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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Tiptoety (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Risker (Talk) & Hersfold (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.


Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Etiquette[edit]

2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Some prior decisions used to put the core of this much more simply: "Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

3) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that recidivism will quickly erode the presumption of good faith extended to content creators. We don't need misanthropic geniuses, so much as we need content creators who can collaborate with others to develop something better than any individual could have done alone. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Good faith and disruption[edit]

4) Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Particularly after the editor has repeatedly been warned or counseled about the reasons his or her behavior should change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fair criticism[edit]

5) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Baiting[edit]

6) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Support:
  1. I lost count of how many episodes of baiting I saw when reviewing evidence in this case. Baiting another editor until they lose their composure is sometimes even more uncivil than the outburst that follows. Risker (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This was an election question, and my response stands: shame on the editor doing the baiting, and shame on the editor taking the bait. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Would prefer 'Editing in such a manner may lead to a block', but I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would support a copyedit inserting "intentionally" before "provoke." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Poking someone until they lose their temper is disruptive, and, like Risker, I was surprised how much of this behaviour is there in the evidence of this case. (Though I caution that being poked is not a defense for losing one's temper) Courcelles 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrators[edit]

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Blocking[edit]

8) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and only do so when no other alternative would prove as effective. When placed, blocks should be intended to prevent disruption to the project and not simply to punish a user for their (mis)conduct.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not simply punish is an important distinction. Blocks can be punitive and preventative or corrective at the same time, and our policies deprecate blocks which are purely punitive. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In arbitration enforcement there is sometimes a decision whether to apply a short block or a long topic ban, and in such cases this principle doesn't entirely apply. In this context, I'd prefer 'and and only do so after carefully considering alternative measures'. However, I'm prepared to go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would support a copyedit adding "the problem being addressed" after "effective." (Consider a situation where an autoconfirmed user is repeatedly making unhelpful but not-quite-vandalistic edits to a particular page; protecting that page would be as "effective" in stopping the editing as blocking the user, and in some circumstances would be preferable, but in others it wouldn't—the administrator has to ask what is the actual problem that he or she needs to address, and what is the most effective way to address it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In NYB's example, I'd lend to the side of blocking the disruptive user, rather than preventing everyone else from editing an article because one user is making a repeated mess. But the principle boils down to that Special:Block is not the only tool, and often not the best tool, in the box, and I can heartily go with that. Courcelles 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Use of administrative tools in a dispute[edit]

9) Administrative tools must not be used to further an administrator's own position in a content or interpersonal dispute.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (Copy-edit: replaced the administrator's with an administrators, because principles are general statements.) AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wheel-warring[edit]

10) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Administrators who are fond of unilaterally undoing other admins' actions are hereby placed on notice that just like 3RR is both a bright line and not an excuse to edit war to that point, the first reversal of an administrator action, while not within the traditional definition of WP:WHEEL, can still be inappropriate and uncollegial. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This formulation raises some questions (and this isn't a criticism of the drafting; ten years of experience have shown that any formulation in this area raises some questions). The most obvious question we leave unanswered here, and which has been discussed more than once elsewhere on arbitration and other pages without a solution, is what happens when the community discussion doesn't yield a consensus either way. Another perennial puzzle is how long Administrator B must wait to hear back from Administrator A when A is away from the computer, and what circumstances make it appropriate to wait a longer or shorter time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. And the word "emergency" here means something. Emergencies are, by definition, quite rare. Courcelles 22:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I hope the community reacts to this principle by reversing the disruptive tendency of recent years to allow the flippant reversal of administrator actions. As an administrator, I would not dream of undoing an action without consulting the original sysop or the community; and the problems with this trend are illustrated rather neatly by this case. In re Newyorkbrad first point, we rarely see a discussion yielding no consensus, not least because such discussions are not opened if there is not an obvious flaw with the original action. On the second issue, administrators are expected to remain available after taking a contentious action, and anyway there is recourse to refer the matter to the wider community if an administrator does not promptly respond. Also, I concur with Courcelles. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I noted that an experienced editor, on the talkpage, suggested that this principle could be considered a significant change from current policy or expectations. For what it is worth, I don't read it that way nor do I believe the drafters intended it as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility blocks[edit]

11) The civility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, or outing.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I hope that people will take note that the civility policy actually does specify the circumstances under which so-called "civility blocks" may be appropriate. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Risker. A corollary is that a block is generally not appropriate for an isolated instance of incivility, unless extreme. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There is a judgment call here, and this shouldn't be read as giving a free pass to minor incivility. It is far better to not be incivil at all, than to force admins to consider if one's version of incivility at the time can be called as disruptive and justifying a block. Courcelles 22:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Disruption[edit]

12) Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Emphasis on repetition as a rationale for further action, as opposed to a single incident. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Noting that that is hardly an exhaustive list of disruptive behaviours. Courcelles 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Internationalism[edit]

13) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Using appropriate language for the situation is key to effective communication. The use of appropriate language is part of the education curriculum of most advanced countries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A worthwhile addition here would be that when it becomes apparent that a misunderstanding has occurred or offense has inadvertently been given, due to regional variation in English usage or any other cause, a prompt attempt should be made to rectify the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Offensive commentary[edit]

14) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.

Support:
  1. This sort of conduct was widespread throughout the evidence. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Hersfold. Risker (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Again, the problem is seriously aggravated if a user insists upon needlessly continuing to use wording that has given offense before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Again, sort of. Mocking another user is always problematic, it doesn't have to be repeated to be disruptive. Courcelles 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

15) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Malleus Fatuorum[edit]

1) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has a demonstrated history of making valuable editorial contributions to the project, bringing over 30 articles to featured article status, and participating in hundreds of featured article and good article reviews, where his communication has generally been constructive and civil. (Partial list of GA reviews) 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.)

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have expressed elsewhere (largely in commenting at the acceptance stage in a prior request for arbitration) many of my thoughts regarding Malleus Fatuorum's style and demeanor, and the reasons for it. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat these thoughts here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 14:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Malleus Fatuorum's block log[edit]

2) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption (including one occasion where he was blocked, unblocked, and reblocked by another administrator) (Chart of all blocks). 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.([6],[7],[8])

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's no question that this block log has plenty of poor entries in it--both in the blocks applied, and in the unblocks made. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Some were poor examples of blocks, but not all. There are some pretty poor unblocks in there as well. Courcelles 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Having considered this further and thought about some points made on the talkpage, I can support the finding taken as a whole. I don't necessarily agree with the characterization of each of the specific diffs. (General note prompted by the talkpage discussion: Arbitrator observations or questions in the "comments" section on a proposed decision aren't votes. We instituted the comments section a few months ago to allow arbitrators to discuss the meaning of proposals or suggest changes to wordings on-wiki, without having to park holding votes in the abstain column. An arbitrator who posts a comment will generally vote support or oppose later on, after the comment has been discussed.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The examples are not necessary; however, the principle is accepted that while Malleus - like Betacommand - has at times been a cause for concern, some of the attention he has attracted has been excessive or unnecessary. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I don't think the block log is important to the wider issue, other than in that it demonstrates the concerning culture of 'trigger-happy' reversal of administrator actions. However, there is nothing in the finding that I can actually disagree with, so I will abstain rather than oppose. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I agree that the fact that Malleus's block log has 13 blocks in it, does not suggest the level of problems that one might suspect of a user with 13 blocks. However, at least some of the blocks were well-taken or at least reasonable, and I'm not convinced it's necessary or desirable to post-mortem individual prior blocks, some of which were made by administrators who are no longer active. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus's block log makes for uncomfortable reading. What is true is that there are civility concerns around Malleus, and most of that is due to Malleus's own behaviour. I'm still considering the value of the second sentence. We already have a number of principles that cover the point being made that civility blocks can be overdone, and I wonder - like NYB - what extra is being gained by looking into individual isolated examples from some years ago. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a moment to explain why this particular finding was included in the decision. One of the primary concerns expressed at the initial request for arbitration and throughout the phases of this case was that Malleus Fatuorum was the subject of unwarranted, excessive and/or inappropriate scrutiny from administrators. Some of the blocks in his block log are not appropriate: I don't think there is an administrator on this project who can seriously justify a 10-second block, for example. Of particular note to me personally is the poor justification for the first block, where the blocking administrator alleged that Malleus had driven another editor away; the "driven away" editor had specifically identified another user as the reason he was leaving the project. As well, the block was made more than a full day after the supposedly inciting comments. It is my personal observation that a poorly implemented first block on an experienced editor is likely to have one of two effects: either the blocked editor leaves the project or the blocked editor (with a no-longer-clean block log) becomes increasingly disinhibited; neither is a good result.

On the other hand, in several cases the blocks were appropriate; Malleus had indeed made personal attacks or was disruptively uncivil. Thus, the review of the block log and its inclusion as a finding supports both the suggestions that Malleus has been the subject of "bad blocks", and the finding that Malleus has made personal attacks or been disruptively uncivil to the point where blocking was appropriate. Risker (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship[edit]

3) Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([9]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, with over 500 more edits than the next most prolific contributor. On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful ([10],[11],[12],[13]). More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]). The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I do not regard some of these examples as problematic, I do agree that others demonstrate a tendency by Malleus to be unhelpfully sardonic of administrators and their role. Most worryingly, among the sheer volume of pointed criticism, I see little constructive commentary or suggestions for reform. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Again, supporting the finding as a whole without necessarily endorsing the characterization of each individual diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The conclusion of this finding does not stand up to scrutiny. While Malleus may be the most prolific contributor, he does not take part in every discussion - of the discussions I examined in 2011 he contributed to less than one third, and of the discussions in which he took part, none were stopped because of his involvement - he contributes, people respond, and the discussion continues. The incident which led to this case was the exception rather than the rule. The issue is not how much Malleus contributes to any one venue, it is how people perceive his contributions. While there is a degree of over-reaction, Malleus himself must accept responsibility for creating the environment for the occasional over-reaction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Surely we have to have more egregious diffs than those - the only one I thought crossed the line into unequivocal negative territory was the last. The others were merely dry. I'll check to see there is a longer list somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Made some grammar tweaks at the recommendation of Wikidemon, shouldn't affect meaning at all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of the proposed finding is correct, but I'm holding off on voting for now until Casliber reports back. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where Casliber is coming from. The real weight is seen in viewing the WT:RFA archives for the past couple of years, where it is obvious that Malleus is prolific and unrelenting in pressing his perspective. While we generally think of ownership applying to articles, Malleus has essentially demonstrated the same behaviour at the RFA talk page. Risker (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Casliber will find some examples of Malleus making belittling comments on that page as he makes such comments on other pages as well. On the whole I think it is acceptable that Malleus voice concerns regarding admins on a related talkpage, and I'm unsure why it matters that he is a prolific contributor to that page - he is also a prolific FA and GA contributor. What I feel matters is that Malleus contribute in all venues without making inappropriate comments. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward's block[edit]

4) Thumperward (talk · contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum after the stated cause for the block had been resolved. [21]

Support:
  1. Second choice, prefer 4.1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, prefer 4.1. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This finding could probably be worded better to give a fuller chronology, but it'll do. Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Thumperward blocked Malleus Fatuorum for 'long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds'. I don't understand how it can be determined this issue 'had been resolved'. I'm not saying that I think an indefinite block was called for, however I'd suggest this finding needs to be rephrased. PhilKnight (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In favor of 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thumperward's block was inappropriate, but the stated cause (Malleus's incivility) or the trigger was not resolved - unless I am missing something. Malleus continued to persevere in using strong and hostile language after being asked to rephrase. I am willing to support a finding that Thumperward's block was inappropriate, but not that he blocked after the matter had been resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In deference to 4.1 Courcelles 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
There is the core of a correct finding here but I'll hold off on voting for now to see if a rephrased version can be agreed upon per PhilKnight's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Now resolved, supporting 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward's block[edit]

4.1) Thumperward (talk · contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum after the incident which prompted the block had been resolved. [22]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight makes a good point - I've replaced "stated cause for" with "incident which prompted" here, which I think is a bit more accurate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yeah, better. first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Risker (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 14:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Thumperward's block was inappropriate, but the stated cause (Malleus's incivility) or the trigger was not resolved - unless I am missing something. Malleus continued to persevere in using strong and hostile language after being asked to rephrase. I am willing to support a finding that Thumperward's block was inappropriate, but not that he blocked after the matter had been resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My view is that of SilkTork, but moreover I also do not see how his block was inappropriate. Malleus' conduct was an ongoing issue, and while it would be foolish to expect that an indefinite block would achieve a solution to his contributions, the block was bold (albeit naive), but not unreasonable. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'll let my vote stand, but per SilkTork's observation, it might be better to copyedit by inserting "specific" before "incident". Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions[edit]

5) Thumperward (talk · contribs) has not significantly participated in this case to defend his actions, despite being a named party to the case. Furthermore, Thumperward did not provide a full rationale for the indefinite block until two hours later, and his involvement in the resulting Administrator noticeboard discussion was minimal. (final version of discussion)

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. When your actions set in motion events that lead to an arbitration case, you're expected to give evidence during the proceedings. Courcelles 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm unconvinced that the activity in this case, while clearly lower than average participation, is sufficiently outside the norm that this finding is required. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He responded quickly on his talkpage and within 10 minutes of the Administrator noticeboard discussion opening to let people know he was preparing a full response, and then he delivered a detailed response. His block was inappropriate, but his responses to the queries regarding the block were reasonable and not significantly lacking to justify an ArbCom finding. His involvement in this case has been brief but not insignificant. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In 2009, this committee ruled that "Administrators are required to explain their actions. When an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why." In my view, Thumperward has satisfied the requirements of his role as an administrator, even if his minimal participation in this case was less than ideal. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Copyedited 'ANI' to 'Administrator noticeboard'. PhilKnight (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion of the block on Thumperward's talkpage shortly after the block, in which he did explain the reasons for it. Later in that thread, after several users had questioned the block, Thumperward stated that he was in the process of "drafting a block review," although another user got to ANI first. It may be desirable to rephrase the proposed finding in light of this thread. I apologize to the drafters for not having noticed this sooner.
As for minimal participation in the ANI thread and in this arbitration request, it is true that administrators are expected to explain and defend their actions, especially when they are the subject of a case. It is equally true that this particular block/unblock cycle has been the subject of as much commentary as almost any other block in the history of the project (we had more than 100 statements in this case at the acceptance stage). I am reluctant to criticize anyone too harshly for focusing on editing and refraining from adding to the cacophony. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to someone on IRC last night, I did not expect Thumper to come in all guns blazing, ranting and raving about why his actions were correct. What I do expect, of any administrator, is to adhere to policy, specifically, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" (WP:ADMINACCT). When you're a named party to an arbitration case, a justification is needed. (Someone in the discussion last night mentioned a better quote, but can't find it just at the moment.) Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the concerns expressed about this finding on the talkpage. I think this will have to be rewritten. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a rewrite stating "has not significantly participated in this case", however I do believe this needs to be stated in some form. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and included 'significantly'. I've also modified 'rationale' to 'full rationale'. PhilKnight (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I appreciate the edits which improve the proposed finding, they still do not address the point I made in the first paragraph of my comment above. In addition, Thumperward's comments on the talkpage to this proposed decision, and the observations of other editors there, should also be considered by those supporting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John's unblock[edit]

6) John (talk · contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum while a community review of the block was ongoing ([23]). John has recognised that this was an error in judgment. (John's evidence)

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Subject to my comments on principle 10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 14:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hawkeye7 wheel warred[edit]

7) Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) wheel warred to reblock Malleus Fatuorum, against existing community consensus which did not support the original block. [24]

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Consensus was clear that the block was inappropriate, and there was mixed though mainly supportive response to John's unblock. It is clear from the comments that Hawkeye7 made before the block ([25] [26]), that he was deliberately acting against John's unblock, and so was consciously wheel-warring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 14:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support--noting that wheel warring did occur, but with the caveat that I agree with Phil's objections as far as the presence or lack of a consensus for a short block. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The existing community consensus did not support the indefinite block, however it's questionable whether there was a consensus against a short block. Also, from my perspective, it was concerning that he claimed there was consensus to support his block. PhilKnight (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Largely per Phil. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Substantially per PhilKnight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'd like to have the benefit of the drafters' response to PhilKnight's oppose before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I split my vote here? Wheel warring is a bright line offense, and appears to have happened. Judging consensus is much more ephemeral, and I'm not seeing a good reason to dilute the FoF on wheel warring with a reference to community consensus. WP:WHEEL does not specify which consensus is needed: consensus that the original action was 'good', consensus that a repeated action was 'bad', or consensus that a re-done action was appropriate, so if we're going to state that consensus is lacking, just mentioning one seems to be an incomplete formulation. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but in some circumstances the existence of community consensus is relevant. If Admin A blocks User X and Admin B immediately unblocks, then B will often be subject to criticism. But if A blocks X and there is then an ANI discussion in which a consensus emerges that the block was bad, and B unblocks on the basis of the discussion, then B's action is clearly proper. Or are you making a more subtle point I have overlooked? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7's personal attack[edit]

8) After blocking Malleus Fatuorum, Hawkeye7 posted a personal attack directed towards Malleus on another editor's talk page. [27]

Support:
  1. Regardless of how the koala comment was meant, it is by definition name-calling at the least, and certainly highly inappropriate for an administrator who's just blocked the user in question. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is an example of the baiting referred to in the principles. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Hersfold. PhilKnight (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extremely bad timing to make a comment that could be described at the very least as flippant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The word "koala" defined as "protected species" I would ascribe merely to an attempt at humor gone awry and I would not make the basis for a finding. (I gather that "protected species" was meant here in the sense of "vested contributor" as some use that term.) However, referring to another editor as "stewed most of the time" was highly inappropriate. I do note that this particular comment does not at all appear to be typical of Hawkeye7's editing, and would not come to the level of warranting our attention except that it was said of a user whom Hawkeye7 had just blocked. (As a minor drafting quibble, the fact that the comment was made on HJ Mitchell's talkpage is not really relevant, and I would prefer a copyedit dropping mention of his name from the decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell's name removed from the finding, good suggestion. Risker (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen the discussion on Hawkeye7's talkpage and it has weakened my support for this finding. At the end of the day the comment in question was still undesirable, but this whole episode would be long-forgotten if this weren't a case of "wrong place, wrong time." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per NYB's analysis. In other circumstances, the comment would have been substantially less problematic, but from an administrator who'd just blocked the editor in question... the statement is sufficiently 'not appropriate' for a finding. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would prefer "... posted an inappropriate comment regarding Malleus ...", but that's a quibble, the gist is that the statement was inappropriate given the circumstances which I agree with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I understand that Hawkeye7 felt pressured by the overwhelming response to the incident, but the remark he made on HJ's talk page would have served no purpose but to inflame the situation. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hawkeye7 previously admonished[edit]

9) Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) was previously admonished by the Arbitration Committee for using his administrative tools when involved in a situation. (Sanction)

Support:
  1. Also noting that Hawkeye had become involved in this situation as well; he'd supported the original block of Malleus ([28]) and then reverted that support ([29]). Later he posted a comment against the unblock he undid ([30]). Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I was recused in the Racepacket case so I didn't review the evidence in that case, but the fact that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned in the case is a historical fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that I don't necessarily agree with Hersfold's finding of "involved" action here, or at least that there is an issue here worth exploring. The general rule is that expressing one's opinion as an administrator doesn't make one "involved" in the sense of oneself being a party to a dispute (and by that test, I believe Hawkeye7's view that he was not "involved" in a dispute with Malleus is understandable). Suppose there is an ANI discussion of User:X in which 10 people support a block and no one disagree. Admin A, who supported the block, then goes ahead and blocks. I don't think we'd criticize A for having taken an "involved" action. On the other hand, if the discussion were split 50:50 and someone who'd taken sides took it upon himself or herself to close the discussion and divine the result, that would be problematic (similar to the rule that one doesn't close an XfD or an RfA one has voted in). What we are saying in this decision (rightly or wrongly) is that in a divisive case, an admin shouldn't take action to change the status quo until a consensus has been reached, which in some instances may mean that the discussion has closed. That is not the same thing as saying that expressing an opinion in the discussion of a dispute makes one an involved party in the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With NYB's comments on INVOLVEment well taken. In brief, administrators expressing opinions on administrative matters do not trigger INVOLVED; administrators in editing or conduct conflicts do. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 14:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Inconsistencies in civility enforcement[edit]

10) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. yup. This finding could be improved by the mention of the widely differing boundaries of sanctionable incivility but no big deal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Most definitely so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It's hardly a good thing, but it is the facts on the ground. Courcelles 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Difficulties in defining civility[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are other reasons for the instability, particularly ongoing disputes, but this is an element. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Casliber. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yeppers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The difficulty in dealing with incivility is a well known issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Hawkeye7 desysopped[edit]

1) Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.

Support:
  1. In light of the previous admonishment, and particularly considering the wheel warring and personal attack, I believe we would be remiss not to remove administrative rights here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd prefer 'is desysopped for conduct unbecoming of an administrator', but I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While NYB's empathy is well taken, I think that it can be safely said that once Hawkeye7 has regained the trust of the community by consistent demonstration of trustworthiness sufficient to pass RfA again, I would not have a problem with him serving in that capacity. However, given Malleus' criticisms of administrators protecting each other, the irony of not sanctioning the conduct in the case (and I endorse NYB's concerns about explanations) is not lost on me. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I did ponder if an admonishment would be more appropriate; however, given that Hawkeye7 has recently been admonished for inappropriate blocks, and that this was a deliberate act rather than a mistake, a desysop is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only real choice after a prior admonishment. Courcelles 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Hawkeye7 mishandled this incident, and unfortunately, some of his subsequent explanations deepened rather than resolved the concerns about the disputed block. And this block cannot be described as a completely isolated incident given the prior admonition. (It was just one admonition, though; the reference to "admonishments", plural, in the finding should be changed.) Nevertheless, I do not find that these incidents are at all typical of Hawkeye7's approach to adminship; his other past uses of administrator tools, and his ongoing, though not especially frequent, uses of the tools appear to be appropriate. He is a serious, long-term, dedicated participant in the project, and I am certain that if we counselled him to stay away from controversial blocks for awhile, he would gladly do so. The fact is that this matter would never have risen to the level of an arbitration case, resulting in this level of scrutiny of Hawkeye7's block, but for the fact that that a high-profile editor was the blocked party and that disputes concerning that editor were recurring. Under all the circumstances, I find desysopping to be a significant overreaction here, and would impose a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Find myself in lonely dissent on something as significant as desysopping an experienced administrator, I have reviewed the evidence and discussion of this proposal to see if a second look brings me closer to my colleagues' views. It does not; another review of all the evidence confirms and strengthens my view that this remedy is an overreaction. I remain convinced that this block would be an unfortunate but by-now forgotten episode if it were not for the fact that we felt compelled to accept this case because strong words we had used in declining a similar one a month earlier had not been heeded. Significantly, because Hawkeye7 was not "involved" in a dispute with Malleus under any common understanding of the meaning of involvement, it follows that Hawkeye7's actions in this case were not similar to the conduct that triggered his prior admonition, undercutting the suggestion that we have no real choice about how to proceed. For all these reasons, I continue to oppose desysopping and to support a substantially less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
@NYB. I'm prepared to look again. The mitigations are that the block was a reduction, and that Hawkeye7 was uninvolved in this case unlike the blocks for which he was admonished. What I am seeing is that Hawkeye7 entered a discussion on the block, in which there was clear support for unblocking, and support for John having done an unblock. Hawkeye7's comments went against consensus when he said he supported the block, and that John should be given a wet trout: [31], [32]. His comment on Malleus's talkpage that because consensus was that the block was too severe it should be replaced with a one week block, [33], would be acceptable if it was just that - but was was overturning an unblock to replace it with a block. It was clear from the AN discussion that the initial block was unpopular and controversial. While John's unblock was unsound because discussion was ongoing, there was some consensus for it. There was no consensus for replacing the block. And Hawkeye7 did not enter into discussion regarding reblocking. He posted that he supported the initial block, and reapplied it, albeit in reduced form. The block was against consensus, conducted at a time when discussion was still taking place, and was a reversal of a reversal of an admin action - a clear case of wheel warring. It was a poor block made just six months after being admonished for making poor blocks - [34]. I think the circumstances are that when Hawkeye7 should have been taking extra care when blocking someone, he replaced a block during a discussion in which consensus was that the block was inappropriate. The circumstances are such that we would be remiss in not desysopping, as that is our function. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward desysopped[edit]

2) Thumperward (talk · contribs) is desysopped for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee. Thumperward may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.

Support:
  1. First choice. Thumperward's misconduct in this situation does not rise to the level of Hawkeye7's in my mind, however the lack of communication on a clearly controversial issue is very concerning, and something that I believe is incompatible with adminship. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I know this is unlikely to pass. but Thumperward's overall performance in this incident was below conduct expected of admins. Courcelles 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think we are quite at the level of desysopping, as there was little evidence of prior poor administrator judgment. I do expect, however, that Thumperward will be much, much more conservative in blocking, and in carefully investigating the background of a situation before blocking in the future. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Substantially per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) See also comments on the proposed finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am concerned at the block; however, an admonishment is enough, and there appear to be no previous concerns regarding Thumperward's admin actions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comment on FOF 4.1). AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Could easily support as lack of investigation into Malleus background which leads to incorrectly-weighted comments. Anyone familiar with Malleus' work in mainspace would know his positive effect vastly outstrips these dustups, and an admin handing out unilateral indef blocks without realising this should result in a community litmus test such as an RfA, however previous record is a mitigating factor. Will see how discussion evolves with fellow arbs overnight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Added method for re-applying for admin permissions per recommendation from talk page. Risker (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some of the findings in this case about Thumperward are harsh; however, an indef block without discussion on a contributor of Malleus's standing for an unclear offence is very disturbing. There has to be some form of sanction for this - and I'm inclined to think that a desysop is appropriate; however, am pausing to consider previous record as mitigation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward admonished[edit]

2.1) Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only choice. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd prefer 'Thumperward is counselled to take greater care in blocking users, and advised to promptly and fully explain his administrative actions', but I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, and considering the desysop option - or Instant Review at RfA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Per Phil, the language should probably be a bit softer, so I prefer 2.2 to this. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice Courcelles 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. An admonition might be in order here, but I am not comfortable with the "conduct unbecoming" language where the only allegedly unbecoming conduct is a disputed block coupled with choosing to stay off (or participate only minimally on) the arbitration pages. See also my comment on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It appears to me that Thumperward explained himself adequately, and that his conduct has been acceptable. The question for me is purely on the judgement regarding the block. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comment on FOF 4.1). AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Thumperward advised[edit]

2.2) Thumperward (talk · contribs) is counselled to take greater care in blocking users, and advised to promptly and fully explain his administrative actions.

Support:
  1. Prefer this version. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not identical to how I would phrase it (see my comments on the proposed findings), but substantially preferable to the alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the interests of promoting a more collaborative rather than hackneyed-negative-image-of-schoolmasterly approach, yes let's take our own medicine and can go with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice over 2.1. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is too soft. Courcelles 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The block was significantly inappropriate. Proposed 2.3 - SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Courcelles, more is needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Thumperward admonished (2)[edit]

2.3) Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for making a significantly inappropriate block.

Support:
  1. It is just the block that is seriously in question. I do feel that Thumperward responded to queries promptly, did provide a full rationale within a reasonable timeframe, and has provided background to the block on the evidence workshop page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice. Courcelles 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice, prefer 2.2, as I don't think it's as clear as some of my colleagues do that this block was "significantly inappropriate." Frankly, I am starting to think that maybe there should be no remedy as to this user at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I maintain that participation on both the block discussion and this case was insufficent. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 2.2 to this. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
@SilkTork: Thumperward's only contributions to this case were two edits to the workshop page. What background are you referring to? Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two edits you mention is the background I meant - that is, Thumperward's reason - within a timeframe - for the block. That the reason is not adequate is why I feel he should be admonished, but he has given a reason. Ah! I see, I said evidence page. I have now amended that. Thanks! SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John reminded[edit]

3) John (talk · contribs) is reminded that it is not acceptable to reverse another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.

Support:
  1. Proposing a less harsh remedy here, as a) the discussion, at the time of the unblock, was leaning in favor of an unblock as far as I could tell, and b) John did acknowledge his actions as incorrect in this case, and I believe will be more cautious in future. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd prefer 'is advised not to reverse another administrator's actions while said actions are under review', but I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. softened by contrition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Subject to my comments on the related principle and finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, I would prefer this one be strengthened to an admonishment. The unilateral unblock is the insta-drama recipe, and should be used far less frequently than it is. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be my second choice to an admonishment, if proposed. Courcelles 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to R 3.1). AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 3.1 Courcelles 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 3.1 Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
The actions of all three admins in this case are under scrutiny; two are under desyopping remedies, while John is simply being reminded. I think something stronger is needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John admonished[edit]

3.1) John (talk · contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.

Support:
  1. First choice, feel free to copyedit this. Courcelles 16:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First Choice. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Risker (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Malleus Fatuorum topic banned[edit]

4) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; 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.

Support:
  1. This seems to be the focus of Malleus's problematic behavior; it cannot be denied that he does useful article work, however his conduct at WT:RFA can only be described as disruptive on the whole. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I understand, and even agree with some of the concerns that Malleus has expressed about adminship and the RfA process; however, his constant negativity in this area has had the effect of diminishing the likelihood of positive changes taking place. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With regret, but largely per Hersfold and Risker. (I might prefer to see this remedy imposed for a specified time rather than indefinitely, but there is no point proposing an alternative for voting unless others agree.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is an area where Malleus' positive content contributions will not be affected, and where he seems to have gotten into most of the scraps. Seems a best option to minimize issues in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I can cite myself as an example. I have a similar feeling as a staunch inclusionist at AfD debates, and get riled at the wholesale removal of material. I realise however that extended periods of editing in areas where I am annoyed by editor behaviour, consensus policy leads to battleground-like behaviour, so I give myself lengthy breaks. I think the same is needed between MF and this venue, which is a pity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't feel it appropriate or worthwhile to ban Malleus from one area of Wikipedia. Malleus can and does add value to areas he edits; what is needed is a remedy to encourage Malleus to be more judicious in his choice of language, so he can continue to take part in all parts of Wikipedia. Our problem, of course, is that - as has been pointed out - the civility policy can be and is sometimes applied inappropriately, so a remedy which relies on that policy is not going to be much better than what we already have. We are admonishing Malleus, so he is aware he is under a severe warning to moderate his language - hopefully that will be enough. Removing him from this arena in addition feels a little punitive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Interesting, but misses the essential target. What the community dislike about Malleus is that he frequently makes offensive remarks on a range of pages. I understand the reluctance to ban Malleus from making offensive remarks as such remarks are often subjective, and such a ban will simply create more of the drama that brought us here rather than reduce it; however, we need something nearer the problem than this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum admonished[edit]

5) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.

Support:
  1. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My below oppose vote is an error on my part; this is a correction, rather than a reconsideration. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Malleus Fatuorum frequently and rightly reminds us all that the central focus of Wikipedia should be content creation and improvement rather than the administrative apparatus and non-content-driven debates. But by repeatedly and deliberately choosing to express himself in the way he does, Malleus Fatuorum chooses to provoke reactions, albeit sometimes overreactions, and all the resulting, easily avoidable fuss. 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." Without detracting in the slightest from Malleus's valuable and important contributions, and without wanting to repeat things I've said to and about Malleus in the past, I can't understand why Malleus can't understand the desirability of toning it down a notch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm going to echo NYB, and caution that this is a time to tone things down. I don't want another case like this, we all need to understand that civility is not optional on this project. Courcelles 18:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Needs something extra, though admonishment will hopefully indicate to Malleus that if he continues with uncivil behaviour he will face stiffer penalties. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. These issues have come up often enough that I believe a ban of some form is necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't consider an admonishment to be necessary, in other words, I think just Remedy 4 is required. PhilKnight (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Yes, though something stronger is needed otherwise this case has been for nothing. Malleus is not unaware that the community are unhappy at his uncivil conduct, and doesn't need us to wag a finger at him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum banned[edit]

5.1) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months due to his history of personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.

Support:
  1. Support... not sure of preference just yet, waiting to see colleague's opinions. The large number of diffs above speak to why this is necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very clearly a minority of one here, however I am sticking my ground on this, making this my second choice. More details to be posted on 5.2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe time-limited bans serve any useful purpose. If six months is sufficient time for an editor to revise his or her behavior, fine. If it's not, then the encyclopedia is only temporarily protected from the subject disruption. If there's to be a ban, it should be indefinite, until the editor subject to the ban can demonstrate that time, personal acknowledgement, and altered conduct have rendered the ban no longer in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Malleus is perfectly capable of presenting his point of view without personalizing the situation or being deliberately provocative in his language; one only needs to read his editorial contributions to know that. Malleus himself might want to consider if there is a pattern to his behaviour. There have been enough really poorly considered administrator decisions in dealing with Malleus that I do not believe this situation is ripe for a ban. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer just remedy 4. PhilKnight (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. no. practically speaking, positives far outweigh negatives and do not align with other sanctions we've handed out before for net levels of disruption. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Excessive at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jon has a point about time-limits. I think the topic ban seems a better way forward at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't like time-limited bans either, but excessive at the moment. Courcelles 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very much unnecessary. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Malleus Fatuorum banned[edit]

5.2) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. After three months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of uncivil and disruptive conduct will not continue.

Support:
  1. Support, not sure of preference yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Making this my first choice; despite the obvious fact this is not passing, I'm sticking my ground here. Malleus's incivility has been widespread over a number of venues; while it is concentrated at RFA, it is by no means the sole location. I further do not feel as though an admonishment is sufficient to handle this; the merits of the individual blocks aside, this editor has been blocked numerous times for the same reason, and yet we're still here at arbitration dealing with it nonetheless. I fully agree with NYB's comments in his vote on 5 above, however I disagree with him in the regard that I believe an editor who thinks such behavior is acceptable is incompatible with this project. I do acknowledge and thank Malleus for his valuable contributions, but that does not excuse the conduct that was the focus of this case. Until and unless it can be demonstrated that such conduct will not continue, I believe it is in the best interests of the project to require Malleus - or indeed any editor who engages in such incivil conduct - to step away from Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support here, because while I don't see that this will pass, I also don't think Hersfold should stand alone. Malleus has said plenty of truly egregious things over the years, and while I echo the committee's hope that he will, when presented with the outcome of this case, choose to conduct himself in a courteous and civil manner while continuing his positive contributions to Wikipedia, the cumulative past and proximate conduct is sufficiently egregious such that a ban is not an inappropriate remedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments at 5.1. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer just remedy 4. PhilKnight (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments at 5.1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Excessive at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though something strong is required to address this level of inappropriate conduct across a variety of venues, we don't want to lose a valuable contributor. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments on 5.1 Courcelles 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Grossly unnecessary. (I understand why we were led to this as a possible resolution, and I do not mean this as a criticism of the drafters.) AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrators reminded[edit]

6) Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Similar to my comment on the principle, in arbitration enforcement there is sometimes a decision whether to apply a short block or a long topic ban, and in such cases this principle doesn't entirely apply. In this context, I'd prefer 'should be applied after carefully considering alternative measures'. However, I'm prepared to go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per PhilKnight and per my comment on the principle. I'd endorse PhilKnight's proposed change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With the caveat that it is not our intention to delegate new powers to the administrator corps carte blanche outside the carefully worded construct of discretionary sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have some quibbles over the wording here (for instance, blocking the edit warriors and protecting the page both end an edit war, but we tend heavily towards the first option) but the basic idea that Special:Block isn't the first place you look for a solution to most problems is correct. Courcelles 00:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
So, are we enshrining-by-acknowledgement the practice of administrators unilaterally imposing topic bans outside of frameworks such as discretionary sanctions? I'm sure that's not what we're intending here. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on remedy 8 below; I believe the discussion I refer to there (but haven't been able to locate in the past 24 hours) addressed, at least to some extent, this practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) And see opinions of individual arbitrators on this point here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors warned reminded[edit]

7) Editors in general, regardless of permission level, are warned reminded not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion. 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.

Support:
  1. I'd also strongly recommend the community work to establish where the incivility line stands. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Changed "warned" to "reminded" per comments from colleagues. Feel free to revert. Risker (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not especially keen on 'in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole', but I can go along with this. PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree that 'reminded' is a prudent choice, it conveys a more desirable atmosphere of guiding, advising and (at times) debriefing rather than some image of an authoritarian figure with a Big Stick. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Now second choice, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    Per the revised wording, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as reworded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Second choice, prefer 7.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is the situation as is, though the irony is that as we agree to this, we are at the same time passing remedies that will allow Malleus to repeat uncivil conduct anywhere on Wikipedia apart from the RfA talkpages. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now second choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could support something making blocks under the last sentence come under AE-block protection, as this is hardly the first time a civility-related block has been overturned on no or little discussion. Courcelles 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see that this is anything other than a super-principle, but I am happy to support this remedy in the hope that it goes some way to addressing the issues with editorial interaction. AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (To clarify: this is now my second choice, in preference to 7.1).) AGK [•] 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now supporting 7.1 only, as these are tied. AGK [•] 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 7.1 is superior in lmost all respects. Courcelles 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now supporting 7.1 only. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto Jclemens. AGK [•] 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'd support if we changed "warned" to "reminded" or some other appropriate word. But a "warning" should only be given when an editor has engaged in bad conduct, or at least arguably bad conduct, in the past, so I don't think it sounds right to issue a "warning" addressed indiscriminately to the entire community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Changed, now supporting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB, will support if changed to "reminded", warning is not appropriate in this formulation. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the talk page commentary, I'm thinking "reminded not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion." could be reworded as "reminded not to engage in conduct that will lower the level of discourse in a discussion" as being more direct to our point here. The expectation isn't, in my mind, so much that every editor has to raise the level from the comment before theirs, but that behaviour that actively lowers the discussion towards mud-slinging is not acceptable, and then goes on to list some behaviours that lower the level of discourse. Courcelles 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. Likewise, there are things like "... not to engage in conduct that will reduce the level of collegiality" which would also seem to work. Maybe we should be more explicit and verbose here? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded[edit]

7.1) All users 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.

Support:
  1. Proposed as an alternative to 7), per comments on the talk page, and based on the original. First choice. AGK [•] 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per comments on the talk page, I replaced Users in general, regardless of permission level with simply All users. Feel free to revert. (Also, I'm good with Jclemens' edits.) AGK [•] 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Only choice.) AGK [•] 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Clears up the "improve the level of discourse" wording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Better, first choice, though I think we could have copy-edited 7 instead of holding a fresh vote... Courcelles 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With a couple of copyedits. Call this equal preference for now. Now my first/only choice. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference; I guess if it comes down to it, "All users" is likely better, so this one marginal first choice. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice; the inclusion of the reference to permission levels was deliberate, to emphasize that being an administrator, bureaucrat, rollbacker, edit filter manager, etc., does not give one a "bye" on inappropriate behaviour. Nonetheless, I can see the value in an inclusive phrasing. Risker (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Proposed so as to align this proposal with the drafters' intention in 7), and also with our own interpretation of the original proposal (which evidently, perhaps due to our 'tunnel vision', was not that of the observing community). AGK [•] 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community and administrator imposed restrictions[edit]

8) 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. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In the context of already having Wikipedia:Ban#Community bans and restrictions, and WP:SANCTIONLOG#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, I don't consider this to be especially necessary. That said, I certainly don't object to a community review of current procedures. PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We previously made this recommendation in a case in 2009. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Community and administrator imposed restrictions, and see also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged. I recall that the latter recommendation, at least, did lead to some useful discussion and policy clarification, though I have not been able quickly to locate the link (if anyone can locate it, thank you). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: The link I was looking for is Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions. My thanks to T. Canens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It's always useful to revisit procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (I suggest replacing ad hoc with as-necessary. It is our policy to avoid Latin phraseology or legalisms.) AGK [•] 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 23:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Extended content
  • As of 09:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC):
  • All proposed principles have passed;
  • Findings of fact:
  • 1 has passed;
  • 2 has passed;
  • 3 has passed;
  • 4 has failed;
  • 4.1 has passed;
  • 5 has passed;
  • 6 has passed;
  • 7 has passed;
  • 8 has passed;
  • 9 has passed;
  • 10 has passed;
  • 11 has passed
  • Remedies:
  • 1 has passed;
  • 2 has failed;
  • 2.1 has passed;
  • 2.2 has failed;
  • 2.3 has failed;
  • 3 has failed;
  • 3.1 has passed;
  • 4 has passed;
  • 5 has passed;
  • 5.1 has failed;
  • 5.2 has failed;
  • 6 has passed;
  • 7 has failed;
  • 8 has passed;
  • The one proposed enforcement has passed
Remedy 3.1 has less support votes then 3. Please check over my work --Guerillero | My Talk 04:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made some cosmetic changes. Tiptoety talk 05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I make remedy 3.1 passing due to preferences, and therefore 3 failing... check? Courcelles 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed,  Fixed. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 05:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is once again some errors on preferences versus total support votes (remedies 3 and 7). Courcelles 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A section of the arbs are saying one thing and another section are saying another. There are more raw votes for 3 and 7 then there are for 3.1 or 7.1. From what I can gather the fist choice and second choice annotations only come into play if there is a tie. I ask the arbs that have yet to vote on 3.1 and 7.1 to do so or for a few arbs to change their support votes into a procedural oppose. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by 18:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC) by Guerillero | My Talk; the last edit to this page was on 20:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Etiquette 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Sanctions and circumstances 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Good faith and disruption 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Fair criticism 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Baiting 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Administrators 10 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Blocking 10 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Use of administrative tools in a dispute 10 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Wheel-warring 10 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Civility blocks 10 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Disruption 10 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Internationalism 10 0 0 PASSING ·
14 Offensive commentary 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Malleus Fatuorum 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Malleus Fatuorum's block log 9 0 1 PASSING ·
3 Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship 8 0 1 PASSING · SilkTork to vote
4 Thumperward's block 4 5 0 NOT PASSING ·
4.1 Thumperward's block 8 2 0 PASSING ·
5 Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions 6 4 0 PASSING ·
6 John's unblock 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Hawkeye7 wheel warred 6 3 0 PASSING · Jclemens to vote
8 Hawkeye7's personal attack 10 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Hawkeye7 previously admonished 10 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Inconsistencies in civility enforcement 10 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Difficulties in defining civility 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Hawkeye7 desysopped 8 1 0 PASSING · Fuchs to vote
2 Thumperward desysopped 2 6 1 NOT PASSING ·
2.1 Thumperward admonished 7 3 0 PASSING ·
2.2 Thumperward advised 5 3 0 NOT PASSING 1
2.3 Thumperward admonished (2) 5 3 0 NOT PASSING 1
3 John reminded 8 2 0 NOT PASSING · Equal support to 3.1, but more opposition and 2nd choices
3.1 John admonished 8 0 0 PASSING · Has fewer support votes than 3
4 Malleus Fatuorum topic banned 9 1 0 PASSING ·
5 Malleus Fatuorum admonished 7 2 0 PASSING · Cas to vote
5.1 Malleus Fatuorum banned 1 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5.2 Malleus Fatuorum banned 2 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6 Administrators reminded 9 0 0 PASSING · Courcelles to vote
7 Editors reminded 7 3 0 NOT PASSING · More opposition; 7.1 has more 1st choices
7.1 Editors reminded 8 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Community and administrator imposed restrictions 9 0 0 PASSING · Cas to vote
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement by block 9 0 0 PASSING · Risker to vote
Notes


Comment: Remedy 7.0 does not fail until 7.1 receives greater support - either a higher number of support votes, or in a tie, a higher number of "first choice" votes. As it stands as I make this edit, I believe 7.0 is still passing in favor or 7.1. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated 3 and 7 per this and your concerns on the mailing list --Guerillero | My Talk 18:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated again: R7 is 7 to 3, whereas R7.1 is 8 to 0 (and has more first choices). AGK [•] 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto R3 and 3.1: 3.1 now has equal support, but no opposition and has a majority of first choices. AGK [•] 01:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Although there are a couple items that I've supported which aren't passing, overall I'm satisfied with the result as it stands at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (I've asked the first available clerk to publish the implementation notes.) AGK [•] 23:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm done, this looks reasonably settled now, willing to start the closing clock when we hit net 4. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks ok to me. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Net four, start the clock. Courcelles 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Issues resolved. Risker (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Hold for now, we've still got a couple arbs that haven't voted on anything, no implementation notes, and I'm still pondering a few things. Courcelles 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refinements still being done, let's not rush things. Risker (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. All arbitrators active on the case have now voted (we had one arbitrator move to inactive last night), although not all have voted on every proposal. I would hope that those active might review the most recent observations above by myself and others, so this isn't ready to close just yet, but it's getting closer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136116086"