of my opinions expressed on the issue of whether wife selling is sexist or not is this diff, which was a poor attempt at compromise. Because I failed to support your position against Nick (and I do believe you had a valid argument), you seem to have decided at that point that we were "enemies". You then started attacking the work I did at Wife selling (Chinese custom), which was confusing since you were the person who suggested I split off a separate article. I never really cared much about it (since it's little more than a stub), but I guess that's the basis of your claim that we have a "content dispute". When you boil it down though, I don't think there is any actual dispute (just egos). I actually agree with you that putting these articles in the sexism category is silly. And I don't think you really believe that Wikipedia should not contain any content related to the Chinese custom of wife selling. As far as Wikipedia policies go, yes, we definitely have a dispute, but I'm at a loss to see where we have a legitimate content dispute. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is precedent for mixing employment and on-wiki precedent, and, in fact, some well-known editors advocate just that Nobody Ent 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I don't edit Wikipedia as part of my job. Kaldari (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a rather subtle distinction in this specific case though, given the WMF's position on gender inequality and you interposing yourself in the wife selling article in the way that you did. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost entirely agree with Carcharoth here. If Kaldari were employed by any other organization, comments relating to his/her employability would generally be regarded as offensive and proscribed. Should we make an exception to this principle for WMF employees, and link their leisure-time contributions to their job?
 * Those who do so here, are, in my opinion, making a big mistake. Wikipedia and the WMF are independent entities: the WMF hosts the servers, but our contributions are freely licensed, and the WMF has traditionally left the governance of Wikipedia primarily to Wikipedians. The distinction between the WMF and its employees, and Wikipedia and its editors, is an important one, and one we undermine at our peril. Geometry guy 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. And I say this as a definite non-fan of some recent actions by Kaldari and by the WMF.
 * Employability? Nobody Ent 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Substitute "employment" if you prefer, but comments such as "the fact is that the WMF continues to employ her, even though she makes controversial and divisive attacks on certain content editors" tie Wikipedia edits to employment and employability, with net detrimental effect to all. Geometry guy 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is I think when Kaldari appears to involve herself himself in areas that are linked to the WMF's agenda, such as gender equality. It's then difficult to distinguish who's speaking, why, and with what authority. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Himself, surely? Or am I missing something? Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never met Kaldari, I was just going with what others had said above. Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded above to most of what has been said (and apologised for and struck part of what I originally said). I hope it is clear now, from what I've said here and what Kaldari said, why I felt so strongly about that comment from Epipelagic. My view is that Kaldari is absolutely correct to say that he has been the subject of unwarranted attention over this. There was never any reason to repeatedly refer to his employment with the WMF, and I hope that those engaging with him can in future limit their comments to the substance of what is being discussed, rather than use his employment with the WMF as leverage in those discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation as an employer
A couple more points: The above might be getting off-topic for this arbitration case, but the tensions between Kaldari and Malleus (in which civility issues played a large part) nearly led to a case before this one, so I'm hoping that some aspects of that can be resolved here as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) All employees of the WMF have user pages on the WMF wiki (I think). Kaldari's is here.
 * (2) Misunderstandings between WMF employees (or indeed those who work for chapters of the WMF) and editors within the community who aren't fully aware of how the WMF works, will become more common as the WMF continues to expand. The issue of employment with the WMF was mentioned in a proposed decision in an earlier case ('Racepacket') where the facts of the matter were quite different, but the proposed finding is surprisingly apt. See The Wikimedia Foundation as an employer. In part, that reads: "'Concerns and criticisms of the actions or statements of individual employees of the WMF are regularly discussed in public forums such as WMF-hosted mailing lists, various pages at Metawiki, certain pages in project space of various projects, and individual user talk pages on various projects. There is longstanding community acceptance of such discussions, and it is acceptable (if perhaps sub-optimal) for a user to express concerns about a WMF employee in such forums.'" That proposal (including the parts not quoted here) was (perhaps surprisingly) decisively rejected. It is worth reading the comments by the proposing arbitrator and other arbitrators there, and considering to what extent they apply here.
 * (3) It is less clear what should happen when employees of the WMF who are not acting in that capacity get criticised on matters unrelated to their employment and their employment with the WMF is used as leverage against them in those discussions. I think a good example of that is the discussion Kaldari has already linked, which is here. My view is that any employee of the WMF who is editing in their own time and not as part of their job (i.e. using their editing account and not their WMF account) should have recourse if other editors start unnecessarily referring to their job and trying to make them out to be representing the WMF when they are not. In most cases, a clear statement and referral to the standard disclaimer should be enough, but if that fails, then the community should support those being bothered in this way. The WMF are not likely to be able to provide such support (as the matter would be unrelated to the editor's employment with them), so the en-wikipedia community needs to provide that support.


 * If I'm reading that correctly, you're saying that a proposal stating it's acceptable practice to criticize Foundation employees on Wikipedia has been rejected by ArbCom? If editors are going to advertise on their user pages that they are employees of the Foundation, I'm a bit baffled that those editors wouldn't be held to the highest of standards. Whether they are acting on behalf of the Foundation or not, they are representative of it. Many employers have been known to punish their employees for actions they did while off the clock and away from work, simply because those actions reflected poorly on the company due to those in witness knowing the person was employed by said company. Facebook scandals come to mind. The point is, in a discussion where many people support the idea of admins setting the example and holding themselves to a high standard, employment by the Foundation is relevant. Now, I am in no way saying that Kaldari should be terminated. Not at all. I did say that I hope he's not getting paid during the time he's participating in this case (including doing the research for it), as that would be a serious issue, in my opinion. Anyway, let me ask you this: If a Foundation employee had called someone a "cunt", would their employee status with the Foundation be relevant for discussion then, or no? Lara  04:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That proposal was rejected by last year's ArbCom, and it was in rather complicated circumstances due to the specifics of that case (best not to get further into that). I have no idea how this year's ArbCom would vote if such a proposal was made. And editors who are employed by the WMF are not 'advertising' that they are employees, as far as I know they are asked to do so, or it is strongly recommended, for reasons of transparency, not as a 'status symbol'. To take your point about some companies taking action because of comments made on the internet, there was a recent case in the UK where a scientist made comments about a doctor on a website (Bad Science, I think) accusing that doctor of being a quack. It all got very acrimonious, with the GMC and HPC having to rule on complaints made to them (see, , , , ). The story I read said that the employer in that case (Queens' Hospital) will now be following internal procedures (now that the HPC case is finished). That's not in any way related to this (I point it out as an example), but as you say such cases are more common these days. It may not be long before Wikipedia sees such cases (if it hasn't already). To get back to specifics here, if a Foundation employee had done what Malleus did while doing their job for the WMF, then people could legitimately complain to the WMF. Whether any action was taken would be an internal matter for the WMF. The difference here (in your hypothetical example) is whether the same applies when people are editing Wikipedia in their own time (i.e. not as part of their job). Again, that would be an internal matter for the WMF, and I agree with Geometry guy (please read his comments above if you haven't already) that taking the wrong approach here would set a dangerous precedent.  My view is that different standards apply to different WMF employees (e.g. the Chief Executive, the Chair of the Board, the lawyer, the publicity people, the interns (if any), the community outreach people, the backroom computer developers and programmers, the receptionist (if they have one), the cleaners contracted to clean the office each day (if they have those), and so on - some are on huge salaries and long-term contracts, some are on short-term contracts and lower salaries). And before anyone points it out, yes, the example of the cleaners was facetious. Certainly, I suspect that not all those who do short-term contract work for the WMF (I'm talking here about freelance consultancy work) declare that publicly. And sometimes changes are not easy to predict (e.g. an arbitrator stepped down recently after taking a position with Wikimedia UK). What I don't want to see is the en-wikipedia community holding those who are employees of the WMF or organisations that are involved with Wikipedia or the WMF projects, to unrealistic standards. By all means ask those organisations to come up with standards for their employees, but keep things simple at this end. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to Lara's final question: on Wikipedia, no, unless the editor was clearly editing as an employee (for instance, by using an account dedicated to that purpose, such as User:Steven_(WMF)). In the latter case, as Carcharoth notes, Wikipedians can contact the WMF with their concerns. In the former case, contacting an employer about an individual's private editing is widely regarded as harassment, precisely because employers can and do take an interest sometimes. In the case of the WMF, I agree that they probably don't want employees making contributions that reflect poorly on the Foundation, but what they do about it is a matter for their own internal policies.
 * Regarding editors being held to the highest of standards, the question is: by whom? All editors should be judged against the same standards: part of the problem here is precisely that this fairness principle is sometimes not followed. I agree that since adminship is granted by the community, the community can expect admins to set an example and hold themselves to a higher standard. In my view, that does not mean the community has fundamentally different standards for admins than other editors, but it does mean that misconduct by an admin may have more severe consequences than similar misconduct by a non-admin: ultimately, an administrator can have their admin tools revoked! However, independent of views about adminship, the same argument simply does not apply to WMF employees, because their position is not the community's to grant or take away. The answer to the question in this case is: the WMF. If they want to set higher standards for their employees' private contributions, that is up to them.
 * As I have noted above and elsewhere, we should beware of confusion between the WMF (the non-profit organization) and Wikipedia (the freely licensed encyclopedia project). Geometry guy 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Lara  16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote my reply above before I saw this. I hope it clarifies how I view the situation at least! Geometry guy 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

senra's evidence
The posting on Thumperward's talk page was, at least, incivil, and at worst a personal attack. Using double-entendre "pussy" and innuendo "marginally" doesn't make it less so than MF's more direct approach. Clever attacks aren't really any better than so-called "surface incivil" ones. More importantly, there are far better examples of admin incivility, hostility, and personal attack; just plumb a day or two's archives of ANI. Nobody Ent 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't know the context but on the surface that comment by Senra appears rather uncivil and slightly creepy. In America calling a man a "pussy" for being weak or ineffectual is provocative in its own way.  What does that have to do with this case?  Senra is not a party.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Limits on evidence
Is it appropriate to impose a 500 word limit on evidence from some of the involved parties of this case - particularly when a large quantity of the so-called "evidence" consists of allegations against those particular parties? Their evidence limits should be extended accordingly (unless you are deliberately expecting those parties to beg for the indulgence). It would also be nice if indications were provided, perhaps in the form of questions, to assist the parties in understanding what they should be responding to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already discussed above. If the involved parties need more space than 500 words/50 edits, there are ways around that limitation.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruption via cn
Could a clerk or someone clarify if this is allowed here? I had the impression it wasn't, thought it disruptive, and if we can do this, I've got about a thousand more to add to this page. Is it ever appropriate (here or otherwise) to add a cn to another editor's post? Also, even if cns are allowed on other editors' posts, in article space we only add citation needed tags to information that isn't common knowledge, which doesn't seem to be the case for this particular application of a cn tag. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not allowed, although I have a huge bag of cns I'd love to distribute if that ever changes. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One might have hoped that Kaldari would understand how uncivil it is to alter another editor's posting without their permission. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible to ask someone, without using a template, to substantiate their comment in one way or another. I've done so a few times. Comments that are not verifiable should be given significantly less weight than those which are.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider that inappropriate. I'd have removed it, but was beaten to it by . Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The WSC proposal
It really ought to have been posted on the workshop page, but it seems of such stunning quality and inventiveness that WSC would be top of my list if ever Jimbo asks who to anoit as the new PriestKing. Better yet WSC can take over David Camerons job! Have always thought the second mover advantage is essential for protecting regular editors from the threat of over zealous admins, but if WSCs package can only be accepted as bundle, enthusiastically endorse! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the deadline to submit evidence?
AQFK (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the original notifications, January 12, 2011. I think it's been extended by exactly one year, though. ;) Lara  04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I request an extension of one week. Many of us cannot edit during this (extended) Holiday time, as I noted earlier. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What extended holiday time? The UK went back to work on 3 January. Are other countries not back until Monday or something? Or is this some religious period I'm not aware of? Or are you talking about university/school holidays? If it is a personal holiday period, then I doubt any extension will be granted. If you don't want to disclose the reasons, you'll have to e-mail the clerks or arbs. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * University/College semesters are starting back next week for many. Mine starts Monday. Perhaps that's what he's referring to? It's the opposite for me. Once classes resume, my editing time is prioritized to the bottom, so I won't be around much again. Lara  16:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eastern Orthodox Christmas 5-6 January, following very important New Year Holiday (in formerly Communist countries), and Western Saturnalia/Christmas 25 December. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have withdrawn any request for extended time. Please close this ASAP. (I had understood 15th was deadline). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While Christmas itself might be an exception, I think that taking "holiday time" into account won't work in a cross-national, multi-cultural project, with such disparate participants. Actually, the UK didn't go back to work on Jan 3rd: England and Wales did. Lazy Scotland regarded 3rd Jan as a bank holiday too. But the fact is that some people have less editing time when on holiday, but many others have more. Indeed, personally, when work initially resumes my editing tends to fall to zero. And what holidays? Do we include the Queen's birthday, Thanksgiving, 4th July, Ramadan - what about various exam times? I suspect Christmas is about the only holiday with such wide participation in the English speaking world that might not be too controversial - but again, some people will have MORE time on their hands then. The best solution is to ignore most holidays - but allow key players in any case to apply for extensions on individual circumstances. As I don't think anyone commenting on this thread is a party, I doubt this applies.--Scott Mac 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/en/edits/full, it seems that the only holiday associated with a consistently significant drop in edits is Boxing Day (UTC, which includes the last few hours of Christmas Day in the Western hemisphere). I therefore propose December 26th as the Official Wikipedia Day of Rest. May Wikipedians everywhere nurse the collective hangover of a year's editing together! Geometry guy 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that the end-of-year is a transition period for the Committee (thus, many of us had responsibilities related to that changeover), and many Wikipedians have had wildly variable availability during the past few weeks, I am willing to extend the evidence deadline to 15 January 2012. Please note below that I am also going to ask for people to work together to develop some additional evidence.  Risker (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eastern Orthodox Christmas occurred 5-6 January, and I for example had religious obligations also on 24-25 December. In many areas of Eastern Europe, to which we retire during the extended holiday season, the internet is usually inaccessible. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I have withdrawn the request for an extension. Please close this, since the 15th's deadline has passed a day ago. Thanks.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for further evidence - Collaborative evidence collection
The name of this case was selected, in part, because many of the comments in the initiating request strongly put forward that there is a widespread problem with applying and enforcing community standards based on the civility policy, particularly when experienced editors are the subject of the enforcement. The evidence provided to date does not bear that out. In order to better review this situation, I am asking all participants in this case to work collaboratively to provide the following additional information:


 * Permanent links to discussions from 2011 only where an experienced editor (i.e., more than 3 months of editing and more than 500 non-automated edits) was blocked for violation of the civility policy (or related behavioural policies such as WP:NPA or WP:Harassment) and where the block was considered controversial. "Controversial" in this sense would include reversals of a block, blocks imposed after other dispute resolution methods (e.g., discussion with editor, warnings) appeared to have been successful in addressing the problem behaviour, situations which proceeded to other forms of dispute resolution such as RfC/U or a request for arbitration. For the purpose of this exercise, exclude users Malleus Fatuorum and TCO. Please sign any additions you make.


 * Permanent links to discussions from 2011 only  illustrating obviously uncivil behaviour on the part of an experienced editor on an article talk page or on any page in the Wikipedia namespace that appears to have gone completely unaddressed. (Note that I have specifically excluded user talk pages.) For the purpose of this exercise, exclude Malleus Fatuorum and TCO. Please verify that there is nothing (i.e. warnings or objections to that behavior) on the talk page of the user before including. Please sign any additions you make.


 * Given that much of the evidence provided to date involves the various blocks imposed on Malleus Fatuorum, I think there is benefit to everyone to review these blocks specifically. With Courcelles' assistance, we have created a chart with all of Malleus Fatuorum's blocks, and filled in date and time, blocking admin, unblock information if applicable, original length of block, and actual length of block. I am hoping that the participants in this case will work collaboratively to provide the following information for *each* block in Malleus' block log:
 * Issue that led to block. Include all relevant links, including any discussions on user talk pages.
 * Length of time between last discussion of precipitating issue and the block. (For example, was the last related comment several hours before the block?)
 * Any other dispute resolution attempted before block (warnings, discussion with user, discussion on noticeboards or elsewhere, etc). Links to these attempts.
 * Whether or not any other users were also asked to change behaviour/warned/blocked in relation to the same issue. Links to those dispute resolution steps.

This is intended to be a factual review of the various blocks, and there should be no editorializing in the chart itself. The chart will be hosted on a separate evidence page for ease of editing and so that it will not disrupt the use of Hersfoldbot on the remainder of the evidence page; a link will be placed on the evidence page.

I hope this will assist the community as well as the Arbitration Committee in establishing the extent to which incivility is a problem. Risker (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making these requests. Lara  04:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any interest to learn of cases of incivility where an admin would have blocked, but didn't because they figured they'd just get overturned immediately? Or of established editors being extremely uncivil (in an unwelcome manner) on user talkpages? --Elonka 04:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean, anyone can say anything about what they might have done after the fact, but that can't be proven? Isn't that kind of like, I would have opposed if you hadn't offered to stand for recall?  Well, if the editor didn't, how can it be proven?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment from Elonka though. I'm also rather intrigued by the concept of welcome extreme incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 06:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From personal experience, I learnt to welcome extreme incivility in areas of Eastern European editing; as the incivility was a caul over attempts to form genuine editorial arguments, and almost everyone was aware that the passion for twentieth century Eastern European history could cause some editors to say things with passion. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To assist editors Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661 & following archives represent 2011. With AN it starts Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive220.  RFC/Us are Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive and 2011 content starts from the RFC/U begun on 26 December 2010.  Enjoy.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AN/I archives 661–683 inclusive, done. AN/I 684 onwards is April Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AN archives 220–229 inclusive, all 2011 done. ANa221 incidentally contains a detailed discussion on how blocking for civility is easier than blocking for POV. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RFC/U (all done for 2011 unless there was an archiving problem...) contains 3 disputes summarised with civil in their summaries, so I tested 8 cases listed as "disruption" (4 March 2011 to 9 June 2011 RFCs) to test if civility was "hiding" under other titles. The finding was that civility issues do hide under the existing RFC summaries, so all RFCs need to be tested. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of 24 RFCs, 8 involved driving off the user, 2 went to arbcom, and 3 or 4 are marked as "consensus" results which may include disciplinary results. 14 out of 24 involved disciplinary outcomes of one kind or another.  As such, I'm interrogating them for the collaborative evidence section.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC/U of 22 March was successful in terms of civility components. Similarly the RFC/U of 8 October.  For comparison, 9 RFC/Us with civility components as a major part failed.  Mostly by driving off the accused editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WQA archives for 2011 begin at archive 96 so that's a mere 18 pages of AN/I archive length, but with every instance a civility issue. Yay. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WQA 96–100, 112 done. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Risker, can you clarify if a discussion leading nowhere on reported incivility is a "non action" per case 2. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, does [|This kerfuffle] meet the obvious incivility and absence of action criterion. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or This absence of action over this? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Hullaballoo and TPH's fun at 663 and later at archive 665. Just what kind of "null action" do you want, because there seems to be plenty of instances of null action by administrators in relation to reported incivility at AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to know why TCO and I have been lumped in together in this request. What is that we have in common exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My interpretation was that, with respect to Risker's first two requests, she felt that links to discussions about MF and TCO were already in evidence, so no need for duplication. I did not read into it any implication that the actions of MF and TCO were similar in any way.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's not my interpretation. Risker chose disruption at WP:FAC as her example in the table of blocks, which is a clear implication that I have disrupted that process, as has TCO. Any evidence for that? Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The choice of FAC, quickly changed as soon as it was pointed out, was explained here to my satisfaction. There are logs lying around, let's not strain at specks.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not imply that I have disrupted FAC. I consider that to be very far from being a "speck". Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A mistake, quickly acknowledged, and corrected, is a speck. If that much.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the "speck" is still there, in lumping me in with TCO. It is not your place to tell me what is or isn't a "speck", as I consider the suggestion that I have disrupted FAC to be very insulting. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Buck up, buckwheat! I fully believe Risker's explanation and that it was not intentional, unintended consequences happen when people are busy. I also imagine that she's saying they don't need more evidence on the TCO situation, even though it continued after my evidence was added, since that is already on the page, they don't want a gazillion more diffs for things that are already known, and what they want are other examples, not involving you.  It's unfortunate wording, but I don't think there's anything behind it.  Now, find a charitable explanation for this and we're even :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think it's an honest mistake then I'll drop it. As for The Signpost article, well I think that Tony's copyedit was a good one, but I'm not at all happy about giving TCO double billing. So I still owe you one apparently. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to some of the questions above:
 * @ Malleus, SandyGeorgia is correct. The basis on which the case was taken was that incivility is supposedly breaking out all over the project; however, evidence has only been provided about two users, yourself and TCO. At this point, it's relevant to see some evidence that others are also being seen to be uncivil. The only reason you're "lumped together" is that there is already evidence relating to both of you.
 * @ Fifelfoo: those look like they could be relevant, if you believe them to illustrate obvious incivility. Seeing what other editors consider to be "obvious" or "blatant" incivility may also help to understand why the project is all over the map in enforcement.
 * @ Elonka, if there was no action on the situation, it can be included. The blocking policy already addresses the issue of potentially controversial admin actions. Risker (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Risker, if the already documented 'pricks','shut the fuck ups','fuck offs', or any given day at ANI, are not sufficient to convince ArbCom, for me the only reasonable thing to do is chalk it up to confirmation bias and move on. Nobody Ent 21:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent, I don't read ANI on a daily basis as I already get my fill of drama in the tasks I've volunteered for. Some examples of the "any given day" incivility there would be very helpful if for no other reason than to see what various people participating in this case consider to be incivility. Risker (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence Nobody Ent 00:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker, many thanks for your reply, I'll try to note null incidents within those terms while reading AN/I archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In relation to Risker's request I'm only willing to research AN/I archive evidence to the end of March. 1) Its indicative of a pattern due to the high hit rate per archive.  2) There are other data sources that may reflect alternate patterns (AN archives, WQA archives, RFC/Us) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AN/I for April begins 683 if anyone else cares to research evidence. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of incidents I've found manually in 2 months of AN/I and a year of AN; I'd suggest that whomever is meant to oversight administrators has been doing a shithouse job. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 5 WQA archive pages is enough for me. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WQA evidence comment
Much of the evidence posting Fifelfoo posts regarding WQA makes claims regarding the lack of "persuasion, reason, and community support" ; it should be noted this phrase was on added on 29 Sep 2011 as part of an attempted revamp of WQA (including a name change from Wikiquette Alerts to Wikiquette Assistance) following feedback received during its most recent MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts_(3rd_nomination). (Note: "Gerardw" = "Nobody Ent"). The phrase in full states " persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks;" the concept being editors who are demanded someone be block are in the wrong place. Nobody Ent 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those principles elucidated in September seem to have been the governing principles prior to September. Additionally the "no blocks here," was (as you note by providing links and diffs) past policy.  I'll review the November archives (sigh). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively you could just change the description. Concur the intent of the rewrite of the header was to clarify rather than significantly change the intent/function of WQA. Nobody Ent 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just done archive 112 from November. The same kinds of problems as from the start of the year are evident.  They're failures in attempts to get people to have a cup of tea, or talk to each other.  Given WQA has always been far more tea focused than disciplinary, I think the quick summary of what a good WQA should be ought to stand for the early reports, even though the specific wording is anachronistic—the anachronism indicates the intended use of WQA. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sample for Risker from Elonka
Here's one for you, Risker. From their comments, it appears that Elonka and (with all the hallmark of a known returning editor, re-engaging in conflict with an agenda, and working together with Elonka here, but I digress) think that my participation in:
 * these two ANI threads, which led to
 * this WQA thread,
 * that was removed to Cristiano Tomás's talk for one-on-one discussion,  and
 * this discussion on my talk, during which
 * Alarbus and Elonka  interjected their views, ending Prodego's efforts to work with a new editor.

meets what you're looking for. If you think it fits the example you're looking for, I'll give you the diffs instead of pages, since it might help avoid involving an unsuspecting new editor, but I'm at my 500-word limit and the issue of the possible returning editor and that agenda will be ... oh my ... if you thought the case was long and messy before. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect there is a prior history that I am unaware of, as absolutely everyone, myself, Sandy, Alarbus, and Elonka all seem to be trying to do the same thing. Helping this editor understand the civility policy, and to help them contribute. If anything we can mostly learn from my treatment of Alarbus that I could use to do a bit more assuming of good faith myself. Prodego  talk 07:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, see how much more can be accomplished by working together, and in record time no less... ya done good to stick with it, Prodego. Kudos to all for a fine collaborative effort; you've brought a relatively new and young editor into the deepest and most hallowed halls of Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker did specify 2011 only (emphasis in original)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cristiano has added diffs related to this matter to the main Evidence page; however, he/she has also included analyses which appear to be inappropriate for various reasons. Could someone more familiar with AC case etiquette take a look? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I removed that evidence (before I saw this section here) because in my opinion it is not (sufficiently, or at all) related to the matter at hand. They basically rehashed their ANI thread which failed to get traction; moreover, since it didn't involve ANI reports or other complaints from 2011 (and the ANI thread already contained plenty of inappropriate interpretation of others' comments) I stand by my removal. I left a note on their talk page, earlier, to explain my removal, and an edit summary. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2008 RfC regarding Malleus
It appears there was an RfC regarding Malleus back in 2008. Although the RfC spawned a good deal of discussion, it was withdrawn by the editor who wrote it and subsequently deleted. As the issue discussed by that RfC (incivility at WP:RfA) is a subject of contention in this case, I would like to ask that the RfC be temporarily undeleted so that it can be examined by interested parties regarding its relevance to the present case. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ? In any case, I've restored it so we can have a look. Prodego  talk 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I kinda felt that it shoudl be available, but felt that somebody uninvolved with said case should do the honors---in part because I kinda think it belongs as a subpage of evidence here rather than sitting out there on its own.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found it to be very interesting reading. It comes from before my time as an editor, and there are a lot of user names that I do not recognize. But the basis of the original complaint is eerily similar to the events that led to this arbitration case. I'm struck by the intensity of the backlash against the RfC complaint. I'm curious to find out, as the present case goes along, whether the attitudes of the community have evolved since then, since it appears that the precipitating factors have not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very interesting. It was several years ago now, but Malleus did sign up there to the outside view by Lankiveil that included "In my view, both Balloonman and Malleus should take this as a reminder to act more civilly in the future, and to avoid pouring fuel onto the flames when such a disagreement flares up." I wonder what happened to those intentions to act more civilly in the future and avoid antagonising situations? I also wonder if the deletion of that RfC discouraged people from filing an RfC at some future point after that one. I agree that this RfC should be retained in evidence, but given that it was deleted it would be best if the arbs formally voted on that in case there are future objections. Finally, I did recognise User:Friday there and on Friday's userpage is a section with 'Unsolved recurring problems on Wikipedia'. It is worth reading those and considering how many of them apply in this case. IMO, directly or indirectly, they all apply. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try reading that again. I simply said that Lankiveil's summary of events was a fair one, I made no comment at all about his conclusions, and certainly stated no intention "to act more civilly in the future". It would be a great help if editors would stick to the facts as they are, not how they might like them to be. How many times, for instance, has Balloonman called me an ass/arse even in the course of this case? And according to your interpretation he agreed "to act more civilly in the future". Is it your position that it's OK to call someone an arse or a dick but not a cunt? Malleus Fatuorum
 * Point of order... I have never said that you are an ass, I've said that you could be a real ass... technical difference. ;-)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be honest I'd completely forgotten about that abortive RfC, and that you were the only one to certify it, you barsteward. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doh! I just found a case where I did call you an ass, my apologies... I have since corrected the wording.  But yeah... I think the RfC and my comments when unblocking you are quite interesting... 4 years ago, it appears as if I would have been providing evidence condemning ya... but now, while I think there is room for improvement, I'm one of your more active defenders.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 03:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it not the normal practice to delete uncertified RfCs? If it is, why has an exception to undelete been made in this case? Which at least nominally is about civility enforcement, not about me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the point of deleting pages is to prevent them from being viewed by those without administrative privileges (something all the arbs have), it seems like 32 flavors of inappropriate for this page to have been restored after it was deleted in process. The fact that the RFC process requires two editors to certify and is dismissed otherwise suggests that the contents of the RFC are not relevant to any evidence that could be gathered. It was dismissed. Four years ago. I don't see why anyone but the arbs need to review it. Hopefully without drawing inaccurate conclusions, as those above. Lara  04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All I said was that Malleus signed up to an outside view, and I quoted part of that view. If Malleus now adds caveats to him signing up to that view, that's fair enough. The normal thing to do if you don't feel able to sign up to what an outside view says is to present your own view, or add caveats at the time of signing. I don't think the undeletion is controversial - there is nothing there that non-admins shouldn't be able to see (are there privacy issues I'm not seeing?). Malleus for one needs to be able to see it. I do think it should be entered in evidence preserved in aspic as an RfC that was deleted (rather than remain live out there as an apparently unclosed RfC), as one of the main points about the case was that no-one had filed an RfC, and so this is relevant. If you disagree, I suggest you propose a motion on the workshop page and ask the arbs to vote on it, and if they ignore that, then propose an MfD to help decide whether the undeletion should be permanent or temporary, or if the page should be moved/copied into the arbitration case pages. Certainly if someone presents evidence referring to this RfC, deleting it again will be problematic as it will make that evidence worthless. You could also make a case that it is inadmissible evidence, in much the same way that mediation committee discussions are inadmissible, but it's not 100% clear that this is the case for deleted RfCs. It would be a good principle to establish (might have been covered before in earlier cases, not sure). Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, to play devil's advocate, a more pertinent point to this RfC isn't to demonstrate anything relative towards Malleus, but to use this case as an example of why somebody might be unwilling/reluctant to start an RfC against Malleus. To that end, it might have some value.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do you have room to add that to evidence? Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only evidence here is that an RfC filed in 2008 was not certified (and therefore didn't take place), and that Carcharoth is intent on misrepresenting what I wrote there. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Risker by Senra
; A case where alleged incivility was not addressed by blocking WQA thread started by and triggered by alleged incivility, including this comment from : "Or what? What are you going to do to me if I don't leave? I've written ten Featured Articles here. To use your own sort of trash language, you've written F-all, crap artist. Now spell it out, you excrement: let's hear exactly what are you going to do to me if I don't leave". At least one admin saw the thread. responded in the thread: "All involved parties need to stop edit warring on talk pages/user talk pages in violation of policy. Otherwise this will end messily with several blocks, ...". The discussion was closed by 11 days after opening with this comment: "unlikely to be resolved to mutual satisfaction of all parties". -- Senra (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Moved to evidence page -- Senra (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * complainant
 * complainee
 * commenting admin
 * closing editor

Caution about misrepresentation of sources
Having read evidence where this is referred to, this site is misquoted as saying cunt is "the most offensive word". It never states that "cunt" is "the most offensive word", it just says "most offensive". And it's not the only word described as "most offensive", either.

This is a misunderstanding of what is meant, which is "a "most offensive" word", not the ultimate in offensiveness of the words examined. To illustrate this, that site also refers to the word "cocksucker" as "Most offensive and most can't see any context when it would be acceptable". As we seem to be looking at what cultural differences there are, and saying we have to be aware that other cultures or sub-groups have different interpretations, we should also be aware that the same site comments on "Dickhead" that "Some young people and older groups find this really offensive"; on "Bitch" that "More likely to be found quite strong/offensive by AfricanCaribbean and British Asian parents"; on "Bonk" "Offensive to British Asian female parents"; on "Bastard" that "for some fairly middling, equivalent to bitch, for others very strong and offensive"; on "Pussy" "Some, esp. Women and older groups find this really offensive"; and of "spade" "Many do not know this word; very offensive racial abuse to those who do know (Africans/African-Caribbeans)".

Bearing in mind that the definition of "cunt" is meant by them to be a most-offensive word, and not the most offensive word, we need to be very careful about this. The source doesn't say quite what it's been read as saying, and other words which are also considered by that same source to be strongly offensive or very offensive to various sub-groups and nationalities are also thrown around here in WikiLand. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 12:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding: In the New Zealand study, answers were based on multiple-choice answers, as follows: Totally acceptable, Fairly acceptable, Neither acceptable nor unacceptable, Fairly unacceptable and Totally unacceptable. They state:

Those who find Cunt significantly more unacceptable are:

Female (83%)

Aged 65 years and over (88%)

Aged 55-64 years (82%)

Those of Christian belief (81%)

Those who find Cunt significantly less unacceptable are:

Male (64%)

Aged 15-24 years (51%)

Aged 25-34 years (64%)

Those who have no religion (66%)

Which is somewhat relevant to the "Bible-belters" comment given earlier.

Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Forbidden words also cited, actually says: "Evaluating the same twenty-eight swear words in the contact of television programming more than 50% of respondents rated slurs such as nigger, paki, spastic and Jew with cunt and motherfucker as inappropriate for transmission at any time. … A number of people felt that cunt, motherfucker and fuck could be broadcast after 11pm … but the figures were considerably smaller for words such as Jew, nigger, paki and spastic." Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to Arbs: Check out the actual sources for methodology and details, and for how other words are actually described and rated. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Either through intentional cherry-picking, or from purely accidentally focussing only on the one word, much of what the sources are actually saying is being missed. WP:NPOV and WP:DUE need to apply just as much in something like this as they do in a FA. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I had no idea "spaz" was an offensive word in British English. It's nothing near offensive here in America. Lara  04:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL Lara, yes it is -- super offensive to the US disabilities community. Just say it to anyone with a seizure disorder.  Ditto for terms like "cripple" and, unless you are discussing music,  "retard."  Hence the minefield...   Montanabw (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's perfectly OK to use it in a quasi-medical context, such as "my back is all spazzy", meaning the muscles have gone into spasm ;o) You just shouldn't call a person a spaz!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Pesky: "But it's perfectly OK to use it in a quasi-medical context ...". Really? I don't think so. At least not in front of people with a memory of its root pejorative usage when referring to people afflicted with cerebral palsy. Such people, myself (UK) included, view "spaz" and "spazzy", even in the context you describe, as a very poor word choice. Consider the phrase "niggered out" meaning tired but which would be similarly censored -- Senra (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant as in a shorthand version of the phrase "In spasm"; the original word "spaz" is short for "spastic" which described a person with uncontrolled/uncontrollable "spasm". It's perfectly OK to use the phrase "spastic colon", for example - "spastic" in the medical term means "in spasm / prone to spasm".  So a "spazzy muscle" is still as acceptable, but yes, we do have to be careful that the word is being  used in its original context, and not as a slur on the disabled!  It's a fine line!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, after weeks of discussion, if I never read/hear/see the word "cunt" again for the rest of my live I'd be happy -- let's talk about "level" instead. Wiktionary lists 13 distinct meanings. Obviously I picked a notable example, but it's common that words have many meanings, depending on usage and content. That's true in a single culture, let alone the span of cultures which contribute to English Wikipedia. Meaning depends on context, and insisting than an editor "obviously" meant a particular connotation isn't reasonable. Nobody Ent 16:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be totally, nit-pickingly, obsessively rational: insisting that anybody obviously meant any particular connotation of anything, anywhere, isn't reasonable, unless there could not possibly have been any other meaning. People who presume to know another person's intent or meaning, unless that other person has quite explicitly stated it, is all sorts of words ranging from moronic to arrogant, and particularly where the interpreter's own opinion is widely divergent from what is expressed by the original person.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not evidence but opinion
There is now a lot of "evidence" on the evidence page which is not evidence at all, unless it is considered purely as evidence of the opinions of the submitting editor. Earlier in this RfC such non-evidence was removed to this talk page, where opinion is better placed, and might become the subject of discussion. I would encourage clerks to continue this practice, as the soapboxing is getting out of hand. Geometry guy 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given how this thing has progressed, pretty much EVERY diff that could be included as "evidence" has been included somewhere. It would be completely pointless and wasteful for anyone who's coming in "late" into this endeavor to repost same ol' same ol' diffs that have already been posted. It's easier to refer to refer to the diffs posted by someone else and then just say "what the diffs actually show is XXX".


 * Also, there shouldn't be anykind of "early mover advantage". This means in turn that just because later statements refer to the earlier statements that does not invalidate them as evidence.


 * I would encourage clerks to wary of being manipulated in their enforcement of the case. Volunteer Marek 00:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, does anyone honestly expect any member of the ArbCom to actually read everything on the Evidence page? From what I can tell even in the easiest of cases that don't happen. And that's the "reading". Does anyone actually think that any Arb will actually click on all the "diffs" - how many of these have now been provided, must be well over a hundred - and meditate thoughtfully on the implications of these links?


 * And if one of the Arbs shows up and says "I read it all and I clicked and thought about'em all" I'm gonna call them out on being either dishonest (it's humanely impossible!) or having sooooooo much time on their hands, which implies they're completely out of touch with reality, that they clearly don't deserve a position of power on the project. Or they really are robots. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been no "early mover advantage", as earlier submitters of non-evidence had their posts moved to this talk page: the same principle should be applied to more recent posts. Comments along the lines of "what the diffs actually show is XXX" are analysis of evidence and belong on the workshop page, not the evidence page. Geometry guy 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. saying "please see user xyz for the diffs" or rather "please see users xyz gmf ghg skf eir fds for relevant diffs" is just a way to economize on the form in which evidence is submitted in. There's too many damn diffs on the evidence page already. Volunteer Marek 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "please see user xyz for the diffs" is perfectly acceptable economy, but that is not what you said before (I repeat: "what the diffs actually show" is analysis), and is not what we are now seeing on the evidence page. What we are seeing, in many cases, is analysis and opinion, not evidence. Geometry guy 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So posting "Civility blocks of experienced editors are generally pointless [diff] [diff] [diff]" is NOT analysis and is NOT opinion but just plain ol' objective "evidence"? Or you want more? Ok:
 * "Administrator double standard: ...it happens every day but only administrators get away with it; that's what's unacceptable" - that's not "analysis" (of a diff) nor an opinion, yeah?
 * Or making a heading with "Should Malleus Fatuorum have been blocked for disruption rather than incivility?" - not an opinion apparently, though to any sane person it does look very much like an attempt to "define the terms of debate".
 * Or let me pick on someone else.
 * "Malleus' block log is unusual and concerning" - not an opinion and analysis. "Malleus' block log shows repeated instances of him being blocked for incivility and then unblocked within a matter of hours." - not an analysis of evidence. And this actually from an editor I very much respect.
 * Or randomly scrolling down "Hawkeye7 flawed rationale just imprecise language not lying" - not opinion and analysis.
 * Or "Malleus makes personal attacks on a regular basis" - that's not an opinion? That's not analysis of diffs?
 * Etc. etc. etc.
 * What you are really saying is that if I include a lot of [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] links, along with what *I* think these represent, then that's somehow an objective presentation of evidence. But if I say "if you look at all the links already provided by others dammit - I'm not going to re-link all of them again - Here's what they show..." then that's "opinion".
 * How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?
 * Volunteer Marek 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend you refamiliarize yourself with the distinction between "and" and "or", "no evidence" and "only evidence", "some opinion and analysis" and "entirely opinion and analysis". Geometry guy 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy, I am glad that you have enrolled my charm school, but would you please pay tuition at your earliest convenience. Otherwise, I may have to repossess your protractor. ;p  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly linked to Kaldari's list to argue what I think it demonstrates. But not on the evidence page. Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of diffs required for the AN/I archives from April onwards, and for the WQA archives generally that are both underexploited resources indicating the abject failure of the community, administrators and whomever is meant to supervise the administrators to develop civility policy, apply it fairly, close their discussions, attend to appeals from editors for help with civility, to block with rationales that are commonly agreed, to time blocks in a manner that the community agrees to. More digging is yet required. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * underexploited resources indicating the abject failure of the community, administrators and whomever is meant to supervise the administrators to develop civility policy, apply it fairly, close their discussions, attend to appeals from editors for help with civility, to block with rationales that are commonly agreed, to time blocks in a manner that the community agrees to. - that's just, like, your opinon mannnnnn. Same for " More digging is yet required" (no, please stop). Volunteer Marek 01:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

deadline
Wasn't the deadline for evidence yesterday Jan 12? Nobody Ent 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I saw that Risker extended it to the 15th .. (please don't make me try to find where in all this, but I'm pretty sure she did.) — Ched : ?  18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it: link — Ched : ?  20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nobody Ent


 * So why is this show trial still continuing? Isn't it time to move to the sentencing phase? Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget the sentencing... let's move to the execution stages:--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC) My comment isn't as much fun with the image of the guillotine removed


 * "Give your evidence," the King repeated angrily, "or I'll have you executed, whether you're nervous or not." Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit of History
I realize that I haven't read everything here, but I did want to note to the arbs that the community did indeed tackle the civility issues on a large scale in the past. I actually expected to see the link mentioned multiple times throughout this case, but apparently I've missed it. I added it to my evidence section, and I'll mention it here as well. I'm only mentioning this to say that it's not like we haven't tried to get this right before now. see: Civility/Poll — Ched :  ?  18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping
I realize that arbs and clerks have a lot to wade through, but I thought I should point out that some evidence sections that have been added over the last several days are similar to some earlier evidence that was moved off of the main page, to here in talk. I suggest that fairness to those editors whose contributions were moved earlier might require doing the same for the more recent postings. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to specific names and use a more descriptive header, to allow concerned readers the best chance of finding your post.
 * Supposing you mean me, I have recently returned from weeks abroad with nearly no internet access. I am striving to comply with the format of this case under a deadline. I have complied with requests from Hersfold's bot and from clerks, who apparently understand that I am trying to participate in good faith, with prior experience only in the Monty Hall case, with only a few days available before the deadline. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean you. Not to worry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was postings of "evidence" that are statements of "what I believe" without much in the way of diffs or other pointers to specific evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's worse than that for the Arbs!
With regard to looking at the actual diffs, it's hard enough! But to do the diffs justice, and see them in context, requires much more in-depth attention. I'm going to (probably!) alienate KW here (don't mean to, it's just that some of your evidence is on a subject which I know the context of). Looking at the RfC/U thing you're quoting; yes it was called on being not properly certified, but it became properly certified within the time limit, and it was / seemed to be agreed that WP:IAR applied, as closing and then re-opening it would be more disruptive than continuing with it. Also, you call the RfA to which it was linkd being of a "young" person at RfA, whereas the candidate was actually in their twenties, so not really in the category that the majority of people would assume as "young". ( i.e. teens, etc.) But to get all of the background, the Arbs would have to read the entire RfC/U, and look at the whole case involved. And ironically, my obsession with that case, and the level to which it adversely affected me, was actually about administrator (mis)conduct (WP:AGF, WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:INVOLVED, failure to do a thorough investigation before passing judgment and sentence, failure to judge consensus, and all) and the ongoing ramifications of same.

The way that case played out, in the end, came within a hairs'-breadth of ending up here, too - on those counts. Only when it was pointed out that the next step was going to be coming to the Arbs with it was there any kind of resolution.

It is so easy, either intentionally, or simply because an editor is looking at the diffs which were most important to them, to present only half-a-case, or a skewed case. To get over the problem of looking at whole cases, each Arb would have to be paired with another, to do a full investigation of any particular issue, and provide a full research paper on it, and then the combinations of all those research papers analysed! It takes PhD students, on the whole, more than a year to come up with a soundly-researched and thorough thesis. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 10:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comments are quite good and need to be read.
 * (You are right that "RfA for a youth" was imprecise. The pre-BadgerDrinkRfC RfA featured a talented candidate, whose  earlier hijinks were discussed in the RfA: "Young" was imprecise, but the most prudent descriptor my feeble neural-network up with could. I trust that you'll can up with that you can put.)
 * My relatively short editing history and less interesting RfC/U quickly generated 108 kilobytes. I had naively assumed that editors would conveniently sample at least one thread from the diffs and poke around before participating with minimal preparation. It usually takes me 30-60 minutes (minimally) to review a (promising but uncertain) RfA candidate.
 * The reliable and honorable administrator TParis stated that he took 8 hours to review my RfC (poking around the diffs to understand the context for the high-voltage threads) before drafting his closing summary, and then he took days thinking about comments from 3-4 energetic kibbitzers (e.g. me). My naivete was lost when an editor took 5-6 minutes to review the 108 kilobytes and another 5-6 to criticize me for being mean to youth---as a warm up for accusing me of being mean to new editors.
 * I've long been waiting for a second naivete, and now expect to wait forever, alas.
 * Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more I am absolutely sure that the problem stemmed from a false paradigm that I was a "buddy" (and probably a youngish buddy, similar age group to the candidate), supporting because of IRC-Cabalism or buddyism. If only more people had been able to step back from the heat of the moment and simply believe my own words, that it was nothing to do with "retaliation for an oppose vote", and everything to do with a years-long history of incivility.  Sure, I only discovered that problematic history because I wanted to check whether BD was simply having a bad, snitty day  those happen to all of us.  But if a number of people had only been able to consider that their initial paradigm of me was wrong, things would not have gone the way they did.  I have trouble believing that BD and others ever considered the possibility that I was acting in good faith and with the interests of Wikipedia at heart. Even in the parting shot, I was referred to as a "petty little juvenile shithead".  Even if BD was the only editor to say it, I am quite sure that others felt the same way.  And BD opened his AN/I complaint about me working from this false paradigm, which encouraged other editors to work from the same one: "After my opposition to the RfA a friend of his" consistently referring to me as "he", despite the fact that I had made it abundantly clear at RfC/U that I was, in fact, a grandmother. Not a "he", and certainly not "juvenile".
 * And almost nobody in the pile-on seemed to have considered the point that I had not "retaliated" against any other opposers.
 * To try and cut this waffle short, I think that failure to assume good faith is probably one of the biggest catalyzing forces acting on civility issues. We set ourselves into a paradigm about an editor, having no way of knowing who they really are, what age and gender they are, and clearly no way of knowing what is actually going on inside their head; then we attribute the worst of motives to them, and everything spirals out of control. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF need to work hand in hand; I hope that if we get the mandate to re-write the civility policy that there will be strong emphasis that assurming good faith is part and parcel of being civil.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: it would probably be a very enlightening experience for editors to read through this and to read through the RfC/U on Keifer.Wolfowitz, and all the other RfC/U's which have been linked to, just to pick out all the instances where assuming good faith about another editor's input would have made such an enormous difference to the way things played out. There are quite a few who, on reading the whole case history of the case against me, and if they are self-aware and have a conscience when they read, should really cringe with shame and regret about their own actions.  If they were prepared to accept where they got it wrong, it might make them pause for a few minutes (or preferable several hours) next time around, and not make the same mistakes again.
 * The real value of all those links to where civility issues and procedures have failed is not as an illustration of where we went wrong, but of why we went wrong. I've spent hours and hours reading through them all, and the biggest failure point in almost every single instance is the failure to assume good faith. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You read all that stuff I uncovered? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, I have OCD! And I'm obsessively analytical, and one of the reasons I have very few edits since this case opened is that I have been spending most of my waking hours (including the waking-at-2am ones) reading, and reading, and reading, and drawing up cross-referencing charts, and stalking contributions around the same time, and drafting up more charts, and cross-referencing again, and then re-reading in the light of previous analysis .... heh!  If you want someone to dig tenaciously into the very depths of something, recruit an obsessive!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka's accusation of incivility by Nev1
I had not intended to take part in this case as I do not have faith in Arbcom's ability to deal with this complex situation, but since I have been accused of incivility I would like to defend myself.

The episode regarding the list of castles in Italy is mercifully brief but Elonka missed out the first thread and I challenge her to give a single example of where I was incivil in this thread. To summarise the incident, Elonka added an "unsourced" tag to the list, I reverted because I felt such general tags don't lead to better articles, and then we had a discussion on my talk page in which we disagreed on the matter. Twice. From her second post on my talk page she adopted a condescending tone ("I'm kind of surprised that I even have to explain this, considering that you're an administrator") and reading motives where there were none ("You've got a castle-related FAC going on, so you're prickly about castle articles"). This behaviour continued.

Because Polequant agreed with me, Elonka remarked that they were "presumably some friend of [Nev1] (or some sock/meatpuppet, not sure)". When asked multiple times to substantiate these claims, which can be seen as attacking the character and integrity of myself and Polequant, she prevaricated and dodged the issue. If she had held up her hand and apologised to both of us that would have gone a significant way to diffusing the situation. Polequant, previously Quantpole has never edited my talk page and vice versa. I remember Polequant from a discussion regarding Leeds or perhaps Bradford several years ago, but I don't recall our paths crossing since.

The civility warning she gave me refers to this exchange on her talk page. Trying to use a neutral tone (though perhaps I failed), I asked her to include bibliographic detail so readers know what she is referring to, standard practise at academic level and when building any kind of article of half-decent quality, and she was again condescending ("If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills"). I replied with an off-the-cuff comment that "I've already sorted out your half arsed effort" and she told me to "Remember, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner."" Sadly, she had not done so in her own post immediately before, the difference being that I had used (half?) a naughty word. This illustrates a key problem regarding Wikipedia's civility policy. When certain words are used people bristle and start discussing civility, but the type of behaviour Elonka demonstrated which does not use such language but still needles and makes collegial editing unlikely is often overlooked.

These discussions demonstrate that while Elonka doesn't use naughty words, her conduct leaves a lot to be desired. She is condescending, presumptuous, leaps to conclusions without evidence, and when confronted on her behaviour ignores the issue. This is the kind of behaviour Arbcom needs to deal with, but I won't hold my breath. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the link Elonka posted I did not see evidence of incivility by Nev1. Nobody Ent 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nev1, as you are an administrator, you have a responsibility to behave to a high standard. But instead, you reverted me multiple times, followed my edits nit-picking about how I used sources, referred to one of my edits as "half-arsed", called me "paranoid", "condescending", "patronising", etc. Despite repeated requests from me for you to stop the attacks and to be more civil, your behavior continued to escalate. Now here you are at ArbCom, continuing with the name-calling. You're not doing yourself any favors here. Better would be for you to acknowledge that you have been uncivil, retract the comments or apologize for them, and try to do better in the future. Or in other words: Are you willing to acknowledge any incivility whatsoever on your part? Or do you think everything is just fine? Also, note that another editor, Coeil, was repeatedly cursing on your talkpage, but you never saw fit to caution Coeil about his behavior, instead simply agreeing with his statements and name-calling. That wasn't helpful either. The exchange is a classic example of the civility problem on Wikipedia, which is why I entered it into evidence. Again, I ask you to think very carefully about the fact that you are an administrator, and how administrators should act. If you do not feel that you can treat other editors in a civil manner, perhaps you shouldn't be an administrator? --Elonka 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPERFECT does not hold administrators to a higher standard, it only expects them to model how to follow the standards which are supposed to apply to all editors. As no evidence has been provided suggested Nev1 was acting as an administrator in their interaction with Elonka, there's no reason to question their suitability as an administrator. In any event, Elonka has posted her evidence; ArbCom can do with it as they may. This is really isn't the appropriate forum to hash this out; if Elonka wants community review WP:WQA would be more appropriate, although personally I'd suggest both parties move on. (Perhaps after the ArbCom decision we'll have a clear yardstick to measure against; but under current standards Nev1's behavior does not stand out as particularly incivil.) Nobody Ent 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent, did you also review this diff? --Elonka 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent's advice to move on is sensible, but since I try to answer other people's question my response to Elonka is that yes, I believe that I was not incivil. Do you feel the same way about your own behaviour? There also appears to be some misreading of events; a lot of the discussion happened while I was not on Wikipedia so accusing me of turning a blind eye seems hardly fair. The only time I directly acknowledged Ceoil was in response to his adivce several days later to shrug it off so your accusation seems unfounded. But I came here to defend myself against Elonka's accusations, I do not wish this to reignite an old discussion which I had thought we had both moved beyond. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This diff is interesting as it seems to show an administrator templating an experienced user, something which many editors find highly uncivil. It's interesting to think there are many ways to be uncivil, and not all of them involve using naughty words. --John (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not incivil (see WP:TR). It does illustrate that the standards have to be community standards and the fact that offense was taken by an action does not mean the action was, in fact, incivil. Nobody Ent 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) This wasn't incivil, either. Nobody Ent 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka's own personal interpretation of civility provides a useful example of how productive editors are provoked, interesting behaviour for an administrator. Elonka's inability to let it go speaks volumes. J3Mrs (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nev1, the statements that you are making are not true. You claim that a discussion happened while you were "not on Wikipedia", but you've been on the project every single day for weeks. But here, let me refresh your memory:
 * November 16, this all started when you reverted my addition of an unsourced tag, with the edit summary, "Why do some users feel that tags are magic pixie dust that will fix all an article's ills. It's obvious there are no sources, this tag isn't going to miraculously change that."
 * When I asked you about the revert, you replied with more incivility, including getting on my case about the fact that I'd added a paragraph without a source, you said you were "disappointed", and referred to my behavior as "lazy"
 * December 31, you reverted me again, with the edit summary, "Been through this before. Until tags of this sort gain sentience and start editing they do not improve articles."
 * December 31, you again argued about tags, with steadily escalating incivility, such as your edit summary, "Nice threat, going to back it up with anything?" an edit summary of "Amusingly petty" and where you accused me (falsely) of tag-bombing
 * January 1, Ceoil pops up with profanity, to both me and to Carcharoth, clearly only there because he was a friend of yours, and enjoyed engaging in "blood sports". You obviously knew about it, because you posted in the discussion on that same day.
 * January 5, evidently stalking my edits (who exactly is the one who can't let this go?), you made a complaint to my talkpage with the heading "Adding sources", complaining about a citation that wasn't fully expanded. When I advised you that you could fix it yourself, you responded about how it was "half-arsed" and that I should "just remember for next time". When I brought up your tone at your talkpage, you referred to me multiple times as "paranoid" and "patronising".
 * January 7, Two days later, Ceoil pops up again, continuing the thread, referring to it as "rubbish"
 * In short, you were uncivil, repeatedly, despite multiple requests to stop. You also ignored uncivil behavior by Coeil, and then tried to make the excuse that you weren't online at the time, even though you obviously were online that day. You have been seeking out ways to prolong the conflict, issuing warnings for trivial behavior. These kinds of actions are toxic to the project, Nev1. They are exactly the reason that we are having this civility enforcement case, and I wish that you could acknowledge that some of your comments and actions, or at least some of Coeil's, were uncivil and disruptive to the project. --Elonka 21:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion on my talk page continued the night of 31 December and 1 January when I was not online but preparing for a large hangover. That I did not edit after 5pm 31 December until half nine the following evening should be abundantly clear. By the time I posted it had been over for a couple of hours and no further responses demonstrated it was dead, and I was more concerned with your own incivility. As for being a friend of Ceoil I refer you to this. Not checking your facts as you have done twice in this very thread and when you accused me of collusion with Polequant is a bad habit to fall into. I'd be disappointed with your persistent failure to grasp the matter as hand, but evidently you consider being disappointment an incivility. As an aside because you didn't reply to my question regarding the Tyrol article I assumed you had missed it, evidently you chose to ignore it, another example of your evasion tactics. If you are concerned about toxicity I suggest you examine your own actions. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nev1, I wouldn't pay much attention to it-- arbs will sort-- Elonka did the same with me a sentence or two above where she mentioned you, and as in the case of the diff where she alleges you "get on her case" (I thought that was a pretty polite statement when confronted with an admin adding unsourced text), her statements sometimes show that what Elonka says is in diffs isn't always there. I wonder if the arbs are pleased at having to sort through diffs that don't show what they claim to show, and if clerks are empowered to refactor that evidence down to the meaningful?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the opinions expressed by several in this case, not just Elonka, are unsubstantiated by the diffs produced. Indeed such soapboxing seems to have been a feature of this case. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nev1, I see you reverted me at South Tyrol, too. No cn tag, no discussion at talkpage, just wholesale deletion of useful text. Lovely. --Elonka 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that has something do with civility enforcement, I presume? Where it started, here, I'm curious to know what is wrong with Nev's statement there, so I can avoid being so uncivil myself. Perhaps Nev1 was poked and prodded into something.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope the arbs read the talk page, because this case is doing well to showcase some who lack the necessary self-awareness to avoid making hypocritical accusations. And that is a key point in the case: the baiting, prodding, and veiled insults that some users routinely resort to that are, as pointed out above, just as disruptive to the editing process as blatant incivility and personal attacks. Elonka, you would be well-advised to more carefully summarize your evidence diffs and to avoid the appearance of harassing other editors with accusations of behavior that falls lower on the scale of disruptive behavior than your own. The idea of a glass house with no mirrors comes to mind. Lara 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chill the fuck out, everybody! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! We're all human, eh?! @Malleus, your comment here "It seems to me that the opinions expressed ... are unsubstantiated by the diffs produced." illustrates a problem I've noticed cropping up all over the place, in my readings. Pile-ons (pylons? piles-on?) occur incredibly frequently due to either / both misunderstandings of or misrepresentational diffs; failure to read the background behind the diffs, and people (apparently?) relying on editor-apathy with regard to thorough investigation as opposed to seeing  a diff and presuming it must back up what's been said.  It's an endemic problem.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, I am not understanding how this crosses the line of incivility. You're female. You can be verbose. Where's the personal attack?20:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 20:55, January 17, 2012‎
 * Yeah, and if you take not just the words apart, but the letters, they are even less offensive... Strangely enough, the combination does add more insult than the sum of the parts. You can call me Jewish, and that wouldn't be offensive. You can call me lazy, and that is at worst mildly so; if you were talking about my programming, that might even be a compliment. But you call me a lazy Jew, and I'll have your guts for garters. Similarly, calling Elonka a verbose female who needs to hush is horrible: sexist, demeaning, and rude. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Karanacs, I am kind of surprised that this would even have to be explained. GiacomoReturned's statement was a pejorative comment, personally targeted, that also included a sexist element. See WP:NPA, which as one of its definitions states, "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." The kind of comment that GiacomoReturned made, if I had seen it on any article talkpage targeted towards another editor, could reasonably result in a block for personal attacks. Or look at it this way: Suppose we were to remove the word "female" and put in "negro"? If someone were to comment in an article talkpage discussion, "It's my opinion that Joe is a verbose negro, who we all have to listen to too often. He should hush a little," that would be appalling, a clear violation of WP:NPA, and should result in an immediate redaction along with either a warning or block. Further, for someone else to come along and say, "Well, editor X is a negro, and is verbose, what's the problem, I see no attack?" would probably also trigger a warning and/or block. --Elonka 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I AM a verbose female editor, and I thought it was funny. If it was directed at me, I'd have still been amused. I'm an administrator, too, and if you'd blocked for that comment I'd have taken it to AN/I to get consensus for an unblock(no matter whether it was said by Giano or someone else).  To threaten a warning or block of someone who is asking in good faith why a comment was perceived as an attack is ... unacceptable.  There are genuine differences of opinion here on what civility actually means, and it seems to me that there is a great deal of bad faith being assumed. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I have relatives who wouldn't mind being called lazy jews, and others (though more distant!) who wouldn't mind being called nigger. They're still attacks. There isn't a "Karanacs clause": "Before considering anything a blatant personal attack, you must first find Karanacs and ask her whether she would be offended." Whether it's blockworthy is an enforcement judgment, but it's clearly a personal attack, even though it doesn't offend you personally. --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there was a Wikipedia wide consensus on what is or it not acceptable discourse this ArbCom case would not be necessary. As of today I'd say the comment is snarky but below the threshold where sanctions are appropriate; I am anticipating with interest what the committee decision will be and where we go as a community in the future. Nobody Ent 13:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Odds are excellent the ArbCom decision will be that they won't decide for us, they'll just urge us to. Would you (meaning not just Nobody Ent, Karanacs, Elonka, etc., but really anyone reading) be interested in coming up with a joint proposal? I'd propose something like this.
 * Civility depends on the context and the listener. So, language isn't blockable, only behaviour is. When person A makes a statement that offends person B, admins can ask whether the statement can be rephrased to be less offensive without losing its actionable meaning. If so, admins can demand that the statement be so rephrased, and that the offensive and not actionable part not be repeated; and that can be enforced.
 * For example 1, the claim is that "admins are cunts" wasn't intended to be sexist. Then surely there is a way to rephrase it so that it is not so, and even more actionable: "admins are ineffective" or "admins are ruthless" or "admins are ... (What was that intended to mean, anyway? Just "I don't like admins, and won't specify why?"). When Deb stated she was offended, Malleus should have rephrased. For example 2, surely the statement that Elonka was female didn't contribute anything to the actionable part of Malleus's statement. He wasn't asking that she stop being female, was he? So that part can be removed. He can still ask that she stop being so verbose, there isn't a more polite way of expressing that. For example 3, "chill the fuck out", by Kiefer Wolfowitz, just above, doesn't seem to be offending anyone, so is fine until and unless it does. Is this a proposal that we can build on? --GRuban (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

deadline has passed
Notes have been left on the clerks' talk pages and editing continues. Nobody Ent 15:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * as explained on my talk page, it's not within the clerks' province to close the workshop and evidence pages, but I have sent ArbCom an email, containing my recommendation that they be closed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it damn well ought to be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just received a reply to my email telling me that the evidence and workshop pages can now be safely closed, which I have just done. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not impressive procedure. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence and workshop pages closed
considering that even the extended deadline has now passed, both the evidence and the workshop pages and their respective talk pages are closed effective immediately. I ask everyone to please cease editing them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Query - Where was the deadline established / announced? I don't see it on the main page, main talk, evidence, evidence talk, workshop, workshop talk, or proposed decision.  I may be missing something, but I haven't seen it yet...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now located above some ways up, and on the notifications to parties. This strikes me as highly sub-optimal for everyone not a party.  Wasn't there supposed to be a header on some or all of the main pages with the schedule??  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The case deadlines can also be found on Template:ArbComOpenTasks. I agree it is sub-optimal, however... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We ought not to be hidebound by the rules; GWH clearly has some stuff he wants to post, and even went so far as to leave a marker on the evidence page. I for one would have no problem with him posting whatever he feels it's so important to say even though it is three days late. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI I actually did post it onwiki but not on the case page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgewilliamherbert/CivilityCaseStatement ) but ran out of time before my 20th wedding anniversary to get the statement in the case page and under 500 words, and didn't realize a deadline was fast approaching (or I'd have deferred something else upon return, and gotten it done faster). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The date on Georgewilliamherbert's draft is 6 January 2012, George lodged a marker, it seems reasonable to let George post his content. I'd suggest to George that he do this fast; to allow Risker and the other drafting arbitrators the most time possible to read and consider his contribution before the 29th of January.  (It would be nice if the drafting arbitrators give us plenty of notice if they intend to slip the deadline, or find they cannot complete their drafting work.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will work on a shorter draft (or draft plus linknotes or something) within 500 words for posting tonight, assuming nobody says "NO!". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm the primary target here and I definitely don't say no. You indicated an intention to post something in evidence so post it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, GWH, and based on the points made by others here, I am okay with your posting evidence. You will, however, have to do so no later than Friday night, as we are planning on doing some heavy lifting on this over the weekend. (Maybe do some drafting offline tomorrow?) In particular, I would be interested in seeing your comments on blocks you made. We have a separate evidence page here where we are collecting this information, as the evidence page itself is quite overwhelmed.  Risker (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)