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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Kaldari could you mention if any of those personal attacks are against non admins?

Whether or not Malleus is attacking non admins is important I think. You might not think the distinction is important, but the arbitration committee might find it useful. --ScWizard (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted evidence where he attacked two non-admins. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Who he makes the attack against is immaterial. He shouldn't be making personal attacks, period. That's just my two cents on it. SirFozzie (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SirFozzie. Nevertheless, as a mute point, Yes, MF has been aggressive against many non-admins, diffs are already present within the case, and a comprehensive list would be ridiculously long. Has it been tolerated far too long? Yes! Should MF be immune from sanction because his content editing is remarkable? Absolutely not! My76Strat (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is how you feel, and the other arbitrators feel similarly, then it's pretty clear what the result of this case will be. --ScWizard (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Should he be targeted for sanction when similar behavior from other users is ignored? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it will be quite useful to examine Kaldari's diffs with respect to what kinds of pages they occur upon. I say that because one thing that may be worth considering (I've raised it on the Workshop page) is a topic ban or similar editing restriction, short of a full site ban. If we find that there are certain places where civility is disrupted, then those might be places from which to restrict Malleus. On a quick read-through, a lot of the diffs are on his own user talk, or the user talks of his friends, where arguably they don't do much harm. A couple are at WP:RFA, which is something that Risker and SirFozzie specifically asked me about. Some, but I think not many, are on talk pages of articles where Malleus was helping with content improvement; I think that those are of particular interest in terms of assessing his value in improving content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The notion that we should assess a users value with regard to policy enforcement is such an oxymoron, I cringe internally each time I see such a paring. We only need to no what is acceptable, (the rules) and what are the consequences (fairly applied with equal resolve). My76Strat (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My76Stat's evidence

My76Stat wrote, Alleging Hawkeye made a derogatory statement is an unacceptable conclusion. At best, an editor can only positively define their actions, not the motives of another. The only truthful statement Mkativerata can make to this regard is that they perceived the comment as derogatory. Now isn't that the fatal flaw with civility/NPA? In some cases, it is clear what is a civility issue but that line isn't always clear. What offends me may not offend you. Hell, sometimes it's the who who makes the comment more than what the comment is! Two users use the same word, from one it is a term of affection from the other an attack.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

True to a point. But is that a "fatal flaw" or just the legal hole that people can lawyer through in the interests of defending the obviously indefensible. That grey areas exist, shouldn't prevent us calling black, black, and very-dark--grey, near enough to black to make no whit of difference. Anyway, if "cunt" is your idea of a possible term of affection, then I remain affectionately yours.--Scott Mac 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunt may not be the most civil term, but is calling an unnamed group of admins cunts really a blockable offense? That is where the gray line emerges. Now fucking cunt at a specific person, that is hard to ignore.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Cunt has been the most seriously taboo word in English for centuries and remains so for the vast majority of users." See pg 110,An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geoffrey Hughes.Buster Seven Talk 00:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Since that's a direct quote, you should put that in parentheses, you know, and give a page number. While you're at it, read the rest of the entry--it's fascinating, and the brief quote doesn't do it justice. Seriously, one of these days someone should write an article on Gropecunt Lane and get it promoted to FA. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I read the entry, 3 years ago.Buster Seven Talk 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure Drmies, and perhaps if they write it well enough, they should also be permitted to insult who they please, how they please. It has been suggested. My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments removed from project page

GRuban highlights an important point

If MF had the persistent habit of hurling racial insults at his pleasure, I can not imagine an advocate suggesting he is so valued that we should actually tolerate such conduct. It is troubling that so many are willing to condone his misogynous conduct, which clearly contravene the institutional goals of Wikipedia. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The goals referenced are that of WMF; there's no evidence they are the goals of the English Wikipedia.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, having an editing environment where women and men feel equally at ease ought to be our goal, whether it is or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal sets matters straight

In describing the (made up nonsense about "stewed"), you imply by inference that my stating "I am familiar with stewed being used in the context Hawkeye described" is untruthful. I'd rather ask directly; do you mean to imply I am being untruthful? My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman may have introduced sarcasm

Stating MF "is worth a 100 of the rest of us", is grossly inaccurate and can only be reconciled as sarcasm. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RE Balloonman

In response to your evidence, I doubt that there are only a handful of useful contributors when Wikipedia is so huge and growing each day. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said, what I said "as his value to Wikipedia equaled only by a handful". And that is true, only a handful of users have the history he does and the dedication he does to this project. While some great users come and go, very few have stayed or are likely to stay as active as he has for 5+ years.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I misread you. Sorry about that. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NP---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, you say at one point in your evidence that Malleus is worth 100 of the rest of us. I'm tempted to respond "speak for yourself". Now please don't get me wrong (either about what you meant, or about what I'm really worth!). I know you were pointing out his excellent contributions, and I actually am in agreement with you about that. But I think one of the things that the Arbs are going to have to figure out here is the extent to which we should or should not treat some editors as being "worth" more than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking for myself ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is worth no more than five of me. Maybe six. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not even one of you, because I'm not an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 07:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All editors are invaluable! Comparative valuation is the nexus of discriminatory practices. While you are entitled to make self deprecating comments, in jest or otherwise, you are certainly not worth any measure less. While I won't stand silent while some elevate you above others, I would, and will speak against anyone, if ever, attempting to minimize you to a lower realm. I do not know what compels you to comment directed insults at clearly identifiable targets, but that must not be allowed. If you absolutely must, then take your block in stride. The easiest fix to this entire process, as it relates to you, is to stop the practice. Comment on content, not the editor. My76Strat (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to be kidding. Sorry Strat, you've left Mr. Rogers' neighborhood a long time ago. These editors are not valuable. And look at this: Special:Log/block. Ask yourself if those editors are valuable. I hate to complicate it even more, but some of those in the latter category may actually be blocked unjustly. Mind you, we're talking about editors, not about human beings. Bambifan may be a wonderful human being, but is not an "invaluable editor." To be frank, a lot of us are not invaluable, and some of us are more valuable than others. Not all editors are good, Strat (not all Strats are equal either--I'll take a pre-CBS Strat over you, sorry). Not all editors are as good at writing as Malleus, and not all editors are as helpful as Mandarax (or Malleus, or Ucucha, or...), or as nice as the Lady, or as beautiful as me. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably am over focused on human qualities. Admittedly, if I have a question I seek an answer from someone I believe will produce a correct answer. But a comment, framed as an insult and directed against a named individual, itself attacks the human qualities of the perhaps "less valuable" editor. Fred Rogers is dead, children are watching Family Guy, and teens prefer songs with explicit lyrics. That doesn't mean an insult should now be treated as a shortcoming of the insulted party, and enforcing civility doesn't mean Wikipedia should run like Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood. (I'd be the first running for the exit). It simply means a pre-CBS Strat is much more valuable than mine. My76Strat (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, yes, some editors are more valuable to Wikipedia than others. Now if you want to talk about a metaphysical or philosophical discussion about the value of a human life, that is a different discussion. But when discussing the value to Wikipedia (which I explicitly included) then you have to admit that Malleus' contributions to wikipedia are significantly greater than those of 95%+ percent of wikipedians. He has been involved both directly and indirectly in getting most FA articles passed---both in the review and revision process. He is active in the GA process. His contributions to the project are more long lasting than most of ours. To the project, yes, he is more valuable than most (that's not to say that an argument can't be made that he's harmful as well... but the value of his contributions is significant.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any more examples SL93?

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

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

I'd be really interested in learning about more examples of incivility towards or attacks on non admins. --ScWizard (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is not a personal attack, it is still uncalled for as you said. The barnstar giver even said that it hurt him, but Malleus didn't care and continued. I think that is just as bad as a personal attack. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find an example from the same month where he told a non-admin to fuck off, but I will look for it tomorrow. Telling someone to fuck off, no matter what Malleus' supporters say, is always incivil. There are better ways to get someone to leave you alone. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, sometimes telling someone to fuck off is proper--if, for instance, it is the only thing they seem to understand. Editors who have as many edits as does MF (or yours truly) sometimes run into situations where nothing else can be said to a persistently wrong editor. Sometimes people just don't get it, and sometimes they really just need to fuck off and to be told so. Admin or non-admin abuse--pshaw. Look at the circumstances surrounding Kaldari's block--that's worthy of an FU. As is pointed out by John on the main page here, most of MF's blocks were bad blocks, and to be blocked again for some bullshit is aggravating. Peons can't block back, you know. Look at how many fools and jerks think it's fun to swing by MF's talk page to gloat. This whole situation disgusts me, and that it's an opportunity for all of those folks to unload on a content writer whose contributions they can't hold a candle to makes this even more awful. Good luck going through MF's 100,000+ edits, SL. I hope you find what you're looking for. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is much too free with phrases like "f--- off", although Kaldari's list shows that most of the incivility doesn't include swearing at all. Most of that incivility doesn't involve "persistently wrong editor[s]", either. Nor is Malleus always right – the confrontation on my talk page shows he's often transparently wrong, even if you agree with his main conclusion. Generally, "go away", or if necessary "go away or I'll resort to dispute resolution", gets better results than "f--- off". Art LaPella (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Go away or I'll resort to dispute resolution"--I'll keep that in mind. I saw that conversation a couple of weeks ago. I think "Jeez" was indeed the proper response to your transparently silly civility complaint, and I think it's a good thing you've kept your finger off the "Block Malleus" button. Sometimes accusing someone of incivility is itself an act of incivility. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At least it was "Jeez", not "f--- off". Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Such discussions are the initial stages of dispute resolution. A more diplomatic response would be: "I've made the point I felt needed making here, but I don't want to get into a lengthy argument about this. If we can both move on, let's do so, otherwise we need to discuss this calmly and see if we can agree on anything here." Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that well known content contributors can do as they please which seems to be the main argument for him. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious from MF's block log that he can't do as he pleases. Really. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • But he never gets a full block. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest you check your facts. Malleus Fatuorum 06:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

From the evidence page: Evidence presented by SL93

SL, I think we've gotten along well in the past, but that section just pisses me off. I don't know how you got it as wrong as you did, but you did. Look at what precedes the conversation on MF's talk page (your diff, I believe): Forth Valley Royal Hospital is nominated for GA and MF picks up the review on 31 July, when the article looks like this--really, like shit. It doesn't even have a lead, and I'd be embarrassed to even put that up at DYK. Four days later, it looks like this. Feel free to look at the history--you'll find one or two familiar names in there.

Now, Warburton comes by to thank MF on his talk page, which is a nice thought--but he thanks him for copyediting. I mean, for fucking copyediting. SL, if you think that the difference between this and this is copyediting, then you probably had someone else write your freshman comp papers for you. To be thanked for copyediting in this particular instance is truly an insult, and that MF only said "So you think I just copyedited your article?" shows that he has more restraint than any of you lot give him credit for. "Thanks for copyediting" is a complete denial of all he has done for that article, and he doesn't get to pin the GA star on his vest.

Demiurge's response is typical (Demiurge also seems to think that turning water into wine is a matter of copyediting), and again MF limits himself to an expression of some bewilderment--so if anything is to be regarded as disproportionate, it's your attempt to turn this into some kind of evidence: an excellent piece of work gets done away with as "copyediting," and a fair question in response is taken as a declaration of war by someone who was just looking for an excuse. And this is evidence of what, SL93? Of one thing only, perhaps: that writing quality content is merely a question of copyediting. Shit. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, one thing that troubles me here is the blithe acceptance that it is acceptable to review the history of an article and call early versions "shit" and later versions much better. That is undoubtedly a true statement, but it does nothing to help encourage editors who might indeed be producing "shit" (as you call it). Whatever happened to (as well as improving articles) helping other editors improve their writing? If someone you didn't know from Adam called an article you wrote "shit", would that encourage you to improve your writing or would you be offended? You might use the insult as motivation to improve, but others are more sensitive and will (not unreasonably) be offended. It is not just Malleus that engages in this sort of "look, I've improved your shit article" conduct (possibly under some misguided 'improving the article is the be-all-and-end-all and whether or not this involves insulting other editors doesn't matter' rationale). Have a look at the example here and here. Note that Malleus said in the first discussion linked: "It's a pity that I have no power to drive away the crap editors, only the good ones." The correct place to discuss the quality of articles is on an article's talk page (or some actual review process), not among a group congregating on a user talk page (which promotes insularity) where some editors feel they have free rein to say what they like (reminds me of the complaints some people have about IRC). That this incident was used nearly two months later as an insult just makes matters worse (I raised that matter here). If Malleus and a group of others had spent a whole week improving all the articles that went through DYK, and also provided helpful guidance to the editors concerned, that would be great. Taking one article and using insulting language about it is less helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • MF didn't say "shit," I did, and if anyone involved in the article is insulted (not you), then I apologize. I meant "shit" in comparison, of course, to the pearl that was promoted as GA. Now, if all you got out of my note here that I used a bad word, then I guessed I totally missed my point. In fact, I'm sorry I used the word, since it seems to give you an opportunity to sidestep the argument, which is that SL's piece of 'evidence' is a crock of, well, you know. How often have you been accused of driving away editors? Drmies (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It was good of you to apologise here and below. My point was less the use of bad words, and more the use of superlatives. I wouldn't have described the version you linked as "shit", but then I wouldn't have described the GA version as a "pearl" either. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • To whoever (Warburton? Edinburgh Wanderer? Demiurge?) is more or less responsible for the above-linked version: I apologize for referring to it as shit--that was uncalled for, and incorrect. It's not shit. It's not a GA, of course, and I don't think it should have been nominated as one, but it's not shit. I'll be more careful next time. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A thank you is a thank you no matter if it is off a bit or a lot. I do think that Malleus could have just corrected the editor instead of being like that. I may have pissed you off, but I find that surprising. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to jump in here - have been watching this and am frustrated. Drmies is right. I followed the incident, I looked at the article in question, and what Malleus did was re-write and not copyedit. When he was "thanked" for copyediting, he asked whether that's what he'd done -clearly he'd done much more to bring the page through GA. To have someone rewrite a page for you, help bring it through GA, and plop a copyeditors barnstar (which anyone can get for a basic number of edits at the GOCE) can be considered incivil to be frank. Civility is not all about rude language and I hope this case doesn't devolve into an issue of profanity. In other words, I don't necessarily think this is evidence of incivility against Malleus who in fact spent a great deal of time working on the page. Refusing to work on the page would have been incivil - but he helped significantly and he didn't have to. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever thought that the editor could have been confused about something? I took the assume good faith route because of the editor's second response. There was nothing else that could have caused me to assume he was trying to be incivil. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community ban because of this specific incident, when in fact Malleus wrote and added an article to the encyclopedia, then my reaction is the same as Drmies'. I think that trawling his talk page to find "incidents" of incivility without a full investigation of what precipitated the issue also doesn't show good faith. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that he should be banned for every incident altogether instead of getting away with everything just because of his contributions. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at your incoherent post again and just say what you mean without any lather. What on Earth does "every incident altogether mean" anyway? If I was to agree to whatever that means would you as well? Malleus Fatuorum 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, how would you react if Malleus insulted you? You became pissed off because of my post. You also called me either dumb or lazy when I said that you were acting like an asshole earlier. I took it back, but would you be fine with it if you were on the receiving end? SL93 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Two points: MF didn't call anyone anything. Second, if I said "thanks for the copyedit" when it is so blatantly obvious that he didn't just copyedit and he would call me an asshole (which is not something he's used to doing, I believe), I'd have to accept it. If I'm called an asshole by MF because I acted like one, I'd accept it, yes. I think this GA nomination brought up a lot of things that are wrong with the process: reviewers (and content editors in general) are expected to act like copyeditors, and when they turn water into wine they get thanked for fishing a fly from the cup. Going through the guy's entire history is ridiculous--you want to bring up things he got blocked for already? Punish him again? Even if (as so often turns out to be the case) the block was uncalled for? (See Balloonman's comment on "premature knee jerk blocks" on the Evidence page.) You're helping turn this into a witch hunt. In this case, your evidence is evidence of nothing against MF, who at least in this exchange acted very appropriately and showed more control than I am capable of. I would have turned that GAN down in the first place, and he didn't, out of a genuine desire to be helpful, to show other editors how to write Good Articles. "Thanks for the copyedit." C'mon, man. This particular incident is misread and misrepresented, and the entire case against MF is blown out of all proportion. Even if he did inappropriately referred to a section of a group of editors as cunts, what's it to you? Or me? He could be talking about me, for all I know--I haven't unblocked him, ever, even when I thought the block was wrong (I'm a sheep that way, I'll admit). People do worse things to me in traffic and in the classroom--I deal with it. So could you, if you chose to. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He always gets unblocked before the block expired. Second of all, he did call Spitfire a cunt in a diff that was already provided by Kaldari. [1]. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    The Hawkeye7 block just expired today without him having been unblocked. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    Okay, one. Big deal and people are calling him to be admonished or have his admin title revoked. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    I removed my evidence. I will work on other things while this discussion ends. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SL. I think you also have an interest in this process being as fair as possible. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Notifying other editors mentioned

Is there an expectation that any editors mentioned in evidence or examples (like the one I provided above) should be notified? There are at least three editors relating to the example above that I could notify (asking them if they agree or disagree with what I've said), but given the large number of examples that may be used in this case, that could involve a lot of notification. In the initial statements, Elonka mentioned an incident where she warned Malleus about something he said in a discussion in response to what I said, but I only noticed that because I was reading the request. There may be diffs on the evidence page pointing to examples where those involved are unaware that the examples are being used (and possibly misrepresented) in an arbitration case. Where does the current balance lie as regards the need for notification? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just do what you would do in any other case.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think notification should occur. Its a bit like a class-action suit. Every stockholder is notified, even those with only one share. Let them decide if they want to participate. I'm sure there are many voices out in WikiWorld that would like to be heard if only the knew that other editors with the same experience would listenBuster Seven Talk 15:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange evidence submissions

The way the evidence is being presented here (in some cases) is strange, and I'm unclear how it is going to help the arbs. One of our best content contributors (one who not only wrote a gob of FAs, but reviewed many and helped many other editors write them and numerous GAs as well) is most likely gone, so what are people hoping to accomplish by putting up evidence of his "civility" issues after that horse already left the barn? Is anyone going to look at the issue of what, if anything, admins and the RFA process did to lead to the end result and what kinds of findings the arbs can make to help put an end to involved admins blocking punitively instead of preventatively, and using an existing block log to justify more blocks? The arbs can't write our civility policy, that's the community's job. What is astounding about this case is that so many editors are rushing to throw in their two cents, yet dispute resolution completely failed here. No one ever started an RFC on Malleus, no one ever worked to clear up the civility policy, and no one heeded Geometry guy's pleas on the last Malleus ANI for admins to ... well, do what admins should do instead of just jumping to block people. With the kind of evidence being presented here, how are people thinking their evidence is going to contribute towards any meaningful findings to improve civility enforcement or the issues that lead to the friction between admins and content contributors? If the goal is to be rid of Malleus, that's already pretty well accomplished, so I hope someone will put up something here that the arbs can work with that will lead to findings that will improve the situation where admins are quick to block and unblock, but slow to understand issues, gain consensus, or encourage appropriate use of dispute resolution processes. At the rate this is going, I don't see what the arbs are supposed to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because Malleus has commented about 60 times since his "farewell", and other editors have quit repeatedly. Art LaPella (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but for those who want to rid the Wikipedia of Malleus, that's still not the point-- that will happen if it happens, but how will that address the underlying problems and the kinds of findings the arbs need to make for this to be a useful case? People say worse things to me weekly-- I don't go running to ANI, and they don't get blocked. Yet Malleus was a target. Is ridding the Wiki of Malleus going to stop any of that? If so, great, because I'd like to know why others can routinely say worse things to and about me and not even get a warning, and why it's ok for admins to target certain editors while ignoring others. IF folks want to make an example of Malleus, great-- articles will be affected, while lesser quality editors will continue using Wikipedia for their playground while adding nothing to content unless this case proceeds in a way that the fundamental problems are addressed in findings. This case isn't moving that direction. The admin problem needs to be solved, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning: satire Sandy, what is wrong with you? Don't you get the fundamental difference between incivility to an admin and incivility from an admin? end of satire. I'll be adding a part two to my evidence (was waiting for the bot to do the word count thing). ArbCom can't actually fix this, but I'm reasoning hopeful they won't make things terribly worse. They're some of our better admins, imho. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that it has as much to do with to or from an admin, as it does with how much time one spends on IRC and how many IRC friends one has. That's where most blocks are cooked up, and I can fersure tell you that some editors who have lots of IRC friends can talk to me or others however they want, while if I say "boo", they'll dig up a newbie friend to come over and have a "friendly chat" with me. It's all about IRC and a social game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)b

Strange, when I find something Malleus wrote on a talk page it's likely to be strikingly hostile, but you (Sandy) presumably encounter him much more than I do. I wonder how an evidence page could support an "everybody does it" defense that makes Kaldari's list look mild by comparison? Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an "everybody does it" defense. And since I clearly know a different Malleus than you, and know him to be one of our considerably best and most helpful editors, all I'm asking is how this case is going to come to useful findings, and pointing out that the problem goes beyond Malleus-- the admin factor needs to be accounted for. One gets tired of seeing the constant meme that those of us who know another Malleus defend incivility-- I certainly would never say the things he says, but I do understand how he was driven to Wikicide by partial admins. If those admins want to chase off one of our top contributors, can we get them to either stop, or do the same to the unhelpful idiots-- just apply sanctions equally, and get in the Wiki and off of IRC chat rooms? What I'm saying is putting up all the Malleus diffs folks want to is not going to resolve the underlying problem, and the Malleus "problem" is already solved-- admins killed him years ago. How do we get admins to work equally on the "real" problem editors, and how do we get the community to work on a civility policy rather than targeting one editor? If we don't answer those questions, this case will come to nothing that won't happen all by itself (meaning, Malleus gives up, admins continue doing what they do, some good, some bad, and rude editors with friends on IRC continue to get away with it, while editors with enemies on IRC get targetted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Malleus I know best (but not very well) is the Malleus I met at Did You Know and WP:ERRORS, and in both cases there were no admins to provoke his behavior (that is, before I asked him to be civil). Art LaPella (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you're suggesting that DYK is the kind of forum that promotes civility, particularly since one DYK regular told me to shut the fuck up long ago, and quite got away with it :) :) Then another accused me of vandalism and misused the revdel tool. Difference being, I followed dispute resolution and did the RFC, that was never done on Malleus. If those folks act up again, the RFC is on record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect, this is precisely why this is at arbitration. Some see Malleus as a toxic editor who's been given far too much rope because of his contributions, others see him as basically a victim of admin bullying and double standards, who was doing nothing others don't do. Which is true? Well, that's for both sides to present evidence and for the Arbitration Committee to sort out. Objecting to the evidence being submitted, because one of these perceptions is correct is simply beggaring the question - you won't get agreement or we wouldn't be here. If the evidence fails to convince the Committee it will be disregarded. (I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying)/.--Scott Mac 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott, you're heroically missing the point. Malleus should be blocked. Regularly. In fact, if ever there was a poster boy for "cool down" blocks, he's it. He does, and probably always will, tend towards reacting to children, childishly. He's a rude bugger AND he's a victim of clique-ish crap and double standards. And guess what? You can't fix one and not the other. Being an admin is a hard job. There are too many who are not up to it. Block Malleus whenever he does wrong, but ALSO get rid of the kiddy admins.101.118.34.227 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm just saying that presenting a bunch of "oh, look how naughty Malleus is" diffs won't get anything done in this case. The arbs didn't seem to want to see that kind of case when several of them mentioned that an RFC hadn't been tried. I'm reminded of FT2's request long ago on another case: I think you're all going to be disappointed in the findings, after pouring a lot of effort into presenting evidence, if the evidence doesn't hone in on something that will lend itself to a finding beyond yielding to the wishes of those who want to rid the Wikipedia of Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd seriously rather submit Malleus to the pitchforks of an RFC? It would be better, surely for Arbcom to settle it, and either tell his detractors to leave him be, or otherwise. In any case, you are either right or you are wrong. I'm guessing the "other side" are hoping for something else. Arbcom will decide.--Scott Mac 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 in Strange evidence section

SandyGeorgia, while you may not be (suggesting an "everybody does it" defense), you are appeared to be advocating for an "everyone should be allowed" reality. In my opinion, that places would have placed you on the wrong side of this issue. It now appears to me that I had at first misconstrued your comments to mean something they apparently did not. Being capable of error, it appears I have erred. I apologize to the extent I have aggrieved. My76Strat (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Refactored for clarity. My76Strat (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading, but it's not what I'm writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the land of the false dichotomy. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's an attention span issue, or related to the increasingly large presence of folks here who don't build articles, don't know anything about building articles or consensus or collaboration, and can't do much except come to the table with pitchforks or blocking tools (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). My76Strat's response is typical of the kind of ignorance that predominates every time this issue surfaces, where some see the bigger issues, others just see that big naughty Malleus. I've no idea what My76Strat is reading, it's nothing that I wrote, but I'd be perfectly happy on a Wikipedia where no one gets to mention my name along with "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack", and as long as admins avert their eyes when they or their friends do it, while going after content contributors who don't suck up on IRC, I don't see how this problem is going to be solved, and Wikipedia won't just continue to be a place where children play games more than adults write encyclopedic articles. I wonder how the arbs plan to craft any sort of useful finding out of the evidence being presented. You can block and ban all you want, but that won't solve the underlying problem and it sure won't get articles written. Tough cases make bad law, and there has never been a case before the arbs of such a highly prolific and helpful contributor as Malleus was (I think I gave a decent defense in the C68 omnibus case, but Cla68 doesn't nearly measure up to Malleus' contributions); anyone want to look at the factors that contributed to his Wikicide? Nah, that would just be too much work, wouldn't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your rant doesn't help here. And that selective quote, along with the comment "my name" is, frankly, misleading. I view TCO's rant as also being extremely unhelpful, and full of pretty silly invective, but the quote in question (given fully) "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" doesn't seem directed principally at you (had it been it would be outrageous), but also at "Admins, Arbs, teen aged OTRS and CUs." As for looking at the factors that contributed to Malleus' "wikicide", I trust that's exactly what arbcom are looking at. But if there are other things you think they should examine - present them. Stop poisoning the well.--Scott Mac 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Describing Sandy's comments here as poisoning the well is like saying she's pouring arsenic into the cyanide. The well has already been polluted, slowly over time, by the "no one noticing" a TCO's comment, or calling admins on the shut the fuck ups, the fuck offs, and the oh, you wasted our time bringing this to ANIs carping and sniping which goes on nonstop.Nobody Ent (Gerardw)

I had some idea you were a clueful editor, but the post above is frankly astounding. Malleus was routinely blocked for using "naughty" words directed at no one in particular, and yet TCO gets away with a sexist remark in the same paragraph that uses my name twice, and you defend and excuse it in the context of the Malleus case. Do you not see that this is precisely the dilemma that needs to be resolved? What TCO did here is FAR beyond anything Malleus did before his final wikicide, and gazillions of admins were aware of it, yet no one even warned him. There are none so blind as those who will not see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not having studied the reasons Malleus was blocked, I have defended nothing. Am I blind? No, I've not looked - and not claimed otherwise. I hear what you are saying - I hear what others are saying. All I'm saying is that is precisely the matter that is being arbitrated - so simply repeating it as if it were a knockdown argument takes us no further. (BTW, to be clear, had a seen that post of TCO's I would not have ignored it, but I'm not acting on a month old complaint. If others were aware of it, and said nothing, that is indeed reprehensible.)--Scott Mac 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, the main difference between TCO's block log and Malleus's is that TCO doesn't have as many people to unblock him. And for what it's worth, I did redact TCO. Art LaPella (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy's complaint that no one seems to have confronted TCO is well made. It is, I realise, a little belated, but I have issued a stern warning.--Scott Mac 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointy as hell and not justified by policythe absence of the formation of a policy on the point. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

Pointy? Assuming you are invoking Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point How is it "disruption"? And I'd say WP:CIVIL justifies me warning a user.--Scott Mac 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you warning him over? "However, I simply want to make clear that the remark is utterly unacceptable, a clear breach of civility, and the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive." How is it a clear breach of civility? There is no personal attack. Your remark that "the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive" is particularly pointy given that your attention has been drawn to policythe absence of the formation of a policy on language in civility. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

Sheesh, I'm glad you understood the issue, but I sure didn't want a warning issued weeks (month?) after the fact-- it's the point of the thing, that Malleus was targeted for what others do routinely. How can we get that to stop, and get sanctions to be applied more evenly? I can assure you that plenty of admins knew of that post ... but warning him now isn't helpful <groan> ... the point is that Malleus was routinely blocked for what EVERYONE does all the time, and then his block log was used as an excuse to block. Look at his very first block-- a most definitely involved admin blocked him for using the word "wikilawyer"-- in those days, Malleus was probably innocent enough about Wikipedia to think it would all get sorted out and he was still optimistic about Wikipedia ... admins cured him of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm no prissy when it comes to civility, but we do need to draw a line somewhere - particularly with macho language that tends to create a hostile environment. That no one questioned TCO at the time I genuinely find appalling. As I've said, I haven't looked at Malleus's blocks, were I to, it is quite possible I would agree with you. However, given that the matter is now before arbcom, I'd suggest you make your case to them. Trying to convince me, or arguing here with Malleus's detractors, is only going to raise temperatures without shedding light. That's really all I'm saying.--Scott Mac 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And I was only presenting it as an example of the very double standard that Malleus railed against and what led to his disillusionment with Wikipedia (that what was applied to Malleus didn't apply to others), not asking for a warning. Oh my. It was only supposed to be an illustration of the dilemma we should be looking at here, and how Malleus was hounded for what others get away with routinely-- and that means others who do far less for the encyclopedia than Malleus does. You know, this is another demonstration of the symptom of the disease that ails Wikipedia-- block, warn, sanction, admonish instead of discuss, learn, collaborate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you collaborate unless you are willing to discuss and let people know when they overstep? You complained that "TCO gets away with a sexist remark". The point is not to block or sanction, it is to create an environment where people don't do that.--Scott Mac 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, with all the edit conflicts, I just finally read your "stern warning", and it's more discussion than warning, and not as stern as you and Fifelfoo led me to fear. Anyway ... it was supposed to enlighten and inspire others to tackle the dilemma in a way that will lead to productive case findings, not lead to a new kerfuffle :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we create an atmosphere where we work together to tackle these things on talk pages then perhaps we can avoid the next arbcom case and its case findings. Despite Fifelfee's extreme position, I suspect that there's actual a fair amount of common ground about over the line invective. If we can get past the polarised positions and start talking, perhaps we can make some thing better - although it is too late for this particular case, which is now best settled by arbitration.--Scott Mac 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm here to maintain a freedom of expression in language, including figurative phrases, that is so fundamental to my being that I'm out of the project if it goes. The conduct behind "Editor X is a Y" is problematic for all non-demonstrable Ys. Utter reprehensibility, the core gender non-specific content of "cunt" on a person is an unacceptable Y. So is WP:DICK for that matter. So is many many things. I'd also like to see the encyclopaedia wide invective tone down; the IDHT/anti-consensus conduct seen for the deeply anti-encyclopaedic incivility it is; and for the climate that prevents invective and other incivilities to be educative rather than disciplinary. Some kind of wikikitten that actually works. And to ensure that we kitten people into better, more collegial editors, for their unacceptable conduct, not for their word choices. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Still catching up after edit conflicts-- point of order, Fifelfoo, I just clicked on your links and see that you are linking to a discussion at the Village pump, but referring to it as policy. WP:CIVIL is policy-- a village pump discussion is not as far as I know. Again, these are the sorts of things we should be sorting on the evidence page so the arbs can make relevant findings. I raised the question of whether admins claiming Malleus's language was directed at others were applying an even standard across the Wikipedia, relative to TCO's post, which specifically mentioned names, when Malleus rarely did, as an example, but a village pump discussion is not policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• (Struck and amended on the point of policy) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't policy, it's pillar, and the village pump discussion was overwhelming snow. Which is a primary reason why the initial Malleus block was bogus.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 in Strange evidence section

I've been thinking about this all evening and I'm confused, perhaps in the same manner as Sandy. The case is called "Civility Enforcement". Do the arbs want evidence and arguments regarding civility in general or only examples of Malleus' incivility? The evidence put forth so far underscores Malleus' incivility, but is this to be a very narrow case (which could have been taken care of through an RfCU), or is it a broad case? If the latter, then it involves policy such as WP:Civil, which I believed was outside of ArbCom's remit. It would be helpful to get full clarification because I suspect I'm not the only person who is confused, though it's entirely possible I am. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they avoided using a specific editor's name to avoid the inevitable drama. They would probably say if you asked. My reading of the comments by arbs in deciding to accept the case is that this is a broad case, not a narrow one. YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Their actual statements are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Arbitrators.27 opinion on hearing this matter .287.2F0.2F4.2F3.29 -- I'd interpret them as indicating a broad case. I think there's also indication of a realization ArbCom can't actually just fix this themselves, but the outpouring of comments (100+ editors) compelled to try to do something. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the evidence isn't going anywhere useful (that is, anything the arbs didn't already know), but I'm not sure just how to go about turning this case into something that will be useful in solving the long-standing problem of uneven civility enforcement. We can't force editors to use dispute resolution, to use RFCs, to work on clarifying the civility policy, and none of those are in the arbs' remit. We can't force admins to act evenly. We can't fix ANI. Can we? If so, how do we approach any of this? And we can't get back the Malleus that we had in 2008 before he became an admin target. So exactly what are we doing here, and why did the arbs take the case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That Malleus has long gone, you're right; all you're left with is a cynical bastard. But perhaps the ArbCom might like to consider if it's proper to block editors for using words like "wikilawyer" and "sycophantic". Fat chance of that though. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerks considered similar in relation to workshop... their consideration was that similar invective was not uncivil. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So why was I blocked for using words like "wikilawyer"? Because there's no plausible explanation of one of Wikipedia's five policies? Whose fault is that? Malleus Fatuorum 06:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Other administrators for not desysopping hard enough, fast enough, early enough. All administrators for not adequately and publicly starting RFCs to resolve civility issues. All administrators for not enforcing IDHT, competence, baiting as civility as anti-encyclopaedic. Users like me for retreating from culture into areas where other editors are expert, where quality and encyclopaedism rule, and where 15 year old Randies and Randettes don't piss nightly, drunkenly, up against the pillars like monkey trying to exceed Buddha's reach. I only thought our civility problems were in Central and Eastern Europe, where two well read editors can disagree on topicality, weight and source interpretation with the hostility of two hundred years of post-enlightenment debate on what freedom is. I didn't realise that we had added bits en masse to individuals with a sub-under-graduate level of debate and competence; or that we couldn't shake together uninvolved admins of quality if they were all single and we ran a bachelor's and spinster's ball on a sleep-in-someone-else's-ute basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Applause from the peanut gallery. So, back on topic, how is the evidence being presented in this case going to help the arbs make findings that will address these issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3 in Strange evidence section

Perhaps my comments are "ignorant". I am curious as to what specific information you believe I am unaware off that would cause me to change my position. To be clear, my position is that we should be tolerant when editors are commenting about content; we should quickly intervene when editors are directly insulting other editors. While I can accept an editor saying, "your comment is idiotic", I can not accept the same editor saying "you are an idiot". Therefor, please tell me; what am I missing here? My76Strat (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't care about the difference between the two statements; it strikes me as a particularly American way to soften the blow. "You're a valued contributor and I am REALLY interested in what you have to say, but that particular comment, alone among the other bouquet-fulls of flowers you've produced for us here, was idiotic." BTW, there is nothing in "your comment is idiotic" that dictates it's about content, and you should realize that this is a simplification of the discussion: such events as we're staging now are rarely directly about content. MF said something about administrators, and we all say things about administrators and idiots and IPs and policies and whatnot, that's part of what we do here. What you're missing here is that it's not as simple as you suggest. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• My76, you specifically said that I am "advocating for an 'everyone should be allowed' reality" which is utterly untrue and not based on anything I wrote, and is typical of the type of ignorance and IDHT that we see in all of these "civility police" or content contributor discussions. That some of us see the double standard and want it to stop doesn't mean we advocate that everyone should be allowed. Nor does it mean we think content contributors are exempt, which is the other frequent and ignorant meme thrown around in these discussions. And, what we should be looking at is why some admins do next to nothing to help content contributors, plenty to make things harder on them, and often seem able only to use their block button as soon as a naughty word appears, while allowing non-naughty horrific behaviors to destroy articles and the editing environment here. Those are typically the same admins who jump to civility blocks, since they only have a hammer and don't even understand how to build content-- hence the division between the civilty police and content contributors, which doesn't at all mean that content contibutors think other content contributors are exempt. Making an example of Malleus-- which is perhaps what some editors presenting evidence want to see-- because he drew the wrath of the IRC-chatting admin corp by highlighting this double standard, while they turn their backs on friends who do the same-- will not solve the underlying problem. Getting Malleus blocked or banned will not address anything that led to what ails Wikipedia, or why we've alienated one of our very best contributors to the point of Wikicide. The problem will repeat if the underlying issues aren't solved, and the evidence in this case wasn't going in a direction that would lend to that (although Moni3 has made a stab at it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, I concur with your observation. I disagree that this issue is so complicated that a simplified analogy has such little value as to be idiotic. I actually do believe this is a simple question. Therefor you now have seen the depths of my idiocy. SandyGeorgia, you have convinced me that I must have misconstrued your intentions. From your above comment, I have no reason to believe you are advocating the position I attributed to you. I will next strike my comment as it appears inappropriate. My76Strat (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we came to a better understanding, as that will help advance the issues that need to be resolved, and why I disagree with Carcharoth's take on how this page was going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Calmer discussions?

I've just read the above section, and the anger and frustration is coming in waves off the screen. Is it not possible to calm down and have a slower discussion where people take more time to explain what they are saying instead of letting off steam? Releasing pent-up frustration on a talk page like this in a stream of consciousness might help in some ways, but if people are going to agree or disagree with what is being said, it needs to be presented in a way that is easier to understand. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You presume much (including that others don't understand what you don't understand). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, first up, edit summaries of "baloney" (as you used here) aren't going to help, are they? I was referring to a few posts above, but the 07:54 one by Fifelfoo will do for now. You replied to that with 'Applause from the peanut gallery', followed immediately by "back on topic". You seem to be agreeing with me that off-topic rants won't help here. Or are you saying that what Fifelfoo said there actually helps (in your words) 'the arbs make findings'? If so, someone will need to break down what Fifelfoo said there into comprehensible chunks with evidence - are you volunteering to do that? I think the time is better spent looking at the context of each block in Malleus's block log and trying to work out what happened each time. And by that I mean actual diffs, not just hand-waving of the "what a terrible block log" or "poor Malleus" type. I would be prepared to do that, but only if Malleus is prepared to help with that. Trying to present his block log in context can't be done without his input. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So, just for the sake of clarity, is this case about me or is it about civility enforcement? Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You would need to ask the arbitrators that (and good luck in getting a clear answer). My suggestion that there be a proper look at your block log (or similar block/unblock cycles) arose from comments elsewhere and from reading comments on this page such as the one by you where you say: "But perhaps the ArbCom might like to consider if it's proper to block editors for using words like "wikilawyer" and "sycophantic". Fat chance of that though." Sandy says something similar above when she says: "the point is that Malleus was routinely blocked for what EVERYONE does all the time, and then his block log was used as an excuse to block. Look at his very first block-- a most definitely involved admin blocked him for using the word "wikilawyer"" My point is that if people are going to constantly say that your block log is full of examples of terrible blocks, or the converse, then some actual evidence needs to be presented to that effect. And better evidence than has been currently presented. Pick one of your blocks and I'll do my best to look into the history of it and you can see if what I come up with is a fair presentation of what happened. Or pick a random civility block of another editor if you want to move the focus away from you, and I'll try and do the same there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Last I heard it was a farce in which you won't be participating. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not going to help either. Could you please strike or retract that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think an editor should be blocked with no discussion on any noticeboard for a comment that was redacted with their consent three hours prior to the block ?? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I don't. I saw the discussion that led to the redaction, and thought the matter should have ended there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In what way is asking a question about the scope of this case "participating" in your universe Gerard? And why do you hide your username? Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, he struck that comment at my request. Can we move on from that and get back to what I said? I was serious with that offer, but it won't go anywhere without input from you, as I said before. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To the extent I am a participant, it is about civility enforcement and should apply to everyone. Because you have been named a party, published examples by you are in evidence. Ironically that affords you a unique opportunity. Explain why you should be allowed to insult other editors in an environment where we ask that you not. Or acknowledge your own error in this regard, renounce and cease the practice, and lets move on. As productive an editor as you are, I believe a wp:civil version of yourself would be 10X more so. Imagine that. My76Strat (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, fact is, I don't believe any other editor can contribute the needed evidence if you aren't participating, and yet I fully understand that you probably don't care to. I looked at your first block, and it was so clearly an overreaction from an involved admin that it screams,[2][3] and yet, from there on it all went downhill for you. I doubt that any one of us can take apart your block log as well as you can, so I'm coming to the conclusion that if you want to see Wikipedia change for the better, you're going to have to put aside what everyone who knows you knows is your hurt heart on your sleeve over some unfair treatment, and do the work here. I can say that because similar happened to me, I had to sit on it for a year, and when the right arb case came up, I had to spend a solid six weeks generating the evidence that resulted in justice being served and that abusive admin being desysopped, which is probably partly why I don't wear my hurt heart on my sleeve as you do even though I was a victim of similar. The choice is yours-- I don't think we can do it for you-- I don't know the circumstances behind every block in your log, but the first is pretty disgustingly clear. I also suspect (although who knows) that if you want things to change, the arbs will state that your language may need moderation (recognizing that your final f'ing C is best viewed as a Wikicide post after years of enduring undue attention to your every word)-- question is, can the arbs craft something that will solve the underlying issues, will they ask for that in exchange for you moderating your language, that will then subsequently allow attention to other editors who do worse, hence ending the double standard. I dunno, but I don't think we'll see anything happen here that will lead to anything good if you aren't on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sandy said this much better than I did above and on Malleus's talk page a few days ago (the comment about how arbitration cases where named parties don't participate end up a mess). Malleus, even if you don't care to listen to me, please consider what Sandy is saying here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I to be the poster-child for this case? Is the far worse incivility of others (who happen to be administrators and therefore are allowed to get away with it) to be ignored? Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's your choice. Do you believe any one else here can effect the kind of change needed? I doubt it. If you let this happen, I suspect that most of us will give up, and we'll come back in a few years and see a place really and truly and completely run by children who can't and don't build content. Carcharoth-- timing. Those of us who know Malleus know how much others misunderstand him. You said some things too soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll make a statement in a day or two once I've investigated the details of what I want to say. Not to save my neck, but the necks of others who may in the future fall foul of Wikipedia's disorganisation and inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a good man, Charlie Brown (but some of us already knew that). OK, I've been in two arb cases where no doubt I couldn't have done it alone-- I only got through them because of the kindness of others who helped me find diffs and evidence. If you're on board, and if you ask for whatever help you need on your talk, I have no doubt many will be willing to help locate diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Another PoV

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

Indefinite blocks

Why should an indefinite block be only considered as "long term"? If it contains an unblocking parameter, such as "until xe retracts and/or renounces y", in can be of very short duration and the length in time is dependent on xe, not the clock. My76Strat (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Because, in practice, the run of the mill editor who ends up getting indefinitely blocked lacks the competence and/or desire to make the necessary adjustments sufficient to write a successful unblock request. (Not sure of the context of your question so I am not intending to imply anything about a specific editor.) Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical question

Could an arb or clerk please explain how on Earth Malleus can be expected in a case like this to put up evidence limited to 500 words and 50 diffs? How does this work, and what can he do if he intends to submit evidence-- there is no way to do that in 500 words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, he should take as much space as he needs. What did you do? Leaky Caldron 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In a case years ago, I put up evidence that would exceed today's bot-checked limits. I think some link to a subpage, but I'm unaware if that is still allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He should post what he feels he needs to. I really doubt if anyone is going to censor him, under the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If a user does need more than 500 words and/or 50 diffs to get their evidence posted, the drafting arbs can work with the user to establish an exception for the user for this case, on a case-by-case basis. The bot is set up to allow for such exceptions as needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Email evidence

Moni3's section mentions emails - if anyone feels that they have evidence that by its nature should remain private, please send it to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org, not to the main mailing list. Due to the high number of recusals, we're using the alternate mailing list for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

After the events of this year, I'd never email any arblist (alternate or not) again. I would email individual arbs I trust. Not that I have anything to email in this case, but I understand Moni3's position on this (she won't either, that is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That works too, but do understand that if it's pertinent to the case, it's going to get forwarded to a list eventually anyway so that all arbs voting on the case can review it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I'd hope not without permission! --Errant ^(chat!) 03:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on evidence

It seems there is some general confusion - or perhaps lack of understanding - about what sort of evidence we're looking for here. The Arbitration Committee is working on setting up some clearer guidelines for submitting evidence in general, but my thoughts on this are thus (subject to being overridden by the Committee as a whole):

• The evidence page is for direct evidence - demonstrating actions that have been taken, preferably through diffs or log entries, or providing a faithful timeline of one's perceptions of events.
• The evidence page is not for:
  • Responding to others' evidence. It's common for evidence to be posted to contradict evidence provided by another party. Provided it fits into the above category, that's fine, but just stating "So-and-so's evidence is obviously wrong" belongs more on the evidence talk page.
  • Interpreting evidence. Your evidence submissions should state only facts: "Editor 1 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]. Later that day, Editor 2 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]". Analyzing the cause or effect of these facts ("Editor 2 was retaliating and normally wouldn't post such attacks") isn't for the evidence page, and belongs in the Analysis section of the workshop page.
  • Asking questions. The parties can be asked questions in the appropriate section on the workshop page; general discussion can also take place at the bottom of the workshop. Questions specifically to the arbitrators can be directed to our individual talk pages or the mailing list (as above, use the -b list for this case please).
  • Soapboxing. If you believe that the Committee should focus on a certain aspect of a certain policy in the case, post a workshop principle to that effect. Long-winded speeches to that effect on the evidence page are difficult for arbitrators to get through when determining their votes, and distract from the actual facts of the case.

In this particular case, what I'm interested in seeing is evidence focused around the following points:

• How civility has been enforced in the past, and the varying degrees of community support in regards to those attempts
• Inconsistencies in how civility has been enforced
• Administrative disputes that have arisen that center on civility enforcement
• Specific difficulties with the civility policy as it currently stands, and how those difficulties have impacted the above three points

While the incident that prompted this case did focus primarily on Malleus's conduct and that of the administrators involved in that situation (and there will likely be some user-specific remedies with regard to that situation), this is intended to be a broad case that will clarify aspects of existing policies or recommend to the community ways the policy can be improved. Evidence submitted that focuses on the Malleus incident should, as much as possible, be framed to fit within at least one of those four points.

Again, however, this is what I'm looking for, and other arbitrators may wish to see other evidence, and as I mentioned my general thoughts on evidence in particular are subject to being overridden in the near future. In the meantime, though, hopefully this serves as a helpful clarification for everyone involved. I'll point the Committee to this section and ask them to add to this as needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is helpful ... but should have come days ago. We've already got a sprawling evidence page, and a sprawling workshop page. Considering the record number of people opining on the arb request, I do wish the arbs had gotten a handle on this sooner, with exactly the kind of post you've made here (which is what I was trying to get at in my Strange evidence post above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wouldn't normally consider posting this evidence, but Hersfold asked for it, so I'm doing it. I hope there's a bot that will notify all the admins I mention, 'cuz they are incidental to this case, and must I really do all of those notifications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to act on the assumption that other people are just as sensitive about having their names mentioned without being notified as you are :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're aware and I posted to TCO-- allrighty then, I've got nothing better to do :/ But these admins who took no action are incidental to the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that many, and I'm sure you can cut and paste a note and people won't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be about 50 more if I also named the admins who undeniably see every post on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't include me. Right now I have your talk page watchlisted, because Dabomb hadn't selected a TFA and I dropped you a line about that, but generally I don't. I don't have any delegate's except Dabomb's, actually, on a regular basis. I clear out my watchlist irregularly, I try to keep under 100, but as I monitor my FA's, I've had to raise that. I do have TCO's, correct, but unless something catches my eye, I don't click on it. I don't do as much back and forth chatting as you. Like I said someplace, my talk page is the working part of backstage, and the dressing room is someone else's. (I do chat now and then, usually with Connormah, but it's not a major attraction of my talk page). And I've replied to your comments on the workshop page. Doing anything nice for New Year's Eve?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I hope the point is still conveyed, Mally is watched like a hawk, but even after a personal attack is redacted at DYK, and in spite of his block log, TCO gets different treatment ... Mally is an admin target, regardless of whether we can prove who saw the attacks or not-- in Mally's case, they go looking, but since I'm past 500 words .... New Year's Eve, nursing better half's miserable cold, hoping I don't get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Me, just recovering from last trip. My flight out of O'Hare was badly delayed and I got home at 2:15 this morning. Tomorrow morning, make a start at clearing up reviews promised. Let me just state my general position. I've made it clear how I feel on wheel warring. I was glad that ArbCom took this case because I feared a blow up between factions (not organized, just people taking sides), and that a lot more damage to the wiki would be done. I feel that all this can be resolved with Malleus giving a little and admins and the community giving a little. That is why I wish people would just let Malleus speak to this, and we can get down to the nitty gritty and talk this out. Maybe I walk the world like Mr. Magoo, but that is my honest opinion. OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Responding here both to what Hersfold said and what Sandy said.

  (A) On the point Sandy raises about how she wishes "the arbs had gotten a handle on this sooner", re-read what I said a few days ago here (point iv). I said:

  "Please define the scope of the case early on - some will wish to examine every entry in Malleus's block log, others will say some of the entries are too old, others will want to do a cost-benefit analysis of Malleus's contributions, some will want to examine past actions by the two admins named in the case, others will try and drag other admins into this. So please try and keep on top of things as regards the scope - the best thing to do would be to have arbitrators stating clearly whether evidence submissions are within scope or not, and to get some early proposals up to help define the likely scope of the case."

  What is probably best now is for arbitrators to direct whether evidence should be rewritten, removed, or consolidated. That is the only way to get the case back under control.

  (B) On the point about inconsistency in enforcing civility standards, one question that could be asked is not only why are others not blocked (or warned) for comments similar or worse to those Malleus has made, but why some of the comments Malleus has made did not lead to blocks (though they may have led to warnings). There is one example I can think of straight away (because I was the one on the receiving end). This examples is indirectly in evidence, but difficult to find as it is lost in the crowd somewhat. But would such examples be helpful? Would examples of others getting blocked for similar actions to those of Malleus be helpful (i.e. examples of consistency, rather than inconsistency)? The point is that there are examples of many types of inconsistencies, to the point that it is probable that there is inconsistency everywhere (both in terms of harsh blocks and lenient warnings or inaction). But how do you show that inconsistency is greater for some editors than others? That is much harder to prove.

  (C) There is also the issue of degrading the editing environment - a kind of social incivility (or lack of sensitivity to how others might react). Somewhere on the evidence page is a section mentioning two userboxes. I noticed the use of an image in the earliest versions of one of those userboxes (warning: NSFW image, includes nudity). I felt strongly that use of this image was not appropriate and felt justified raising it on the editor's talk page even though this was days later and another editor had persuaded them to remove the image. My post was swiftly removed, followed by a discussion on my talk page, but it did lead me to ponder just how much standards differ between editors. It is not strictly civility, but it was spawned by the events that led to this case. Would that sort of example be useful in evidence?

• On a general point, if you want details of everyday enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of civility, the arbitrators could do worse than ask for or devise an automated way to find examples and/or do surveys that involve more than just the people following this case. I think bot-generated or script-driven searches based on certain keywords have been done before. At the least, it should be possible to search recent block summaries for variants of the words 'civility' or 'incivility' or 'uncivil', though that might not be helpful as I suspect the arbitrators want examples involving established editors. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of the significant factors about incivility is how it's not just words -- it's about construction, intent, and context . I've seen indicated some editors were far more offended by a targeted "star collector" description than banal naughty words. Therefore this is not a bot job. 03:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

• Agreed. Which is why I brought up other examples and am asking if any arbitrators think they would be useful in evidence. The three examples I have in mind are: (a) A comment Malleus made to me where he was warned but not blocked - is that inconsistent or not? Others are asserting in evidence that Malleus gets blocked for things that others don't get blocked for, but the converse is also true, Malleus fails to get blocked for things that others would get blocked for. (b) Inappropriate image use degrading the editing environment and an inconsistent response to that. Is it more offensive for naughty words to be used or for images involving female nudity that are supposed to be used for educational purposes being used for shock value in a form of political protest? (c) The third example (which I raised elsewhere on this talk page) is editors calling the writing of others 'shit' or 'primary school level'. To me, that is a far more corrosive form of incivility than any number of naughty words. It may be true, but the bright-line rule here must be to improve articles and help others improve their editing without ever needing to resort to insults or promoting an 'us and them' mentality (good editors versus crap editors). If someone is editing poorly, try and help them and then work out where to go if that doesn't work. Don't resort to invective and insults in an attempt to 'drive them off'. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Asserting evidence

I am new to this process, I think your instruction line which reads "Write your assertion here" could mislead an ignorant intellect toward more colorful writing. It confused me, and I'm simply ignorant. My76Strat (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Some company arrived at my house prior to completing the above thought, and I saved it prematurely in haste. Seeing it seems more like sarcasm than truth in a way but I was truthful, albeit incomplete. I did mean to elaborate further to ensure clarity. And indicate, I felt it wasn't an assertion at all you were looking for, but rather simply evidence. I do honestly think this line should change.

As an aside, I would have thought, having briefly read the instructions, that refactoring another editors comment was taboo. Having thrice seen my own refactored, I am curious if anything written on Wikipedia is ever meant to be taken seriously. My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where have your comments been getting refactored? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus has run off new editors/contributors"

Several users have made this claim, including an arbitrator. Can we see some actual evidence of this? So far (and I may have missed something, in which case I would very much appreciate a diff) all I've seen is a couple of letters in The Economist, which included anecdotes unrelated to Malleus, and one from someone who seemed unclear on how Wikipedia operates. This accusation needs to be struck in every instance unless there is solid evidence to support it. Similarly, the claim that he's run off female editors. Lara 03:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Workshop page has a specific section for the interrogation of the quality of evidence. I have interrogated the claims attached to The Economist Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. I'll post similar there. Thank you. Lara 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

"Several users have made this claim" - I hope you don't mean me? I certainly haven't met any prospective editor who has been driven off by Malleus. In fact, that's kind of what happens when people are driven off - we don't meet them. All we can see is that new editor numbers are dropping. And when we conduct studies about why that is, well, that is what the studies tell us - people don't become new editors because we have a hostile environment. --GRuban (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable request. Editors who are driven off by the current environment are most likely just to fade away quickly without drama. There will be no specific record of the reason for leaving. Certainly they are unlikely to stay long enough to become high content editors. Therefore the statement that hostile interactions drive off editors should be treated as an axiom; you are certainly entitled to disagree with it but demanding 'provide a list or strike your comment' just isn't cool.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's just be clear about one thing; if the environment here is hostile, and I'd agree that it is, that environment wasn't created by me. And to be perfectly frank the idea that I've ever driven off any new editor is so far from the truth as to be slanderous. Sure, I've upset a few administrators, as is obvious from this show trial, but can you name even one new editor I've driven off? Diffs should be easy to find, just look through the contributions of recently registered editors and see if I ever interacted with them. But if your argument is a more general one, that the toxic atmosphere here has driven off new editors, then it beggars belief that the blame for that should be pinned on me. Malleus Fatuorum 06:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GRuban, I do mean you, along with others. I'm not sure why you would think your claim would be excluded from my objection. It's now been added to the Workshop page. Nobody Ent, I don't care about what you think is cool or uncool. Synthesizing a conclusion that any user has run off other contributors during an arbitration proceeding (or any other time, for that matter) "isn't cool." It's a baseless accusation and could, in some circles, be considered a personal attack. Lara 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would characterize me as one of the "others". If so, you would be wrong as I have never accused MF of "running off" any editors. I did comment on misogynous conduct but that is rather different. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't made a claim that Malleus has run contributors off the project, then I'm not sure why you would think you were included in my objections to such. To be sure, I don't see on the evidence page where you have made any claims even remotely close to what I've objected to (or close to what you just stated, for that matter; I see only irony). On the original request, I find that you didn't really say anything at all in your comments there. Swinging by the workshop, I just find more unhelpful comments from you that in no way relate to what I've objected to above. Assuming that you're aren't pretending to be dense for the sake of provoking drama, perhaps you would like to diff me to the exact comment you felt could be interpreted as you claiming Malleus has run people off the project. Lara 16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made such a claim either, actually. And you'll note no lack of diffs in my evidence. And yet you say that you do mean me. I've documented that Malleus has been firing shots in the air, and you want me to withdraw that unless I produce a dead body. Is it too much to say that firing shots in the air is bad in itself? It's not even as if he didn't hit anyone, he wounded Deb, rather severely. Are you with Balloonman, claiming she isn't worth more than 1/100th of him? --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted a comment where I supported the evidence presented by GRuban. I wasn't sure, since you indicated he has taken this position, which I have not directly seen, if perhaps you might also interpret my support as being more than it was. I see no good faith in your malformed comment "you're aren't" with regard to me being dense. The template is unconvincing. My76Strat (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Describing someone as "severely wounded" for an internet post is ridiculous to the point of self-parody. It has a different meaning in parts of the uk [4], it wasn't directed at Deb, and Malleus agreed to it being redacted. That Deb, or anyone else, chooses to continue to be offended is not Wikipedia's problem. Multiple editors explained UK usage to her; she gave no indication of accepting their statements and continued to insist she was right -- which is an innuendo implication the other editors are either stupid or lying.Nobody Ent 18:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think characterizing Deb as someone who "chooses to be continue to be offended" is necessary, helpful or accurate. 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record... Malleus probably has run off editors. But equally for the record, so have I and so have most long term established records. So has the RfA process and the FA process and the GA process. People leave the project for all sorts of reasons. Interactions with specific users is par for the course. So a claim that somebody has run off editors, doesn't really mean too much... you also have to ask, what did that contributor bring to the project? Some editors we are honestly better off without... (And before somebody starts spouting, no all editors are equal, remember what some of you want---some of you would like to see Malleus leave and never come back.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the way forward

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

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

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

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

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

I think Maleus' nonspecific use of the "cunt" epithet has already been mentioned in evidence and everyone's aware of it, but if not it wouldn't hurt to point it out. However, what you might be missing is that calling people cunts in the abstract is still offensive and highly objectionable to some people, as it's a sexually demeaning term. You might want to compare that to using the N-word or calling people "retarded", as opposed to saying that someone is a "a creepy stalker". In the latter case nobody is going to claim offense on behalf of the ax murderers you're maligning, because that's not a class of people people judge worthy of respect, so the incivility is only if you're referring to someone specific. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it any more "sexually demeaning" than "dick", which seems to be widely accepted around here - see WP:DICK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because whether it is sexist or not, calling someone a dick is a relatively minor reproof. "Don't be a dick" is a fairly common expression.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should that be? "Dick" is a slang word for penis, while "Cunt" is a slang word for vagina (and in history, it was a perfectly acceptable term). If one is worse than the other, where is the sexual equality? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and where I live, "Don't be a cunt" is fairly common and usually an equally minor reproof -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which is evidence we're not actually a civil community. Note m:dick specifically says calling someone a dick is being a dick. Nobody Ent 17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we don't treat ax murderers civilly, then we're not actually a civil community. Non contributive editors should be reverted, warning, ban and blocked as appropriate, but in all cases treated civilly. It's not that hard. Nobody Ent 17:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It might or might not be more sexually demeaning. It is however, without a shadow of doubt, extremely offensive to an overwhelming majority of the general public in a majority of English speaking regions. That Wikipedia appears to have a number of puerile editors who think it is perfectly acceptable - and use any politically correct, wikilawyering, equality-based or free-speech justification to brandish it about like a badge - is to the detriment of the project. It's a disgrace. Leaky Caldron 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here, but have you actually visited that "majority of English speaking regions", and gathered actual evidence that it is "extremely offensive to an overwhelming majority of the general public" in them? You might be right, but just as I can only go on my own experience, I'm curious as to the extent of your experience -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I made it up as a piece of WP:OR just to provoke a few politically correct, wikilawyering, dicks to bite. I don't think that you are in the slightest bit curious and would denigrate whatever personal evidence I presented. It can be acceptable down the pub with your mates, it might be fine in certain domestic settings and in a few work place environments. It is not acceptable in writing to, with or about a bunch of complete strangers and that's what we do here - try to work with strangers - collaboratively. Leaky Caldron 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects Wiktionary and Wikiquote both document non-sexist usage of the in the UK. Nobody Ent 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Majority or not, it was extremely offensive to Deb, and she stated as much. That should have been enough to get Malleus to withdraw it. It wasn't. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Had it been aimed at Deb, yes, I'd agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leaky Caldron. It's such a shame you're not more familiar with WP:AGF. (Oh, and it does seem a little ironic for you to be calling other people "dicks" in this context). Bye -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)