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

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

Arbcom have a mandate to create a radical solution
At the request stage, this case attracted scores of statements underscoring the importance of civility, with many requesting that Arbcom provide a solution to the general problem of civility enforcement.

Perhaps in this case an effective solution may need to go beyond just issuing rulings; an option may be for Arbcom to initiate some sort of institutional change? Such as setting up some sort of civility board that could review contentious civility blocks, and perhaps also authorise requests for new ones?

A big issue seems to be that views are so divergent there is little hope of folk converging on common ground, let alone forming real concensus. If the civility board is appointed by arbcom, and later perhaps selected by random invitation to active editors for limited terms, then it could likely avoid being composed just by those with the strongest views from both sides. A civility board could maybe judge individual cases based on principles similar to those on offer at User:Bwilkins/Essays/OnCivility.

On the main workshop page Jehochman is maybe going too far in cautioning against blocks, which probably have an important role to play in civility enforcement. But we should avoid swinging too far in the other direction for some of the reasons he stated and a sizeable section of the community seems to want a tolerant approach to civility enforcement. We have quite a few excellent content creators who seem to have artistic temperments, not least MF himself, and if allowances arent made we wont retain them which will be a great loss. Also, many find editing stressful and cussing can be an effective way to release the stress – if folk cant cuss on Wiki they might internalize the stress as ill health, take it out on their families, or release it on Wiki as passive aggression. Maybe leeway could be granted for provocation with blocks only given for severe transgressions as per current policy, with the escalator stopping at a max of 1 week. Not sure if this is a good idea which is why Im not proposing it on the main page, just putting this out there as an example of the sort of radical solution Arbcom could come up with. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FeydHuxtable, ArbCom does not have a mandate to declare new policy by fiat, and I suspect them doing so would produce a strong community response - and I'd suggest that they know that claiming such a mandate would be controversial (to say the least). As for the high level of interest in this case, there are supporters and opponents of Malleus, there are editors concerned about vested contributor issues, there are editors who want stricter civility enforcement, and there are editors who are concerned that such an outcome would empower civil POV-pushers whose agenda is to slant the content in the encyclopedia (PS: not an exhaustive list).  There are a lot of agendas at work here, and the basic issues of whether to desysop Hawkeye7 for wheel warring and poor judgement such that he can't be trusted with the tools and what sanction Malleus is facing are the easy issues.  I don't envy ArbCom in negotiating the minefield of other issues here but I suggest that deciding to write new policy would be throwing away the map and trying running randomly through the minefield - likely to lead to a big bang and a lot of mess...  EdChem (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Youre likely correct on all points. There's no need for arbcom to create a new policy. Our existing civility policy seems to be broadly accepted – the problem lies in how its implemented. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A civility noticeboard???? Nooooooooo.--Scott Mac 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should probably report that to the WP:NPN. Back to business, I think we need a pragmatic decision that advises administrators to use good judgment: don't respond to lesser Incivility with blocks because that will cause more trouble than it solves.  For greater incivility, start an RFC, then get the sucker banned if they refuse to shape up.  We don't get wheel warring over bans.  When the problem is very subjective, like civility, bans work better than blocks.  Jehochman Talk 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to your edit summary, the reason no one wheel wars over bans is that they're imposed by a group that in theory is supposed to represent the community. Short blocks authorised by a representative group would probably be respected even by maverick admins. But maybe as you say bans should be on the table too.
 * The recent RfC/Us Ive taken part in have often been marred with excessive muck raking, seem most unpleasant for the subject, and don't seem to have brought about much progress towards consensus. An issue with crude RfC/Us for civility is that theyd likely be mobbed by the same anti enforcement crowd that has ANI locked down.


 * The Colonel, Gruban, Buster7 and others have given convincing evidence that gross incivility is harmful to the projects goals of attracting diverse new editors. Also that conflict-adverse people find aggression chilling and often dont speak up. If we respect this viewpoint, we ought to have safeguards to prevent the pushy anti enforcement crew dominating the discussions. So if RfC/Us are part of the solution, commentators should perhaps be restricted to those randomly invited by a bot. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend that next time a group of editors turns an RFC into a mess, the matter be submitted to arbitration as a behavioral issue, and let's see what happens after a few of the most disruptive editors get sanctioned. (You're also welcome to ask my help in removing any disruptive editors from the venue.) ArbCom does not have much tolerance for editors disrupting our dispute resolution processes.  No process by itself can compensate for lack of good faith or poor judgment.  As Carcharoth said in the Workshop, there should have been an RFC on Malleus, and it should have been done properly.  "The process is broken" is a reason to fix the process, not to bypass it. Civility is a slippery subject; best to act as a group, rather than an individual, when placing a civility sanction. That's why I think bans are a better way to go than blocks. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An RFC bogs everything down in unnecessary process. A simpler and more workable solution, where the incivility is acute and specific, is for administrators to simply make blocks when warranted.  Other admins and critics who make a mess of the process are either facilitating trouble, or making trouble themselves, and can be dealt with as needed.  Once editors get the message things will likely quiet down.  That's how it works most places in life, people learn the bounds of acceptable behavior.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Which comment earns me a block? And can you honestly say each of the current 1300 administrators would draw the line in the same spot? The problem is everyone agrees that we should be civil, but no one agrees what that means. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Some people are dishonest.
 * 2) Some admins are dishonest.
 * 3) Some admins are dishonest fools.
 * 4) Some admins act like dishonest fools.
 * 5) Some admins are dishonest wankers.
 * 6) Some admins act like dishonest wankers.
 * 7) Some admins are dishonest dicks.
 * 8) Some admins act like dishonest dicks.
 * 9) Some editors are koalas.
 * 10) Some admins are dishonest cunts.
 * 11) Some admins act like dishonest cunts.
 * That there are grey areas doesn't mean that we abandon the idea of enforcing civility. A lot of human interaction can only be subjectively assessed, that does not mean we abandon assessing it because we can't reduce it to some arithmetical formula. When is an editor with an obvious point of view a disruptive POV pusher? Well, there might be different judgement calls on that too. Shall we stop discipling people for POV pushing? No. Here's a though: if you repeatedly choose to comment on another editors (or groups of editors), not by criticising their actions, but by labelling them with invective, you are choosing to engage in unnecessary activity that some will find blockworthy. If you don't want to run that risk, don't do it.--Scott Mac 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. - BorisG (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Individual admins making blocks is only one tool in the remedies available to the Wikipedia community. An inability to answer my questions above implies that for administrators to simply make blocks when warranted is too crude a tool for complex situations where the consensus pillar is no less important than the civility one. Saying that I don't use my hammer to fix my watch does not imply I don't care about what time it is.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my inability was due to my battery running down, not lack of interest in addressing the point :) Annotating the lexicon of vulgar epithets with blockability values isn't terribly pertinent to this case, because wherever one can draw a line Malleus crossed it.  For what it's worth "cunt" is unique among the list of examples above because: (1) it is widely considered the most offensive commonly used word in the language, (2) it is the only one generally considered sexist, notwithstanding any formal arguments equating the various terms describing male, female, or universal body parts and sexuality, (3) the harm occurs whether used against a single person, a group, or in the abstract, and (4) in a community having trouble attracting the participation of women, things that promote a sexist environment are particularly problematic.  If one were to array each of the insults on a step, there's plenty of separation between a "cunt"-level insult and the next level down.  Nevertheless, if Malleus hadn't pushed this particular button he would have pushed another.  He's quite resourceful in offending people with or without using bad words. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears just to be unsupported assertions. How about "pussy" -- is that sexist? How do you know cunt is more offensive than n-word?
 * "if Malleus hadn't pushed this particular button he would have pushed another" -- please help interpret the gist of your paragraph as other than "block Malleus because he's Malleus"
 * Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91
 * Note wikimedia sister projects Wiktionary ("in UK or Ireland, more usually a man") and Wikiquote both support MFs explanation of the non-sexist usage of the term.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My numbered assertions are supported by the sources I linked to on the evidence page, save for the last one, which is a statement of opinion based on approaches that workplaces and academic groups have taken to deal with sexual discrimination. I did not research "pussy" so I don't know if it's generally considered sexist.  I did not say above that "cunt" is more offensive than "nigger" but all the sources I read (some cited in my evidence) said it was.  Again, ranking words in the abstract is besides the point and pretty useless without context.  What I'm saying is pretty obvious, so please don't make straw man arguments out of them.  If this must be explained, it's been clearly established that Malleus acted uncivilly in calling people cunts.  Claiming otherwise takes us to face-palm territory.  Malleus' incivility this time happened to involve a sexist invective.  Other times it's something else.  Once one accepts that he acted uncivilly, the exact method of being uncivil is not terribly germane.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: it probably will never lead to consensus to try to decide exactly what is or isn't civil. Instead, I think it is productive to examine, in context, whether an editor could reasonably be expected to have known that other users would consider the post to be uncivil. Anyone can innocently make a one-off slip without having meant to cause offense. However, there are times when it is pretty obvious that someone had a choice of what to say, and knew from experience (or certainly should have known from experience!) that others would react the way that they did. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more emphatic and say that the editor, any editor, always has a choice of what to say, how to respond. Nothing is blurted out here; we deal in the written word. Each of us chooses what to write. Idea: rather than ban or block or admonish Editor Fatoreum, maybe he should be given a "count to 10" option in addition to Save and Show.--Buster Seven   Talk  16:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does Malleus have to be the first editor to stop (periodically) acting like a jerk? Given that accepting a sysop bit is supposed include Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another, shouldn't they go first? Nobody Ent 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon - those sources you quoted; what proportions of what English-speaking populations did they cover? Did they lump all English-speaking peoples in together? Was each nationality given its own results sheet? If so, what were the differences in those results sheets? If numbers were given for "serious objectors", were they split into percentages of survey responders in different geographical areas? Were the samples representative of their individual communities? Exactly how impeccable are their results in an across-the-board and geographically-slanted terms? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are parodying something? Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps unintentionally. Jehochman Talk 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly unintentionally; I apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. I was trying to ascertain whether the studies showed differing trends and views across all the individual English-speaking groups (including nationalities and sub-groups), or whether some or all of them were lumped together in the study, and how many different groups had been studied, etc., and what weighting (if any) had been given to different groups. Ah, and also how were differing numbers of populations accounted for (if they were) - were they comparing per-capita or total numbers, for example. Umm, and how scientifically scrupulous was the choosing-of-samples?  Stuff like that.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, an expert scientific statistician would be able to word this far, far better than I can, and also give the reasons why these questions are important. Do we have such-a-one on board here?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh - only just noticed, according to one of those sources we may have to get rid of WP:SPADE: "Many do not know this word; very offensive racial abuse to those who do know (Africans/African-Caribbeans)"  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the word "spade" can be offensive. Context is the key discriminating factor. While one can, and rightfully should be free to call a shovel a spade, a cigarette a fag, or a saltine a cracker, when the context directs these terms at people the argument that it was intended to refer to them as a shovel, cigarette, or saltine is whitewash and should never justify their use as an invective. My76Strat (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hugz to My76Strat: nonononono! A shovel has upturned edges, and is used for scooping up substances from a relatively smooth area, whereas a spade is flat in profile, and is used for digging! Anyone who's ever tried to use a shovel for digging, or a spade for scooping, will appreciate the huge difference between the two! (and no, I'm not being pernickety, I'm being pedantic. ;P) With the spade thing, though, I can quite see the possibility of someone using the spade link to justify how objective, non-euphemistic, and truthful they're being -  but using it in a conversation with a person who would see it immediately as a highly offensive racial slur against them.  This is not beyond the realms of even probability, let alone possibility.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LIB MR ducks. Thanks for the distinction, a fact I was unaware. Nevertheless, I maintain an editor should remain free to call a shovel a spade, but in view of my current state of enlightenment, I preserve this freedom to allow one to illustrate their own ignorance with words, I do it all the time I suspect. The hug helps. I am well aware however that it is a pejorative when levied as such, and there is a genuine possibility for it to be misconstrued, or even veiled by disguise. Who's to know what I mean when calling a "spade" a "spade"? After all I am from the bible belt. BTW, "LIB MR ducks" alludes to the scarlet letter I am often adorned with by others, that being "redneck" another of my geographical heritage. My76Strat (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

With specific regard to the various sources cited elsewhere, I'd really like to draw people's attention to this; it's important stuff. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't see your answer above, My76Strat! (Blame the morphine!) With me, the hug is almost mandatory (it's usually there, even if never explicitly stated, and only in serious situations does it develop into S-BY-C). And regarding heritage, I'm just one of those pesky Commoners (cf. The Common Man in 1066 and all that what would I know, eh?!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Combination of toleration and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good government"
My principles were drawn for a political point.

Let us hope that ArbCom now urge the community to embrace tolerance: Conflicts, and even ongoing conflicts, are inevitable among 100 thousand verbal, overly caffeinated, often obsessive, and very opinionated writers.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans suggested
1) To reduce distractions to the community and to improve good will, the committee urges two pairs of parties User:Elonka and User:Malleus F to consider accepting a standard interaction ban (15:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)):  :a) User:Elonka and User:Malleus F
 * b) User:Malleus F and User:Kaldari


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There does seem to be some misunderstanding here. Elonka has never blocked me or so far as I can remember even threatened to block me. And we hardly ever cross paths anyway. The "sycophantic" block was made by User:Gwen Gale, not Elonka. Gwen subsequently apologised and that's all done and dusted now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I can plausibly see one of these, but not the other. Do you have some evidence that these interaction bans would help, that discussions between the editors in question are regularly non-constructive? (Also, this would need a title) WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit's summary had the rationale sketched. Bluntly, this seems to be a low cost initiative with the possibility of decreasing future unproductive and avoidable conflicts. Please note that my proposal is that the committee suggests interaction bans, which the parties would be free to reject.
 * Wikipedia has 1000 administrators, and so Elonka and Kaldari can trust the other administrators to help Malleus. It seems that Elonka has a pattern of late and somewhat condescending admonishments to Malleus, as well as a block that was overturned (whose wisdom I have not investigated); thus, she may not be the best admin to help Malleus. Malleus has repeatedly expressed hostility over (then) recent actions by Elonka, during which time he mentions old contentious actions by Elonka.
 * Malleus behaves similarly with Kaldari. I would ask Kaldari to try to accept an interaction ban, not as an admission of wrong doing (apart from misjudging community), but partly to balance the other interaction ban and so to help restore peace. I don't think it helpful that Malleus continue writing about Kaldari's past actions, honestly, and this is seems the most plausible yet still principled way of reducing harmful distractions.
 * I have a much greater tolerance for disagreement and an acceptance of inevitable conflicts among the crooked timber of humanity than do many. The histories of Calvinist Switzerland or the Puritans in New England suggest that tolerance is better than enforced virtue. I choose Lenny Bruce and George Carlin over pious Presidents any day Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck one ban suggestion, having come across a productive discussion between Kaldari and MF in November (I believe). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? The extent of my own interactions with Malleus is that I issued two warnings on his talkpage over the course of a year. And what's this about one of my blocks being overturned? I've never blocked Malleus, check his log for yourself. --Elonka 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Elonka,
 * Thanks for your gracious response. I remembered reading Malleus commenting on you and a previous block involving "sycophantic", but I may indeed have misread what he wrote. I shall check the block log and correct any mis-statement. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This stuff was just dumb and sloppy on my part. Others' contributions were thoughtful and Elonka was very nice about my stupidity. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A mess
The workshop page is already a TLDR mess, and my best guess is that it will be largely ineffective for this case and ignored by some arbs. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are not wrong, at least I will have hoped you were wrong. My76Strat (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be a good idea to archive the page and start over with those proposals that have at least some support. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Lara  19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They sure do have their work cut out for them on this one. I have to wonder if any of them are starting to rethink the whole "I wanna be an arb" thing at this point. — Ched :  ?  19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They knew exactly what they were doing when they accepted the case; now they must get on with it. Giacomo Returned 19:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least one of them seems to have a pretty clear idea how he wants it to be resolved. — Ched : ?  19:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the project had moved on - I was wrong. now, just let the Arbs get on with it, they all knew what they were letting themselves in for and refused to take any advice. They have set Wikipedia back 4 years by accepting this case - now they must accept the consequences of their stupidity and inexperience of the project. I have not one jot of sympathy. If you don't want a street fight, you don't walk about senseless in the gutter. Giacomo Returned 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no will by anyone to do anything here but to argue on and on. Please enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My dear chap, Wikipedia's most ardent feminists and hillbillies are having the time of their lives. Giacomo Returned 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Same shit, different year. Anyone want to start a pool on how many arbs quit within the first two months? Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To extenuate further, TLDR which essays "Too long; didn't read" should be expanded to include the secondary implication, "Too long; didn't respond" for all the lost comments TLDR sent packing. My76Strat (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BYW, I recognize that I am seen as a negative factor in this regard. My76Strat (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments
Elonka, bringing in evidence that MF is unhelpful is actually less than helpful itself. The case is sufficiently complex as it pertains to issues of incivility. I'd ask that you focus only on issues that you feel violate wp:civil, and leave unhelpful things (probably best ignored) out. Additionally, if you do believe MF should only be allowed to edit here during some period, I think it should be proposed in a separate section, for clarity. My76Strat (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Elonka cannot help herself, just let her get on with it; it's all adding to the frission of the case. Giacomo Returned 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If Elonka has brought in evidence that MF is unhelpful, somebuddy's not paying attention or doesn't know what helpful is. There is a small handful of editors who do as much as Malleus does across the board-- that is, writing FAs, writing GAs, reviewing FACs, reviewing GANs and PRs, copyediting, helping out other editors rather than just promoting his own standing at WP:WBFAN.  Anyone involved at FAC and GAN knows who the editors are who do almost all of the work (if I start naming them, I'll inevitably leave someone out, so I won't) and who the editors are who are concerned more with landing at the top of WP:WBFAN while never lifting a finger to help another editor or further article improvement.  At any rate, Malleus is undeniably among that small handful at the top of the helpful heap, while not curiously, some of his detractors are not.  Were it not for his final "F'ing c", this case would be seeing an outpouring of support for him, but only he can speak to what led to that final comment. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Malleus can be an ass of gigantic proportions... but he is also one of the few people whom is willing to work/review just about any article out there so long as there is somebody interested in improving it.  I have my silo's of interest, 90% of my article work comes in those 3 or 4 silos.  I think most people are that way, where most of their work falls into 2-4 subjects of interests.  Malleus' primary subjects of interest are FA and GA.  He wants to improve the quality of the articles here---and to that extent he works hard on them. Unfortunately, he doesn't suffer fools well... which means he comes across as brusk and belligerent.
 * As for the FC comment---yeah, if Hawkeye had used that in his rationale to reblock Malleus, nobody would have questioned Hawkeye. That comment was over the top... unfortunately, I've seen other bursts out of him... but usually when the situation has deteroiated.  He seems to use a perverse humor and to revel in pushing buttons when he gets frustrated/angry---which gets him in trouble.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just came across this section just now (I'm not following this case day by day). I'm baffled though. What comment of mine are you talking about? And what evidence? I have offered no evidence in this case. --Elonka 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7
I am not comfortable with the pile on that is occuring in the sections about Hawkeye7. This is an editor in good standing who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia. Occasional mistakes are tolerated. It is entirely possible this editor let their emotions get out of hand and made a few bad decisions. Haven't we all? I think we should at least try to get their side of the story and consider it before tarring and feathering. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, disagree, his (even-if-one-off) statements and taunting of Malleus/flounting his FAs further the notion that FA writers are somehow above civility or other policies, and demonstrate someone who was using the tools while making a point against the blocked editor, after he had already been admonished once. I feel very strongly about this:  his statements hinder a collaborative working environment, and while the case focuses on the editors Malleus has allegedly "chased off", it is precisely this sort of admin behavior that could chase this editor off at least, because I don't want to work for editors who flaunt their FAs in that fashion, bringing FAC into ill repute.  Now, has the pile-on of Hawkeye7 been disproportionate with respect to what we should also be seeing for Thumperward?  You betcha.  John has apologized, so he's off the table as far as I'm concerned (although I don't think he was ever in the wrong ... Thumperward made a block hours after the fact over a resolved issue.  We should be seeing the same kind of "pile-on" there, since his action started all of this.)  Oh, and we should also be seeing more about the appropriate use of RFCs and dispute resolution, because this case is not going to end well for anyone nor resolve the uneven endorcement of civility, since it's not possible to build a case in 500 words. Hawkeye's flaunting of his FAs does more to harm a collaborative work environment, IMO, than the use of crude language (which I don't support, btw), which demonstrates the issue that it's possible to do more harm without using bad language, which is one of the big problems with "civility".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Further, Je, I'm unclear why you are repeatedly asking that Hawkeye7 explain his actions on the Workshop page. He did, before the case was accepted, and multiple editors took it apart there, to the point of accusing him of "lying".  Look at the statements from before the case was opened-- they're recorded somewhere around here in this mess of pages, arent' they?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)


 * His prior explanations are contradictory. Now that he's had time to reflect on matters, I'd like to hear his best and final explanation of what happened.  Hopefully it will be completely truthful.  If he did something wrong, he should just say so.  The fact that he was recently admonished for something similar means that he's used up his mulligan already. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I see ... I got the impression you had missed his prior contradictory explanations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye's already explained that the FA comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. If he made an apology for that in the appropriate venue, would that mollify you? I agree that Thumperward should be saying more in this case, unless there is a reason for their absence. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the more one tries to explain their thoughts, the more one is prone making things worse for themselves.  At any AC venue, there is a bright spotlight shining on all participants, and thus any flaws tend to show more brightly.  I'm neither defending, nor condemning Thumperward; but rather saying that history has shown at AC that sometimes - the less said the better.  Personally I agree with you Carcharoth, I would rather see more from Thumperward - but I do understand the reluctance to speak here. — Ched :  ?  15:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled about the notion that one mistake can lead to a desysop - that makes me one mistake away, and I do make mistakes. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if there were some notion that it was a mistake. The repetition that the block was warranted, even with the hindsight of many days of reflection, isn't helping. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not absolutely clear if you speak of Hawkeye7 or Thumperward in the above. In keeping with the header, Hawkeye7 has lamented the mistakes he made. It is important to remain cognizant that if you accept his explanation that the block was related to the Spitfire comment, (as I do) it would have been entirely justified, and should be reaffirmed at every venture otherwise calling it to question. My76Strat (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the discussion to date, admin actions in this case demonstrated a 100% failure rate. In such a circumstance, blaming any of the involved admins is scapegoating: we should rather ask whether policies, guidelines, advice or training for admins can be improved to reduce the chance of such failures in the future. Geometry guy 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some genuinely clear policies and enforcement options would prevent much of this kind of stuff; this is one reason why we need to re-write the civility policy so that it is crystal clear and impossible to misunderstand. The suggestions which have been made that, for example, established editors with over X,000 edits can only be blocked following consensus, other than in emergency situations or beyond reasonable doubt situations, is a very good one indeed. Personally, I'd go for 500 undeleted, non-automated edits, with at least half to article space, as a boundary. This may be a bit high for other people's views, though. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 11:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy,
 * Your position that a (local) 100% failure rate makes sanctioning the failing administrators "scapegoating" seems unsupportable. The administrative failures included---besides (inexcusable but forgivable) bad blocks the following extensive errors:
 * Insulting Malleus ("koala", "tba"),
 * extensive failure to discuss block with community,
 * continuing to defend actions without recognition of error (at least grievous suboptimality) for days....
 * The extensive errors merit at least admonishment and deserve at least the consideration of desysoping.
 * Note that the administrative errors were made by exactly two administrators. The rest of the administrative corps was performing its usual duties elsewhere. Nobody has suggested blaming any of the two bad-blocking administrators for errors committed by the other thousand administrators. Therefore, your concern about "scapegoating" is unwarranted, at least for these two.
 * Of course, Malleus serves as a scapegoat, and shall again be sacrificed so that administrative tools can shimmer with the light of their self-righteousness. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you make your point without the colourful invective in the last sentence? It's that type of "words as weapons", in place of calm debate, that has caused much of this problem.--Scott Mac 10:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott,
 * Please write precisely. My previous sentences did not contain colorful invective, so the answer is obviously yes.
 * I meant my comment with utter seriousness. At minimum, Malleus will be summarily banned from RfA or from the project because
 * he sometimes talks to editors as though at least some in the audience were adults and
 * he sometimes writes with phrasing common to Scottish/Brittish men (of all classes but ruling)---taking too much on himself to protest against the nationalist, generationalist, and (I mention) classist conceits of the zealots of civility---none of whom help apprentice & journeymen editors  1/10th as much as he.
 * I am astounded that Sir Fozzie is more concerned about Malleus at RfA then about e.g. a user manipulating multiple accounts to promote a political "party", "out" by name his political opponents (which in the USA might result in loss of jobs), and give disingenuous answers to good-faith questions from editors asking about Pennsylvanian social-democrats.
 * The hounding of Malleus is, as John noted, parallel to the hounding of Lenny Bruce, in which police chiefs and prosecutors could preen themselves in self-righteousness as protectors of community standards. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember (for one thing) that most of the incivility contains no swearing, so Don Rickles is a better metaphor than Lenny Bruce. Art LaPella (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple differences with Lenny Bruce. First, his offensiveness was his art.  A great part of his message was pushing boundaries and showing the folly of societal mores and taboos, some pointless and others vicious and unjust.  Here, Maleus' art is his project-building, and the cursing and abuse are an unwanted side issue.  Second, people wanted to shut him up not just because he was crude but because he threatened their view of the world.  He was burning down old castles, and they played the castle guards.  Here, I don't think anyone finds their world threatened by Malleus, he just piques them.  - Wikidemon (talk)
 * John's analogy emphasized role of the authorities in hounding Lenny Bruce towards his destruction, rather than Bruce's performances. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I'm not sure about that. I think there are very possibly "some admins" who might find their view of their own world threatened.  A world where you can call admins out for dishonourable conduct; a world where admins aren't allowed to get away with the same levels of incivility that they come down on other editors like a ton of bricks for; a world where more of the community might stand up and be counted in pointing out "conduct unbecoming in an officer".  I think there are people who might see that kind of WikiWorld as a threat to themselves, and would rather it didn't happen.  Admins please note: I'm not saying "all admins", or "the majority of admins", or even "a significant proportion of admins."  I'm saying some admins. And I'm not saying that Malleus's own wording to describe "some admins" was the best choice  but the uncomfortable fact is that "some admins" are not quite as of high a standard as we could reasonably expect, with regard to their honour, thoroughness, and integrity. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. Editor persecuted to the point of self-destruction by abusive authority figures for standing up for his own right to be abusive?  That's awfully complicated.  Occam's razor suggests we simplify that to editor being abusive.  Whether that's hounding or not depends on who instigated it.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's all very much more complex than that. I understand exactly what you meant, but this situation needs to look at the whole, years-long picture. It's a chronic illness, not an acute one, and it has systemic causes. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus is uncivil in the ballpark of 10% of the time, usually to non-admins. That is far beyond what I counted at WP:ANI. So isn't our inability to deal with that acute problem, an example of why we can't deal with the systemic one? Art LaPella (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's quite a statement. Malleus Fatuorum has made over 100,000 edits, you're saying about 10,000 are uncivil? Where does the evidence for this figure come from?J3Mrs (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From my evidence. Around 10% of the talk page edits I looked at in my random samples are uncivil. Yes, it follows statistically that several thousand are uncivil, although I didn't count them one at a time!
 * Signed later, Art LaPella (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So just your own point of view, nothing scientific.J3Mrs (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And a quite extraordinary slander. I find it profoundly depressing that there are still administrators like him around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Statistics/probability is a very scientific subject I studied in college, and I now base my financial career on it. Wikipedians normally consider themselves academics; I was expecting something more like objecting to the sample size or something. Judging the incivility of what I found, however, is subjective. But surely you don't think "F--- off ... screw yourself" is civil? Art LaPella (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That Malleus Fatuorum has used strong language is not disputed, what astounded me was Wikidemon's manipulated statistics and that he thinks it's ok to present it as a fact.J3Mrs (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood; I forgot to sign, so you reasonably confused me with Wikidemon. Art LaPella (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Art, you presume too much. I also went to college, and I also studied statistics there. But statistics is not science, something you ought to have learned in your first class. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't really expect Malleus to recognize my point. Art LaPella (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Birthday bingo" is not a random sampling method and classification of "uncivil" is neither mathematical nor scientific. Nobody Ent 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Birthday bingo is a better sampling method than listing individual diffs, and adding October 31 makes it better. I chose that date because the end of the month is easier to search, not because I knew I would find incivility. More dates that we can all verify would improve the sample further, if anyone denies the obvious: somewhere around 10% of the talk page edits are uncivil. As for "neither mathematical nor scientific", I repeat: "Judging the incivility of what I found, however, is subjective. But surely you don't think 'F--- off ... screw yourself' is civil?" Art LaPella (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Computing the total number of edits n*500 +remainder requires counting/estimating only the remainder between 0 and 499. Then randomly sample the index-numbers using a pseudorandom-number generator (e.g. the open source R's). This allows an unbiased estimate of the true proportion using the sample proportion; additionally, it also allows a confidence interval on the true proportion using only objective probabilities (that are known because we create them with randomization).
 * Sociologically, the end of the month is atypical: In the US and Sweden, many people get paid at the end of the month. Therefore, people are often drinking and may edit under the influence of alcohol on weekends; people may be more likely to go out with friends rather than torment Malleus with poor word/choice. Cabdrivers won't edit Wikipedia at the end of the month. So it seems likely that the end of the month is atypical.
 * Statistically, subjectively choosing one day does not allow a mean-unbiased estimate and does not allow a confidence interval that is worth a bucket of warm spit.
 * 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * Even if I could somehow translate your number generator into individual talk page edits, would that change your opinion? If not, then I will presume a bucket of spit must be worth at least the order of magnitude estimate required to compare Malleus to ANI.Art LaPella (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence and workshop pages closed
considering that even the extended deadline has now passed, both the evidence and the workshop pages and their respective talk pages are closed effective immediately. I ask everyone to please cease editing them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * oops, sorry - I though the talk pages were still open! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They clearly should be. See also  and WT:AC/CN. (Salvio, please leave this intact so that others can see what is going on and you don't have to revert even more editors who are writing here in good faith.) Hans Adler 14:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing the "restored with permission" material: That wasn't permission, that appears to be more like resignation that you were going to ignore him on the part of the case clerk, Pesky. Do not reinsert the material again.
 * For everyone else, cut it out. The page is closed, but since people can't seem to understand that, I'm locking it.  Please don't pester the clerks to let you add more.  Risker (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)