Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

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

Extending the date for evidence
I put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gathered the answer to this query by the actions of recent edits. I do believe an extension would have been a fair and proper way to handle the late submissions but accept the decision to allow some and not others. In fact it makes sense. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

An observation per IAR
Yes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

30 Jan
tick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Target deadline... this is a controversial topic... I'm certain something will be coming within the next few days...--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer.  I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair analogy, but who is in Kirk's role here? My76Strat (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Everyone's ... a Captain Kirk, with orders to clarify, to classify, to pacify." Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I call it dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BUTT. Jehochman Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A potentially interesting analogy that somewhat misses the point. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it absolutely right. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework right than I do for handing it in on time.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of x days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, speaking as someone who tried about a dozen of them, nothing is worse than the feeling when the jury's out. Even a note from them is a relief.  You just don't know, and there is nothing you can do about it and you don't know how long it is going to continue for.  It is no great trial for us as spectators; I feel for those with a more personal interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Updates would certainly seem appropriate here, even if it's just something like "discussion is ongoing."Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom incivility
It does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil. To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbcom did not have to accept the case -- it's actually a pretty crappy test case due to the particular fact pattern. But they did.
 * It's been 40 days.
 * Arbcom itself set the 29 January decision date.
 * Good grief. ArbCom decisions are never posted on time. Here's the update:  they are working on it, nd a decision will be posted when it is ready. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are going to call not meeting a deadline incivility or as Malleus did above "dishonesty" theh Malleus has no hope of avoiding the eternal flames of hell. This is not incivility or a lie... I know everybody is interested in what they have to say on this case, but they continue to be volunteers and real life does get in the way.  Yes, this is an impossible situation that needs Capt Kirk to resolve, but let's hold off on the vindictives---unless you are intentionally trying to piss the Arbitrators off to get them to vote vindictively.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I once waited 3 hours for the Stones to show up. When they did, the wait was worthwhile.```Buster Seven   Talk  15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its just a proposed decision...the final decision will take another month.MONGO 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From the department of offering an opinion unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts... (in that I have no knowledge of what the Committee is discussing): I can certainly understand that parties in the case would wish that this was over already, but I have a feeling that what may be the most difficult part of the case may be how to deal with aspects of administrator activities, such as the second mover issue, rather than with civility or those editors accused of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it must be a hell of a job to deal with. A bit like trying to re-build Spaghetti Junction while there's still traffic on it ... I know it's hard waiting, Malleus and others, but fretting about it doesn't make it any easier, or make their job and simpler to do, or, really, change anything apart from making you feel .. well ... fretty. They're only human, and the complexity of these issues is very much out of the normal Arb comfort zone.  Or anyone's, probably. Have another beer while you wait.  And a mandatory hug (>**)>.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is nothing. Windows Vista took 5 years, Duke Nukem Forever took 13 and Chinese Democracy 15, and all three sucked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh FGS they are all falling out and squabling with each other over this. The intelligent one told them not to accpept the case, the new percentage wanted to show balls of steel and comprehension and the other half are away with the fairies. There will be no sound result in the near future - if ever. We must resign ourselves for a very long wait - and the ultmate result being dispointment for all. Anyone with a gram of intelligence knows that. Giacomo Returned 21:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny thing about disappointment, I suspect that some will be disappointed (not surprised, disappointed) if there is an intelligent result. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Party A's "intelligent result" is party B's "lynch mob"; party B's "intelligent result" is party A's "endorsing grossly unacceptable conduct". Since there's never been an RFC to determine what "the community" actually want here, the only intelligent solution would b for Arbcom to have refused to accept this case, and for individual Arbitrators to refuse to take part once it was accepted. Since that didn't happen, someone is going to be shocked and upset by whatever the committee come up with. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well stated. While I disagree on the RFC part, which would have been lost in shouting, I think you've stated the rest of it quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (re Wehwalt) Sure, an RFC would have been a screaming match, but it would have got the issues out in the open. Half the problem with this case is that everyone has a different idea of what "the issues" are - things that some people see as key points, other people see as irrelevant and genuinely don't understand why people are getting upset. (That cuts both ways; there are people, particularly in Australia and the north of England, who genuinely can't understand why other people see language which to them is part of everyday speech as offensive. There are also people, particularly among the long-standing admins from the vandal-fighting tendency who are used to dealing out blocks, who genuinely don't understand why blocks, template warnings and so on can look like outright aggression to others.) I dare say you remember the problems around Mattisse, which to a large degree were a case of two blocks of users who weren't explicitly trying to upset each other, but who sincerely didn't understand why their actions were aggravating each other. (That's not to endorse what Mattisse became, but her becoming such a problem editor might well have been avoided if early on, someone had presented a list of what was and was not acceptable, as a take-it-or-leave-it offer with no room for argument.) Wikipedia desperately needs a group, separate from Arbcom, with a mandate to draw up binding policies when requested in situations like this - imagine the unlamented WP:ACPD without the "self-appointed provision government" thing. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What about party C? Or am I in a party of just one? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the look of party C. Especially as this party could be a long one: 40 days from incident to result would be remarkably fast for Arbcom; from case opening to case closure, a month or two is quite common in my experience. Pass the wine and chicken drumsticks please, Pesky. Geometry guy 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An observation: If the party of the first part would only agree with the party of the second part there would be no party of the third part and the parties of the first and second parts could all have a party [Paraphrasing Pratchett (2007) Making Money p. 9] -- Senra (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea if we can start seeing what way the committee is going to take with this? Perhaps the committee doesn't have enough evidence or proposals to formulate the decision from. If only there were a place where members of the community could provide focused evidence and proposals to get this jalopy out of neutral and moving forward. *cough* Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On a matter of practicality, ArbCom could have reasonably anticipated that failing to meet their deadline would not be met positively. They could have simply posted an updated estimate. Most people are patient.  It's the lack of knowing what's going on that's the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and would not be surprised if Arbcom members were trying to agree upon such a post as we write. Geometry guy 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the image of them "trying to agree" on this that troubles me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being troubled by such things is the recipe for premature heart disorder. I read the leaks of last summer, and no doubt you did too. There were revelations that were potentially more troubling to me than the idea that Arbcom members frequently find it difficult to agree on a course of action. Am I troubled? Not really: I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and if one aspect becomes stressful, there are plenty of others worth engaging with. Geometry guy 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no fire, so take your time Arbcom. Better to have it right, then have it fast. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a gander at WP:WQA, WP:AN, WP:ANI or many other venues. The fire's been smoldering a long time. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be apparent that a editor with my username is eponymously patient; it should also be eponymously apparent that it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. What is important is that if ArbCom routinely fails to update the targets they provide the community, then they are routinely rude. The first rule of leadership is example. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to put this missed deadline in perspective, I remember a case that ran on for four-plus months. We are nowhere near that point yet.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss
I think the prudent thing would actually be to dismiss the case. It was poorly prosecuted, and no party has emerged in clear need of sanction. As an asset, ArbCom can better serve Wikipedia without the burden of creating a solution for this case. The most justifiable sanction for any party is an admonition and to that effect, all parties have been admonished extensively by the community. An ArbCom admonition serves no practical benefit beyond aesthetics when remediation has already been achieved. I ask all who participated in this case to consider endorsing this summary.


 * 1) My76Strat (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) per propsed motion to close -- Senra (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I think not. The case has gone this far and will conclude, and the fact it is 'running' over is not uncommon, as many ArbCom cases do the same.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Amnesty for all involved; I'm in agreement with My76Strat on that one they've all suffered more than enough here.  And a mandate to re-write the civility policy really clearly and on a principle-centred basis, with is being equally enforcible for everyone.   Oh, and community sanction stuff at RfA and RfA talk; same standards, same sanctions, for any and every offender. That would do it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no great problem with an amnesty; the important thing is what happens going forward. The thing is, ArbCom is no doubt struggling with a way to reduce the second move advantage without being allowed to rewrite the policy handbook.  They can accomplish much if they make admins nervous about unblocks without consensus or discussion. That's the simplest way I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; the simplest way to deal with that issue is to separate it from the immediate case. Implement what I;ve suggested above (simple, fair and effective), and once having got the poor sods out of suspense and misery, then address the first-mover / second-mover / infinite mover (?) advantage / disadvantage.  But if the rules are clear, and equally applied, then that in itself would get rid of most of the block-> unblock -> block again warring.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, you might as well believe that the flying spagetti monster will buy you pizza tonight. I tried once to clarify what the self-contradictory WP:PA page says, which should be narrower/easier topic than civility in general. There is no consensus however what even that means. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11. And according to some, there is no consensus that there is no consensus. Most uncivil editors are much more astute than throwing four-letter words at their targets anyway. Guilt by comparison with an action of >insert villains/deficients here< is a favorite technique in some circles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, terms like "disruption" and "battlefield mentality" can be tossed around and used by some with as much pretense at fairness as in civility cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate in this case, but I strongly agree with the comments made by My76Strat, Pesky and Wehwalt. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I too would advocate that the case be dismissed, but I can tell you for certain that it won't be. There's an expression involving a flock of stupid sheep and a precipice - I forget the wording, but this is it. There will be no dismissal; we shall have to endure this right to the bitter end - regardless of sense. Giacomo Returned 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile in my universe, Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima, and it's hard to take Wikijustice too seriously when so many are willing to unblock Malleus or make unsupportable excuses for him. Art LaPella (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How very lonely you must find your universe. Thank heavens the rest of us are not sharing it. Giacomo Returned 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh forgive me, I have just seen "I live near Seattle, U.S." Enough said. Giacomo Returned 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus is as uncivil as the banned Ottava Rima---So Art, are you proposing that we unblock Ottava?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and I don't think my complete sentence could be interpreted that way. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Art, I can kinda understand where you're coming from, but it would be a good mental exercise for you to imagine yourself as being "the investigated party" here, and think what effect this kind of emotional trauma would be having on you. Until / unless you;ve actually been in this kind of situation, it's very, very hard to try and work out how you would be reacting to it yourself.  A certain amount of empathy is really needed here.  Imagine, for example, that you'd been accused of a serious crime in real life, and had been given  bail "until asked to return to the police station".  During all that time, you would be on edge, hyper-vigilant, sleepless, lost appetite, irritable, miserable and frustrated.  It's the being in limbo thing which is hardest to bear. Adding: I'm trying to think of a good real-life comparison here, which is tricky.  Umm, imagine that you'd got a home video of your toddlers playing on a nudist beach, and loads of other beach-goers also had similar vids or photos of their own.  Imagine that some of those other pics were on display in an art exhibition in your local town, there had been a bit of hoo-ha, and it had been decided that there was "no case to answer" in respect of those pics.  And imagine that you, yourself, were still on bail, awaiting the decision whether you were going to be charged with something in respect of your own pics, while knowing that more graphic pics had been passed as OK. It's a similar scenario.  And imagine, too, that you knew darned well that the reason your case hadn't been classified as "no case to answer" was because someone on the prosecuting team wanted to "make an example of you".  Does that scenario change your views on this? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Empathizing with another person's position is a good exercise in moral reasoning. So is being honest with oneself. Do you really think all of Malleus's outbursts were reactions to persecution? Often they occur the first time someone disagrees with him; do you need more examples? Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for that Art? Or are you simply operating on the basis that if you throw enough shit some of it is bound to stick? You had the opportunity to say your piece during the evidence collection phase, time for you to put your open hostility behind you now; it's unseemly coming from an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to my talk page's Modest Genius example, the evidence page shows Kaldari summarizing thusly: "Note that some of these attacks are replies to polite inquiries or requests rather than escalating arguments." Sorry about my open hostility; next time I'll include some f words to make it OK. Art LaPella (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Genteel editors, please focus on the intent of this thread. Other discussions are more proper under their own heading in an effort to keep this thread germane to the topic. I appreciate your understanding. My76Strat (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do tend to forget the germane-ness issue. I haven't said much about specific sanctions because my main point is that people like Malleus should shape up or ship out; it isn't about how many chances they should get. But I don't think dismissing the case would achieve that result. Malleus has often been warned, so I don't think stopping here would change anything. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Art,
 * Rather than admitting forgetfulness, your admitting obsessiveness and nastiness would be the first step on changing your behavior. Shape up or ship out, indeed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the comment to which Art took such exception after I called him on it on his talk page. Clearly he's labouring under the impression that he gets to make up the civility rules as he goes, a not untypical trait for an administrator. And I very much doubt that any neutral observer could believe for one second that Kaldari is an unbiased commentator. But once again, he's an administrator, so he can claim pretty much whatever he likes. The unpalatable truth for those like Art, who seems to actually add very little if any content indeed, is that Wikipedia would be infinitely better off with 100 more like me and 100 fewer like them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not germane at all, but since you keep bringing it up: I think readers benefit more from Main Page edits they might actually see than from Featured Article grammatical obscurities that please editors. Art LaPella (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I have not kept bring up anything at all about your self-confessed gnomish pattern of editing, which I happen to think is valuable work. Secondly, I have fixed incalculably more problems with FAs, GAs, and even DYKs than you've had hot dinners, but mostly at FAC or GAN rather than once they've hit the main page. All I'm asking you to do is put away your axe, at least until this charade is over. You don't like me, I don't like you, but there's no rule that says we all have to love each other ... yet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Art LaPella (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion thread is utter nonsense. I'm reminded of children saying "are we there yet?". So, it takes longer than some people's limited attention span to post a decision, and therefore we're going to hold our breath until either we turn blue or the case is thrown out. Utterly laughable. (Incivil enough for you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings with that. But, really, this proposal to dismiss makes me feel like my head is going to explode. If it wasn't dismissed during the evidence and workshop stages, it makes zero sense to dismiss it now, just because some people think it's taking too long to post a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that it's taking too long, but that a commitment was made, not kept to, and there's been no explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right about that, but the solution to the problem would be either an explanation or a proposed decision, not a dismissal or a change in the decision based only on the fact that there was a delay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish I often find wisdom in your prose and mostly agree with your counsel. I agree with what you say here except it doesn't describe my motives. I suggested this for consideration not because of any delay, but because I believe it would be an amicable resolution. Otherwise I feel this case is left entirely to ArbCom to create a solution because we didn't reach much agreement at the workshop. My76Strat (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Blush) Thanks! Well, there isn't any expectation that the community come to a consensus at the workshop, because it's ArbCom's remit to arbitrate a solution when the community is unable to reach consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting is that Malleus has shown great magnanimity throughout this grotesque charade, which can't be said of everyone on these pages.J3Mrs (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed he has, which leaves one wondering why such dull, mundane and tedious little people bought and accepted the case in the first place, doesn't it? Giacomo Returned 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean magnanimity since yesterday. Art LaPella (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour continues to be well beyond the pale Art, especially for an administrator; it's about time you woke up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a classic example of the 'upbraiding administrators' behaviour that I commented on earlier in the case. I'm referring specifically to the 'especially for an administrator' bit and the 'unseemly' bit in the edit summary. Malleus is not the only editor to hold administrators to a higher standard of conduct (and that principle is enshrined in various places around here), but I've manage to pin down what makes me uneasy about this. To put not too fine a point on it, those holding others to a higher standard of conduct should hold themselves to that same standard of conduct (note: not everyone, just those holding others to those higher standards, self-appointed or otherwise). So my question to Malleus is simple: do you hold yourself to the same standard that you hold administrators to? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually a classic example your misunderstanding, but not just yours to be fair. The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. I would on the other hand be quite happy to be held to same standard that administrators ought to be held to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Sorry to intrude, but isn't he just expecting everyone to engage in civil discourse, especially admins since they're expected to recognise it and encourage it? I haven't read this case but I've watched this farce unfold over the last couple of years and the "problem" is, Malleus recognises polite cruelty and bullying, and doesn't tolerate it, while others stand around saying, "But they didn't say 'fuck', Malleus; you said 'fuck', tsk, tsk." How have we come to this place, where most of the civility police are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between polite cruelty and genuine civility, and between bullying and frankness? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a fine line between frankness and being brusque. I do think that there is such a thing as being too frank and forthright when that can cause more problems than it solves. I also think that telling someone who in good-faith is trying to be diplomatic and restrained, that they should be frank and say "what they are really thinking", is something that isn't always a good idea. The converse holds as well, for those who would say to those being frank and forthright that they should be polite and proper. In practice, though, most people try and steer a course between the two extremes, or take an approach suitable to the context. Some situations require frankness, some don't. Some situations require restraint, some don't I would hope everyone could agree on those points at least. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with the two points outlined. The larger problem which has emerged is "who decides". My76Strat (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is beautifully put, Carcharoth.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever, I suspect that this delay is a planned example of the new arbcom trying to flex its pale, limp muscles and say: "we are in charge and make our decisions in our time not that of some lowly non admin editor." From what I have seen of them so far, there's more life, fun and sparkling dialogue to be had in a mortuary. Giacomo Returned 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would "boring" not be a positive trait? As far as I can see, a lot of the problems with the previous Arbcoms have been that the members have altogether too much character. 78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One can forgive people for being unavoidably dead (so long as they go quietly), but to be dull shows a lack of respect and thought for others. Giacomo Returned 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There we have it: civility is optional, but dullness is unforgivable. And going quietly (from this talk page, perhaps?) is not a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, this was an incredibly long case in terms of evidence and workshop material to sort through. We are working on it, though I think the 29 Jan target was overly optimistic when set. I think we can get a PD posted over the weekend, and have updated the page to reflect that. Courcelles 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh deep joy! There's a murmering from the vault, shall we all hold our breath as well? Personally, I think we shoul just take over the decision page, that would be far more fun and doubtless elicit some better responses from the living dead. Giacomo Returned 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like "bans all 'round"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * GiacomoReturned I resent that you saw fit to disrupt this discussion. Your actions are serving to stifle the very discussion I had hoped to see, and you are flouting policy to serve that end. I'll thank you kindly to show some respect in this thread, or start your own level 2 header and rant till you are fully content. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. Nobody Ent 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you ' celles :o) It was always going to be a real pickle to sort through, and I'm sure you've hit the nail on the head with the "overly optimistic" thing.   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Are we there yet?"...```Buster Seven   Talk  23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We will get there when we GET there! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On a case like this, I'd like them to deliberate for as long as they need. I voted for all but two of this committee because I respect them. I heed their advice, as many editors do. This is about more than Malleus' future here, it's an opportunity for the committee to offer meaningful guidance to the community concerning how we treat one another. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My future here is not for ArbCom to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your future here is as much in their hands as it is in yours. I hope you decide to stay, and they recognise your worth. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "To be honest my dear, I don't give a damn". I wouldn't even have taken part in the ArbCom charade if SandyG hadn't persuaded me that it might just change things for those who come after me. Fat chance. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * She's right. It might. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy, just don't use foul langauge in ones posts. I personally don't mind, but if enough editors do mind, then there's a problem for the foul language user. Remember, none of us have rights to be on Wikipedia, just privellages. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I know how edgy everyone is; but gently, guys, gently. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not edgy, but rather calm. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're also rather ill-informed; this meme about "foul language" needs to be knocked on the head. In what way is "sycophantic" or "wikilaywer", the use of both of which resulted in blocks, "foul language"? And I already linked above to this exchange, which Art LaPella absurdly characterised as "uncivil". What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "foul language". Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * of course it does Nobody Ent 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It's an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you wronged ArbCom, that they seek revenge on you?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to ArbCom, but to those who chose to present what can only laughingly be called "evidence", which in reality was evidence only for their own malice. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, you make a fair point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the "Laughable evidence" you allude to was appended by users who ardently support your actions. Others perhaps a bit misguided or overly optimistic, and certainly some for malicious spite. The problem is that our disagreement, seeming intractable, falls upon ArbCom to mediate. I had hoped we could reach much more agreement than we were able. My76Strat (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You and I quite probably could, and I think to some degree at least have probably done so. But this case should not have focused on me, as its very name suggests. That it did reflects the malice involved. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Civlity enforcement" suggests you? Nobody Ent 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point, it doesn't. Yet so much of the "evidence" has focused on me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It focused on the involved parties; I wouldn't expect otherwise. Nobody Ent 18:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may continue to misrepresent all you like, but I am not one of the parties with the authority to enforce anything. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Civil participation is a choice, encouraged by pillar, policy, and guideline. In truth, the ultimate authority to moderate one's behavior towards compliance rests with the user themselves. To that end, MF, you have all authority. My76Strat (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know Strat, I don't think in my entire long history of Wikipedia, I have never read such pompous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and irritating drivel as some of the comments on this page. Your and GoodDay's posts being foremost in that category. "Let him who is without sin cast etc etc etc." Obviously, you are better than all of us. Why Malleus and others chose to remain here in such company is a complete mystery to me. Giacomo Returned 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time I've ever been misunderstood, and likely not the last. I do think you've misunderstood some comment of mine for your conclusion is by far a misnomer of my intent. My76Strat (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rant-o-matic
I can only hope the readers of this letter section are as outraged as I am at ArbCom. By way of introduction, let me just say that ArbCom is devoid of all social conscience. But there is a further-reaching implication: While it's out using "pressure tactics"—that's a euphemism for "torture"—to coerce ordinary people into irrationalizing thinking on every issue, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about ArbCom's attempts to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of antidisestablishmentarianism. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that ArbCom's loyalists remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame inerudite fugitives for the problems besetting society. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrink, you can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant *walks out* Hasteur (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just hope they don't reach the same sort of impasse that seems to have happened over at Betacommand 3. — Ched : ?  23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [[File:Angry1.gif]] A crowd gathers at ArbCom's door to demand a proposed decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should add one of these to every arbcom case talk page. Y'know, just to get things rolling. --Conti|✉ 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Emoticons?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I've been one-upped by Wehwalt... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm enjoying reading all the pro & con Arbcom posts by editors here. They won't change Arbcom's ruling, but they're entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Floq is complaining about specifically, but I will say that I don't understand what ArbCom imagines itself to be. They obviously don't arbitrate, despite the name: they refuse to deal with content (defined in a peculiarly broad way), and they don't make any effort to mediate between parties.  They won't interpret policy or foundation principles.  They won't even make more than token efforts to control the presentation of evidence or discussion, so case pages are effectively useless for anything other than slander and rhetoric.  Is ArbCom supposed to be a purely punitive body?  Because if so, there's no real need for ArbCom except (maybe) in wheel-warring cases - admins are perfectly capable of imposing any sanction that arbcom might impose, and having this big 'case' process creates a huge mess without providing anything of particular value in terms of justice or breadth of vision.  heck, they're headed that way anyways with discretionary sanction, so they might as well hand over the reins completely and restrict themselves to dealing with sysop issues.  Not that I'd want that, mind you - the project would become even more of a political nightmare, if only because there'd be none of these case messes slowing down normal summary justice - but if that's what they're going to do they should do it.


 * Don't get me wrong, I no longer have an iron in this fire: the project is apparently not ready to be what I'd like it to be (a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system). All I'm saying is that it should stop pretending that's what it is if it doesn't have the cojones to actually be that.  So long as it pretends to be a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system it will attract editors who expect that kind of a system, and all sorts of crap will happen as they each in turn learn the hard way that it isn't.  It is just creating endless headaches out of misguided loyalty to ideals it doesn't practice.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, something tells me you didn't follow Floquenbeam's link. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't (and now that I see that, it's kind of cute); if he's going to be sarcastic he should advertise it more clearly. But I don't really care; I have honest complaints about the system here.  If you guys want to joke around about it, that's…  part of the problem, actually, but only a small part, so it's fine.  But it doesn't make what I said any less right.


 * And since I'm on my way out the door, and pissed off at the stupidity of it, I don't see a lot of reason not to express the point while I still can.


 * You really have no idea what a low assessment I have of the political community on project. "Screwed the pooch" hardly covers it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you bringing up a Family Guy episode? That show is highly uncivil. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've only seen that show a couple of times - enough to know the characters, and that it's not really my kind of humor. Was that a good episode?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I only watch Futurama. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That one I like better; at least, it's less based on random absurdity. nothing like the early Simpsons, though…  Groening lost inspiration over the years (or else passed the writing task off to people with less talent).  -- Ludwigs 2  22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about it guys? Accurate? ;) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's administrators has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth."? What kind of grammar is that? Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbcom's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Arbcom simply came out and said that it keeps stating over and over again that it's okay if its treatises initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that unlike the usual, self-indulgent, garden-variety simpletons, Arbcom claims to be supportive of my plan to confront and reject all manifestations of vigilantism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll do everything possible to keep sullen dumbbells flighty and power-hungry. Not only that, but there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Arbcom announcing some obstreperous thing every few weeks. Manning (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC) (Flo's right, that website is freakin' hilarious.)

PumpkinSky's personal attack at KW's RfC/U
User:PumpkinSky's has admitted to being a sock puppet of resigned ArbCom member User:Rlevse or another alter-ego, and so Special:Contributions/PumpkinSky is indefinitely blocked.

User:PumpkinSky made the following personal attack at my RfC/U:
 * "Producing good content in NO WAY gives one the right to be an arrogant jackass--this attitude is at the core of many of wiki's problems. Pumpkin Sky   talk  1:56 am, 15 October 2011, Saturday (3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+2)" (emboldening added)

In my RfC, I repeatedly requested that administrators, particularly WTT and an ArbCom member Elen of the Roads, stop personal attacks and incivility directed towards me.

Their response (most clearly Elen's response) was that I regarded every criticism as a personal attack. Throughout the RfC, they failed to address a single incivility or personal attack directed at me.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the light of a new day, much similar hilarity is to be found throughout the Wikipedia. Except it's not very funny ... that there was so clearly an agenda there should have been picked up much earlier, but even as some of us were appealing for help, we never got it ... and I mean basically from the admin corp, not the arbs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen remains perhaps my favorite Arb, and since I do sometimes behave like an arrogant jackass after which I have to forgive myself, I can do no less than forgive her.
 * The point is that the culture at ANI and RfCs must change from that of a criminal trial to group work led by outstanding facilitators...!
 * Forward looking, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, methinks this entire case resolves to the problem with the culture at ANI, where legitimate grievances are sometimes ignored, messengers are sometimes shot, and enforcement is unequal depending on who you are and who your friends are. Not an arb issue, but I'm still unsure how they can change the culture at ANI or RFA by accepting this case.  I know had the Rlevse socking not come to light, we'd still be dealing with the disruption at FAC, and we got no help by bringing it to ANI.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor is it the only case that does so, by far. there was there was the case over discretionary sanctions (where I was blocked merely for reporting a favored editor), the ongoing Muhammad case (which is apparently going to be resolved  by reinforcing the right to be mindlessly obnoxious so long as you're on the right side), a new case up for consideration in which admins actively close complaint threads because an editor has been cast as a T.M. supporter.  Apparently, wikiculture has come around to the point where 'personal attack' is defined in reference to how much the editor is challenging the status quo.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, just as an aside, I'm not really in your corner: there's a difference between being assertive and being foul-mouthed that you seem to miss, and that's unfortunate. However, I suspect you're getting administratively tarred and feathered much the way I am, so I have that much sympathy for you.  That aside, you're right: civility has somehow stopped being about civility and become a mob tool for silencing people who disagree with the status quo.  very sad.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It never crossed my mind that you might be "in my corner", as I don't consider that I have a corner at all. What I have is a point of view that's misunderstood and misrepresented by certain elements of what's risibly misnamed "the community" here, and too often maliciously. Your implicit suggestion that I am "foul-mouthed" is but one example among many. If you want to introduce censorship of the words that are allowed to be used here then the correct thing to do is to start an RFC, not berate me for conforming to a policy with which you apparently do not agree. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I don't believe I've ever called someone a c*nt in my life; you have. Not a huge evil in any realistic regard, but not pleasant behavior.  own it to get past it.


 * The real problem that you and I both face is that fact that Wikipedia indulges exaggeration and hysteria: The project coddles pissy little trolls who spend all their time trying to make small errors in judgement look like major flaws in character; it loves editors who rend their clothes and the gnash their teeth in excessive displays of angst (or at least, it gives them everything they want - whether that constitutes 'love' is an open question). I sympathize with your plight, because you are on the wrong of that stick, as am I. Accept that for what it is.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly have called someone a cunt in my life, and no doubt will do so again to anyone who shows themselves to be a cunt. Whether it's "pleasant" or not isn't the issue, as it's not intended to be pleasant. I think of it more like a bit of ECT appropriate to those otherwise unable to escape from the constraints of their stupidity or dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think such ECT discourages them from the thinking it would take to overcome their constraints. If they are stupid, I would explain more slowly and completely, as to a child. If they are dishonest, the same patient explanation technique often works at Wikipedia, where people's vanity often prevents them from appearing to be stupid. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example of administrative bullying and double standards

 * with no concern for civility or personal attacks by administrators against plebes at RfCs


 * Bishonen's talk page, where she repeats her accusation that I support the anti-immigrant party, Sweden Democrats. (Compare the civility police coming out in force, with Roux's partisan administrative bullying and   georgewilliamherbet waiving his blocking billyclub when the administrator Bishonon was mentioned here.)
 * " Good honest God fearin' folks and their corner for evil toxic critters
 * all the other SD supporters roll in for a group hug, naturally. If you care for further colourful material on that particular complainer versus Bishonen, check out his talkpage — sorry, I mean the History of his talkpage — because only happy things get to stay on the front of the page. Here comes the relevant history—RexxS has taught me a wonderful trick for permanently linking to a particular part of a page history — how's that for useful? Great guy, isn't he?"
 * all the other SD supporters roll in for a group hug, naturally. If you care for further colourful material on that particular complainer versus Bishonen, check out his talkpage — sorry, I mean the History of his talkpage — because only happy things get to stay on the front of the page. Here comes the relevant history—RexxS has taught me a wonderful trick for permanently linking to a particular part of a page history — how's that for useful? Great guy, isn't he?"

On the same discussion, Bishonen complains about being labeled as "toxic personality" by Jimbo Wales. Monkey see, monkey do. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "L'enfer, c'est les Autres". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on progress for proposed decision
Thank you all for giving us some breathing space to try to get through all of the evidence and the mass of workshop proposals. Courcelles, Hersfold and I have been working hard on a proposed decision that addresses both the specific and broad-based issues, and we plan to have this posted within the week. Please continue to bear with the Committee on this; we will be closing one currently open case over this weekend, are doing our best to sort out some remedies on another, and are workshopping a third (very complex) case, which is likely to have its proposed decision posted next week as well. Rather than posting two decisions at once, and overloading the remainder of the Committee with two complex cases for voting, we are likely to stagger the two proposed decisions a few days apart. That doesn't mean one is more important than the other; whichever one is ready for voting first will be posted first. Risker (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather you than me! I'm so glad I don't want even to  be an admin, even less an Arb! This must have been horrendous for y'all!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Pesky. That doesn't get acknowledged enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why they get the Toi 250kg gold bar.jpg and all that "bling-bling".```Buster Seven   Talk  14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I got a "Wikipedia" pencil and a "globe" button once when I went to a wiki-conference, does that count as "bling"? It's a scary thought if it is...  Risker (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Coolness; I went to the National Archives meetup and we got National Archives chocolates, which if you've never heard of them, it's probably because of pre-marketing analysis. In other words, you didn't even get good-tasting chocolate with the calories.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's what happens when the chocolate has been archived for too long without refrigeration. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The NA is mainly stuff well over a century old -- which means they had to use very stale chocolate? Collect (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Think of it as real-life linkrot.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...probably leading to real-life gutrot ... ;P Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or expanded operations ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall we raise a glass of rot-gut? Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got a Blue Peter badge, please may I have a Wikipedia hoodie? (Dark green, ideally ;P) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have a really bizarre question: if the globe image is copyright, what would the Foundation do if somebody had it tattoo'd onto them? It could be a bit hard to insist on its removal ...  Pesky   ( talk  …stalk!) 10:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rumor has it that's how some people got their jobs with WMF. Reminds me of this girl who had this band she liked autograph her, er, front with a Sharpie, and then went to the tattoo artist ... I hope her taste in music never changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or that her... um front... never starts to sag.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has actually gone to court in the case of Rasheed Wallace, who had a copyrighted image tattooed on his arm and was taken to court to prevent him from displaying the tattoo on TV. Sadly, it was settled out of court so there's no legal precedent in the US. 78.149.157.58 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a secret trick to having a front which never starts to sag .... ;P Pesky  ( talk …stalk!) 08:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My facebook page is always plagued with secret tricks... "learn how to loose weight with one secret trick", "Lower your insurance rates with one secret trick", "Avoid wrinkles with one secret trick." Now that culture is spreading to WP... avoid sagging fronts with one secret trick ;-)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A new update requested
I want it to be right, not rushed, so take whatever time is needed, but it wouldn't take but two minutes, if that, to post a revised estimate of when this decision is expected.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Status page says decision is due the 13th and its only June 29, 2024 now. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I was watching this page, with an update status that has expired. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I now see that the date of the 13th was changed within minutes of the statement here that thee would be a statement within a week (i.e. by the 11th). Sounds like the right hand needs to talk to the left hand. Or come to an agreement where status will be posted. In one sense, not a big deal, but contradictory, almost simultaneous updates in different places doesn't inspire confidence.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see what today's excuse will be. Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They're busy preparing for Valentine's Day. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there once a massacre on Valentine's Day? Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure the wait will be worthwhile and we'll get something Solomonesque (without the cleaving). - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposed decision will be posted before I retire for the evening; unfortunately, it turns out that our developer/operations colleagues have been upgrading software on the server that handles the arbitration wiki, so there have been some technical difficulties as we pull the last bits together. Risker (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for violating the request not to edit, but as someone who has noisily asked for status, it is only fair that I thank the committee for the response. While I will have some specific thoughts about the decision, there's ample evidence that considerable thought went into the crafting—thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a queue forming
Of similar cases. I hope a decision gets posted soon. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stake holders needed


Wikipedia's civility policy needs more stake holders. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta-musing
I've just had a bit of experience on meta-wiki. It seems that over there, they are much quicker to block for incivility, personal attacks or "intimidating behavior" at least when it's not coming from their admins. Still, even for minor transgressions, over there blocks seem to stick at least for a day or so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So? Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I don't know if that's better or worse than here, but other kinds of wiki-cultures do exist. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're not sure that if someone is incorrectly blocked it's better that they stay blocked for a day or not? Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malleus,
 * In block reviews, several administrators (e.g. Joseph Fox) have averred that
 * they are certain the the block was bad, but
 * nonetheless, they support the block and ask for an apology,
 * as you know. It would be a progress for such administrators to be uncertain about a (bad) block while still supporting it. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? What you are proposing is that if Admin JohnQPublic makes a bad block, that the rest of the admin corp shouldn't rectify the situation, but rather rally around the admin who blew it?  That makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and sounds to me like a type of mentality that will lead to serious breaches of misconduct amongst the admin corps---especially if such behavior is advocated as the expected process.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Balloonman,
 * You confused description with prescription, perhaps because description is painful. You seem to deny that "the rest of the admin corp" not only fails to "rectify the situation, but rather rally around the admin who blew it". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that the admin corps often fails, but you have declared that it would be better to have admins support a bad block. That is not a solution.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure KW is just saying that supporting blocks one knows to be bad is worse than supporting blocks one is unsure about. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, sir. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of this seems off-topic here (but I could have missed something); though since it is here: Does meta have any sort of AN or ANI reporting area to discuss bad blocks? — Ched : ?  15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, m:WM:RFH. There's a sample discussion there you can easily find. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on proposed decision
Thank you for starting the Proposed Decision process. After reading through the page, I recommend two more FoFs (Findings of Fact):


 * There needs to be some finding covering the background of the incident, either as a new finding, or an expansion of the existing Thumperward FoF. Right now the current findings pretty much require pre-existing knowledge, but would be difficult to understand for someone reviewing the case in the future. Recommended wording:


 * On December 21, 2011, Malleus Fatuorum engaged in uncivil behavior, prompting numerous complaints and an eventual redaction of his comment. Three hours later, administrator Thumperward blocked Malleus Fatuorum indefinitely, initially with a minimal block rationale, and then a more extensive one at ANI two hours later. One hour after Thumperward blocked, John unblocked, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin, even though the blocking admin had said at ANI that he was writing up a rationale. Several hours later, Hawkeye7 re-blocked, claiming a consensus at ANI, when there was clearly no such consensus.


 * There should be a proposed remedy for John to be de-sysopped. He clearly and deliberately overturned a block without any community consensus, and without any attempt at contacting the blocking admin until after he had overturned the block. Further, he claimed a "strong consensus" at ANI, when there had only been 20 minutes of discussion, and it was clear that Thumperward was actively working on responding to queries about the block. And on top of all that, John was self-admittedly involved where Malleus was concerned, which was yet another reason that he should not have used admin tools. It's true that John did offer a general after-the-fact apology, but in my opinion his behavior was so clearly out of line that a de-sysopping should still be on the table. At a very minimum, his behavior should be clearly documented as inappropriate. Otherwise it looks like any admin could engage in pretty much any outrageous behavior they wanted, and as long as they offer an "Oops, I was wrong," apology after the fact, they can avoid any repercussions.


 * --Elonka 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I for one think ArbCom should be applauded for proposing a reasonable – rather than needlessly punitive – approach to John's actions. I have a fair number of objections to some of the other proposed remedies, but John not being sanctioned certainly isn't one of them. 28bytes (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the background suggestion by Elonka. While I think I had followed all of the background, this decision will be reviewed in the future. While the entire chain of events can be teased out by a complete review of the Evidence page, a summary would be helpful for future readers of this case.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The case is moving quickly, and there are already motions to close. IMHO, I think that most of the proposed decisions that appear to be passing are reasonable, but that there still really needs to be a "Background" finding. Otherwise this case is going to be very difficult to decipher in the future, especially since the case was re-named as "civility enforcement", which distances it even further from the incidents that sparked the case in the first place. See my suggested wording above (in italics) for a possible background finding. --Elonka 03:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nudging this again because I'm not sure if anyone is seeing it. A background finding would still be a really good idea for this case, otherwise it's going to be very confusing to review in the future. --Elonka 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed background statement. I also support the proposal relating to John's inappropriate actions, which merit consideration of the same sanction as the other 2 admins. involved. Leaky  Caldron  17:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrections
Diff #6 in the "Malleus Fatuorum's block log" should be double-checked, as it doesn't appear to refer to an actual block. --Elonka 07:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thank you. Risker (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hawkeye de-sysop remedy includes language about regaining tools through RfA. Similar language is not included in the other proposed de-sysop remedies. Is there some reason for this difference? Is it just a drafting oversight? Please explain. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EdChem. Fixed. Risker (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye's apology
Hawkeye has apologized for his mistake to Malleus, on SandyGeorgia's talk page. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wheel-warring
I suggest that saying " administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute". There are many other circumstances that where reversal without discussion is appropriate, some specifically provided for in the rules, for example,  unblocking under the usual block review procedures, the undeletion of an expired prod,  the admin having left WP, the admin being unresponsive, the admin specifically stating--as some of us including myself do--that any of my  deletions may be undeleted, the undeletion of a speedy in case it's clear the criteria for speedy  have not been met, the revert of a clearly inappropriate close, the reversal of any clear error. Obviously anything like to be really disputable must be dealt with carefully, but in many situations consent can be presumed. The provision, as stated, drastically changes the meaning of wheel-war to 0RR, and destroys the needed flexibility.  DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but having seen other arbitration cases revolving around admin actions, I have a horrible feeling that that's exactly what's intended. Certainly it would make day-to-day admin work much more difficult if a silly principle like that passed, but it's been so long since most arbs were actually involved in day-to-day admin work that they probably don't realise or don't care. Hopefully some of those with the benefit of recent admin experience will opine in defence of common sense. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't speak for ArbCom or the Admin Corps, but I think this is more in the "Be sure the admin whose action you're reversing isn't going to complain about the reversal" vein. When a admin grants blind-approval for another admin to reverse them (for whatever criteria) then it's putting trust that the other admin will have done the due diligence before executing the reversal. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial view of the proposed principle is that it constitutes a substantial moving of the bar. More so than I think is warranted. I applaud the cleverness; the analogy to 3RR is apt, but we may have to put more teeth into the wording to make sure it is apt—in the same way that a revert short of 3R can be, but it not necessarily edit warring, the undoing of another admins action can be, but very often isn't problematic. DGG identified a long list of cases where it isn't problematic, so we have to take care to ensure that ArbCom hasn't redefined wheel-warring to 0RR. It is my view that we do not have to hash it out here, the talk page of WHEEL, possibly resulting in wording tweaks of the policy, is the right venue.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So, are you folks formally redefining wheel-warring from being the second revert to being the first one? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. DGG's examples of uncontroversial, or previously-defined-as-acceptable, admin action reversals is well taken.  For example, it's not possible for undoing a PROD deletion to be wheel warring, because the "easy go, easy come back" nature is part of the process.  If anything, any administrator complaining about another administrator undoing a PROD deletion risks being disruptive, because the response to a contested undeletion is not a re-deletion (which could itself be wheel warring), but an AfD discussion, where consensus gets established for any future deletion, satisfying the requirement for WHEEL-acceptable subsequent administrator action. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblockable koala
"Hawkeye7's personal attack" was substantially saying that someone is unblockable. Is that kind of statement now considered a personal attack? Or is there some aggravating factor in the comparison with a koala? (I fail to grok the southern hemisphere cultural allusion myself, if any exists.) I'm asking because I've seen similar statements about the unblockability of other editors on a number of occasions. If ArbCom doesn't clarify their intent here, I'm going to file an official request for clarification after the case is closed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist (which is probably why he chose my talk page for that unfortunate comment, but I wasn't around), where we're both project coordinators, and there's a lot of that sort of Aussie colloquial banter among the MilHist coordiantors. I'm certain the comment was meant to be humorous, and that Hawkeye didn't mean any offence by it. That's not to say that it was well-judged, and it's probably a given that any admin whose actions are in ArbCom's crosshairs twice in such quick succession is going to lose his bit, but I think it would be a mistake to label it a "personal attack". In fact, the majority of diffs in this proposed decision are very mild to say that sanctions are being proposed on the basis of them (and I might post a more detailed comment to that effect later). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed decision could benefit from some rationale
At first glance the proposed remedies are confusing as far as guidance going forward. On the one hand a pathologically uncivil but otherwise upstanding editor is to get the boot by collective action a month after his last offense (unless you count the de rigueur venting in connection with this case). On the other hand two administrators are proposed for deactivation for hasty actions made hours after the fact or without full explanation. If untimely, thinly explained remedies are grounds for loss of rights, perhaps we should desysop all of arbcom?

The Committee issues a strong, well reasoned exposition of the range of bad behavior considered a detriment to the project, but then cautions administrators that stopping editors from that behavior is a grave last resort. Hawkeye is to be canned for a goofy indecorous comment that pales by comparison to insults hurled after the fact by a few administrators and more so by other parties on these pages. His main infraction is to undo a prior administrative decision, something he vehemently denies. If he is sincere in claiming he did not wheel war, then why is he being punished for that? Shouldn't there be an explicit finding that he is lying or his claims are implausible?

There is no mention at all of the sexist and abusive nature of the original comments. Whether or not Malleus intended anything sinister (and there has been no strong evidence that he did), any other serious web service would allow its functionaries to issue a summary time out for calling people cunts, no questions asked, no hand wringing, and no attempt to kill the messengers. Why is Wikipedia, a website far more civil, serious, and prominent than most, charting its own course where gross incivility can be enforced only by volunteers willing to take the dagger themselves?

Arbcom is strongly warning the community not to bait, harass, provoke, belittle, etc., yet pointing a stun gun at administrators who have tried to enforce the same. What is supposed to happen next, inevitable, time that one of the regulars around here behaves like Malleus did? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * RFC/U. Nobody Ent 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Committee tells us not to bait, and for the most part does not tell us what baiting is. I see in future "baiting" being slanged around a lot, and especially applied to anyone who objects to being on the receiving end of an uncivil comment, along with the traditional "disruption" axe and the shiny new "failing to work towards consensus", which seems ready made to be slanged around.  The Committee waxes eloquent on the beauty of the regional variations of the English language—with absolutely no evidence that misunderstandings of English played any part here.  Is it applied to Malleus?  I'm having a hard time believing that is appropriate, as Malleus has routinely edited articles in regional variations.  Is it directed to Hawkeye?  What are admins to do in future?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * RFC who? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * one of the regulars around here who behaves like Malleus did. Nobody Ent 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to make innuendos like that. Please say plainly who is causing problems and give evidence in the appropriate forum; otherwise, keep quiet. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Nobody Ent was accusing anyone by innuendo, but rather responding to Wikidemon's comment asking what should happen next time we get in this situation.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. The word "one" lead me to believe there was somebody specific in mind.  "Any" would probably be more accurate. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful, please?
The comment "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" probably needs to be tweaked around a bit. Please look at this thread on Jimbo's talk page. It seems highly likely that Wikipedia has way more than the population-normal percentage of people with (for example) high-functioning autism. (I'm one of these myself, and I know for absolute certain-sure that there are other Wikipedians who come into this or similar categories, including quite a high proportion of my own WikiAcquaintances.)

People with high-functioning autism-spectrum differences can be quite incredibly "genius", and can also be seriously misunderstood as being grumpy, misanthropic, hard to get along with, stupid, argumentative, and a number of other such labels. They / we can't help having differently-wired brains. That's important. I'm not saying that Malleus is one such (not naming any names here), but it is very, very important that we don't even appear to be making any statements which would automatically discriminate against a particular group of people on the grounds of what could broadly be considered (compared to neurotypicals) as a "disability". We need to ensure that editors are aware that the probability that they're communicating with someone on the autism spectrum is much higher in WikiLand than in Real Life, simply because the project is a honey-trap for people who would rather stay in and edit than go out and party, and to make allowances for the possibility that conflict has arisen from nothing more serious than a fundamental misunderstanding. See, for example, my interaction with Wikidemon during the course of this case. It could so easily have spiralled out of control, simply because we had crossed wires, through the fault of neither of us. This happens.

This is also a very important thing to bear in mind when writing policy pages; they have to be absolutely unambiguous, and absolutely equally applied. No exceptions. Autism-spectrum people are highly sensitive to injustice, particularly injustice arising from misunderstanding or mis-reading.

The phrase "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" is all-too-close to saying "we don't want anybody on the autism spectrum, thank you very much." Can't have that, sorry! Pesky (talk ) 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Implying a connection where there isn't one. genius &ne; autism. Nobody Ent 09:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, don't take it personally, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I've recently encountered the famous sonnet writer on meta-wiki, who is indef blocked here, apparently after writing sonnets in an ArbCom case request. What ArbCom is saying here is nowhere near as discriminatory as Jimbo's recent statement that a FA writer with similar stats to Malleus (30 or so articles) is "not the kind [of editor] we want" because she wrote a TFA article on "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe". 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Achhh, sorry, I wasn't clear enough (again!) What I meant was that a number of people in this grey, nebulous area do have talents at genius level, and an enormous amount to contribute. Simply because in HFAs and others, parts of the brain are overwired, giving massive abilities in that area, while the social interaction ares are conversely underwired, giving difficulties in that area.  I'm not saying autism=genius.  Pesky  (talk ) 09:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, as of the last update, genius is not yet an insult. The Genius Bar is still at Apple stores.  When that changes, let's resume this discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bless! Thank you! (>**)> Hugz.  I'm trying to come up with solutions here which won't make some well-meaning and bright subsections of the human community feel that they are unwanted.  Pesky  (talk ) 10:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Returning to Pesky's original point, I suggest JClemens's substituting "We don't need misanthropic behavior", so dropping off-topic "geniuses" etc. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Jclemens' comment is fine: You can be a great editor, but if your interpersonal skills are atrocious, we don't need you on this project. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jehochman, Stop (only both) paraphrasing ArbCom proposals and adding your personal approval! Discuss the issues raised. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will comment as I please. Your remark is offensive and I am ignoring you. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're a terrible but charismatic and collegial editor, shall we boot you too? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting question, and one to which I think you're unlikely to get any kind of sensible or coherent answer. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer depends on whether the 'terrible' editor will admit their faults (which may of course not be as bad as those alleging the faults are saying), and whether those alleging faults are prepared to explain their reasoning and be constructive and helpful if the editor wants to learn how to improve. One danger is that those pointing out faults in others may not see faults in themselves. All editors should examine their own editing periodically and see what can be improved, as no-one is perfect. That may sound patronising, but one of the perils of editing in an environment where those will less refined editing skills can contribute, is those with better skills getting an inflated sense of their own skills in comparison. It really does help to work with both the best and worst editors to get a proper perspective. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment is fine. You are making a mountain out of something smaller than a molehill.  People need to be allowed to speak their minds without being nitpicked to death through the application of extreme political correctness. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should review WP:NPA and might read about political correctness. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch it, guys. Someone was very close to being topic banned in a recently closed ArbCom case for accusing people of being motivated by political correctness. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having plenty of ASD friends and relatives, I have yet to meet one who is misanthropic. ananthropic--simply not caring about other people, nor easily perceiving their perspectives--seems far more apt a description.  At any rate, reviewing my statement and the definition of misanthropic, I stand by the statement in its original form.  That's not an excuse to stretch it to discriminate against people who aren't originally covered, such as ASD editors, whom I have never known to be misanthropic. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what Pesky has been saying here about HFA editors, and that it is possible that a high proportion of Wikipedia editors in some areas fit that description, but I'm not sure that it is right to tailor policy to fit any one single group. Clarity in language is good, but excessive literalism can confuse things as well. All that is needed, really, is to be alert for the possibility of misunderstanding and to edit accordingly. Far more problematic, in my opinion, is the disjoint in time zones that can lead to a misunderstood statement or action spawning drama while someone is asleep or working. Sometimes it really is best just to ask a question and wait for the answer, and not speculate or assume. The dynamics of interaction between lower- and higher-volume editing patterns produces similar effects. It is sometimes hard for those who only contribute occasionally to be 'heard' to the same extent as those who edit a lot, or to even contribute to discussions before they are over. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship"
This is an important proposed "finding of fact", because it is the basis for the proposed topic ban(s): 3) Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor. On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful. More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling. The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

Comments: This needs revision.
 * 1) "Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor."
 * Malleus is one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia. In the last year, he has likely done more editing than all of ArbCom combined. Similarly, he has edited more articles than the other regulars at the talk page RfA. His ratio of edits at talk:RfA versus article edits does not stand out as much as Kudpung's, for example.
 * 1) "On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful."
 * The talk page at RfA is more inane than Jimbo Wales's talk page. You could faintly praise or, better, forthrightly condemn most of it, but what would it serve? Why single out Malleus? Why ignore Kudpung?
 * 1) "More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ."
 * Your assertion "more frequently" should be labeled "according to our unwarranted speculation based on an unrepresentative convenience sample". You have not made a census or a random sample of Malleus's comments on Talk:RfA.
 * Your statement fails to deal with the RfA-related incivility directed at Malleus, which suggests that the title "Civility enforcement" was dishonest and the committee's failure to delimit the scope of the case incompetent or dishonest.
 * It would be fair to write that "Too often, comments at RfA and RfA-related discussions have been derisive and belittling" but then you should include Kudpung's baiting of Malleus, his imputation of psychological problems to BadgerDrink, Demiurge1000's baiting, etc.
 * 1) "The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page."
 * Abysmal writing, in style and vacuity.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are excellent and insightful comments from KW (expected, really!) I think, too, that it's vitally important to assess people's contributions in any given area, or their "bad contributions", or whatever, as a percentage of their overall contributions.  We shouldn't expect high-contribution-bytes editors to be any "more perfect", percentage-wise, than any other contributor.  This is important.  We need to ensure that we're always comparing like with like.  I had similar things with my npp stuff; I made more mistakes (straight numbers) than several other new page patrollers, but in terms of the sheer numbers of pages I was patrolling, the percentage of mistakes was no worse (and very probably much better).  We need, again, to be careful here.  Someone with 100,000+ contributions is likely to have ten times more "iffy" ones than someone with 10,000 contributions; that's just the law of wossnames coming into action.  Pesky  (talk ) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The community will probably soon have RfCs on proposed changes to RfAs and ANI-AN, addressing both incivility and double standards. Improved clarity, consensus, and likely regular enforcement should deal with perceived problems with e.g. Malleus and Kudpung (or KW). A topic-ban singling out Malleus seems imprudent now. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, think it would be ... [searches for word] ... jumping the gun? a bit at this stage, where we are apparently in the process of coming up with some better approaches. We have some (ugh!) "meaningful discussion" going on at RfAReform now, and hopefully will have some "meaningful discussion of re-wording" things like the civility policy soon. In the meantime, everyone could be put "on caution" at RfA and RfA talk. including, but not singling out, Malleus, while we work on better solutions.  Shame to stop the cart once we've got it moving.  Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus has 1500 comments at WT:RFA. That's 50% more than the next highest contributor.  It is not unreasonable to ask him to stop commenting there since his commentary has tended to overwhelm and at times disrupt the venue. If the topic ban later on proves unnecessary, it can be removed by a motion.  I think Malleus should accept this decision and move along. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your paraphrasing the current proposal may help persons with ADD, but your personal authority helps nobody. BTW, the decision has not been made. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very likely that the number of comments by editor is reasonably close to a Pareto distribution. While I'm too lazy to do the actual math at the moment, it is not at all unusual that the largest value would be 50% higher than the next largest, so this observation should not be viewed as a statistical anomaly. While his presence there is obvious, a better metric is what proportion of the total contributions come from MF, and how does this proportion compare to other locations. For example, without running the numbers, I'll bet Ludwigs2 is proportionately a higher contributor to Mohammed image discussions and Moonriddengirl is a higher contributor to copyright discussions. I suspect it would be easy to identify a couple dozen fora where one user is a disproportionately high share of the total discussion. While the comments of MF are often negative, I don't view them as so disruptive that it prevents others from airing their opinions. Even while I disagree with many of his points, I find many thought-provoking, and do not support the muzzling.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commenting here to say that while I sympathise with those who point out that those who make a high volume of contributions will have some percentage of disputes/errors in those contributions and some weighting allowance should be made for that, I don't think that a simple 'percentage' analysis suffices. It is important not to privilege those who make high volumes of contributions over those who may only edit at weekends, or a few days a week, or only a few edits a day. It is possible for those who contribute at high volumes to overwhelm a venue or discussion, and so with high rates of contributions comes the responsibility to be aware of that and avoid that, and also to try and reduce error rates (and number of disputes) as much as possible rather than just aim for the same percentage as those contributing at lower volumes. Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth,
 * Stating that somethings "is possible" has nothing to do with the relevant allegation, that Malleus has overwhelmed discussions at RfA, which would be a relevant bullshit claim of yours. Risker's bullshit claim is that Malleus has displayed ownership, which she didn't even try to document. You and Risker make allegations without evidence, and claim to be able to speak with authority on civility. Remarkable. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz: I'm not sure what you're so upset about. Malleus Fatuorum is getting off with a slap on the wrist.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @A Quest for Knowledge,
 * The conclusion ("slap on the wrist") does not exhaust my concerns.
 * The decision has so far failed to enunciate
 * principles (e.g., "Administrators cannot be criticized" or "discordant discussions cannot be allowed to continue") or
 * evidence-based findings of facts (Risker's explicit bullshit or others implicit bullshit)
 * that would justify this banning. Bad precedents and poor procedures are bad for Malleus, bad for the community, and bad for future cases.
 * I am using bullshit in its technical sense:
 * In this decision, Risker has fabricated propositions (e.g., "ownership of talk:RfA") unsupported by evidence to justify an unprincipled ban from RfA. She has been spreading bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt. Per AGF, I do not charge her with deliberate lying, but unconscious bullshit spreading.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

An honest alternative
Rather than improperly stretch the WP-meanings of "disruptive editing" and "ownership" and set many bad precedents, ArbCom should honestly pass a resolution such as Malleus has already averred that he has no problem with not editing that page.
 * "To reduce the conflicts at Talk:RfA, Malleus Fatuorum is asked to volunteer to refrain from editing Talk:RfA. The committee expects that the community, especially administrators, shall ensure civil discussions at that page, and in particular to stop further personal attacks against Malleus Fatuorum at that page."

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose alternative to remedy 4 (Malleus banned from WT:RFA)
Instead of (or as well as) singling out Malleus in particular (he's the most prolific, but not necessarily the worst, and certainly not the only one to fail to maintain the desired level of decorum), why not have something like: "4.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or here discretion, ban any editor from further participation in a discussion on a page related to the requests for adminship process if, in the administrator's judgement, the editor has repeatedly or egregiously failed to maintain the appropriate level of decorum. In the event that this is ineffective, the ban may be extended by any uninvolved administrator to cover a page, set of pages, or the entire requests for adminship topic area. Bans placed under this remedy, and blocks placed to enforce them, may be appealed to the Administrators' Noticeboard or Arbitration Enforcement and thereafter to the Arbitration Committee." —I was on wikibreak when the evidence and workshop phases were going on, but I hope my proposal will be given due consideration. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The remedy suggested above is inconsistent with many of the findings of fact. This case is very much about inconsistency and individual admins making decisions in lieu of gaining community consensus. Ban strikes the appropriate balance -- the community should impose a ban, not an individual admin. Nobody Ent 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential problem with finding 4
I have concerns with however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. I fear that this could result in ongoing issues because some admins are going to jump the gun and ban him from any discussion wherein he opposes, even if his oppose is no more curt than some others. I'd rather put this reponsibility on the 'crats. This will ensure that such sanctions are placed only in the more egregious cases where he has crossed the line. Not on opposes that people choose to invoke to get at MF.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is sympathetic to your point, however, in terms of process, does ArbCom have the remit to direct the 'crats to take action?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While the 'crats haven't taken too much action in the past, they have on occassion. There is also precident that the 'crats are supposed to govern the RfA area; but this has been pretty low key to non-existent over the past few years.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there are too many admins who would be sanctioning Malleus for every oppose vote he ever made, and we'd be no better off than when we started (not that a months-long arbitration case ever solved anything). Giving the responsibility to the 'crats would make much more sense—they do indeed govern RfA, in theory if not in practice, and if ArbCom can mandate admins to do it, there's no reason they can't mandate the 'crats to. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that this should be reserved for the crats. Finding of fact #2 basically admits that Malleus is the frequent recipient of poor and hasty blocks; I can't imagine that letting any single admin ban him from an RfA without prior discussion is anything but a recipe for more pointless drama. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting the wording; from further participation and in that specific RFA. So such a sanction would have a very limited scope. It wouldn't prevent him commenting on any other RFAs. Nor would it have the effect of removing the Oppose on that specific RFA; it would merely prevent additional comments of the puerile and disruptive nature that unfortunately he sometimes indulges in around that topic area. RFAs do not need endlessly repeated commentary from one individual editor, no matter how much more important they might consider their own opinion to be. A !vote in an RFA, ideally, should provide a clear rationale of the reason for it, and after that there is little need for much more than a clarification or justification of that rationale if another editor (including the candidate) should have a query about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't address the badgering in general, I'd like to see 'crats step up a little more and put their foot down. While a harsh oppose might be ok, I think they can sometimes cross the line especially in regards to after !vote commentaries.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the points made by Balloonman and HJ Mitchell; there would be a queue round the block just itching to remove me from any RfA I opposed, on the flimsiest of pretexts. This proposed decision would therefore be a de facto ban from the whole of RfA, not just the talk page. While that doesn't especially trouble me, to suppress unwelcome opinions in that way hardly seems like a healthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said below on this page, that remedy is just a primer for more drama as you correctly observe as well. I would be more straightforward for ArbCom to have the balls and just ban you from RfAs, period. I don't know if the remedy is justifiable or not (because there are too many diffs for me to look at), but at least that would prevent some future dramatic events that are pretty likely as you say. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously proposing a ban from an area without any review of a single diff relevant to the issue? And you admit you don't know whether it is justified? On what basis?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps modify the ban to allow him to respond to direct queries. E.g. MF opposes a candidate.  He then gets into one of his RfA ruts where he starts badgering the supporters/opposers.  Admin A comes along and bans him from the specific RfA.  JohnQ or the user then asks him a question.  According to the current wording, he couldn't respond to a direct inquiry except for his talk page.
 * Part of my concern here is that there is a very insular group of admins at RfA. It would be hard to find active admins there that do not have a history with MF that could objectively be said to be "independent".  Similarly, if an admin has !voted on the RfA, does that make them involved?  I think if it were 'crats who gave the ban, that it would avoid a lot of potential drama.  I do not see them jumping the gun in blocking too swiftly and I suspect that if they were to perform the action, that MF would be more likely to respect them than he might some random admin flexing his/her muscles.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking hard about this point, and I largely agree with what Demiurge1000 said. I feel strongly that it would be a good thing to allow Malleus to !vote in RfAs, whether to support or to oppose, and that it would be a bad thing for the community to ban him from doing so. I think the Arbs did a good job of crafting this remedy. Admins would not be made able to undo a !vote that Malleus casts, and the decision of how to weigh any !votes would, indeed, remain with the Crats. The most that an admin could do would be to put an end to Malleus' ability to continue to reply to questions/baiting by other users. I give Malleus credit for being smart enough to be able to discontinue replying to those things on his own, even if it sits badly with him to do so. The remedy doesn't prevent Malleus from taking a position; it might only prevent him from discussing it at length. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that there's a glaring loophole in the remedy. Malleus !votes on an RFA, someone challenges his vote on the RFA, Malleus responds on the RFA, someone baits Malleus on the RFA ... and then ... along comes an admin and moves the whole thing to that RFA's talk, and voila-- Malleus can't respond because it's now moved to talk.  Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but it's certainly gameable: admins may be moving all Malleus RFA vote threads to talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I don't think that the remedy, as written, gives anyone the authorization to move the !vote to the talk page. It just gives the authorization to stop continued dialog following the !vote (and maybe move dialog subsequent to the !vote to talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, of course, is that people move oppose section discussions to the talk page all the time. 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem, Malleus will be banned from the specific RfA before it ever reached the point of moving it to the talk page.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say is that, even given all that, no one should be removing the original !vote off of the main page to move it to talk. (Maybe they might put a copy of the !vote, along with subsequent discussion, on the talk page, and delete the subsequent discussion after moving it, but I would consider it disruption if anyone short of a Crat were to wipe a !vote by an eligible editor off of the RfA page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. No, anyone who tries to remove his vote will be reverted, I imagine. And then some person will wrongly claim that it was a violation of the ArbCom restriction to reinstate it, and will re-remove it, and an edit war will ensue, and someone will block the edit warriors, and someone else will unblock them, and a third will reblock them, and we'll all be back here for the next round. Or perhaps I'm just being cynical. 28bytes (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, prescient. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Timescale and "civility"
RE: MF and the block.

Can someone (preferably an arbritrator) please comment on the times from the initial "offensive statement" to the original block, and from the time of the removal of the "offensive statement" to the original block. It seems to me that there are a couple of comments about the initial block's validity in regard to this specific "offensive statement" and general long-term civilty. I would appreciate someone clarifying what those time differences were from the evidence presented.

This has significance as any actions taken after the event and ratified by this procedure have bearing on:

... core policy of non-punitive - "For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—in particular if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved. " RE: Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship

Can someone please clarify how comments such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19] are un-civil? I appreciate that one may be a sort of personal attack of a very weak kind, but the rest, to me at least, are simply comments and fall well within civility levels in a collegiate environment. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"you're full of shit"
Unless, I'm missing something, remedy 4 only addresses Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. So, am I to understand that edits like this one, 'you're full of shit", from just a couple days ago, aren't covered by the PD and will fall outside AE enforcement? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want AE micro-managing. If that edit is problematic, WP:WQA can deal with it. Frankly, I don't think it is worth the bother. (Had it been directed at a new editor, I'd feel differently).-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How successful has WP:WQA been in dealing with comments of that nature from Malleus in the past? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @AQFK, this is precisely the problem—people take Malleus's comments out of context, and all of a sudden, we're talking about sanctioning him because he used a naughty word. While I wouldn't have phrased a remark quite like that, I have previously expressed similar sentiments to the editor Malleus was addressing, as that editor has to Malleus and myself. Malleus is no angel, but let's focus on addressing the problems at ahnd instead of manufacturing more. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My reward for not participating in this case...MONGO 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MONGO, you perhaps can understand that your writing a long note on his talk page about having assembled a long dossier of damning evidence was not especially constructive. Let Kudpung be the keeper of a secret dossier (of names of RfA candidates who have been terrorized from becoming administrators), and you stick to editing articles. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended to be anything other than a reminder that I could have come here but I didn't...it was just an attempt to try and shake hands...I'm sorry if you don't believe me.MONGO 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not the only one who doesn't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what is so distressing...I hope if we work on something together in the future we'll get along better.MONGO 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Time's a great healer, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mongo,
 * I've tried to be fair with you in the past, and I have sympathized publicly with your position in scrapes. In turn, I have been grateful that you have rethought a position, or rather carefully expressed a position in a way that became much more appealing to me, in our discussions. I also appreciate your directness and your avoidance of passive-aggressive bullshit.
 * Contrary to Malleus's comment, I did not doubt your sincerity and I do not doubt your sincerity. However, I did doubt the prudence of your writing, because the impact of writing depends as much on the recipient's mood as on an imputation of good will to the author. Perceptions matter.
 * Perhaps, in retrospect, you can imagine that a more effective note might have been, "I shall not participate in the ArbCom Case, because we both have more constructive things to do. Sincerely, MONGO".
 * I apologize if I sound condescending (but I am still dealing with a cold and I am tired).
 * Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment reflects badly on the person making it, and should cause very little consternation to the recipient. It is not personal in any way.  It is a generic rude comment. Jehochman Talk 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Consideration of a remedy in between banning and not banning
Banning MF from RFA talk will be perceived as some, rightly or wrongly, as inhibiting contrary opinions. Was any consideration given or should consideration be given, to a throttle measure, rather than an all or nothing measure? (E.g n posts per day or per week). If the view is that voices critical of the process are acceptable, but can be problematic if overdone, the appropriate remedy is some reasonable limitation, rather than outright prohibition. Crafting such a measure is not trivial, but there's no point in trying if such a measure wouldn't be contemplated.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I defend Malleus in most cases, I think his ban here is reasonable. Malleus isn't merely a contrarian opinion at WT:RFA, he cane be a blistering sore and a infection pain in the arse that has to be needled out.  I do think it might be appropriate to add a note that at some certain time in the future Malleus can petition ArbCOM to revisit this parameter.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Redacted wording per request of one of this pages clerks, who acted just as I propose 'crats act at RfA ;-)  And removed KW's comment per his request on my page.  I am leaving the original comment here, as a demonstration in action.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Make WT:RfA an AE page, in toto. That means all editors have to behave within set limits.  Not just Malleus.  Silencing the critics is ... ominous.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, that shouldn't happen for two reasons. 1) It is outside the remit of this case.  While we may know that problems exist there, this case didn't look at the issue of behavior at RfA in toto.  2) ArbCOM isn't getting rid of the critics of admin, it is acting against a specific user, one whom gets carried away with his anti-admin diatribes/rhetoric on ocassion.  Plus as a "supporter of Malleus", I'd rather see this ban which is justifiable than some of the other bans which I'm certain some users felt should be imposed.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Thumperward (talk · contribs) has not participated in this case to defend his actions"
This FoF seems outright false unless participation in the Workshop  is not considered participation in the case. Or maybe glorious repetition is needed for one to be heard through the general level of noise in such cases? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Change wording to something like "has barely participated in this case, and failed to adequately explain his action". The gist of the finding is correct. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This one puzzled me a bit. Obviously there is an obligation for an admin to explain his actions.  Thumperward did that, although ArbCom notes it was two hours after the block.  Do you have to engage at every forum that your block goes into, or if you consider your explanation sufficient, may you stand on it?  ArbCom seems to be creating a new bit of policy here, that you may not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First I'd like see an acknowledgement from ArbCom that they've actually read those two diffs before they posted their proposed decision. Otherwise Jehochman's proposed change may look like the Committee is simply saving face in the 25th hour of the day, especially considering how many times this proposed decision got postponed, and arbitrators saying that they were so overworked . E.g. "The committee has considered Thumperward's explanations [diff1] [diff2], but does not consider them adequate because ..." or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. I also don't see why the Internationalism principle is in there, it isn't followed up in the findings of fact.  It's sort of ... hanging there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this finding puzzling as well. Thumperward posted rapid replies to queries about his block, posted a detailed rationale at ANI (somewhat delayed because he was responding to the other queries), and participated at this case's workshop page. It would have been nice if he also offered an initial statement, but I don't see justification for saying that he didn't participate in the case. Unless diffs can be shown that ArbCom asked him specific questions, and he refused to answer? --Elonka 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In proposed principle #10, ArbCom is implicitly expanding the definition of "wheel warring" from what's set out in policy. A likely result of that will be that administrators will feel emboldened to make more careless and ill-considered blocks that would be unsupported by the community. I think ArbCom realizes this is a likely result, and is "talking tough" to an administrator who made such an unsupported block in hopes of discouraging administrators who will be granted this new or expanded deference to their blocks. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I guess they don't even read this talk page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda curious what the four arbs who voted for this one before someone threw a flag based their votes on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ASCIIn2Bme: Apologies, I'm at work currently, so my ability to read and respond to posts is somewhat limited. I hadn't had a chance to read the discussions here at the time I posted that comment, and was only replying to my fellow arbitrators.
 * To respond generally, Thumperward did not submit evidence, and commented twice on a single workshop proposal. In my mind, that does not constitute involvement in an arbitration case, particularly if one is a named party. His comments did include a brief explanation of his actions, however considering the vast scale of this case, it was hardly sufficient. I count it somewhat akin to a college student entering the lecture hall, signing the attendance sheet, and then walking out again. The participation in the ANI discussion at the time was similarly lacking. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but your disagreement with his views, especially his 442-word Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732 should not be phrased as if he did not respond. If you disagree with his views, state it as a disagreement. Or perhaps you object to his lack of engagement with Baseball Bug's baiting right after that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said I disagree with his views. I said I took issue with his limited participation. No, he should not be responding to baiting, but he should at least be more involved in the discussion that he caused, and the case he is a named party in. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This case has been extremely chaotic, and it was somewhat of a full-time job to follow everything. I'm very uncomfortable with any sanction that follows along the lines of, "You didn't post enough, therefore you're in trouble." If the arbs would have wanted to know what Thumperward thought, they could have asked. Then, if he didn't reply, that would be a different matter. So it's inappropriate to make a finding that "Thumperward has not participated in this case," when it's clear that he did. It's also inappropriate to make a finding that says he didn't reply to questions about his actions, when again, he obviously did. Further, it's extremely disappointing that (with the exception of NYB) arbs are signing off on this finding, without any clarifying comments whatsoever. The finding makes it sound like Thumperward was dragging his feet on posting a rationale for the block, when in reality, looking at his contribs for that day will show that he was responding every few minutes to challenges, which is why the full rationale took so long. Any administrator who makes a controversial call can sympathize with this situation, where several people are all asking you to reply at once, and it takes a couple hours to sort through all the replies. --Elonka 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I coined the term Arbcommissar seeing how voting on that was going until NYB showed up. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thumperward initially said the block was "for the above" that the because of long term disruption it was indefinite. His reply at the workshop if for no other reason than the false accusation that I was editing warring was not compelling. As ArbCom has said, this was not an emergency; admin accountability suggests Thumperward should have been prepared to explain his block clearly and succinctly before applying it. Nobody Ent 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a long break in China right now: it's rare enough I've even got reliable electricity, never mind wifi. For what it's worth, I participated to the extent that I believed appropriate: I commented to clarify my actions at the workshop, when asked to do so. My remit as an administrator is to respond promptly to questions raised to me (and frankly, for a case several years in the making which has now been going on for nearly two months, the idea that my having taken in excess of 120 minutes to finish composing a response is tardiness worth a desysopping should hopefully sound as absurd to the majority of the community as it does to me); nowhere to my knowledge is it suggested that being a named party in an ArbCom case binds me to making a statement, especially where said statement would be (as noted by others above) little more than a repetition of comments made elsewhere. It appears that the majority of participants seem to have been able to parse my explanations satisfactorily, and in my mind that rather obviates the need for me to have said any more than I did. If the proposed admonishment (or indeed the desysopping) goes through, I'd hope for the responsible Arbs to make clear exactly what level of participation is mandated (for it would be a mandate) of admins who find themselves party to ArbCom cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no heart to look through the volume of megabytes this case has generated, but did any arbitrator or clerk ever warn Thumperward that his participation might be deemed insufficient? Did they ask him why he wasn't participating more?  Is there fairness in sanctioning him if they never warned him or asked for an explanation?  With all respect to the arbitrators, this decision seems badly put together.  I still do not see the relevance of the internationalism principle.  Yes, it is true, but no relevance to this case has been shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let's make sure we have the facts straight. A two hour delay in responding is not sufficient for a desysoping, but the delay is headed toward the proximate cause for an admonishment. And if I'm in the minority of the community, so be it, but I think when an admin takes an action as serious as an indefinite block of anyone (save technical blocks such as improper usernames), the admin should only do so if they anticipate being able to respond to almost inevitable inquiries. We do not want knee-jerk unblocks, we want potential unblockers to inquire as to the reasons, so that actions, if necessary, can be undertaken swiftly. Obviously, emergenices can happen, such as a need to go to a hospital, but one should not undertake such a serious action if one will be unable to respond swiftly. Even in the case of far less serious action – deletion of an article, I try to avoid doing so in the final hours before going on holiday, to avoid the unanswered plea of a questioning editor. Two hours was too long.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As Elonka noted above, in between the block and my posting of the full rationale at ANI I made numerous replies both on my talk and at ANI itself in response to queries. Responding to those, and editing my draft of the full rationale in line with those responses, was part of what resulted in the response coming when it did. It is fallacious to suggest that my ANI rationale was the first response I made to queries over the block, or anything of the sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that in the future you do not rely on Arbitrators looking for the facts themselves because some of them seem to be very superficial in that endeavor, but rather you should post a timeline yourself as /Evidence, something that would have probably assuaged the concern over your official participation in the case as well. If open editing is not for the faint of heart, then wiki-Arbitration is not for the faint of keyboard. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chris, you seem to be missing Sphilbrick's point entirely. If you are planning to indefinitely block one of the top contributors to this website for "long-term" behavior in an obviously non-emergency situation, common sense would dictate you compose your full block rationale before you press the block button. I'm really quite surprised you don't recognize that. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with 28bytes. The block may have been justified, but the brief block message was not, especially when placing a major indefinite block on a long-time contributor. Even in an emergency situation (which this was not), better practice would have been a message like, "Account blocked indefinitely. I am composing a longer message explaining my rationale, please standby." --Elonka 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From blocking policy "Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation."  "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." The reason many of us find the communication inadequate is it was a poor block; any sanction against Malleus should have been the result of considered discussion by the community, not a Rambo admin. Nobody Ent 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm hesitant to accept what I see as moving the goalposts from "promptly" to "in advance" (this finding says "in advance or at the time", but I'm not given to interpret "at the time" as meaning "simultaneously" in exclusion to "in the course of completing the action"). I blocked; in the process of composing a full rationale (which by this point was going to have to go to ANI) I repeatedly replied to queries made of the block on my talk; I then posted my full rationale. I'm prepared to accept that my comments at Malleus's talk were not appropriately detailed and that the block should have been expressed in more formal terms there. Under other circumstances I'd like to think that I'd have had the time to do so before someone started an ANI thread and the block was undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The rationale should have been prepared before the block, and posted fully on the blockee's page at the time of the block. This is pretty basic procedure. Even when blocking routine vandals, we tell them why they're being blocked, and how long that they are being blocked for. If you would have posted a full rationale at the time of the block, along with wording such as, "The block is indefinite, until you (Malleus) are willing to acknowledge the behavior that led to this block, and promise to avoid this kind of behavior in the future," then the block might well have stuck, and this entire ArbCom case might have been avoided. But the fact that you did not post a rationale, helped lead to the chaos that ensued. --Elonka 04:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So we're blaming everyone under the sun except the person who actually misbehaved here? These are technicalities, and singling out people on the right side of the matter for hamstringing a month after the fact as punishment for arguable technical infractions, while giving those on the wrong side an umpteenth last chance to curtail their troublemaking, is basically an enabling unblock Arbcom style.  You can trout me a year from now if I'm wrong, but taking this approach instead of confronting the underlying problem increases the likelihood of a permanent separaration between MF and the project.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make bans only sufficient to prevent improper behaviour
In the proposed decision, there is a bit of "baby/bathwater" going on. If the problem is incivility at RfAs, then simply restrict that incivil editor to only giving a !vote, and ban him from making any comments whatsoever otherwise. This would appear, IMO, sufficient to prevent the probelmatic behaviour seen. Collect (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cassandra speaks: I predict the current ArbCom proposal is simply setting up the stage for more drama down the road. Outright banning Malleus from RfAs would be far simpler, but I guess ArbCom cannot collectively make that kind of decision until they are at case number 3 for a contributor (and even then it's a narrowly split vote). Of course, while they are eager to point out when community sanctions failed, I've yet to see a phrasing like "previous ArbCom sanctions failed" coming from them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has made it clear that bare Oppose !votes carry less weight than Oppose !votes coupled with a rationale. The proposal to restrict an editor thusly is a partial disfranchisement, and should only be taken with extremely solid evidence. Glancing quickly at the evidence, there aren't many examples of problematic behavior in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship (as distinct from Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship). If I can count correctly, there are only 13 12 diffs from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, not all only seven of those from MF, and not all of the ones from MF exhibit out of bounds behavior. That sounds like too thin a reed upon which to hang such a remedy.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"clear documented standards"
ArbCom trumpets that "The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards." What are these "clear documented standards" that allegedly ArbCom applies in contrast to the community? ¶ I'm guessing the subtextual standard applied in this case (and probably written in the sekrit ArbCom wiki) is: "every contributor is allowed to swear or launch a number of personal attacks per day no greater than the number of FA articles s/he has written added to one third of the number of GAs written, before s/he is blocked for no more than 24hrs" or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't the Lecen and Rlevse situations argue against that? Or does FA only confer immunity for potty-mouth?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with the Lecen case. Was Rlevse ever sanctioned for swearing or PAs? I thought the Rlevse issue was all about plagiarism and it didn't involve ArbCom except in the socking coverup debacle. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let it go. It would sidetrack the discussion, and I'm aware of efforts to keep discussion on Arbitration and Admin pages to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see . Add addendum to the rules: "unless directed at the FA[C] director or any of his delegates, in which case the block shall be for one week with no allowances for FA articles written". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see ArbCom has already documented their standard, and perhaps it's clear to them. We might as well add it to the WP:BLOCK policy to prevent other clueless admins from committing "suicide by ArbCom" in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummm ...."the Community" has to tweak the civility policy around, kinda thing?
"The community work to establish where the incivility line stands."

Have you seen what happens when people try to do even minor tweaks, such as to show "official acceptance" that user talk pages have different standards from article talk pages? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just charge in and make your edit. Sometimes they stick. Jehochman Talk 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Any editor who in considering some intractable problem or widespread problems with understanding of the wp:civility policy, and who then researches, and drafts, and establishes that there is a level of consensus for a new wording at wp:civ  that will help reduce the antagonisms or misunderstandings that feature on *many* talk pages, is welcome to edit wp:civility, whether by means of wp:bold, or wp:BRD, or some more prudent method such as *proposing* (blush) on the talk page.
 * Stability of pol/pages is v. important; so also (is) the impetus which we, the project, get through the application of two heads are better than one and many hands make light work. And good luck with that.
 * The further problem here is that, depite what ever may appear at the page wp:civ, if sysops, or prolific contributors with strong personalites, are not *on the same page*, and if strong sanctions on individual editors are seen as being applied inconsistently, than we will still be in the position of being open to accusations of the perception of a “double standard” being in place.
 * So, it it not wholly up to copy-editors at wp:civility to correct this anomaly, it is a matter at this time then of how do we improve consistency in civility enforcement procedures that stands as a stumbling block in our path to smoother, more drama-free interactions on the wiki. NewbyG  ( talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC
 * By way of clarification, the above is not meant as a criticism of the proposed decisions in this case. On the contrary, those decisions, those of a general nature, not referring to any particular editor or sysop, and which now seem likely to pass, have been well-thought through, and well-drafted and will be are now being seen as of enormous benefit IMHO in clearing obstacles in our way to a better-written encyclopedia, making it likely that higher standards of contribution will be able to gain traction, as editors will be operating in a more collegial environment.  NewbyG  ( talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) <small~>08:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Jehochman is responsible for the inane definition of outing as incivility (parroted in this decision at principle 11)? Who'd have thought... Some people forget that Wikipedia's microcosm of "open editing" should not be redefining English. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Per policy fallacy rewriting civility will only be of limited use; until the community synchronizes their expectations, behavior, and reaction to real or perceived incivility, the chronic problems will remain. The most important findings of this case do not involve MF/Thumpeward/John/Hawkeye ... they are inconsistency and definition, Ents care about forests, not individual trees so much. . ArbCom "finding" what we already knew is simultaneously expected and disappointing. This is meant not as a criticism of ArbCom but as a realistic statement of the intractability of the problem. This is not to say the rewriting/clarifying the civility policy isn't a good idea; just that it will not be sufficient. The "new improved" ANI functioning is an encouraging development; hopefully we can maintain focus and momentum. We also need to be more willing to initiate and conduct RFC/Us more as interventions than witch hunts. Nobody Ent 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why I didn't say "rewrite the policy," I said "work out where the line stands." They're two separate concepts. One must determine what the standard is in order to effectively document it, and I think that's largely the issue with the policy. We haven't established any sort of clear standard, we're just going on "Incivility is bad... so... don't do it." It's a prime example of what happens when you put the cart before the horse. I realize that this isn't going to be any easier, but hopefully we can spare ourselves some strife and drama by going about things in the proper order. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FoF 4.1 Thumperward's block
" blocked Malleus Fatuorum after the incident which prompted the block had been resolved. "

Excuse my noob question, but how does that log link prove the incident had been resolved? Particularly since the log entry is "(long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds)" and that ArbCom is also proposing a finding in that direction (although not going as far as stating it was "well beyond acceptable bounds") at FoF 1: "Malleus Fatuorum [...] On many occasions, he has also personalized disputes to the point of making personal attacks,[1],[2],[3] and has made provocative and/or uncivil comments. [4],[5] (Samples only, numerous other examples available on the evidence page.)" ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's included mainly to show the time of the block; it's somewhat difficult to provide a single diff demonstrating that the situation was resolved, and even providing a link to the page at that time isn't particularly ideal. Any suggestions? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Use of word "cunt" redacted ( Nobody Ent 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My evidence aimed to provide a complete timeline (without prejudice). Some disruption was ongoing, but it became a chicken-and-egg situation. Geometry guy 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given MF has 124,000 edits your timeline is incomplete. We both (and others) gave evidence; the diffs we choose and our descriptions of them support the POV we wished to present. It's a stretch to claim than any individual presentation (including mine) is without prejudice. Nobody Ent 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My timeline included and was based on complete contributions slices from MF at the time (not on the c. 123,000 edits he made at other times nor on the c. 1000 edits of his that have been deleted). The chicken-and-egg situation to which I referred is an example of interpretation and point of view. However, I merely raised it as a question. No one can claim a complete lack of prejudice (i.e., opinion), but detailed information is better than a single diff with no context every time, and I aimed to provide such information: I used the term "without prejudice" in the sense that information should not prejudice the outcome. Geometry guy 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The current version of the archive again contains the word "cunt", albeit in a hatted section. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_214. So, someone must have reverted Nobody Ent and ergo stands by his "cunt" words, no? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I stand by my "cunt" words is not the issue; whoever it was restored the posting it certainly wasn't me, as you seem to be trying to imply. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And for the sake of transparency and completeness, I see nothing wrong with the first deployment of that word, although I have expressed my regret and apology for using it in a more personal sense in the heat of the moment during the block-unblock-block fiasco. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Already presented in my evidence section:
 * User:MZMcBride restores "cunts" to discussion, but is not blocked, warned or yelled at for it. Nobody Ent 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good to know who restored it. I apologize if my post could be read as implying Malleus did something he didn't. Given that permalinks and diffs work well enough for /Evidence purposes, the restauration was perhaps unwise. If Geometry guy's timeline is accurate, Malleus continued to call other people cunts on his talk page after Thumperward blocked him. However, it's nice to see he later apologized for the latter outburst. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's get this right: one person, not "other people". Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And, if I recall correctly, an apology was later made? Nobody Ent 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, later: not the next day, when MF actually forgot that he had made the remark. Geometry guy 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) And it wasn't on MF's talk page, but at ANI. Accuracy, please, folks! :) Geometry guy 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the patience in explaining this. As a constructive proposal, I suggest that the Arbs link to either Geometry guy's or Nobody Ent's timeline in that finding instead of the non-self-explanatory log link. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent's evidence is here: the first section is in chronological order, and documents in particular Nobody Ent's contribution to de-escalation in redacting the original "cunt" comment after MF stated he didn't "give a flying fuck". The timeline part of my evidence is here, and is based on Malleus' contributions. However, the evidence in my timeline for the matter being resolved is that I found nothing worth noting between 19:41 and 22:34 on 21 December (Malleus made a revert restoring the thread in its redacted version at 19:55, but generally showed indifference to the question of redaction, and later restored an unredacted version.) I don't see how one can diff something beginning to calm down, as the matter may have been resolved through acquiescence, rather than statement. Geometry guy 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was indeed my attitude, I'd made my statement. When asked if I'd revert the redaction I said I wouldn't, and I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way "I have to admit that G guy is at least partially right ...I had forgotten about the witless Spitfire" is what I would call a non-apology apology. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that an apology at all, and it wasn't what I was referring to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then Geometry guy's timeline is incomplete, thus not as useful as I thought in showing that the incident was resolved. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My timeline is limited to a specific period: it does not discuss past behavior or the aftermath, merely the events at the time. It is only useful if you read it, all of it, not if you presume what it says. MF's remark about Spitfire took place after the block by Thumperward, so it has nothing to do with whether the incident had been resolved before the block. There is a chicken-and-egg situation here: if there had been no block, would MF have insulted Spitfire? Since the insult took place at ANI, in discussion of the block and subsequent unblock, evidently not. If you are going to reexamine the evidence, at least examine the evidence!
 * Did MF apologize for the remark to Spitfire? Yes, but not the next day, so it isn't covered by my timeline. As I said above, the apology came later, but MF has repeated it consistently. The earliest diff I can find for such an apology is this one on 2 January: there may be an earlier one, but this is roughly the right timing, in my recollection. Geometry guy 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Thumperward's indefinite block was just plain wrong, but Hawkeye7's subsequent block would have been justified had it been imposed because of my intemperate remark to Spitfire, but it clearly wasn't. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indefinite blocks and bans should generally be reserved for trolls or those doing nothing but disruption...though indefinite means no set time limit, it generally puts the blocked/banned editor in a position of asking for clemency. Coll down blocks don't work either...though I think most RFCu's are dramafests that oftentimes solve nothing, least some majority opinion can sometimes lead to a non-arbitration verdict.MONGO 17:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The block was imposed because of your intemperate remarks, but on the basis of what I believed at the time was your statement that you intended to continue until blocked. I do not now believe that this was the case, so it was not unjustified, but unjust. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, something is off here. Thumperward's block was worse than Hawkeye's, and Hawkeye has engaged and apologized and explained, where Thumperward hasn't.  Which admin is more likely to abuse again and which is taking the heat here?  It's all bassackwards.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence all involved administrators will be more deliberate in their future actions. Nobody Ent 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, an admin would have to be mad to block Malleus, regardless of provocation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in other words, they better be sure that they can make a convincing case. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it exactly right SandyG. Thumperward's indefinite block was ridiculous, and ought to earn him an admonishment at the very least. I don't actually have a problem with Hawkeye's block, other than that he blocked for the wrong reason. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this rather disappointing
Newyorkbrad commented here: "I've thoroughly studied Malleus's comments on this case, which at one point seemed to come off as a bit of 'administrators get away with bad behavior so I'm entitled too. That has never been my position, and it's rather disappointing that the real issue here remains unaddressed in the proposed decisions. My position has always been that to have any legitimacy, whichever rules are established are applied equally and to all. Not ignored in the case of Jimmy Wales, for instance, but applied with excessive zeal to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I summarized what I understood to be an aspect of your take on the issue underlying this case, based on a number of comments you've made over the last few months. I readily acknowledge that the best evidence of your position is your own words rather than my paraphrase of them. That being said, I don't see an enormous difference between what you've written above and how I construed your comments.
 * I'm well aware of the need to hold all users to the same standards of acceptable behavior. This is a principle that the Committee unanimously adopted, in a decision I wrote three and one-half years ago:
 * Consistent standards
 * All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.


 * So I do not question your premise that it would be unfair to regard or to treat you differently from any other editor who behaved in the same manner as you do. I also agree that in that context it makes no difference whether the editor has been granted administrator or other status (except to the extent that at times we have, or should have, higher expectations of administrators and functionaries). One thing I do question, though, is the equivalency of your own behavior with that of the users you criticize, when judged not by isolated moments of ill-temper that you and they and I all have, but by patterns over a long period of time. And the other thing I do question is whether and how you are allowing the actual or perceived failings of other editors to influence your own behavior.
 * If I go on much longer I will be repeating comments that you didn't much appreciate the last time we had this discussion, so I'll stop here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hum, I'm not sure how disappointment now fits with some of the low expectations you previously expressed about this case, Malleus! Much remains unaddressed perhaps, but it could have been far worse. I was also interested in NYB's comment, but in a different way: I wanted to revisit what he wrote about the previous declined case, which can be found here. It got me thinking instead about his "no consensus unblock request" conundrum, which I'd like to revisit at AN (most likely after the RLevse/PumpkinSky return issue is resolved) as I have some ideas. Geometry guy 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've said in a few places what I think of the "no consensus to unblock". Others disagree. There is not even consensus that there is no consensus on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I only agreed to take part in this case at the urging of SandyG. Not for myself, but for the sake of others who may be similarly targeted in the future. So to that extent you're right Geometry guy, I have no right to be disappointed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And one thing I'd like to draw Newyorkbrad's attention to is this: he has made fewer than 30,000 edits to Wikipedia in five years, whereas I have made more than four times as many in the same period. If you don't edit and review articles then you're far less likely to get into conflict. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Malleus-- I was, once again, had by my inner Pollyanna. I notice that NYB quoted the old case where FeloniousMonk was desysopped after some pretty serious abuse aimed at me (and others, including his fellow admins).  I also notice that no matter that case or this one, admin abuse continues unabated-- no different than it was in 2007 when it was aimed at me. Perhaps even worse because folks don't even pay attention to it anymore. You raised awareness of the extent of the problem, but I see no change.  Will this case do anything to alter that problem?  I fear not.  RFAs are passing easier than ever these days-- particularly if one isn't actually out there building and defending articles, and getting into conflict as a result. The more disturbing trend is that it's no longer just content builders dealing with abusive admins:  it's content builders up against WMF agendas, which aren't always in line with the goal of good content.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't how many conflicts you get into, it's how you handle them. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lesson you might consider taking to heart yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now posted my proposed "solution" to the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum. Comments welcome! Geometry guy 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How does admonishment work?
As one of the proposed decisions is that I should be admonished I'm interested to know how that works. Do I have to accept the admonishment? How is it delivered? What if I choose not to accept it? Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a statement, passed as a remedy in a case, that formally expresses the sentiment it embodies. An admonished user would be notified by a clerk as part of the closing of the case, presumably by talk page notification.  Admonishments do not require any sort of a reply from the admonished editor. If the admonished editor chooses not to comply with expected behavior as expressed in the admonishment, then appropriately escalated sanctions might be forthcoming.  For example, an administrator who is admonished in one case will be much more likely to face desysop in a future arbitration case should they take any action which would itself have prompted an admonishment were it taken by a never-sanctioned admin. Some admonished editors have chosen to cease editing, which is unfortunate, because the committee is entirely capable of issuing bans, and by issuing an admonishment rather than a ban it has specifically decided that the behavior in question has not risen to the level of removing the editor from Wikipedia via a ban. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read a couple AC things, and I've always thought that the wording had a variety of nuance to it. In terms of (for lack of a better phrase) severity:

In that a PR an "advised" resolution is more a "think before you post" suggestion; where an "admonished" resolution is a "if you do this again, you may be banned (topic or site) for repeating that type of thing. Is that close? — Ched :  ?  06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) advised
 * 2) warned
 * 3) admonished


 * It appears so from what Jclemens has said. But if you join up the dots: "Malleus Fatuorum is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct" and "A number of these blocks were placed by involved administrators, applied in a manner that was below the standard expected of administrators, or for conduct that did not rise to the general expectations for a disruption block" I think you see where this will inevitably lead, a world in which I'm admonished for having been blocked, but those making the bad blocks are not. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in many ways Malleus. I do note though that the "ban him" option seems to be resoundingly opposed, so in that I take a bit of encouragement.  You might be surprised at how much I do agree with you personally on many things (including the admin. culture).  From the few things I've seen at AC, they don't often offer a "you did well and we applaud your efforts" type of statements, but often there's a lot to be said for what isn't said.  You are right that there is a "protect our own" mentality to the admin. group in general, I don't deny that.  But I also see more and more that people such as yourself who point a spotlight on these things - perhaps make us rethink what we're doing here.  There's good people here, but grudges, anger, and animosity aren't going to make this a better site. What you do in editing articles, offering suggestions to improve the quality of out articles is ultimately what makes this a more respectable and valuable resource.  In the end, sometimes, it's better to back up, re-evaluate, and approach things from a different angle.  I consider myself one of the lucky ones, I actually took the time to come talk to you.  THAT is what is lacking here.  I saw a teacher come laud you for all your efforts to help his students.  I listened to what you said about my shortcomings, and tried to improve them.  You listen to me when I talk to you.  There is so much a lack of communication here on this project.  Meh .. I'm drifting into some sort of soapbox stuff here. All my best. — Ched :  ?  07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For me it's all about respect, which has to be earned not demanded. I was criticised recently for not showing sufficient deference to administrators, a view that's quite simply incomprehensible to me and contrary to everything I believe in. The bottom line is that I treat people as I find them; if they treat me with respect then I reciprocate in kind. But if they don't ... well, you know. That note from Jimmy Butler really made an impression on me, and I found the idea of those high-school students having to be restrained from coming to my assistance here to be profoundly touching. Those who've got it into their heads that I'm guilty of chasing away new editors really ought to read it and discover the truth for themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus wrote, "I think you see where this will inevitably lead, a world in which I'm admonished for having been blocked, but those making the bad blocks are not." Actually, I think your admonishment works to your advantage in cases of baiting or vituperative blocking. Having been formally admonished places you "on the warning track" with respect to escalated sanctions, which in turn makes it far more likely that even editors who are not "on your side" will try to step in between you and bad eggs. At the same time, admins who are not "against you" but are trying to get you to modify your behavior in a specific situation are likely to want to pull back from the edge and avoid a ban. Everyone will be trying to avoid breaking the china, and/or trying to prevent others from doing so. This works against bad blocks or other bad admin actions etc. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting perspective, and one I hadn't considered. As ever, time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cynical answer: if the Hawkeye situation in this very case is not transparent enough, here's another example of what it means in practice. And in the case closed yesterday, they passed a principle about that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the above, I think the principal difference between "admonished" and "warned" is as follows:
 * Admonished: A reasonable man would have known to not do what you did, or to do what you failed to do. You erred in your past actions.
 * Warned: Your actions in that instance led to a suboptimal outcome. Regardless of whether or not you had knowledge that it wouldn't work out before, you certainly do now, and are placed on notice that doing that in the future will have consequences.
 * Mind you, that's just my interpretation, but I do see them as backward- vs. forward-looking censures, with admonished perhaps slightly harsher because it implies an error in judgment that warned does not. Other members of the committee may see the nuances differently. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vague formulation regarding block log
The table going into detail on Malleus's block log was interesting, but the finding that resulted from it is vague. Which of the blocks and unblocks were bad and which borderline and which were OK? The three diffs link to three sets of blocks - if the finding is that those three and only those three were bad, then that should be more explicitly stated. Because this question has been left unanswered (probably partially because some of the admins are no longer active), some will in the future point to this finding and insist that it means that a certain block was 'obviously' bad or good, when it may not be so clear. I suspect some arbitrators might also disagree on the specifics here. I know Malleus has in the past objected to how some of the blocks made against him were never truly resolved. And some have referred to the existence of the block log during disputes. Is it possible to draw a line in the sand here and instruct all to move on from this point forward? Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If arbitrators cannot agree on which blocks were bad, the answer is to say exactly that, not aim a vague slap in the direction of the admin corps. After all the trouble the community went to on arb-requested evidence, their finding seems a bit disappointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SilkTork that there is little value (maybe even negative value) in reprising all the blocks to determine which are good and which are not. I thought the point of the caveat in the finding was to simply warn readers not to see 13 blocks and assume there were 13 solid blocks. The right answer is not 13, but it is not zero. I don't see any reason to delineate the exact number; the vague statement that there are fewer than meet the eye was sufficient to make the relevant point.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so too; it makes little difference to me whether the number of solid blocks was five or even ten; the important point is the recognition that there weren't thirteen. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, would be interested in a clearer spelling out of which blocks were good, bad, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblocks, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my block log, so why should anyone else be concerned if I'm not? Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my case, the interest comes from a desire that this arbitration should lead to better blocking/unblocking practices in the future, not simply for blocks of you but for blocks of others. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like that's going to happen any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make above is that the three links at the end to Malleus's block log specifically pinpoint three blocks by three administrators (two of those admins are active, one is desysopped and indefinitely blocked). If I was one of the active administrators in question having a specific blocking action questioned at great remove like this, I'd would expect to be notified on my talk page (was this done for the two admins that are currently active?) and for ArbCom to have the courtesy to say which of the three descriptions apply to the block in question. Those descriptions are: "placed by involved administrators, applied in a manner that was below the standard expected of administrators, or for conduct that did not rise to the general expectations for a disruption block". By not being specific, ArbCom are effectively casting general aspersions at all the administrators in Malleus's block log by saying some are 'involved/poor/misapplied' blocks, but are electing not to say which were which. It would be comparable to saying that of the cases ArbCom decided last year, some were decided by involved arbitrators who should have recused, some were decided in a manner below that expected of ArbCom, and some remedies were passed for conduct that didn't rise to the standard expected to trigger such remedies. And then, rather than specify which was which, finish off by throwing in links to three cases and let everyone try and work out which descriptions applied to which cases. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Expunging one's record
Silk Tort and NYB have asked what value there is in listing the 3 blatantly bad blocks years after they occured. It's called expunging one's record. In real life people spend years fighting to clear their name for crimes that they didn't do or to rectify wrongs that they felt were unjustly imposed. Malleus has been punished several times by block first admins who have overstepped their bounds. While some of them were reversed by others, the inditement exists on the record and cannot be removed. BUT there is a sense of freedom/justification in saying, "Malleus these blocks were completely unjustified." Now, I don't expect ArbCOM to overrule all of them. But some are better than none. I mean the Swatjester block that I undid, was his very first block ever---and it was one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Since the block record of users is used by future admins when reviewing candidates, it poisoned the well. Is there any wonder that Malleus has developed a deep seated distrust for the system when it has admins put a "24 hour cooling off block" on a person 36 hours after the last comments in the issue? No, while some of the blocks were valid and some a questionable, some were obviously wrong and the community needs to apologize for those bad blocks. And the only real way the community can do so in a meaningful way is for ArbCOM to declare that at least the 3 or 4 blocks highlighted were bad. False convictions often affect people negatively, time to expunge his record.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC) If Malleus isn't concerned, then I withdraw my reasoning.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought about inappropriate blocks aimed at nobody in particular
Would your opinion on the way the encyclopedia is run and administrators in general be determined by inappropriate blocks in your own block log? Those of you gifted with powers of empathy might indeed sympathise with an editor who had such a log, especially if it was used as an excuse for further blocks. I know I would.J3Mrs (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's certainly been an element of that in my mind for some considerable time now, and it certainly has coloured my view of the way things are run here. But I feel oddly relieved that ArbCom appears to be agreeing that at least some of the blocks were improper. It's less important to me whether that was three, four, or however many; what matters to me is that it may go some way to acting as a defence against the "look at the size of his block log" gang. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Injustice really gets under my skin.  I'd probably quit; I nearly did in December.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My take on that, being a "stubborn bastard", is that I wouldn't give anyone the satisfaction of feeling that they'd succeeded in chasing me away. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No sympathy whatsoever. Contributions can be classified as: If you play in gray sometimes you have to pay. While I concur with much of Malleus's statements regarding inconsistency of application I have zero sympathy with his having to deal with the logical outcome of his pattern of contributions. Nobody Ent 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Black - unquestionably consistent with conservative interpretation of Wikipedia standards.
 * Red - Quickly blocked and/or indeffed.
 * Gray - pushing the limits of notability vague community standards.
 * An interesting comment, as I've yet to see much logic being deployed here, and even less honesty. What I have seen is a great deal of vindictiveness. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, vindictiveness is hard-wired into the human psyche; it's what animal behaviourists would call "species-normal". We humans have to make a conscious decision not to do vindictive things, and sometimes it's much harder than other times, and some people find it much harder than other people do.  It's the nature of humans; we should rise above it, particularly in a collaborative and collegiate environment, but what we should do and what we do do can be very different things.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Imprudent judgement is not vindictiveness. The workshop make its clear that many editors find MFs long term pattern of interaction periodically crosses the boundaries of civil behavior, many do not, many perhaps do but that his other contributions compensate for the perceived misstatements. 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

Am I the only one...
...who finds the wording of principle #3 somewhat disturbing? While I'm sure that ArbCom didn't mean it this way, I think it could be easily read as, essentially, codifying the concept of the "vested contributor" who can get away with damn near anything because they are "a valuable content creator" and thus "must be protected" from being blocked or otherwise being given any sort of corrective punishment or being blocked for incivility or anything else. Given that one of the loci of this whole case has been whether or not civility policies do and/or should apply equally to all editors (hell, just look at FoF's 10 and 11!), it seems odd that the wording of that principle should be ambiguous enough to allow anyone to potentially WP:GAME it by, hypothetically, parading their GA or FA counts, or their article creation numbers, or their total edit count, or any other metric.

Note that I'm not saying I disagree with the principle--I certainly agree that someone who has been providing quality content to en-wiki for a long time and snaps at someone on very rare occasions (say, once or twice a year) should get a "slap on the wrist" reminder to play nice, while someone who just shows up and starts cussing people out with no history behind them should be treated more harshly (it's similar to how if someone like me, with a conviction for driving on an expired license and a couple speeding tickets, ends up in court over something, I'd almost certainly get a lighter sentence than someone with three armed robberies and five felony assaults on his record). I just think that it might need some tweaking in the wording to avoid being wikilawyered into "I churn out four FAs per year so I'm untouchable and can say anything I want." rdfox 76 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the first thing an unregistered or newly registered account does is make personal attacks, edit-war, contribute BLP violations, or vandalize, the response will almost certainly be a block that nobody will overturn after only a few edits; they have to make an extremely good case to get unblocked. With editors who have a history of positive contributions, much more effort is put into educating, encouraging the editor to participate in discussion and consensus-building, warning/reminding; blocks are a last resort and tend to be of limited and short duration. That doesn't just apply to those who have GAs and FAs; it applies to just about every editor with a history of positive contribution to the project. While I think sometimes we're too quick to block new editors who just haven't had the expectations explained to them (we're pretty awful at educating new editors), I do not think it is a net negative to have different standards for contributors whose work is mostly positive as compared to newly created accounts whose first edits make it clear they're not here to improve the project. Risker (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I had typed out much of what Risker has just written, but she's said it better, so I'll just endorse her comments. It's also worth noting that principle 3 is not new in this decision; it's been said several times over the years in various arbitration decisions, and fortunately, to my knowledge it hasn't been misused in the way that you (Rdfox 76) are concerned about. That being said, if you have a better wording to suggest, feel free; if nothing else, we can bear it in mind for next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's old news indeed. By the way, I've added that to the blocking policy yesterday. Insofar nobody reverted. Cross fingers. Tough luck for exopedians. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I'm interpreting it, the way the decision is trending now, the entire thing actually more or less codifies incivility by vested contributors as protected. FoFs here establish that a) Malleus has been uncivil, repeatedly and long-term, b) Malleus writes lots of content, and c) B cancels out A and means that A does not rise to the level of being blockable; and Proposed Remedies establish that blocking Malleus will be responded to with admonishments and possible desysoppings, while incivility by Malleus will be met with a reminder that being nice is a nice thing to do. Looks to me like incivility blocks against anyone will be thing of the past if this proposed decision goes into effect, as arbcom will have raised the bar for blockable incivility so high that no one is able to meet it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe there will be fewer blocks for incivility. But I would not despair just because of that. In a recently closed case, a long-term contributor was banned for somewhat similar behavior. However, he had received a prior warning from ArbCom and also an AE topic ban for the same type of behavior. In yet another case closed yesterday, a principle about recidivism was passed. So, when NYB says "excessive at this time", I think it's an overreaction to read that as "never". In the end, it's a balancing act. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is that if repeated, long-term, acknowledged-by-pretty-much-everyone incivility isn't blockable, then in practice, virtually no incivility is blockable. That may be the intention - perhaps arbcom feels that incivility blocks are bad medicine and wants to curtail them - or it may not - perhaps arbcom intends to give Malleus a wink-and-nudge pass on this one because of his content creation, and doesn't realize that it sets a questionable precedent - but if it's the latter, they need to revisit their decision and work that kink out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The way the decision is trending now, the entire thing actually more or less codifies incivility by vested contributors as protected." Isn't ArbCom admonishing Hawkeye7 for saying the very same thing?  Unless I'm missing something, this PD doesn't indict them, it vindicates them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It took three ArbCom cases to find a solution to the &Delta; conundrum. (And I'm not saying they found the best one.) In the end, half of the participants were going to be unhappy anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it means that there will be fewer bad blocks for incivility, and that productive editors will be more likely to be treated with dignity and respect rather than as naughty children. I realise that Flutternutter and AQFK must be deeply disappointed to see that it seems unlikely now that I'll be banned completely, but I really must take issue with hyperbole such as "repeated, long-term, acknowledged-by-pretty-much-everyone incivility", which is very far from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @MF: My comment was about the irony of admonishing someone while simultaneously agreeing that they were right. I suggest ArbCom pick one and go with it, but not both.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where have they agreed that I was right? My reading of the proposed decision is that they're agreeing that at least some of the blocks were appropriate, but others weren't, without agreeing a precise split on which is which. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how many of the blocks, if any, do you think were appropriate? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I haven't refreshed my memory of any but the earliest ones, which set the pattern really, but off the top of my head I'd say that a reasonable case could probably be made for three or four of them. Including ironically Hawkeye7's most recent block. Arguably he did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, I wouldn't say that he did the right thing for the wrong reason... but I will agree that if he had cited your "fucking cunt" comment in his block rationale instead of "per consensus", then his inolvment in this case would be vastly different and I don't think people would have come after him like they had. The action of desysopping Hawkeye indicates that ArbCOM accepted his initial rationale for the block and not the revised version.  Thus, I would classify the block as misapplied.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the "fucking cunt" thing was way over the line, and a block for that would have been perfectly understandable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  ... productive editors will be more likely to be treated with dignity and respect rather than as naughty children. Not holding my breath on that one. That is one of the things this case should have studied, but if'n you ask me, the trend towards admins treating productive editors like naughty children to be blocked (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail) is not only not on the decline-- it's on the rise.  The problem here (Wikipedia, in general) is that there is no institutional memory-- we're dealing with a new crop of editors every time a recurring issue surfaces.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But isn't that where ArbCom comes in? Aren't decisions taken here part of Wikipedia's institutional memory? Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Three things: 1) I told you a while back that this case was not well presented.  The clear connection between admin abuse and uneven civility enforcement was never made.  Can't blame the arbs.  2) I'm referring to institutional memory of editors and admins-- take for example the DYK problem-- a whole ton of contemporary editors don't even remember Halloween 2010, the abuse you took from Rod, any number of things, and that contributes to bad decision making at ANI. 3) WRT ArbCom's role, yes-- it troubles me that NYB is downplaying the significance of the bad blocks in your block log, since from the very first (involved admin) sprung the rest of the problems.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I too think that NYB's attitude is somewhat revealing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, I think a big part of the problem is that many of the blocks in your log are really shitty blocks—even the ones that were imposed for genuine incivility and were procedurally correct were more often than not for very tame comments that (in my opinion) didn't rise anywhere near the level where a block might be justified. However, you have made comments in the past that did rise to a level where a block would be entirely appropriate, such as calling Spitfire a cunt—calling someone a cunt (barring significant provocation, and even then...) is a good way to get yourself a 24-hour enforced wikibreak, even from me, and I very, very rarely make "civility blocks"—and a lot of those comments have gone unsanctioned, which means your block log looks rather odd when one hears of your reputation and then investigates it from your block log. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've actually never disputed that my calling Spitfire a fucking cunt was a misjudgement on my part, and I've apologised for it several times. What else am I expected to do? Say three Hail Mary's and one Lord's Prayer? And just to round this off, I've been called far worse by administrators who weren't even warned, never mind sanctioned. That's the untreated sore here that needs lancing, to borrow Balloonman's metaphor. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But Newyorkbrad has got it completely wrong here in suggesting that my attitude is that if the administrators can do it then so can I, to the point of dishonesty I think. My attitude is that nobody should be doing it, and that example needs to be set from the top. Including from him. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You managed to miss the part where I was agreeing with you about the state of your block log! ;) But I used that comment as an example because it's a memorable example of the kind of comment that would justify a block, as opposed to some of those that wouldn't (in my opinion), but for which you were blocked. (And for the record, if I witnessed an admin calling somebody a fucking cunt, they'd get a 24-hour enforced wikibreak if that's what anybody else would get in the circumstances, but there's little that can be done about comments older than a few days). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. I've never protested any block, I would never protest any block, and I certainly didn't protest Hawkeye7's recent block. But putting that recent example to one side, do you have any others? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To further clarify, my points 2 and 3 are related. The lack of institutional memory at ANI wrt your block log-- yes-- can be partially cleared up by passing the finding that NYB opposes.  What we have now is admins who lack institutional memory judge you based on the length of your block log, and block you based on your pre-existing block log for things that evereyone everywhere does all over the Wikpedia.  Nonetheless ... no more f'ing cs, ok?   If my point 1) wasn't established in this case, I've got an example of the whole shebang (admin neglect, uneven enforcement, admin abuse, intimidation of regular editors, sexism-- the works).  Except that I no longer give a damn-- having stared down an abusive cabal of admins once already, I just think it's sick that it still goes on to such an extent in here, and strong remedies are needed to get it to stop.  Yes, that's up to the arbs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At least part of the reason for this is the requirement that admins be uninvolved being read so strictly. Not having had any prior interaction with Malleus meant that I literally had no memory. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, as I've already said I think that your block is one that a reasonable case could be made for, but not for the reasons you gave for imposing it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the finding very well written. The standards should be the same for everyone; how they're implemented should take context, including an editor's contributions et. al. into consideration. Nobody Ent 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I seem to have missed the bit where my contributions were taken into account before the decision was taken to eject me from the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The bit you seem to have missed is where you eject other editors from the project without taking into account their contributions. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point. Good luck Malleus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hawkeye -- I haven't seen evidence that you're being ejected from the project? Nobody Ent 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he's just being led by the horns into the wilderness and pushed into a gully. Which considering the alternative fate isn't that bad.  Still, as he did little more than any goat, I cannot blame him for feeling that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To Malleus Fatuorum
(Arbitration subsection break)

One of your comments above illustrates precisely the issue that I find exists in some of your editing. You were calmly pointing out that you still disagree with my paraphrase of your attitude. I was carefully considering what I should say in response, in addition to what I've already said on this page...

... and then you throw in "... to the point of dishonesty, I think." Unless I am misunderstanding it, in which case I would appreciate being corrected, that interjection is offensive and without value. Are you really meaning to suggest that after all the consideration I've given to this case and its proposed predecessors, that I've now started gratuitously telling lies on the proposed decision page on purpose? Why on earth would I do such a thing? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where have I said that you're telling lies? I simply think that your eyes are either closed to, or averted from, what's really going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dishonesty" implies intentional falsehood as I understand the word. If you say you were using it differently I will accept that. We can consider this part of the thread closed, as no good is likely to come of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually just realized one other thing, in re-visiting the decision page: my comment to which you've objected was that your comments seemed to come off a certain way. Only you know your intentions as you wrote everything you've written about civility issues and administrator "corruption" and the like; but only I can know how I understood your comments when I read them. And in this case, among other places, I have not been an inattentive reader. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't recall accusing you of dishonesty; read what I said again. What I most definitely do accuse you of though is turning a blind eye to administrator abuse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By saying 'to the point of dishonesty, I think' you are openly musing apon the possibility of NYB being dishonest (as in, lying) when he 'suggest(s) that my attitude is that if the administrators can do it then so can I'. So while you may be able to hide behind the technical fact that you at no point said the words 'Newyorkbrad is a liar' or 'Newyorkbrad is dishonest' you came about as close to saying it as possible without actually saying it.  From where I sit, I see both BAITing and GAMEing... and NYB falling right into it. 72.37.244.156 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you need to sit somewhere else, where the view is better. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the initial question
I agree with Rdfox 76's criticism of principle 3, and find the decision generally poor. The core problems remain unaddressed, viz., the first-versus-second-mover advantage problem, the treatment of habitually incivil vested contributors, and the broader issue of whether civility is a meaningful and enforceable policy at all. Now, on the merits, I am one of those who believe that widespread incivility and poor manners are a very serious risk to our whole project, both with respect to the functioning of our collaborative process and the retention of editors; and that administrators should be enabled to enforce civility much more stringently – subject to a fast, rule-based and disciplined appeals or review process. The Committee has failed the community by resolving this case in what seems to be the opposite direction in some respects: "Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking" is entirely mistaken, because poor blocks are normally quickly undone, while unblocked disruption can fester for years. But the Committee has also failed the community more fundamentally by not addressing the issues I mentioned altogether, and by issuing, as usual, ambiguous principles and substantially meaningless "... is reminded" or "... is cautioned" "remedies". I would have preferred – to this time-wasting milquetoast decision that apparently seeks to please all sides but will resolve little – a clear opinion stating that the intractable dispute over civility enforcement is resolved by forbidding civility blocks on pain of desysop, or something like that. This would have at least provided clear ground rules based on which editors could adapt their expectations, and stop the ANI dramafests that will now continue to ensue because we have this one policy whose enforcement is arbitrary, capricious and mostly dependent on social dynamics. This state of affairs I find revolting.  Sandstein  20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not a state of affairs that ought to be allowed to continue. Like you, I'd hoped for a stronger statement on the viability of civility blocks. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd actually be in favor of anyone who overturns a block (including a civility block) without a consensus to do so being desysop'ed. But that itself would be a governance role not assigned to ArbCom by the community, so you get what you get: decisions that extensively reference previous community decisions, and try to logically extend and apply them, as well as to point out where the community really needs to make up its own mind. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus accretes very slowly here, and depends on who turns up, friends or foes, and who is even aware of the issue. But in general a strong statement along those lines (that reversing a block without consensus leads to an automatic desysop) would have been, I think, an initial positive step. Not that I'm suggesting John did that, it's just a general comment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Formerly, the advantage was always with the second mover. If admin A blocked editor E, then E would appeal the block, which would be reviewed by admin B, who might decide to uphold or overturn the block. It didn't matter how tainted the unblock might be; it would stand. But recently ArbCom revised the procedure. A recent unblock, reasonable on the face of it, saw the unblocker threatened and compelled to reverse the unblock. So the appeal can now be answered only by the originally blocker, and that gives the first mover the advantage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Editors are reminded not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse"
Pardon? If taken literally (and I think that's what we're supposed to do), this would mean that every comment made by every editor in a discussion would have to create an improvement on the discussion as at the preceeding comment. Now, that's gonna be flippin' hard to do if the discussion started well or was going perfectly ... the only option left is not to contribute at all!

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's what you said! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ....ummm, and eight of you signed it? ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording is a little concerning, but the principle they're trying to get at is something that there seemed to be consensus for. It shifts the goalposts from "in my opinion this post was civil/uncivil so I won't/will block" to "Was the poster's primary intention to disrupt, to upset, or to make a strongly worded but helpful point?" —WFC— 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Has no teeth for the regular editor if it's not first enforced for admins. And it is not enforced for admins.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Pesky was pointing out that the phrasing implied we were all now required to be more constructive than the current level of discourse at any given discussion, which is indeed a (certainly unintended) consequence of the awkward phrasing. 28bytes (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May I take this opportunity to praise Pesky for drawing attention to a potential implication in the wording of the resolution, which if interpreted literally, could lead to difficulties in making contributions to effective discourse? I have every confidence that esteemed Arbitrators, in their collective wisdom, did not intend any problematic inference to be drawn from their resolution. I would therefore politely suggest that they consider if minor alterations to this phrase could convey the same positive message about the importance of constructive discussion without the awkward implication that Pesky has so kindly noted. Geometry guy 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably have been blocked for saying that: insufficient deference shown to the arbitrators. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd have been reprimanded, Malleus. Actually, being an HFA with that literal-sense-of-humour thing, it had me in fits of giggles as I visualised editors sitting at their respective computers, racking their brains to try and think of any comment which would "directly improve" upon what had gone before, with silence and reprimand sitting on opposing horns of their dilemma.  I may add it to my "funnies" stable, though it will never have the die-of-laughing quotient as, for example, The ArbCom Secret Ballet ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have concerns about this wording simply because it leaves the determination of what directly improves the level of discourse up to someone who might have a specific agenda. It might also appear more even-handed if "editors" was changed to "all participants." Pesky's point is well-taken.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is, of course, that more serious note. In whose opinion does the "improvement" have to be? Or is this going to be another nebulous, ill-defined (and therefore unequally applied) area for dramah? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the level of discourse here seems to be completely failing to make the point, let me try to raise it according to a different metric.
 * Wake up arbitrators. This is one of the most bizarre parts of a remedy that I have ever seen. How can you possibly ask all editors to improve the level of discourse in their contributions, without defining what "improve" means? And no matter how it is defined, do you really want every contribution to a discussion to be "better" than what has gone before? Geometry guy 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a copy-edit that I think would solve this. The point of this is "no trending towards flinging mud" not "you have to be better than the last guy to run his mouth", which I agree would be an unreasonable standard. Courcelles 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey 'celles :o) - please see here though; it's quite important to get this one absolutely right, and though your suggestion is vastly better, I think it still needs a tweak. Easy to do; and will work better for more editors.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 22:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of "editors," we might want to consider "contributors." As Sandy points out, this needs to be an inclusive proposition that applies to admins as well as non-admins (especially in the area of perception, which is very important).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical matter
WP:VPT. The answer is no. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is possible, but we don't normally do that. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More accurately, the answer is yes, but we don't have such a facility enabled and it would mean reconfiguring our implementation of Mediawiki (which is not going to happen). 92.24.57.155 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Principle 14 and community opinion
Principle 14 is poorly constructed such that it flies in the face of repeated opposition to language gags. As Principle 14 is perhaps the clearest expression of the Arbitrator's collective finding in relation to the potential for language to disrupt, (Principle 13, on the other hand, is reasonably on target; Principle 2 focuses on the offensive nature of language, not on language itself). In particular: is a monstrous formulation. The reasonability is not on the offence, but on the anticipation of the offence. This is anti-internationalist as the criteria for reasonability is culturally constructed. In particular, it leaves our friends from North America with their dictionary prudishness as the standard of anticipation. Moreover, the solution is relatively simple: the core of this is: the offence must be reasonable, not the anticipation of the offence. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community"
 * "or use of language that can be anticipated to reasonably offend a significant segment of the community"


 * Personally, I think even Fifelfoo's proposal gives too much weight to the block-happy tendency. "Language that can be anticipated to reasonably offend a significant segment of the community" would forbid someone even saying "jeez", given that there there are significant communities in the US who would genuinely consider this "blasphemy". If Arbcom really want to go down the road of dictating what is and is not "uncivil", they should tell the WMF to grow a pair and just issue a statement saying "Wikipedia is an American project and users are expected to conform to US cultural norms when communicating". People wouldn't like it, but at least it would get rid of the culture of "uncivil is anything controversial when said by somebody with whom I happen to disagree". 92.24.57.155 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that's about right. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the test of what a reasonable person is, I think we're secure in arguing that extremist political-Christianist Americans are not reasonable when offended by "jesus fucking christ," for example. At least this is the only way I can square Arbcom's apparently neglect of the community's vehemently put position against banning me using words such as "cunt" as emphatics with their Principle 14. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly depends on who uses the words, not the words themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the principle in favour of internationalism in language, principles like 14 indicate that this encyclopaedia is very clearly en_US. and not en. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I generally try not to pass US-centric judgment on anybody, I do have to say that in this particular instance I have to agree with that one. Sorry, guys, but the majority isn't necessarily "right" about what language is or isn't offensive, when it's purely a geo-lottery thing.  It's tantamount to saying that American intepretations have to take priority over everybody else's interpretations, and we're all to be judged by American standards, in too many cases.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a culture in which such language is acceptable? I exclude certain pubs and certain teenage groups.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P14 is spot on and should be supported by any reasonable contributor. I find Fifeloo's interpretation totally objectionable and his persistent forcing of his opinion to be utterly tiresome. It is enough for us to know how proud he is of his idiosyncratic views regarding civility without bombastically trumpeting the fact to all and sundry at every opportunity. Leaky Caldron  15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Wehwalt, regarding "is there a culture", well, yes, there is! And it's not just pubs and teenage groups, it's in all sorts of areas in the UK, such as riding stables, farms, racing stables, and a lot of other places which aren't "restricted to formality only" areas.  In some of these it might be considered slightly risqué, but not "unacceptable", per se.  And I've head the c-word on some could-be-surprisingly upmarket lips, too!  Many, many years ago (decades ago, actually), when I was in instructor training, one of the "sets" which used to visit the yard was Bunny Esterhazy's "set" (yes, that's as in Princess Esterhazy), a motley assortment of titled and "the Hon", and I even managed to achieve driving the lush Ferrari of a Hooray Henry who is now a baronet ... and yes, the F-word and the C-word, and quite a few other such words were regularly heard!  It was, if anything, a wicked-giggle matter rather than a shock-horror matter.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I need to point you, LeakyCaldron, to the repeated failed discussions of such language gags at village pumps? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Leaky  Caldron  21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of formal ban on certain words only implies that -- there is no prohibition on specific words. It does not mean that they do not contribute to incivility, as clearly stated by our policy. It is a (frequently repeated all over Wikipedia) false dichotomy that anything that doesn't get you blocked is hunky-dory. The are vast regions of gray. Nobody Ent 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Repeated discussions of language gags have been closed with an awareness that it isn't the form of a word, but the content and moreover the direction of words that are problems.  The construction of principle 14 is both retrograde and in conflict with expressed community opinion in this regard, expressed opinion which Arbcom's attention was drawn to.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are aspects of this which are quite serious, and not necessarily immediately obvious, either, about which I'm not happy (from a principle-centred basis). I am aware that I'm quite possibly setting myself up to be flamed here, but I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, or idiotic, or trying to annoy, I  have genuine concerns. It seems as though there's beginning to be a tendency to slip into "the Americans are in the majority, so everyone else has to conform to American standards." When you look at that concept with wide-open eyes, it's a bit like a euphemism for discriminating against non-American minorities. Making the place less comfortable for non-American minorities. Non-American minorities have to start behaving like the American majority, with sanctions for failing to comply on the table if you're sufficiently non-American. I'm going to draw you a horrible parallel here, which people might want to think about. The vast majority of our editors are male, too. Does that mean that, because males are in the majority, people editing and "talking" from a feminine perspective and appearing "too female" also have to comply with the male-standards majority? Do all we females have to "pretend" to be males, in order to comply with the male majority? And what other minorities might it be considered "OK to discriminate against and make feel uncomfortable" if we start off with the "if you want to fit in here, you have to be like an American" thin end of that rather unpleasant wedge? '''This is serious stuff. Please, Arbs, don't take it lightly, but in the spirit in which it is meant.''' <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not American. I don't consider a user's nationality when I am in discussion. I treat all users with the same level of healthy wariness. One of the rudest, hostile, aggressive pieces of shit I have come across was an American Admin. What makes me uncomfortable are bullying editors throwing around aggressive accusations of lying, conspiracy and incompetence to anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them, repeatedly using language universally unacceptable in a written form. Free speech at any cost advocates such as Fifelfoo attempt to ingratiate themselves with said editors by using absurd justifications based on bizarre minority "sociolect" research and attempt to further justify it based on IRC or WP:CENT discussions by people who treat WP as an upmarket social network rather than a collaborative work project. If you want to turn non-article space into free-for-all chat rooms where aggression and insults are the norm because a few people cannot control their immature instincts on a public website then you will certainly deter people who want to volunteer their free time here. I'm surprised that you appear to be allowing yourself to be indoctrinated. This is about individuals, not nationalities. Leaky  Caldron  13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you released that under a creative commons license, because I think I am going to frame it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does nobody else see the irony in someone complaining about "using unacceptable language" in the same paragraph as calling someone "an aggressive piece of shit"? 92.29.58.219 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule has always been that the civility policy applies only to others, never to the poster. In their minds at least. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, I daresay that racists in the American South thought it was horribly unfair that they were forced to conform to northern/liberal standards and let black people into their schools and stop lynching them during the early-to-mid 20th century, too. They probably thought it was horrible that just because the north had more political power and population numbers, those mean northerners thought they could change how people had been living their lives for centuries in the south. Nevertheless, it's pretty much universally acknowledged now that "forcing" those people to "conform" to standards that weren't the ones they'd grown up with was a good thing. Sometimes, people have internalized standards for behavior that simply aren't ok in the world as a whole, and it is by no means unacceptable to tell those people, when they refuse to change from the inside, that they may think as they wish, but they must act according to the standards held by everyone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) NB: I wish to make clear that I am not calling editors on this page racist, or anything like that. My example above is intended to be exactly that, an example of a situation where it was appropriate for an outside power to tell people that their personal standards were unacceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A more accurate analogy would be if the American North had itself maintained slavery while forcing the South to abandon it, as we've seen evidence for even in this very section. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "if" Malleus? That is what happened! See Emancipation Proclamation for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I guess in some sense that was what we might call an enabling bill today, at least so far as the Union states were concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, allow me to say Hawkeye that although I don't agree with your block, nor the subsequent comment you made afterwards to HJ Mitchell, which was rather ill-judged, for once I find myself in agreement with Newyorkbrad. Had the block been made on a less high-profile editor it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow and we wouldn't have had this case. That's not in any way to defend it of course, simply to draw attention to the fact that equally poor behaviour by administrators goes unsanctioned every day, something that ArbCom seems unwilling to address. You're just a sacrificial victim. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To state the obvious, ArbCom doesn't follow behind every admin and micromanage them or critique them. If you see admin misconduct everywhere, state that you would like to document it and see if people agree with your examples. Though I've never understood the focus on administrators. Equally poor behaviour by non-admins goes unsanctioned every day. Maybe you mean drawing attention to poor conduct by admins gets little traction as admins are reluctant to take action against admins? The other thing is a failure to distinguish between editorial conduct by admins and administrative conduct by admins. When an admin is acting as an editor, they should be treated as an editor, not an admin, both by those objecting to the conduct and those reviewing the conduct. But all too often, the discussion is skewed from the start by cries of "this person is an admin and must be held to higher standards of conduct", which tends to come across as someone seeking to gain an advantage in an editorial dispute by making a point that the other editor is an admin (which if they are not acting as an admin should be irrelevant). If an admin is editing (they do, sometimes, despite cynical assertions to the contrary), it really is best to treat them as a fellow editor, not as an admin. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My ill-judged comment to HJ was a request for admin assistance, something any editor may do, and not in any sense an admin action. So ArbCom is implicitly endorsing the concept of "this person is an admin and must be held to higher standards of conduct" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been mulling over how to answer Leaky and Fluff's points before answering (and my "mulling" is foggy, as I'm at present full of morphine, but I'll do my best). What we have here, as so often in Wikipedia, is a difference of interpretation between what I meant, and how what I said was perceived. Leaky, the "wariness" thing is a good approach. I agree with you totally about deliberate hostile bullying, but for me it's not the specific language used, it's the intent behind that language. Deliberate hostile bullying can be couched in the most surface-civil of terms (and though I hate the concept of "surface civility", because it can be so easily misapplied to the genuinely innocent, I'm using it here). Aggression and insults are always going to be bad, true. Name-calling of any kind, no matter how "acceptable" the individual words may be, is just uncivil. And yes, Malleus does indulge in that. And so do an awful lot of other people, too, but don't get the publicity that Malleus does. And I'm not at all sure that the percentage of Malleus's bad posts is any greater than the percentage of a lot of other peoples' bad posts it's just that Malleus has an awful lot of contributions, so the sheer numbers of bad ones are more obvious. I'm not in any way suggesting turning anywhere into a free-for-all aggression-and-nastiness area; those are just damned unpleasant even for readers who never actually contribute in them. I do think that we need to be very careful in labelling any culture's "informal speech" automatically as "immature instincts".

This kinda leads into my response to Fluff, too. If a culture regularly uses one set of words as "informal speech", it doesn't mean that they are barbarians compared to a different culture which uses different words. I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at, which is almost certainly my own fault for not having been clear enough. Your example of the slavery thing is a bit extreme, though I can quite see where you're coming from. I see that as more of a "universal human rights violation" thing, and not as a difference-in-upbringing. What I'm thinking of, more, is that we have differences in culture where, for example, what's OK-for-one-set may be really barbaric and educated for another set, and vice versa. It's not that one culture is more barbaric than another, it's just that words have slightly different meanings and connotations in different areas. For one culture to use, in normal informal speech, a word or set of words which another culture then sees as "labelling us" as being unacceptably barbaric, just means that we have a different set of words which mean that, for us. Word-use varies from era to era and culture to culture, just as clothing does. Trends and fashions and interpretations are just different from time to time and place to place. A significant proportion of Brits, Aussies and others may use the c-word in one way, and others use it in another. Just because one culture sees the c-word as being inherently hateful and misogynistic means only that someone from the same culture using it is being hateful and misogynistic. If another culture uses the word much more "softly", it doesn't mean that the whole culture is hateful and misogynistic and unacceptable, because, for them, that word doesn't have the same nuances.

Cruelty is cruelty in any culture, but words aren't directly transposable with all their perceived nuances from culture to culture. It's almost like looking at it as a different language; consider a situation where a perfectly innocent word in English is actually extremely offensive in French or Hindi, because it means something different, or only somewhat related. This is what I'm trying (and I think others have been trying) to communicate. The word just doesn't mean the same thing, other than in its anatomical use, from the one culture to the other. In many parts of the UK it's barely stronger than saying "bloody twit" or "pillock"; and it very, very often means "bully". Its intensity varies from region to region even within the UK. So I think, in a multicultural area, it's vital that we look at each others' intents, and not place to heavy a value on individual words. And forgive me if I'm waffling, it's the combo of pain-and-morphine. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I've just thought of a much better and clearer way of putting some of this: the exact same signal can mean very different things, depending on "culture". If a canine flattens-and-folds its ears at you, it indicates submission / appeasement. If a cat flattens-and-folds its ears at you, it means possibly-going-to-be defensively-aggressive fear. If a horse flattens and folds its ears at you, it means its seriously considering attacking you. Same "words", different communications. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FOF 4.x misrepresents the situation
Finding of fact 4 says that the stated cause for the block had been resolved. However, the stated cause was "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds". Likewise, 4.1 says the incident which prompted the block had been resolved. But the block wasn't about a specific incident. You guys need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a FOF that more accurately represents the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thumperward said the block was for the comment (which had been redacted with MF's consent) and the indef was based on the long term pattern: I've blocked Malleus for the above. No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this; that this is not merely long-term but a permanent part of his presence here has led to said block being indefinite. Nobody Ent 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Which part of "I've blocked Malleus for the above" don't you understand AQFK? Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AQFK is referring Thumperward's block log comment, which is inconsistent with his statement on Rfa. Nobody Ent 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've repeatedly told you, I did not block for the swear word but for the entire set of drama. You've chosen to repeatedly interpret the phrase "the above" with a meaning which suits your argument, and by virtue of my choosing not to rebut you every single time this appears to have gotten some traction. That doesn't make it any more factual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make it any more true either. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Nobody Ent: Hmmmm...I guess I can see what you're saying. But the current wording still misrepresents the situation.  It should say something like 'the which incident which prompted the block had been resolved but the ongoing issues had not' or something.  I'll leave to ArbCom to come up with better wording; this is why they get paid the big bucks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would avoid characterizations and directly quote Thumperward. Generously, not a soundbite.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

John's admonishment
The current wording of the remedy is "John is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.'", but I don't think that goes far enough. Setting aside whether or not John was "involved" in this matter, we also have multiple other issues: I understand the arbs' desire to show leniency because John has since apologized for his actions, so okay, that's reasonable, he has avoided a de-sysopping. But at a minimum, the case should document what he did. Suggested wording could be, "John is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions without attempting to contact the administrator first, for acting while said actions were still under review through community discussion, and for claiming there was a "strong consensus" when in fact a discussion had only been ongoing for 20 minutes." --Elonka 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John reversed another administrator's actions without making any attempt to contact that administrator ahead of time.
 * He even said in the diff, that he hadn't heard Thumperward's rationale yet.
 * John claimed a "strong consensus" at ANI when there was no such consensus.


 * In John's defense I'd like to highlight one comment in the AN/I thread Elonka refers to:
 * "...I've just told Thumperward I'm about to unblock Malleus, although I would prefer it if he did. This is the silliest block I've seen in a while - the conversation was in the early hours of the morning, and Malleus had allowed someone to redact the rude word - which seems to be the root of the problem. I have one of those, and therefore am allowed to say I didn't faint when he referred to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)"
 * When you have an arb saying that she thinks the block is bad enough to unilaterally overturn, I think it would be more than a little unfair for ArbCom to then sanction – or even admonish – someone for overturning it. To her credit, Elen did not back away from this assessment and stood firm on this point later in the same thread:
 * "Just to point out that John wasn't wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL. He (and I, and Gwen Gale, and a couple of other admins in the half-hour or so between the ANI notice and the unblock) all thought it was a bad administrative action, which can be undone by another administrator. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)"
 * Yes, Elen does not speak for all of ArbCom, and she was not acting as a representative of ArbCom in that thread, but I hope the point is clear that this wasn't some cowboy admin action John pulled out of the air: this was an action that multiple respected admins, including an ArbCom member, clearly stated was warranted. 28bytes (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, and I agree that Elen's voice has some extra weight due to her status. However, I feel very strongly about this. Kneejerk block reversals are disruptive, and need to stop. When one admin undoes a block without any attempt at discussion with the blocking admin, that's a serious breach, and they should probably be de-sysopped for such an action. And just because someone is an arbitrator, does not make them infallible. If Elen would have unblocked without discussion, it would have been just as wrong. Indeed, that appears to have been her first inclination, was to unblock without even waiting for Thumperward's rationale, but when another editor said she should wait, Elen backed down and said Thumperward should do it. But John was already unblocking by that point, and informed Thumperward of the unblock 4 minutes later. Further, there were other admins who spoke up in support of the block, but it got undone too fast to be subjected to any serious discussion. I stand by my proposed wording: John unblocked without contacting the blocking admin first, without waiting for consensus to form, and his characterization of a "strong consensus" at ANI was incorrect. An admonishment is the least that should happen. --Elonka 07:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rapid block reversals need to stop. Rapid blocks by individuals without community consent which eventually, eventually, rely on a long term disruption rationale need to stop.  Administrators hold a mop.  They too can bring what they consider to be long term issues to AN for a community block. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I empathize with your concern about kneejerk block reversals, but as Fifelfoo says above, poorly considered blocks are disruptive as well, and in many cases, I would argue, more disruptive. Kneejerk anything is bad, but we do need some sort of checks and balances that allow for a prompt but considered reversal of poorly considered admin actions. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, poor initial decisions (if we can even accept that in this case) are far less disruptive by an order of magnitude than strident undoing of decisions. There is a process, and going outside of process to coddle troublemakers from the consequences of their trouble only increases the amount of trouble here.  Some Arbocom members support the proposition, incredibly, that a few frequent denizens weighing in a few minutes after the event establishes that the administrative action ran against consensus.  That too only encourages game-playing.  If you had polled the other 50,000 active editors instead of the hotheads who play the administrative boards, and they agreed to weigh in within a few minutes, the outcome would certainly have been a lot more supportive of the proposition that you can't go about calling people cunts on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am supportive of the proposition that you can't go about calling people cunts on Wikipedia. I'm not real wild about calling people "troublemakers" and "hotheads" either, but then I think the best way to promote civil behavior is to speak civility, even to those with whom one disagrees. 28bytes (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we have a process for blocking for long term actions: a community ban discussion. Mop wielders need to understand that they merely toggle a switch in a technical apparatus.  Everybody makes policy.  Rationales either have an immediate preventative purpose, in which case they relate to presently continuing conduct; or, they have a long term habitual rationale in which case there is no immediacy to blocking and the mop-wielder can bring their ideas to the bloody community. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, John was involved. He himself admitted it.  Whether or not his action was right, or wrong, is not relevant.  He was involved, there was no emergency, and his action was not that tolerated under WP:INVOLVED for involved admins.  John was in the wrong, he admitted it, and while I don't know whether this ArbCom would actually have sanctioned him seriously—based on the way they are adjusting the finding against Thumperward to fit the desired punishment, my cyncism argues no—John was at least one of the few people in this case who have admitted some fault.  In this case, it is pointless to build up Elen by calling her an arb, though she is of course.  She also is involved, she promptly recused, and as a partisan, her opinion is entitled to no more deference than that of the next recused admin.  Please do not diminish John's forthright, though belated action by admitting his wrong by trying to pretend it was not desperately needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John was correct to apologize, especially for the involved aspect of the unblock, and I am glad he did so. I will readily agree with you about the involved aspect, but the admonishment makes no mention of it, and it's a separate issue from the unblock timing concerns that Elonka points out. 28bytes (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the argument that trumps "Well, John's unblock wasn't really so bad."--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Apologies, I was editing my comment as you were posting a reply.) Yes, it does trump it in that sense. My point is mainly that the unblock was not something John was alone in contemplating, and indeed he had very good company. 28bytes (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But I contemplate a lot of things, in which I am no different than the next guy, experience then dictates which of those will be OK things to do and which of those things might attract adverse comment.  John definitely picked from Column B.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I admire John for his statement, and hope he understands that I bring it up here not because I still hold it against him (I do not), but because until this case is closed, we have to discuss these painful things. I hope I did not cause him any unhappiness by my mentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John is just another victim of this farce, as is Hawkeye7. I expect though that he'll take his admonishment like a man. I on the other hand will whimper and cry until the birds come to ease my pain. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a question. The above statement by Malleus is eloquent, though it appears to have tones of sarcasm and irony and self-deprecation (apologies if I've misread that - I'm reminded of nothing more than Eric Cantona's famous seagulls comment, unless there is some allusion I'm missing in the 'birds' and 'pain' comment). But do the colourful allusions actually help advance the discussion or bring it to a conclusion, or do they just prolong or distract from the point of the discussion? I'm asking because this is a pattern I've seen several times with several editors. Discussions appear to be going somewhere, and then some comment comes out of left field and the discussion gets all chaotic again, or stalls and goes completely dead. I've never quite worked out how to handle that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another question. My prospective admonishment speaks about how I "revers[ed] another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion." My statement expressed regret at how my unblock led to more drama and this is largely predicated on events that unfolded after I unblocked. Here's my question; prior to this case, what guidance was there to administrators dealing with an abusive, out-of-process indefinite block in which the community discussion was clearly trending to unblock? --John (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect there is something about not taking Admin. actions yourself in an issue or dispute if you were "involved". As the evidence presented clearly indicated that you were involved with the editor concerned, a fact you appeared to agree with in your statement, then you would appear to have disregarded sensible guidance and unblocked based on your partiality towards the editor concerned. Leaky  Caldron  12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving your opinion on a question I didn't ask. You might notice if you read it that my proposed admonishment makes no mention of WP:INVOLVED. Here's the question I did ask again. Prior to this case, what guidance was there to administrators dealing with an abusive, out-of-process indefinite block in which the community discussion was clearly trending to unblock? --John (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * None. The last Malleus block/unblock resulted in a declined arbcom case in which arbcom stated The ball is hence in the community's court - this can either be by community led RfC or by requesting a case in a more clear-cut case of either incivility or problematic admin action. The community did not take up the challenge; I made a proposal which went nowhere and that was about it, as far as I know. Nobody Ent 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case I would say that the admonishment as it is proposed is problematic. --John (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So would I. You should be facing far worse. If you cannot maintain clear separation between your wiki-relationships and the need for impartial Admin. accountabilities then you are not to be trusted. Leaky  Caldron  13:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John, per WP:BLOCK: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." You made no attempt to contact the blocking administrator, and you admitted yourself that you unblocked without even hearing his rationale. The way that things should have happened, is that you should have contacted Thumperward on his talkpage, expressed a concern about the block, and then waited for his response. If you disagreed with his response, and several other administrators also disagreed with the rationale, then it still would have been preferable to allow Thumperward to make the call, and reverse the block. If there were clear and substantial consensus that the block was inappropriate, but Thumperward still refused to reverse the block, then and only then it might have been appropriate for someone else to go in and unblock (and Thumperward might be looking at a de-sysop at that point). But there was no opportunity to engage in this process, because you bypassed all steps, and unblocked without a clear community discussion, and without giving Thumperward a chance to respond. There was clearly no urgency to unblock, especially as Malleus hadn't even requested one. --Elonka 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting to have your perspective, Elonka. I would argue though that the "Except in cases of unambiguous error" clause definitely applied here, as we do not block users indefinitely without a rationale and then spend several hours making one up. Anyway, I am still not seeing any attempt to answer my question which suggests the answer is "none". This leaves the admonishment as problematic in my view. --John (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. No, the block was not an unambiguous error. An unambiguous error would be if someone meant to block user Jack235, and accidentally blocked Jack236 instead. Also, Thumperward did not spend "several hours making one up", he was replying immediately and every few minutes after the block. I agree that he should have posted a rationale before the block rather than after, but that's a separate issue. Your rapid action didn't even give him the chance to respond. John, you reversed another administrator's action without even waiting to hear their side of the story. Frankly, John, your reply here is extremely troubling. You still seem to feel that your actions were appropriate, you obviously don't understand what "unambiguous error" means, and you don't even think there's justification for an admonishment? I'm sorry, but this is exactly the wrong stance to be taking at this point. What this is telling me is that you no longer seem to have the necessary good judgment to be an administrator. To be clear: I think it would be best for the project if you resigned your adminship. --Elonka 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, I have made a formal request for John's resignation, at his talkpage. --Elonka 19:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just "formal" but also "official". Wow, Elonka, I am truly honoured. I have nevertheless replied in the negative. --John (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't completely clear to me what "unambiguous error" means: No editor is Moses, after all, and the policy is not exactly fulsome in its explanation. What is clear by now is that Thumperward's block was in error, just as John's unblock was a mistake, but whether these were clear, forseeable or benefit-of-hindsight errors is a matter of opinion, and we've elected a body called Arbcom to make the call on issues like this. Geometry guy 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a followup, John responded to my request that he resign, with a series of personal attacks, including a number of untruths. I responded to his allegations, but he deleted my reply, leaving only the misleading comments. Overall, his conduct was highly inappropriate, and reinforces my belief that John should not be an administrator. --Elonka 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I worry quite a bit that you do not understand how your actions are a classic example of baiting. When you publicly criticize a colleague *who is already being sanctioned for his behaviour* and demand his resignation, why would you classify his analysis of why he does not value your opinion on the matter as a personal attack? By that token, your own comments to him would be a personal attack as well. Please drop the stick. Risker (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By trial and error I have learned the correct way to ask somebody to resign. The key point is to ask before arbitration has spent a lot of time working on the case, and only when the administrator is very likely to be desysopped.  The general formulation is, "What you did was wrong, now do the honorable thing and resign.  This will help repair your reputation and save the community a lot of time and trouble." Once John has been through arbitration and a decision made to admonish or remind, there's no point in asking for a resignation. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding misleading
John does raise a good point -- the finding "John unblocked Malleus Fatuorum while a community review of the block was ongoing. John has recognised that this was an error in judgment." The phrasing implies John has concurred that discussion was ongoing (implying that sufficient consensus had been reached); however in his evidence he says not the Malleus should not have been unblocked, but that he should have let another admin should have do so. Nobody Ent 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thumperward's block was utterly indefensible. John rates praise -not censure- for undoing it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm leaning this way too. John's error and admission of error wasn't that the discussion was ongoing, but rather that his relationship with MF might cast him in a light of being involved.  This finding missing that point.  I think if somebody who had never had involvement were to have made the same unblock, which was defensible if not correct, there would have been no finding.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)  Note: I just reread John's statement, he does not acknowledge that he was wrong to act during the discussion, but rather that his doing so only added to the furvor.  He also states that he believes the initial block was still in err.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John did reference three prior editors who said they considered him involved, which implied to me an apology for unblocking while involved.. Nobody Ent 00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Egzactly, which is a different finding and has different implications than "ongoing." The current finding, would lay a foundation for not acting until all discussion is over.  The later lays the foundation for clarifying the nature of COI.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How involved is "involved"? Can admins only block/unblock editors with whom they have not previously interacted? Surely not, but there is a whole grey area here, and not one, but two, difficult lines to draw: "with the benefit of hindsight" involvement, and "you should have known better" involvement. I place John's unblock firmly in the first category: he unblocked to right an injustice, without appreciating the ramifications of his action. The unblock did not resolve the problem, but made it worse, ultimately, for Malleus in particular. There is no bright-line gaming going on here; merely the after-effects of good faith mistakes. Geometry guy 01:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you make the case, with diffs and references to policy, rather than with earnest prose, that John was not involved?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not making the case that John was not involved; he was. I'm making the case that Thumperward's actions were so egregious that WP:INVOLVED should not apply. John himself likened the block to "deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo" and he was 100% correct. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I can't even make the case with diffs and reference to policy that either you or I were "not involved". You are asking for proof of a negative. Geometry guy 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My point however was that I made no reference in my statement to ongoing discussions, but to the possibility that I would be seen as involved. To cite my statement as supporting the current finding is misleading. The finding should be amended accordingly. --John (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The finding as it stands is erroneous and the Admin. concerned is entitled to have it rectified to reflect the precise nature of the concerns raised in evidence. It should be redrafted to find that he was WP:INVOLVED as a result of a conflict of interest due to his documented close relationship with the editor who he unblocked. In addition there is the matter of breaching the blocking policy, regardless of the COI, by virtue of the undue hastiness of the action and the incorrect claim that a strong consensus existed for the action when there was not. Leaky  Caldron  12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean by "conflict of interest", but WP:COI is about something rather different, and probably shouldn't be linked to in this context. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the close relationship section of COI is appropriate here, not necessarily the whole of the COI guideline. Is that what you meant? Leaky  Caldron  12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED directly references WP:COI. John's unblock was immediately objected to, both on the merits and because of COI.  As had been pointed out by GG, the unblock did Malleus no favors because it inflamed the situation, as people were expecting a Malleus ally to unblock him again.  Meeting that expectation tossed a lit match onto gasoline.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My (small) concern is that WP:COI is more about not letting your outside interests (off-Wikipedia) drive your edits, thus potentially compromising the neutrality or reliability of mainspace. I understand the similarity here (and you referred to the link in WP:INVOLVED), and I see the point that admins should best stay out of conflicts involving those they are friendly with on Wikipedia, but I continue to see this as something different from WP:COI. It's not that important though. ---Sluzzelin  talk  14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what is the definition of a "Malleus ally", then? How about a "Malleus foe"? And since when did "uninvolved" mean "unfamiliar with any of the editors"? Aren't all editors meant to be colleagues? Or is a battleground mentality something to be encouraged/condoned? Geometry guy 20:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (assuming you're addressing me, based on indentation) There is no definition, and it's up to each admin to judge for themselves whether they might be perceived as too close to take action. Or too grudge-bearing, point well taken, we also see the same names popping up wishing to see Malleus or others punished, not just the same names defending them. I was merely trying to distinguish between collegial closeness and outside interests. That I can see the point made above doesn't mean I can define it or codify it or even say it needs to be defined or codified. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Arb response???
I would love for the Arbs to chime in on the above discussion? If the finding of fact is wrong, then the warning/admonishment findings similarly have to be amended. As the finding of fact is based upon John's admission and the criticism of John's actions were for COI and not "while a discussion is ongoing" I think both the Finding and the warning/admonishment have to be revisited. John reiterated above that he disagrees with the finding as it is not what he acknowledged. Especially as we have the clock started to close the case?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * John's admitted he "was wrong to use my admin tools in this situation. I should have waited and/or allowed another administrator to make the unblock". I interpreted this as an acknowledgement of both that he was involved, and that he should have waited for the discussion to come to a clear consensus. (I found WTT's evidence s.3 to be especially accurate.) To me, this case is about civility enforcement generally, rather than about Malleus' conduct in particular, and Malleus' contributions to RFA is simply a sad side-show. The most significant issue is how we (as a community) enforce standards of civility, and whether it is appropriate to allow our administrators to be so trigger-happy in reversing actions which relate to such enforcement. AGK  [•] 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "John unblocked Malleus Fatuorum while a community review of the block was ongoing. John has recognised that this was an error in judgment." As indicated in the original post, I find the sentence misleading: the antecedent of "this" is unclear. It could refer simply to the 'unblock', or it could refer to 'unblock while a community review was ongoing.' It's either a sloppy finding or sloppy writing. "John unblocked Malleus Fatuorum despite prior involvement. John has recongised that this was in an error in judgement." Alternatively "John unblocked Malleus Fatuorum while a community review of the block was ongoing," if that's the more important issue to ArbCom.
 * The crisper the findings, the greater confidence the community will have that Arbcom is executing the admittedly difficult task of sorting through this mess with appropriate diligence.
 * As far as the greater issue of civility enforcement, ArbCom has done nothing except tell us what we already knew: nothing good is going to happen until this community gets its collective civility act together. Again, perhaps inevitable given ArbCom's limited mandate but disappointing nonetheless. (Like maybe give us a hint as to where ya'll think we should go next?) Nobody Ent 17:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, you found WTT's point 3 to be particularly convincing:
 * Whilst the block was inappropriate, it was not "obviously" so and too few editors had commented when John unblocked. John, who had previously promised that he would never block Malleus, should not have been the one to unblock. If Ched Davis deciding not to block based on the "final straw" comment was the first action - John's unblock can be seen as the first point of the wheel war.
 * WTT doesn't mention anything about John's unblocking during the discussion except relative to crossing the hurdle relative to INVOLVED. Neither did Wehwalt nor Leaky Cauldron.  WTT cited Wehwalt; and while Wehwalt argued on the talk page that consensus hadn't formed, his evidence was around the issue of showing that John had a COI.  Together those 3 editor's statements are cited by John in his acknoledgment that he made an error.  John's statement that he should have waited has to be taken in context of those three commeents, which basically said that as an involved admin he needed to wait until there was a clearer consensus.
 * In other words, neither John nor WTT (whose evidence you found "to be especially accurate") cited the problem as acting while discussion was ongoing, but rather that John acted when COI existed. This makes the current wording problematic.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention it because unless the action is completely noncontroversial (this, plainly, was not), you don't use your tools while involved. That trumps all else.  But consensus doesn't form in half an hour, and you can't measure based on that, because the first people to show up will be the blocked editor's talk page stalkers.  As Malleus had not asked for an unblock, there was no urgency about the matter. .  So yeah, there's multiple issues.  And I disagree with Ched over the decision not to block being the first move.  A move only happens, in my view, when an admin puts his bits and reputation on the line by doing an admin action.  After all, there's never an obligation on an admin to use the tools.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And my point was not that John should have waited, it is that he should have allowed someone else to make the call.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is why I think the finding is wrong---"not that John should have wait, it is that he should have allowed someone else to make the call." The emphasis in your evidence, WTT, Leaky Cauldron, and John's statements are all that John should not have made the call because he was involved.  While the 30 minute mark may have become an issue had a truly independent admin acted, that was not the primary bone of contention.  The finding, however, focuses more on the issue of timing rather than INVOLVED.  It incorrectly uses John's acknowledgement of a mistake in judgement to support a finding that John didn't admit to.  The ramifications are completely different, and I think this finding and subsequent proposals are erroneous because they are not what was admitted to or argued.  (Now the admonishment/warning/whatever to John can remain, but get the cause correct.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, with the clock ticking, I'm going to let this go as being pointless unless ArbCom seems to want more discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I might suggest one reason why Arbitrators are content enough with what they have, despite perceived imperfections. Namely, there is a risk here to run foul of a logical fallacy: John's evidence may indeed suggest that he now believes (as an editor with considerable personal integrity, and with the benefit of hindsight) that he was too involved to make the unblock; that is not the same thing as a third party, let alone the Arbitration Committee, declaring that he was involved per WP:INVOLVED. Noone can alter the meaning of a guideline simply by declaring that they broke it!
 * Everyone is entitled to a view as to whether WP:INVOLVED was violated here, but if Arbcom makes such a determination then it applies to every admin on the project henceforth, which could be interpreted to mean that admins are automatically involved in a situation like this if they have a good working relationship with the blocked editor. That would undermine collegiality (a good working relationship should be the default) and is certainly not a determination that can be made lightly, or indeed "per John's evidence". Geometry guy 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also believe in John's integrity and I've regretted seeing him here. I trust this was a one-time error and that he will take lessons learned here to heart.  That's really the point of this sort of unpleasantness, I hope.  Perhaps we can agree on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec: broadly yes, and taken to user talk. Geometry guy 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I don't find that at all satisfactory. What exactly are the lessons to be learned here? Never to have a collegial relationship with another editor, or only not to have one with anyone you think you might want to block or unblock in the future? The ramifications of either of those positions are patently untenable. And even the basic facts of this COI charge don't stand up to scrutiny. John and I have not always been on friendly terms, but we did succeed in burying the hatchet to collaborate on getting one article, Margaret Thatcher, to GA. There is no consensus that I've seen that Hawkeye7 Thumperwards's provocative indefinite block was proper, therefore the right thing to do was to revert it. Why does it matter who does the right thing? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Thumperward, not Hawkeye7, here MF. And I believe John has learned quite a bit from this experience! Geometry guy 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did indeed: corrected that. You may be right that John has learned much from this experience, but I'm sceptical that anyone has learned much of anything at all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@Wehwalt -- regarding "bits on the line" above: there's not a current consensus that only blocking constitutes admin action. In a prior Malleus case Mkativerata considered their statement at ANI as "taking action" and overturned another admin's block stating the block was wheel-warring; a RFAR to determine whether such an interpretation is correct was declined. Therefore actual policy/consensus is ambiguous. Such an interpretation would essentially mean that the default in the case of lack of consensus would be to block. Nobody Ent 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. So after all the heat, work and drama that this case has generated we are really left none the wiser about either civility or the admin enforcement of it. What a terrible waste of time and opportunity. --John (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I made it clear all along that I felt that the current situation left admins in the lurch.  I do not think ArbCom has given admins any helpful guidance in dealing with these very rough situations.  Not good.  Thic case once had some potential.  I could comfortably say that none of the remedies really make too much sense.  @NE, yes, I am aware of that, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I felt that the arbs played it safe.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Agree, and I think the finding RE you is particularly disheartening. I mean if one can admit to X, have all the evidence pointing to X, but convicted of Y using my admission as evidence? It doesn't help.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't get the whole internationalism principle. What relevance has it to this case?  Without a finding of fact tying it to these events, it makes no sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This case never lived up to its billing of "civility enforcement"; it was only ever going to be a lynching party, and that it has proved to be. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A sharper version might be: "This case never lived up to its Civility Enforcement billing; it was only ever going to be a lynching party, and it didn't even do a good job at that!" Geometry guy 23:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt, it means that although "cunt" may be a mild insult in some places, prudence indicates not using it on Wikipedia.
 * @Malleus Lynching?. A bit melodramatic, I'd say.
 * Yes, all that has happend is the big Wikipedia has rotated 360o right back to where we started. Nobody Ent 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7 may have a different view. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Inactive on this case
Please mark me as inactive on this case. I really don't have the time just now to go through it all in detail. Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 07:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreasonable remedy
Editors reminded is not a reasonable remedy. It's unrealistic to think either every editor will read the decision nor that following the closure of the case the clerks are going to put reminder notices on every user's talk page. Of course positing such a notice to the many editors minding their own business would be inappropriate spam. Nobody Ent 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose of the reminder is to serve as a soft switch for rapping the knuckles of editors who misbehave and to set them on a path for potentially greater sanctions should they not "engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion". Read NYB's commentary at the bottom which appears to address your concern. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about editors who are keeping the level of discourse just as good as it was before, without improving it, though? ;P Can't we just have something simple, without the double-negative thing in there? Perhaps "engage in conduct that makes any discussion more confrontational or contentious" ? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vaunting ambition of that phrasing struck me too. How about just "not to engage in conduct that will lower the level of discourse in a discussion"?  Kanguole 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For me (and therefore probably for anyone else anywhere in the region of HFA or its relatives), that would still be too ambiguous. It still leaves the "in whose opinion" thing about what equates to "lowering the level of discourse".  I think anything like this has to be really specific. See this thread for a bit more info on why this is important.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More directly: The run of the mill editor will never see the reminder, so what's the point? Nobody Ent 23:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pesky is right, I was wondering about the wording even before he posted. Perhaps removing the double negative and going to something like "not to engage in conduct disruptive to the ongoing discussion or which lowers the tone below acceptable standards for the development of wiki-consensus"? This would remove the problem of posts which do not raise the tone of an already-polite discussion. It would reiterate the prohibition on disruptive behaviour. "Acceptable standards" is, I recognise, a debatable standard but it leaves the threshhold at the pre-existing level and so does not threaten that editors who never read this reminder could be suddenly blocked by an over-zealous admin deciding that ArbCom has endorsed a new standard. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble with anything which isn't clearly defined is that it's always going to cause problems, just the same as the current situation! "Acceptable standards" isn't clear enough. "Lowering the tone" isn't clear enough. This absolutely has to be really specific and clear.  There's nothing wrong with "Editors are reminded not to engage in conduct that makes any discussion more confrontational or contentious."  That's clear, it's abundantly clear.


 * Here's a parallel for you; I'm teaching you to ride, and I keep saying to you "Your horse isn't sufficiently engaged behind." Now, how much information are you going to get out of that which would actually help you to correct it?  What do you feel if I just keep repeating the same thing, without clarifying it, and then getting angry and dishing out reprimands and punishments if you still don't understand me no matter how many times I say it or tell you  off for not fixing it?  Get these things clear.  Not nebulous, not undefined, not ambiguous, not open to different interpretations.  Clear.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah! Humbug! If you think ArbCom pronouncements like this hold much sway in the community... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, seriously. I appreciate that most editors won;t actually see it in the normal course of events, but at least it's something they can be pointed to.  Which is why it has to be clear.  The immediate problems with my parallel above demonstrate that in order to understand something like "not to engage in conduct disruptive to the ongoing discussion or which lowers the tone below acceptable standards for the development of wiki-consensus" you have to already know what it means.  The riding parallel poses the uninitiated two immediate comprehension problems: "WTF does "engaged behind" mean, and how much of it is "sufficient" anyway?"  The exact same problems are in the current and proposed wording. This needs to be tweaked around so that it's easy for everybody (not just Americans or the WikiInitiated) to understand enough to be able to comply with it.  It will cause problems in the future.  Trust me on this!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DTA? meaning only, to thine own self be true. :) — Ched : ?  09:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry this may seem pedantic, but I'm not sure that the expression "conduct that makes any discussion more confrontational or contentious" is so clear. Isn't 'contending' any line of thinking (in the sense of strive in debate; to engage in discussion; to dispute; to argue) implicitly making a discussion more contentious? And isn't any "support"/"oppose" debate intrinsically confrontational (and any '!vote' contributing to that confrontation)? You may say I'm deliberately missing the point, but I'm not sure that this phrasing is, in Pesky's words, "easy for everybody (not just ... the WikiInitiated) to understand enough to be able to comply with it". Especially in circumstances  where an editor, for whatever reason (eg ), is convinced of the validity of pursuing a certain line of thinking. Part of a wider issue, imo.  MistyMorn (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point; very good point. So, what's the best possible way of wording this one? "Conduct which makes any discussion more aggressive or uncivil", perhaps?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Each editor is reminded that the words that you so eagerly jump on come from another human being, capable of hurt. Consider what you say, and how you would feel if your retort was being said to you. Don't hurt other people or act to drive them away from the project."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sort of approach is good. Imo, The Golden Rule needs to be supplemented by something along the lines of WP:Don't assume. It's important to remind editors/ourselves that they/we never know the full story (however much we may think we do) of the human being behind a nick . MistyMorn (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's very good. It's easy to forget that the person we've just made what we might think is a sharply witty remark to / about may read it differently, and has feelings just like we do. Do as you would be done by, rather than end up being done by as you did. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A limitation of "Do as you would be done by" (in a literal sense) is that you, as an individual, are likely to be different in important ways from the people you're dialoguing with. I guess failing to take into account the potential for such differences (WP:Don't assume) is a significant determinant of editorial conflict. MistyMorn (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, the "reminders" are just ArbCom introducing policy by stealth. Such interpretations should have been restricted to the Principles and Findings of Fact sections. The goal of putting those items in there are for editors to quote them at each other in disputes. The two reminders (6 and 7.1) really should be the subject of a community-wide RfC to either ratify or reject them (or indeed, investigate the propriety of ArbCom attempting to instruct the entire WP community in the first place). At the very most, the reminders should have been to "involved editors" or somesuch. ArbCom says it is reminding "all editors" but it clearly won't be doing so in any meaningful manner. --Surturz (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U missing
I request the committee address the following: Written policy clearly states Requests for comment on user conduct is the main avenue for disputes about user conduct. and yet no RFC/U has ever been filed regarding MF. Nobody Ent 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also the WQA has been mentioned above. It is not a suitable forum for discussion of Malleus's long term editing behavior


 * Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks.


 * The issue is not that MF is unaware of other editor's interpretation of civility standards, it's that he doesn't agree with them. Regular participation in the board is light, and posting of a discussion involving traditionally brings many editors supportive of MF to the board. Nobody Ent 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone sufficiently sick of hearing that such and such is a red link knows how to deal with it. I see no point in discussing it.  We know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why -- if it is true as has been repeatedly asserted 'everyone knows Malleus is incivil' -- no editor did what our written policies say to do. Is RFC/U thought to be broken? If so, how do we fix it? The big picture I'm suggesting is: Where do we, as a community, go from here? block/unblock wheel wars, ANI churn and ArbCom cases are not a good solution. RFC/U is all I've got. Nobody Ent 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the feeling is that people's views on Malleus, pro and con, are fairly intractable, and that both sides exists in sufficient numbers to block any possible consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In a sense, there is always a consensus -- it's just right now the consensus is seemingly ceaseless disruption fretting over it. An RFC/U could wrap the whole discussion in a bow such that, the next time a dramafest begins, we can just direct editors to the summary. Presumably a full length RFC/U would give everyone a chance to have their say. (I don't advocate starting one now -- we should see what the final decision here ends up being.) Nobody Ent 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, after seven or eight weeks of this there's now going to be an RFC/U? Nice! Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. What I was trying to get at is that an RFC/U would have been preferable to the block/unblock/arbcom case declined/block/unblock/block/arbcom case accepted fiasco that has occurred. (Starting with Kaldari block from last October.) RFC/U is our on epaper process for alleged long term borderline disruption. Nobody Ent 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, RFC/U is broken. I could go on at length about why I think that, but this isn't the venue for it. Suffice it to say that if anyone thought another RFC/U on Malleus would have helped anything, they'd have started one. 28bytes (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * another? Was there ever one? Nobody Ent 17:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's astounding. No wonder MF is cynical. He makes a cogent point, and does so cleverly, and the reward is an RFCU which took too long to reach this obvious conclusion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, aside from the 2008 Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum, there was also an attempted RfC at Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum in 2009, brought by . It got comments and endorsements from a couple dozen editors, but was then retracted by the nominator, and deleted as uncertified. --Elonka 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More specifically (for the benefit of non-admins) no one endorsed the filer's complaint, 16 people endorsed Malleus' response, between 10 and 17 people endorsed a number of outside views condemning the RfC, and the filer requested deletion with the edit summary "Please delete this, not filed in good faith or with a clear mind". I don't think I've ever seen a bigger WP:boomerang. As a side note, Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum was only undeleted for the purposes of this case; I presume a clerk will want to redelete it once the case is closed. 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying 28bytes. Have we got to the point now where a bad faith attempt at an RFC/U is to be held against me, as Elonka seems to be implying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)  22:58, February 17, 2012‎
 * Malleus, it's understandable that you may be feeling attacked here, but my comment was meant as neither an attack nor even any kind of implication, but simply a statement of fact. There was a question above from Nobody Ent as to whether or not there had been an RfC on you. 28bytes pointed out one, and I pointed out another. I meant nothing further than that. If I felt that there should be an RfC on your conduct, trust me, I would be very open and straightforward about it, you wouldn't have to guess about what I was or wasn't implying. --Elonka 00:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd venture to hazard a guess that being attacked not infrequently leads to the feeling of being attacked. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it even matter? AFAIK, ArbCom routinely sanctions editors who have never had a RFC/U on them, and requiring one at this point would mean unduing years worth of ArbCom cases.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of... see the evidence page.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in the "finding of facts" space rather than remedies. One goal of an ArbCom decision should be to help provide clarity to the community. Nobody Ent 17:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the question posed at the top of this section. I offer two observations: ArbCom indeed mostly declines to handle requests that haven't followed the DR "chain", but we reserve the right to not let that become a straightjacket., The Committee will accept (and issue remedies in) cases that are "highly divisive amongst the community and administrators". Looking at, for example, MF's log (I'm not commenting on the substance of the blocks, just the fact that they're there and there is much action/reaction etcetera(, is there much doubt that this is a highly divisive issue? We do not want to be so hidebound by rules and traditions that requiring folks to fill out "Form 16/c, "Evidence of Request for Comment" in triplicate, in red ink" is a necessary step to resolving highly divisive issues on Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand the circumstances of the case -- what I'm getting at (apparently not very clearly) is I note the committee has addressed in general terms, e.g. inconsistencies but no mention is made of RFC/U. It's more a request to consider a finding / encouragement / note regarding RFC/U. Nobody Ent 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Sir Fozzie is exactly right on the thought process (and I say this as one who thought an RFC/U should have been done.) The correct meta process is to examine what steps in the DR process have been tried, and not to mindlessly point out missing steps, with an admonition to come back when the paperwork is in order, but to thought-fully decide whether filling in the missing steps has enough chance of success to insist that it take place. I believe the committee considered that, but determined that this case was "ripe".  I think they should continue to have the authority to accept or reject cases as they see fit.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Sir Fozzie,
 * I remain troubled by the reasoning behind the RfA-ban on Malleus. The conclusion (the ban) may be reasonable, and indeed has been informally accepted by Malleus (as not being a problem for him); however, the findings of fact fall short of compelling the action: Risker has commented on "ownership" and on "disruption" [disruptive editing], expanding greatly the meaning of the these terms in WP's current documents, imho. There is enough problem with lesser administrators misusing those terms at ANI without ArbCom setting a precedent expanding the scope of each "ownership" and "disruption" each.
 * Being a committee of arbitration more than a supreme court, ArbCom has the authority  to recommend an RfA ban (perhaps voluntary) without resorting to BS findings about "ownership" or "disruption".
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out on the proposed decision page, there is very little evidence in support of a ban. But something must be seen to be done, and this is something. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Something needs to be done (2) This is something (3) Therefore, this needs to be done is the same logic as (1) A cat has four legs (2) My dog has fdour legs (3) Therefore, my dog is a cat Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, if it doesn't bother you too much, and it keeps others a bit happier, then it can best be considered to be an exercise in trying to calm the waters. I really hope that it doesn't bother you too much; after all, if someone wants to discuss your !vote with you, they're still able to ask on your own talk page. Though perhaps it might be wiser for them not to do so, unless they can come to you with well-reasoned and well-intentioned and well-worded discussion ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The spirit of the ruling is most important. Malleus should be able to respond to questions on an individual RfA's talk pages, so long as he is within civility. An administrator would have to be an especially thick ass to block Malleus for answering a question or providing a good-faith response.
 * That said, Malleus (and I) should probably just write *sigh* rather than recommend that e.g. an administrator go to bed after having failed to understand the distinction between a person and an account, despite 3 patient explanations.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

confusing logic
with a unanimous finding of "11) The civility policy has been the subject of ongoing debate since its creation in 2004, with over 1700 edits to the policy and more than 3400 edits to its talk page. This ongoing debate highlights continuing disagreement on what constitutes incivility, and particularly sanctionable incivility, and makes it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy." it seems very unusual that the Arbs would even consider handing out anything beyond a warning to any of the parties involved.

and considering finding 10 along with 11 are at the very root of this whole mess, it is extremely dissappointing that the Committee has proposed NOTHING to address those concerns. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that concern; but my understanding is that the AC do their best not to "dictate" or "make" policy, but rather to enforce it when it's been breached. I think in this instance it speaks to the understanding that the community as a whole is very divided on the subject, and my guess is that they are simply reflecting that fact.  They basically acknowledge that the lack of consistency exists, but are not in a position to "speak for the community", nor dictate to it, what must be done to move forward in this particular case.  Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  02:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * they accepted the case under the name "Civility enforcement". see you back here in another two months. and another two months. and another two months. (not to mention the cesspool of ANI) until they do. --  The Red Pen of Doom  02:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They did, but obviously the case as it unfolded had very little to do with civility enforcement. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no desire to return here .. but your point is well taken. — Ched : ?  02:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To go along with the spirit that started this Arbitration, I have to say the Committee seems as helpless as a babe in the woods when it comes to creating precedent, unless they get to hear all similar cases. Besides, in the open case on Capitalization, the corresponding policy had seen thousands of edits in just a few months, so I don't know why WP:CIV is considered any worse than the average policy around here. Someone (can't remember exactly who right now) has a quote on their user page saying that policy is like sausage, nobody wants to know how it's made. Having tried my hand at improvements in that area, I have to say that unless one is willing to become a full time politruk, it's difficult to keep up with the torrents of changes and talk page comments over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UPDATE? — Ched : ?  09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to read the ukase quarterly or so, that's fine. But it's hardly useful if you want to participate in the decision making. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of Ochlocracy myself — Ched : ?  09:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeeze, we have such an opportunity to fix so many things here, and it's not being grabbed! What on Earth is the point of so much heartache, effort, emotional trauma and input if we don't make the best possible use of it to actually solve some problems? Other than flag-waving and perceived-vengeful "satisfy the howling mob" statements, I can't see anything in this which is actually going to improve the situation in the future.  Incredibly frustrating.  What a waste. Given a mandate to work really hard, in a focussed way, to clarify things to the point at which they don't "make it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy", we could have done so much more, and brought something good out of this situation.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On the civility, I suspect that they just looked for a stat that would make their point. The fact that it doesn't actually mean anything (how many edits does AN/I get in a year?  Can you draw any conclusions from that?) is deemed not relevant.  If you took that argument a bit further, not even to an extreme, the thousands of edits that Arbitration Committee pages receive in a year prove beyond doubt that the community is torn about its very existence and it would benefit from a good MfD. (arbs would probably disagree).  Personally, I consider the Committee's repeated changing of Thumperward's "offense" to fit the desired reprimand unseemly.  It smacks of the police officer leafing through the lawbook looking for something to keep the guy he's steamed at in jail.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about that either. It seems to be a case of "if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then make the stated crime fit the punishment." Possibly unintentionally.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sentence first, verdict afterwards?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it improves morale! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) I think had the patent for a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on Cardassia the guaranteed guilty verdict was claimed to be for the benefit of the public, to uphold their confidence in the Cardassian justice system. (The sentence varied though.) Minor plot variation, I suppose. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Details, details. Probably the difference in procedure wouldn't even be worth discussing in a top-level article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How about Miscarriage of justice or Court of Appeal of England and Wales? I'm sure there'd be room for it somewhere there ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Next steps?
given "11) The civility policy has been the subject of ongoing debate since its creation in 2004, with over 1700 edits to the policy and more than 3400 edits to its talk page. This ongoing debate highlights continuing disagreement on what constitutes incivility, and particularly sanctionable incivility, and makes it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy." and "that the AC do their best not to "dictate" or "make" policy, but rather to enforce it when it's been breached. " it appears that the next step would be for the community to conduct some sort of RfC on WP:CIV? --  The Red Pen of Doom  00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That would indeed seem sensible, with as wide a representation of editors as possible, and none of the canvassing objections we see all too often in an attempt to keep things secret. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we possibly have an attempt, maybe in a sandbox, for a smallish and focussed team to word the darned thing so that it has no ambiguities at all? So that everyone can see clearly what it means?  And then have an RfC on whether that version is better?  Would that cut a lot of corners and save a lot of time?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask, and you shall receive. Help yourselves folks - I'd love to see it. — Ched :  ?  11:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've just started some thoughts of my own! I'll move them across ... <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else want to join in, before I've written a complete novel? ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The civility policy Wikipedia ought to have doesn't need a novel; it needs three short paragraphs:
 * ''"Wikipedia's editors are expected to avoid, unless necessary for editorial reasons, the use of language which can be reasonably expected to offend a significant number of Wikipedia's readers. Wikipedia's editors are also expected to avoid the use of language which can reasonably be construed as belittling another user, unless such language is necessary for editorial reasons (e.g. warning an editor who is repeatedly introducing serious errors and refuses to accept reasonable explanations as to why their changes are inappropriate). Once an editor has had it drawn to their attention that another editor considers their conduct unacceptable, that editor should either cease the behavior in question or explain to the complaining editor why they consider the conduct reasonable; if the editors are unable to agree on what constitutes reasonable conduct, wider community input should be requested to determine consensus on the issue. If an editor continues unnecessarily to use language which has been determined to be offensive to significant numbers of Wikipedia's readers, or which is widely considered to constitute the unnecessary belittling of another Wikipedia editor, sanctions may be imposed upon the editor in question.


 * ''Likewise, if an editor repeatedly accuses another editor of inappropriate conduct after such conduct has been deemed appropriate by the broader community, and continues to make such accusations after the fact of it being considered acceptable has been drawn to their attention, sanctions may be imposed to prevent the editor in question from continuing to make vexatious complaints.


 * ''Other than in exceptional cases in which a given editor's continued activity has a realistic potential to cause serious damage to the English language Wikipedia or serious damage to public perception of the English language Wikipedia, blocks and other sanctions will not be applied for breaches of this policy, both in the case of users using language considered to be uncivil and in the case of users considered to be making vexatious complaints, prior to community discussion about the appropriateness of such sanctions."
 * Verbose, but I can't see an easy way to avoid the Bradspeak without losing clarity, and clarity is necessary if you people want to avoid another case like this. – iridescent  16:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked that a bit on Ched's page, just for simplification. I always think that if we can write policy stuff in a way that a bright twelve-year-old can easily understand it, that's always better. It doesn't actually stop everyone else from understanding it as well, and it means the maximum possible number of readers-of-it won't need any bits of it clarified. Please note: I'm not saying we should be going out of our way to encourage twelve-year-olds to edit, all I'm saying is that the easier the language is to understand, the better for everyone. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

New proposal concerning "Editors reminded" - please check
In response to the (justified) concerns that the meaning of the "Editors reminded" (neé "Editors warned") remedy could be extended to a ridiculous outcome, a remedy 7.1) has been proposed. The parties and observing members of the community are invited to review the proposal and post their views here. Your continued attention in this matter is most appreciated. Thanks, AGK  [•] 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. The revised wording makes more sense to me. Geometry guy 01:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. While I am in a pedantic mood/mode, note that "can prevent" also has the perverse interpretation that Arbcom is permitting such behaviors for the purpose of preventing the formation of consensus. Would "obstruct" be clearer? Geometry guy 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of the proposed remedy is fine. Though, finicky is it,  ...that  leads to a breakdown in discussion that obstructs the formation... and ...Blocks or other restrictions will be used to address...!!  Support:nbg  NewbyG  ( talk) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly surprised to see such angst over one of these 'editors reminded' statements. They serve very little purpose, other than as suggestions by ArbCom as to how the community should be acting. Most of the editing community quite rightly ignore the arbitration pages or are unaware of them. Arbitration is much better at dealing with specifics instances of malcontents or groups of malcontents, than it is at setting the tone and agenda for the editing community. In my experience, general reminders like this very rarely achieve anything, unless you think of them as being aimed at the smaller group of editors participating in and commenting on this case. The way ArbCom cases have lasting effects on the general community is if someone takes the initiative and starts a discussion to change the wording of the relevant policies. What shouldn't happen is people taking this wording and quoting it to people they think are lowering the level of discourse. That would be citing ArbCom instead of policy and guidelines. If someone is lowering the level of discourse, just tell them that straight out (maybe on their talk page). About the only real use of this remedy that I can see is if any of the participants to this case end up back here, then further sanctions could be justified if it was shown that they failed to heed the reminder, which applies to them as much as anyone else. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Angst serves very little purpose the community should and does ignore in the main  miscreants or groups of malcontents,   quite rightly.  Block  Revert Ignore.
 * As to how the community should be acting, most of the editing community are prepared to act quite rightly also. Perhaps the smaller group of editors participating in and commenting on thes cases  rarely achieve very much, in guiding as to how the community should be acting. Perhaps the smaller group of editors starting discussions to change the wording of the relevant policies achieve something.
 * Hasten slowly. Listen! We don’t want these things to boomerang on  us. ng  NewbyG  ( talk) 08:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely much, much better. And it's so nice to see that the Arbs do actually listen to us on t hings like this!  And its purpose, really, is best seen as being "something that editors can be given a link / diff to", as and when required.  It doesn't matter if they don't see it when it first appears, so long as it's right. I'm inordinately pleased that there has been such a big improvement on the wording of this.  (>**)> hugzies to all the Arbs  thank you! I was fretting ... lol!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that pointing other editors to this remedy will actually help, unless done very diplomatically. It contains wording about blocks, for example, so some editors will understandably interpret being pointed to this remedy as an implicit blocking threat. Also, there is no corresponding enforcement section, so it is not possible to take 'action' under this remedy (in the sense of logging it at the case page), unless admins take action outside of this case (while still referring to it). To me, it reads like a blank cheque for admins who would like to do so to set up as 'discussion moderators', which may not be what was intended (though possibly this is what was intended). In reality, such change should come about through discussion at policy and guideline pages. My recommendation would be, if you see someone disrupting a discussion, or lowering the tone of discourse, is to raise it with them either in that discussion, or on their talk page, but to not refer to this arbitration case until you've seen their initial response. Refer to existing policy first, and only then to arbitration principles/findings/remedies later if needed. The key thing is to get the original discussion back on track or kept on track, not to let things get sidetracked into a discussion about the tone of the discussion. It is vital to keep the two separated, otherwise you just add to the disruption (or are creating it in the eyes of those who see no disruption in the first place). I really hope the easy prediction that it will be participants in this case who are first pointed to this reminder doesn't come true. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! Yes, nothing is ever going to be "perfect", but the closer we can get to it, the better. And then the definition of "perfect" changes!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but sadly I think this distracts from the substantive points of the case. See the last sentences in my comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * later To put it in perspective, the remedies etc which are carrying, all of them, are examplary for those involved exemplary in process, if longishly-winded. *I* make no comment on any user here. Just in passing, Humor can defuse a situation, or derail it. But not, helpfully, impede. Sometimes an essay is just an  essay wantings]] to be a guideline. Remove the clause "regardless of permission level" if it matters. Removed myself, edit conflict NBg do not edit war, hehe, arrivederci  NewbyG  ( talk) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the wording in detail, it is still not great. I dislike the clause "regardless of permission level" - that should be a given and it is sad that such caveats have to be inserted ('All users' is sufficient). Policies apply to everyone, and statements like this imply that there are cases where those with 'permissions' get special consideration, which should not be the case. And the very phrase 'permission levels' is clunky. I presume it refers to all those with any permission level switched on in the database, but the language here risks confusion. I would remove "regardless of permission level" and also change "prevent" to "impede". But I know how voting on arbitration cases works. It is unlikely that a third iteration of this remedy will be put forth for voting, and just repeat that these 'editors reminded' remedies rarely achieve anything (can anyone point to any previous remedy of this nature that actually achieved anything?). It would be better to close the case, or focus on the objections raised to the remedies that have actual consequences (see Newyorkbrad's objection to Hawkeye's desysopping and the objection in the finding against Malleus regarding RFA). Otherwise the case is being dragged out by quibbling over a generalised remedy that has no teeth, or will be misused (the bit about disruption of consensus is more properly a principle). Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think the reference to permissions is useful and necessary. (Unfortunate in the sense that it shouldn't be necessary.) Some admin treat the sysop bit like a mop and some treat it like a sceptre -- how many Rfas make reference to "promotion"?  Nobody Ent 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very, very true. Maybe we should start to work on a slightly different vocabulary, to change the way adminship is perceived?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole "mop" view on administration (and not merely adminship and admin tools) seems to receive more lip-service than genuine buy-in from the community as a whole, and admins in particular. But that is what it is, and how it should be regarded. Just as in real life, it is good to know there is a mop in the cupboard (and a plunger under the sink, and a fire blanket near the cooker). It is even nicer to know that it is a new improved Acme mop that makes cleaning up easier than ever (and also that there is fire extinguisher in the hall). Does that lead to enthusiasm for mopping floors, or having fires to put out? No, it's either a drudge or a stress. Geometry guy 22:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The stress aspect is possibly the main reason why I never want to be an admin. Why volunteer to go around cleaning up messes? Not to mention the fact that one (apparently) has to go through purgatory to be allowed to ... if Real Life interviews for janitors and bin-men were like that, we wouldn't have any at all. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting of 7.1
This proposal 7.1) "Users in general, regardless of permission level, are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole." benefits from copy-editing and correction: Also sprach Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Replace "Users in general, regardless of permission level," with "All users".
 * 2) Replace "are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse" with "should constructively write rather than disruptively write".
 * 3) Delete "Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other".
 * 4) Replace "that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus" with "hinders the valid formation of consensus". (Explanation of word choice: Reasoning can be valid, but being a proposition a conclusion cannot be valid)
 * 5) Replace "Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature" with "Administrative restrictions such as blocks can address repeated or particularly severe incivility that constitutes disruptive editing."
 * 6) Delete the ghastly ", in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole".

Humour has a-a place

 * "All users, without exception" would be better than current wording, but, as you say, the simple "all users" is sufficient. I see your points here clearly (I think, regardless of morphine levels!), but as we have an opportunity to get things as good as humanly possible before they're set in stone, we should try and do that.  Little bits of minor tweaking shouldn;t need a third iteration, just a bit of tweak would do.  It wouldn't change the meaning. I do like the "misplaced humour, as opposed to just any old humour, thing.  Sometimes humour can completely defuse a situation; having everyone falling about laughing for a few minutes can do so much to clear the air, I've always found.  In point of fact, I really think that it was my own bit of well-placed humour which defused the actual trigger-incident here.  Not that I'm biased, or anything ... ;P But forcibly-applied granny-hugs, with the ultimate sanction of suffocation-by-cleavage as an option, stopped the whole thread in its tracks.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Humour has its place, but it's not always appropriate. No-one should really need more than three 'tones' of voices to use on Wikipedia: (1) Impersonal, professional tone (mainly while editing, and on article talk pages; I'm also a strong advocate of adopting this in edit summaries where emotion and meta-commentary is best avoided, and I imagine the 'audience' here being the readers and critics of the articles); (2) More expansive, discussion tone (for more involved talk page discussions and project discussions where something more like a debating style can be needed - the audience here is one's fellow editors, though it is important to avoid rhetoric which should be reserved for essays); (3) Personal tone (being human, for use when making contact with other editors, mainly for use on user talk pages with editors you know or are familiar with). I'd only use humour in the latter situation. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's two more tones which may conceivably be intoned on occasionally, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_humor&action=edit $
 * One might perchance attempt umm humour on project pages in Category:Wikipedia humor,; on the other hand, that may be dodgy;: not as dodgy as trying to invest humor on a Wikipedia talk:Humor is for consenting adults talk page, ask your mother. How about  Wikipedia Cabal decrees‎ ?  NewbyG  ( talk) 12:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_humor&action=edit NewbyG  ( talk) 12:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In many cases, I'd agree with that, but "defusing humour" can work. Having been a professional instructor, supervisor, yard manager, parent, and grandparent (as well as a heap of other things), I've generally found that getting opponents to wander back into their corners snurfling and giggling (see Displacement activity) has much better long-term outcomes than sending them back to their corners, sulking.  Communal snurfling lessens the possibility of longer-term grudge-bearing. Adding: some of the most ultra-professional environments have humour oozing out of their corners, once one's "in", but there's always care not to let it appear where people don;t necessarily understand it.  F'rexample, I've spent so much time in hospitals (ultra-professional places), as a patient, but as a patient who's developed a load of useful rapport with my surgeons and so on, and hospitals are absolutely chock-full of humour between the professionals themselves, and, when they know the patient, between professionals and patients.  My hospital experiences would be so much more stressful without the communal-giggles experiences I've shared with many medics in my time. Humour, in some situations, is just another coping mechanism.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Pesky, "defusing" humour is easily misinterpreted when it is conveyed in writing, and should not be used. Many people on the receiving end of such humour believe that their concerns are being belittled. This seems to be a classic example of "my humour is appreciated, yours can be out of place, theirs is inappropriate."  Risker (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I didn't explain it well. Without humour, I'd find it almost impossible to cope with Wikipedia. Sometimes the only thing that keeps me going is the funny stuff; I didn't mean snarky, sarcastic, insulting, demeaning humour, I meant "genuine fun", or a way of just taking the unpleasant edges off things. If humour has to go out of the door, it's likely that I'll be following it very shortly afterwards. I'm sure you didn't mean it harshly, but that's actually made me cry, <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't take any of this too seriously Pesky. I don't, and I won't be changing whatever happens here. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. All of the examples above are limited in time and space -- spoken comments fade from memory and are heard by only those present. Wikipedia contributions last indefinitely and may be viewed by pretty much anybody. Humor is very culturally dependent; while it can be used effectively in user talk space among editors who are familiar with each other, beyond that it can go wrong very quickly. It's also fine and frequently amusing in the humor essays, which focus on overall trends rather than specific editors or circumstances. It certainly should never be used in the context of sanctioning editors. Nobody Ent 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is, "humour" on WP seems more oftne than not an excuse for breaking wp:CIVIL and trying to get away with it by saying they were trying to be funny, I've seen it used to defend some pretty horrible behaviour before like this (mainly referring to the other user there than the owner of the page): (and then we have stuff like this:)


 * ... It's a sick culture for Wikipedia to have. Administrators are largely more mature the process seeming to act as a kind of sanity check, even if some let it go to their heads naturally of course, but by and large it is not administrators who are the problem these days - there is a kind of manchild/playground internet culture that dominates and makes most "normal" people feel unwelcome(despite it being a cracked article, if you scroll down there's some interesting statistics there about participation rates on websites)(CTRL+F to "locker room" in that one) - as a culture, it largely resembles sociopathy, there is very little people that go around spreading wp:WikiLove and it's sad. Emperor made some damn good points about antisocial behaviour on Wikipedia:  and Jimbo himself has actually said a bunch of stuff on the subject too afterwards.


 * This is a serious, wider, issue, and if you look at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_96 I left some links near the bottom of that discussion to some of the ongoing debates on reforming the discussion pages. I think a lot of it is the system you have now, and there's been discussion on Jimbo's page recently about improving that too, which I think would be a big positive step forward. But there's so much technically that you need to do if you want to stop turning off all the good, productive, meel people or starting conflicts rather than trying to reason with people so that hate breeds hate endlessly until people get banned. That seems to happen a lot, the mediation cabals etc all seem fairly useless, I remember when I mailed some asking for advice I got accused of canvassing... It's just culturally barren, and any new initiatives seem to get settled in by people who naturally gravitate towards positions with titles for the sake of getting some kind of status from it. The Wikimedia Foundation needs to step in themselves if they ever want Wikipedia to be a welcoming environment for the majority of people.


 * I wish I had all the answers, but I don't. Those discussions I linked on Jimmy's page about administrators talking about reform (including Manning Bartlett who is perhaps longest serving oldest administrator still around other than Vibber) though! -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Statement-of-the-obvious time, but if you don't like "people being rude and defending it by saying they were trying to be funny" you might want to take a long hard look at some of the contributors to your own website. After that, you might want to take an even longer, harder look at the administrators of your own website, who when it comes to the "I can say anything I like but if anyone talks back to me they're banned" schtick could teach even Wikipedia admins (who at least try to maintain a facade of fairness) a thing or two. 188.28.145.234 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo! That's why I call it Weekly Reader. P.S. The user in question AGAIN claims that any criticism of the WR website is a "personal attack", while apparently reserving the right (both there and here) to UNREMITTING personal attacks against others. I AM FED UP. This user Kyle needs to be sent packing ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, I'm this close to designing an edit filter that prevents you from posting the words "Weekly Reader" anyplace on Wikipedia. Miss Selina, stop removing Bugs' comments. They're unhelpful but they're not personal attacks, as has been explained before. Wikipedia Review is not a person. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference is, Wikipedia Review isn't a site trying to build an encyclopaedia, and we try to be more free speech because of that (if you've had some kind of problem on Wikipedia Review then send a PM there). Wikipedia should not be a like a locker room (as per the sue gardner link), the term relevant here is professional working environment.


 * P.S. this shouldn't be taken as disapproving of humour in general But in serious discussions more often than not it's just used as an excuse for trolling while pretending to stay civil, as has been pointed out by admins in the discussions linked -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh! And stub my toe NewbyG  ( talk) 18:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wikipedia has a page seemingly dedicated to mocking people who report harassment is just sad.(Azy Barak, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology) (Female-Name Chat Users Get 25 Times More Malicious Messages - A study by the University of Maryland's A. James Clark School of Engineering)(Social and Technical Means for Fighting On-Line Harassment. Ellen Spertus, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Mills College, Oakland, California and a senior research scientist at Google) ... It's good that you guys can have a laugh about it though. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  18:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Humour is like any other tool or item. It can be used, or it can be mis-used.  Personally, I use my tree-felling axe for woodland work rather than for beheading people, and my power-drill for drilling holes in timber and walls rather than in kneecaps and eyeballs.  We can't ban humour just because some people misuse it.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes he can! MistyMorn (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing link
The decision really needs to link to User:Geogre/Comic. Jehochman Talk 10:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

core issue
We're not really addressing the core issue as far as the admin action: Thumperward & John & Hawkeye all pooched things up because they acted without a clear community consensus. The self-confidence of knowing what is best outweighed the humility of going to the community for consensus prior to action. This is hardly surprising and not indicative of a lack of good faith on their part: we provide mixed messages to admins. On one hand we encourage them in some cases to act quickly and without hesitation and in other cases accusing them of being too autocratic. Our models of adminship are contradictory: we jokingly call the sysop bit "a mop" and have "no big deal" on WP:ADMIN; but we make editors pass through the Rfa gaunlet to get the bit in the first place and congratulate them on their "promotion." (Can you imagine a top performer in any industry being told: "Congratulations! You've received a promotion -- you don't get any more pay but now you're allowed to mop the break room floor!")

There was no civility emergency at the time of the first block. The fact that MF's chronic behavior was a subject of discussion and concern was hardly knews -- I wrote this essay a month before the 21 December incident. Likewise there was no emergency or urgency at all for the unblock and reblock.

We need to state unequivocally: 'We trust admins to use the sysop tools wisely to enforce the will of the community'', not what their individual judgement believes is appropriate. In those many cases where the community will is obvious and long established, we do trust and appreciate quick action without discussion -- vandals, 3rr, page protection. In non-emergency situations, consensus must be sought before taking action.''' Nobody Ent 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at Malleus's case, a pre-block discussion would probably not have yielded any result. It would have been a drama magnet, have turned into the usual noticeboard chaos, and then even if a consensus did emerge that his language was inappropriate, it probably would have taken days, at which point people would be saying, "The issue is stale, a block isn't appropriate so long after the fact." Better is for civility blocks to happen as close as possible to the actual incident. Anything older than 8 hours or so, probably is never going to get consensus for a block. --Elonka 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nobody. What would constitute a civility emergency? Civility is a pillar and it is not sufficiently respected or defended. You suggest that it requires a consensus to mandate a block. How would that have worked in this case do you suppose? Certain content editors have a loyal following of sycophants, including some admins., - WP:FANCLUB - who purposefully act as a group of flying pickets and prevent any meaningful debate by using filibustering tactics. A block for civility on such an editor would therefore never be carried out and such inaction would therefore lead to an even greater impression that certain editors are untouchable when it comes to civility breaches. Leaky  Caldron  17:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Elonka. Actually there was a conversation: link.  Sadly though, all to often when people try to talk to each other here - we get the "This is not a social network" cliche ... oh well.  Now we're here, we all got the t-shirt, and we try to do better on an individual basis.  as always .. IMHO. — Ched :  ?  19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, with the not-facebook thing, one of the things that's missed is that a reasonable degree of socialising forms bonds. If we get to "know" other editors better, we can (usually) work out better how to communicate with them, understand them a bit better, and they become that bit less anonymous.  A bit of "social" interaction greases the wheels of communication and collaboration; it makes us less likely to make snap judgments about people based on incorrect assumptions.  Sometimes knowing the person behind the nickname gives us a bit more patience with them.  Most "first impressions" online are wrong, some only slightly wrong, some very, very wrong. Having just a bit more insight into who a person is, underneath the anonymous nick, helps us.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with that evaluation. Although I would not initiate a discussion for the sake of socialising, I will be social and I have had non-Wikipedia conversations with people once an issue is resolved. It's generally not appropriate when the issue is still being discussed, not is it really appropriate on the main message boards (I won't strike up conversation at ANI), but when editors are collaborating, general conversation can often sustain editing discourse. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Implementation notes copyedit needed (remedy 3.1)
The chart currently says that remedy 3.1 "Has fewer support votes than 3". This is no longer the case, AFAICT. — Rich wales 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost scoops
Who knew? Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Arbitration report says "Civility enforcement closed", but doesn't look like that here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SandyGeorgia! Just wanted to note that since four net votes on the motion to close was reached about 24 hours ago, I just decided to go ahead and announce that it was to be closed. It will likely be formally closed within the next few hours. :) Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's called making the news, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Sandy's term. Lord Roem (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better it was announced on the Signpost's Twitter as "closure on civility", which strikes me as rather optimistic. the wub "?!"  01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tongue firmly in cheek on that one, well spotted.  Skomorokh   01:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not the guy who ESPN just fired over the Lin headline?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)