For decades, highly reliable sources such as Time Inc.'s People magazine and the Encyclopedia Britannica have given actress Demi Moore's birth name as Demetria. In 2009, she tweeted that her birth name was simply Demi. As you can see, an extraordinary amount of discussion by numerous editors has resulted, with no formal consensus reached. For some time now, the wording was to state Demi in the opening and to note that while Moore disputed it, several sources (with high-RS cites footnoted) have given her birth name as Demetria.

Two editors who variously misstate WP:BLP (see below) and use profanity, insults and name-calling to bully others have begun removing the decades-long reference Demetria. My feeling is that it is a non-controversial fact to state that major newspapers, magazines and an encyclopedia report this. ("Demi Moore Demetria" brings up over 100,000 Google hits, and 275 Google Books hits.)

One editor says that WP:BLP says, "We don't contradict a living subject." It doesn't. It says self-published material, including tweets, "may be used as a source" [emphasis mine] if it meets five standards. The policy also says, "Exercise caution in using primary sources," and confirms that "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That in fact defines "Demetria", which is "attributed to [several] reliable, published source[s] using an inline citation." Citing WP:BLP to remove this material is simply false.

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. It seems absolutely verifiable that this dispute over her birth name does, indeed, factually exist in Time Inc. publications, Encyclopedia Britannica and other high-RS publication. Ignoring this is burying our head in the sand.

Just as importantly, however, I have been subjected to horrible verbal abuse by User:AndyTheGrump. In an edit with summary calling me "moronic", he tells me to "fuck off," only redacting it after another editor, rightly, intervened. In that same edit he calls me "infantile." On the Noticeboard, he calls User:Stuart.Jamieson's perfectly calm, rational points "rubbish" simply because he disagrees, and says others who disagree with him need to "get a life."

Pretending that highly reliable-source reporting for decades simply doesn't exist is wrong, I believe. And no one in an Wikipedia editorial discussion needs to be verbally abused, subjected to childish name-calling and bullied into submission. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Yworo: I said "variously"; I didn't say "both". Also, constructive criticism of another editor's work is not a personal attack; I never told anyone to "fuck off" or called him "moronic." Additionally, the thousands and thousands of words expended in five linked discussions above were not formally called as an RfC, but they are substantively no different. In response to User:AndyTheGrump's defense: He told me to "fuck off" because he didn't like my analogy? That's not acceptable. I was referring to erasure of the historical record; is there a more common or well-known example of this one could use? Finally, we cannot call reliable sources invalid; one can't say that Time Inc.'s (People) resources, fact-checking and editorial layers aren't valid here, but valid elsewhere where one agrees with its reportage. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Firstly, my apologies over the bad language - though I would point out that this was a response to a facile comparison between Wikipedia and Stalinist Russia.

As for the rest, this is a content dispute, and as such, outside the remit of ARBCOM etc as I understand it. If evidence to the contrary is offered, I will of course respond further, but otherwise, I consider this issue closed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yworo

I wasn't going to respond, but I must register an objection to the statement above by Tenebrae:

"Two editors who variously misstate WP:BLP (see below) and use profanity, insults and name-calling to bully others..."

That's a clear personal attack as I've done no such thing.

To echo Andy, Tenebrae has not followed any of the standard dispute resolution processes and has not even bothered to really engage himself in the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Demi Moore' birth name.

In fact, the only comment he made in that discussion was primarily a personal attack against User:Youreallycan.

This is a clear abuse of process by someone who has not bothered to join an ongoing discussion about the issue at the appropriate place, WP:BLPN. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Baseball Bugs

The problem with this issue is that the so-called "reliable sources" have no way to know for sure what her birth name is, because birth records from New Mexico are not publicly available. So her statement on the matter is the only reliable source we have. Unless someone can find a source where she directly contradicts herself, her recent comment is the only source that can be considered valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dweller

If ArbCom decline the case and all parties are happy to accept, I'd be happy to take on mediating this case. I have some experience in informal mediation onwiki, am a content editor and have a particular interest in BLPs. While I am also rather keen on WP:CIVIL, I'm not interested in investigating individuals' bad behaviour, but I am interested in resolving the content dispute. The way I read the case presented, it seems that's what is most desired by the initiating party, anyway. Full disclosure: I don't know or care much about Demi Moore, which I think adds to my neutrality on the subject. I do care about Demi Moore, however, as I do all BLPs. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1)

While I understand the frustration, and do not think it's aever a good idea to tell other editors such things as said in Tenebrae's statement I don't see that an RfC has been tried yet. I'm leaning towards declining fo rother steps in the DR ladder to be tried, but waiting for more statements. SirFozzie (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

Initiated by Alexandria (chew out) at 14:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Alexandria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

current discussion (when it does get archived, could a someone update this link?)
[1]
[2]
[3]

Statement by Alexandria

Alright, I think this has gone on way too long to not end up here. Malleus Fatuorum has a long history of incivility, nastiness, and other sorts of undesirable behavior, leading to an extensive block (and unblock) log. Because of his comments on WT:RFA, Thumperward blocked him indef due to this history. After a brief ANI discussion, John proceeded to unblock Malleus. After more discussion on ANI, Hawkeye7 then reblocked Malleus for a week. I am willing to unblock Malleus for discussion here only unless clear consensus arises to have him unblocked fully before the week is up. I'm requesting this case to look at A. Malleus's behavior and B. the wheel warring that occurred. I'm not aware of any RFCs at the moment but the long extensive history of this to me warrants a full ArbCom case.

Reply to Peter Cohen

Peter, I clearly stated here and on his talk I am willing to unblock for the purpose of replying here only unless there is clear consensus for a general unblock.

Comment by Scott MacDonald

Hey, ho. Those with wiki-memories as long as mine will groan at this. This is the perennial civility blocks on committed users quagmire - I trust arbcom have the collective memory enough to remember this timesink from old Giano cases etc.

Given cultural and temperamental differences, civility cannot be objectively codified
Civility blocks will thus always be contentious - and when used on long-standing users, there will always be a friendly admin willing to unblock
The difficulty of the subject allows a few users (who should know better) to be deliberately rude with impunity (gaming the fault in the system)
Given this, civility blocks on long-standing users almost always cause more drama than what they are trying to prevent
However, a ban on civility blocks on long-standing users will be seen by most as a green-flag to rudeness, and to render WP:CIVIL impotent

Strongly advise arbcom NOT to take this case: not because there's not a underlying disruptive issue - but because there is no solution.

Statement by Cube lurker

This case should be titled Hawkeye7. Hawkeye7 wheelwared reinstating a block that had been undone per ANI consensus. Hawkeye7 claimed ANI consunsus to reblock when clearly none existed. This personal attack[4] by the blocker refering to the blockee demonstrates the malicious abusiveness of this block. Action is needed regarding the clear issues of abusive use of tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Toa Nidhiki05

There's a difference between a verbal altercation between users and abusing Admin Tools. If Hawkeye had made that statement with no connection to using the block button it would have been of no concern. When you combine that behavior with using the block button that's when it becomes intolerable.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

As I mentioned before, Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) wheel-warred against community consensus. As can be seen on the version of WP:ANI at the time of the weeklong block (7:17 GMT 22 Dec. 2011), consensus was strongly in favor of removing the original indefblock. Granted, Malleus's blatant personal attack was unacceptable, but given the inappropriate blocks it is understandable. (This is the reason for WP:COOLDOWN—they simply don't work.) Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

The wheel-warring also means that Malleus can't respond to this request. Now, what was that phrase that Malleus used to describe some admins?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Optimist on the run

N.B. I drafted the comment below to add to ANI while my computer was offline - when it came back the disccusion had been closed and moved here. I therefore paste my comment verbatim below.

I do not recall having any dealings with Malleus in the past, until I came across this edit yesterday, in reponse to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question. Now as we all know, most actions, both by admins and ordinary users, can be reverted without problems. The one thing that can't be undone is to drive good editors away from the project. Unless Malleus knows User:Kaldari] well, and knew that his comment wouldn't cause offense, there is a good risk that such an edit would do this. My first reaction on seeing this was to revert it and leave a template on what I assumed was a new user. I was surprised to find out that Malleus was a regular, so I left a stern rebuttal below the comment instead.

I see Malleus has had many blocks, most of which have been shortened before running to full time. In my opinion, Malleus is therefore not learning from this that such behaviour is not acceptable. My proposal is that he is given a final warning that any future outburst, whether warranted or not, will be met with an indefinite block (remembering that indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite). Malleus may make good contributions, but if he drives away other good editors, then he is making a net loss to the project. An optimist on the run! 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

It should be noted that there are probably people who would have supported the block and chose to say nothing on the grounds that they knew it would do no good, because someone would come along and undo the block regardless of what they said, because hey, it's Malleus, that's just how he is, and besides, OMGWTFCONTENTCONTRIBUTOR!!!!11!!!!!!! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Catfish Jim and the soapdish

This is disproportionate and counter-productive. I have had no direct dealings with Malleus, but cannot fail to recognise the vast body of work he has contributed to Wikipedia. 37 FAs, 20 GAs, 12 DYKs and 96 article creations, and we want to block him from editing for voicing his dislike of admins? Are we really that precious? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

Scott MacDonald is spot on: Arbcom has historically been unwilling to take the necessary actions to handle chronically incivil editors. Unless the current group of arbitrators is more willing to do so, not much will be accomplished by a new case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I may have interacted with Malleus before, and I know I've interacted with other parties before. I implore the committee to take the case so that (short of a Jimbo Pronouncement) the question of Vested Contributors being able to violate pillars/rules/policies/guidelines because of their "content creation" is settled. If vested editors are given leniency for something that would be full stop Indeff-able for another editor, then we no longer work as a community of equals, but rather as a class system that favors those who have power Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nobody Ent's "Community must do the work"

As evidenced by the vitriol (suggestions for resigning the sysop bit, demands for recall, demands for emergency de-sysoping, questioning the fitness of blocking admins) in the thread that precipitated this, a group of editors are of like mind to Malleus. Any time a conversation gets started about how to attempt to solve this (from my point of view) a lot of hand waving occurs and cries of "Content Creator" drown out the conversation or the consensus is reversed shortly after being implemented. It feels as though the community has attempted to resolve this and failed. Therefore it is being delivered back to ArbCom to take responsibility for the situation. Hasteur (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bali

I urge the committee to immediately ban all editors focused on quality content creation and improvement and to leave the field to the ethnonationalists, button pushing vandal fighters, and the admins more interested in playing bureaucratic games than fixing the appalling quality of this website's content. Those people apparently say "cunt" less often. So, you know, do this for the good of the project.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

There are two separate issues to consider:

What are the standards for civility on Wikipedia?
What is the best practice for handling cases of uncivil behavior?

Unfortunately, users have often merged these two questions into one and had huge fights about whether to block uncivil users. The argument often goes that failure to block for perceived uncivil remarks is an attack on our civility standards. These fights are often more disruptive than the underlying uncivil conduct. My own view is that civility blocks do not produce the desired result for most cases. Instead, it is better to use other techniques to control uncivil conducting, such as getting a friend of the uncivil editor to intervene, pointing out uncivil comments and asking the editor to remove them, or at times, simply ignoring the uncivil editor and providing support to the target. Only when uncivil conduct becomes serious harassment is it worth blocking. The line is not hard to identify: racism, homophobia, antisemitism and the like should all be blockable, as should physical threats or attempted outing. Shouting rude words when one gets overwrought should not be a blockable offense. After being blocked, the user is only likely to shout more rude words and seek vengeance.

It may be beneficial for ArbCom to investigate this case and decide whether the administrators involved have acted properly. As other users have noted, it is very difficult for the community to reach a consensus about how to handle persistent uncivil conduct by vested constributors. Since these cases are relatively few in number, it would be best for any such cases to go to ArbCom for resolution, as that is the only way to ensure we don't end up with wheel warring administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

This is similar in scope to the Ottava case of awhile back, except that Malleus actually works with people to improve articles and doesn't spin out wild conspiracy theories (sorry Ottava). We either just lost or are close to losing one of the few prolific copyeditors on the site, let alone one of the more productive content creators. Let's think this through before accepting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Regardless of what you think about Malleus' contributions to mainspace (which are by no means minor), his track record of personal attacks and crass language directed at editors has given him more than 15 blocks over the past three years, which isn't minor either. Clearly this is not able to be solved among admins or even the general community, so a final decision on this long-running dispute would certainly be beneficial. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cube lurker

So it is unacceptable for Hawkeye to call Malleus a 'koala', but it is fine for Malleus to call Spitfire a 'f***ing c**t'? Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nobody Ent

Timeline: Malleus uses word "cunt" in discussion. Note that Wikipedia does not prohibit use of any word in discussion (see recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Foul_Language_In_Discussions ). He is requested to change word, declines, notes that "dick" is commonly used and indicates from his cultural background "cunt" and "dick" are equivalent. I explain the sensitivity of the word from this side of the Atlantic, and ask if will let a redaction stand; he agrees [5]. Comments are redacted. This should have been over.

"Malleus" is the symptom, not the problem: we are the problem -- please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. Note the creation date precedes this particular event by amount a month; it doesn't matter much, we keep doing the same thing over and over.

Malleus's theme is that the inconsistent standards are applied to the project. Traditionally I have spent my Wiki time at the "little cesspool" of WQA. Most issues -- maybe 95% -- (e.g. "X removed my comments on their talk page!") don't require admin intervention; about 1% are so over the top an admin WQA stalker will lay the block down before I've read the post. But about 4% of the time there's something a bit beyond what talk can accomplish -- and I have to ponder whether to refer a case to this "admin roulette wheel" called ANI. Consider the case where a 200 edit editor calls a 300 editor a "moron" -- straight out personal attack. A drive by admin warning: snark ahead "helpfully" suggests they both "shut the fuck up." Nice, huh? But well, apparently no one much cares about low edit editors, anyway.

Or consider the case of Orangemarlin -- who should have been revdel and lifetime banned for his "parting shot" comments last July -- calls another editor "sociopathic little fucktard" and more on this very noticeboard [6]. This board dithered all weekend about whether to do anything and come Monday morning the thread is actually temporarily closed [7] with comment "No immediate administrator intervention is warranted." To be fair, the thread was a long tangled mess (which I regret I helped contribute to -- not my best weekend) and the admin did reopen it when requested. And later -- Risker came by and finally just indeffed with the whole sorry lot -- two days after the fact.

While I don't agree with Malleus approach by any means, he is right on content. We are Dysfunctional. The fact of the matter is there are far too many editors eager to ~~gossip~~ comment on a Malleus, or an Orangemarlin or whoever the 'villian du jour' is and few too few willing to do the hard work of hashing out a consensus at WT:Civility or WT:TPG.

Lift the block

Civility is important but so is consensus. As indicated by the volume of comments at ANI, there is no a clear consensus here; Malleus has been blocked for violating a standard which does not actually exist; it is a bad block.

Maintain good faith

The admins who have blocked Malleus did so in order in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Mudslinging and calls for desysoping are neither necessary nor helpful. The exact same lack of standards that make Malleus's block inappropriate make starting an admin witch hunt the wrong thing to do.

Community must do the work

The last "Malleus seeded" ArbCom case request was declined but included the notion this community start addressing the issue [8] but, as far as I'm aware, no significant work was done. Lacking a consensus, there is no decision ArbCom can make that will resolve the issue, which is not whether "Malleus was a bad boy" but that this community doesn't actually know what it thinks about civility and to date does not seem terribly interested in figuring it out. Overturn or uphold this will happen again and again, if not with Malleus then with the next "push the envelope" editor. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hasteur

What I'm suggesting is that the historic approach of building a policy based on individual decisions on individual editors has failed, and the community needs to first determine principles in the abstract, then determine how to achieve those principles (i.e. what sequence of interventions is appropriate to achieve those principles), and only then apply the interventions to individuals.

Statement by SoWhy

I'd advise the Committee to accept this request. While CBM might be correct that ArbCom has been in the past reluctant to solve this or similar conflicts, the amount of problematic behavior not only by this editor in question but also by those acting whenever he (seems to) misbehave has reached a limit that really needs a group of previously uninvolved editors looking into it. The events of the last day with blocks and wheel-warring show that MF manages to cause problematic behavior even if his own behavior is not clearly disruptive or at least might not have been intended to be (for example, while "cunts" is certainly not a nice word, he did not use it to attack anyone specific). As such, this case should be accepted but not limited to MF's behavior and instead also focusing on related problematic behavior as well, such as wheel-warring by involved admins. Although, as some pointed out, civility as a policy has been inconsistently interpreted by the community, sometimes varying based on an editor's status or contributions, ArbCom has, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent the right and ability to interpret policies and guidelines with regards to a certain case; I think this case, as Jehochman says above, is a good case for ArbCom to decide. Even if MF is not sanctioned, the Committee is able to rule how administrators should behave in such circumstances, thus maybe reducing the amount of wheel-warring and/or ANI threads caused by such behavior. Regards So Why 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Balloonman

I've said it before, I'll say it again... Malleus can be an ~~ass~~ arse. He can be rude and pointed, but generally he is brought up for the most begign matters. Thumper over reacted on this case. His indef block was unwarranted and beyond the pale.

That being said, this is ridiculous. If you are going to accept a case against him, then it needs to be a meta case... not over specific incidents like this. So what he called some unnamed admins cunts. Is that a vulgar word in the US? Yes, but was it directed at any specific person(s) no. If he had said, some admins are asses/dicks would it have raised any eyebrows? Probably, but why? Because it is untrue? No, some admins are asses/dicks/cunts. It would have invoked a ban because we are talking about Malleus. Can it be argued that while he made the comment generic, that he was really targetting a specific user? No---he's railed against Admin abuse for years. Some people just spaz out whenever they see him make any comment that isn't toeing the line perfectly.

Had the issue been discussed on MF's page? Yes. Malleus explained himself... pointed out what he considers to be a double standard (dick/ass/cunt) which is a legitimate position. He also explained that the word cunt is less offensive in England than it is in the U.S. I don't know that for a fact, but several other users have supported him in that position. I used a word above to make a point. Did you get offended when I used the phrase "spaz out"? If not, then you are probably familiar with it's use in America. In the U.S. that word means almost nothing. We use it to describe ourselves when we are out of control or clumsy---many products use it in their name. Our view of the term is shaped by Steve Martin "Chad the Spazz" or Animal House's Spaz. In England, it has a completely different meaning and is considered highly offensive. So if you consider cunt to be highly offensive, but not spaz, then consider the possibility that others might see spaz as highly offensive, but not cunt.

Personally, I am more appalled at Hawkeye's reblock of Malleus than I am at Malleus himself. Hawkeye claims that he was reblocking for 1 week per consensus at ANI. I failed to see consensus for that. I also have problems with blocking people while there is an ongoing ANI case against them. How can they respond if they are blocked? That goes against the principle of being able to address your accusers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when it comes to civility blocks, the default when discussing civility blocks should be to "unblock" unless a clear consensus exist to block. Frivilous, unnnecessary, punative blocks for civility, when consensus is not present, is detrimental to the project as it may drive off valued members of the community.

For the record, I was going to unblock Malleus but was beaten to it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sowhy... sowhy makes a good point and has convinced me that this case should be accepted... not necessarily to investigate Malleus, but rather how he is treated by admins. Does he invite some of it upon himself? Yes. But he gets blocked if he sneezes in the wrong tone. Sheesh an indef block for stating a fact in a little more colorful language than is necessary? Not the word I would use, but face it some admins are [use your choice of vulgarity here]. If you can't admit that...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk, the problem is that because some admins jump on every single infringement/transgression, it has become comical. It is a circular pattern. Does MF invite it? I think so, I think he sometimes goes out of his way to provoke knowing what the outcome will be. (Which is unacceptable.) But I also think that because some admins are constantly blocking him for frilous issues, that it has become like the kid who cried wolf. If you think Malleus should be blocked, don't run out and block him for every little transgression knowing that it will be unblocked an hour or two later. Build a case and take the case to the community/RFCU or even here. Frankly, I suspect that building such a case against MF would not be overly difficult... pick the examples that best eximplify a continued pattern. Half the cases brought to ANI are shere utter jokes. Some have a modicum of merit, but the one's that have merit are scorned at because we've been there, seen that, bought the shirt. If somebody wants to block MF, then they should be proactive and write up a solid rationale citing examples and justifying the actions... instead, you get blocks like Thumper's. Thumper is upset that his block has been mischaracterized by others... well, guess what, when your block essentially says "per a long discussion" you open that door. If you know your action is going to be controversial, you either need to refrain from the action or take the offensive in justifying it. The case against MF is undermined by those who block him every time he turns around for comments that would not invoke a block for anybody else. Thumper in his statement at WP:RFA wrote, "No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this." No, that is not true... if it was anybody but Malleus, it would have gotten a warning like this or opened an ANI case at most. Jumping straight to Indef Block? Nah. Hell indefing a user without detailed rationale, when you know that it will be overturned and create much consternation is....---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fluffernutter

Rather than take a stance on who was wrong in doing what in this particular flare-up, I just want to point out that this case is the definition of the sort of intractable dispute Arbcom was created for. No amount of community discussion is going to fix the issue of Malleus and other vested contributors. No RFC/U is going to bring about a "come to Jesus" moment where the uncivil editors agree to behave, or a moment where the block-unblock cycle participants agree to cease fire, because every single person involved in this dispute is 100% convinced that they are in the right and that their preferred method of handling is the only one that will save Wikipedia. If the committee chooses to refuse this case now, they are simply declining to do what we elected them to do - namely, solve behavioral disputes which the community is unable to handle. We've tried, guys. For years. We can't do it. We need a body of last resort, and you're it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvoled GoodDay

Please do take this case, arbitrators. IMHO, all editors should be treated equally. If your ruling states that editors can be obnoxious, whether they're big time contributors or not, fine. If your ruling states that editors can't be obnoxious, no matter their status as contributors, that too is fine. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parrot of Doom

If I was allowed to say only one thing about Malleus it would be that he's honest, a lot more so than can be said for many of those who'd like to see his back. The rude words thing is just a smokescreen created by people more interested in playing silly power games than actually creating decent content that our readers can rely on. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched Davis

see here for comment from Malleus.

Note: If any of the arbs wish a statement from me I'd be more than happy to draft one. — Ched : ? 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Senra

Background

I am an uninvolved plebby with poor English writing skills who nevertheless, at times, has been able to firmly defend a content position within this encyclopaedia (sic). In general, I would classify my style as conciliatory 1 though I can be robust when necessary such as2 and3. I first interacted with Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) in Jun 2010 4 in a discussion which followed his edit5 to an article I was working on; I have always found him incredibly courteous both then and now 6. On request7, Malleus has always applied his considerable knowledge of the English language to correct my poor grasp of my own native tongue to ~~my articles~~the articles I help edit such as: 8 and9.

Comment

It does seem to me that, by almost immediately unblocking him on this as on many previous occasions, friends of Malleus are not doing him any favours. They are not upholding others to a process that they have not adhered to (even more rigidly) themselves. Even so, I suggest that the initial sanctions are being carried out by, at best, editors misunderstanding cross-cultural political correctness and, at worst, editors with stick-wielding power hungry hubris (as per Zimbardo 1972).

In this particular case, if the initial sanction on Malleus and the subsequent processes, including this one, lead to the loss of Malleus, self-sanctioned or otherwise, it will be an incredible loss to the project.

Recommendation

Arbitrators should stamp on this cyclic nonsense once and for all by aggressively sanctioning the first block by thumperward (talk · contribs).

--Senra (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WFCforLife

It is an undeniable fact that many admins, to varying degrees and with varying frequencies, seek latitude to do things with the tools that are in line with what they want to do. One example being the series of events that led to WP:BLPPROD. Another being admins that threaten or actually block users with whom they are unquestionably WP:INVOLVED. Malleus was blocked for having the temerity to point out in no uncertain terms that there are a large number of admins like this. He also inferred in the same discussion that there are a lot of admins that mean well but lack competence, and so end up coming across as being in the same boat, and indeed that there are a lot of very good admins.

Whether or not "cunts" and "wankers" are blockable words is not a matter for Arbcom, but for community consensus to determine.

Malleus writes more than the vast majority, to a better standard than the vast majority. For better or worse he says things as he sees them, and from what I've seen is always prepared to back up his opinion if challenged. If that merits a long term block or ban we may as well shut down our featured processes, because you'll find relatively few editors there that aren't in that mould. —WFC— 17:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, my statement is not intended to imply deliberate wrongdoing on Thumperward's part, and I can see that it could be interpreted in that way. My point is that had Malleus used the language he had in the context he had on a page other than WT:RFA, he probably wouldn't have been blocked. I say that having used such language on high profile pages myself, and never having been blocked. Maybe I should have been blocked on one or more of those occasions, but again that specific element of this case is a matter for community consensus to determine, not Arbcom to dictate. —WFC— 18:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Part of the reason Malleus tends to get unblocked after being blocked for the things he says is that he has this annoying habit of being right, even if he is rude about it, and it seems there is always at least one other party involved who has acted as badly or worse than he has, whether they used "bad words" or not. In this particular case I am more concerned with the edit warring and wheel warring between parties who certainly should have known better, and hope that if the committee accepts this case they consider those factors as well and take appropriate actions regarding them. Wheeel warring in particular is very troubling. I would also note that despite many saying this is a longstanding problem, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum is still a redlink. Looks like it was created once in 2009 but never certified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Edinburgh Wanderer

Its important Arbcom take the case. Thumperward's block was well intentioned and if had been a short block then would of been fine but Hawkeye should not of re blocked without consensus. The problem here is what is perceived as incivility i believe it pushes the boundaries but probably does stay just with in it most od the time. Apart from his personal attack on Spitfire[9] and repeated ANI's over this always seems to result in an unblock because Malleus is productive. Of that there is no doubt but a final line needs determines as if this was any other editor they would be most likely be blocked. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

Please accept this case. We have become incredibly experienced at generating excuses for behavior which isn't merely impolitic or rude but rather is nasty, mean-spirited and petty. Each time the issue comes up we rush to defend this editor (it happens to be MF but most of these complaints apply mutatis mutandis to other vested contributors), insisting that punishing someone for "just one outburst" or "just for swearing" or "becoming justifiably frustrated with Randy in Boise" (my personal favorite) is unfair. In doing so we engage in what seems to be collective amnesia or willful ignorance of every single past incident.

This isn't just one or two admins who have gone power mad or who can't take the criticism of the admin system from MF. It is a string of admins and editors who see comment after comment meant to belittle other editors (willfully, by the way), immiserate the discussion and raise the level of hostility. Near as I can tell most of us look the other way because none of us can write like MF. I can't. My bet is no one on Arbcom can. There are probably a handful of editors who write like he does and with the same determination. But we aren't making a cost-benefit analysis (the two elements are incommensurable, but I digress). We are shying away from punishing our betters. And years of doing so has carved a long and deep furrow in MF's incentives and our response to his behavior. As it stands right now no block of MF for civility issues (construed however broadly) will last more than a few hours. He knows it. Most admins know it. Most of the highly active community members know it. And the situation is untenable. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "civility"

Arbcom doesn't need to look at where the boundary for "civility" may be on the english wikipedia because the behavior of MF isn't even remotely close. We aren't dealing with an edge case or "naughty words" or misinterpreted actions. If what we see isn't incivility, nothing is.

Statement by Cusop Dingle

I hope that the Arbitration Committee will make a ruling that supports Wikipedia:Civility in letter and spirit. The object of that policy is to create a collegial atmosphere so that we can all get on with building the encyclopaedia. Frankly the rude word thing is not the most important part of it. Some people are put off or upset by some words more than others: the issue is as much about intention as effect. There is at least a prima facie case that MF either intends to put other people off editing, or at the very least is consciously reckless about whether his words will have that effect. In a short discussion I happened to be part of a few days ago, MF's sole contributions, addressed to other users, not myself, were "I'm a strong advocate of the fact that you talk bollocks much of the time" and "Then you're also talking bollocks. It's not up to administrators, or anyone else here, to forgive". The incivility here is not the use of the word "bollocks", although this is not language I would wish to hear in my own drawing-room: it is the deliberate use of the word in a context which displays a clear intention to discourage another user from taking part in the discussion; a clear expression of personal contempt; and no interest whatsoever in advancing a rational debate. The two sentences containing the word "bollocks" could have been deleted without any effect whatsoever on the logical argument, and serve only to upset or discourage other users. This is incivility, and is an -- admittedly minor -- example of the sort of behaviour we need to discourage. It is clear that this is conscious and deliberate behaviour on MF's part and that he intends it to have the effect that it does indeed have. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Art LaPella

"Malleus Fatuorum" means "Hammer of Fools", and most of us are considered fools. So why isn't he "Teacher of Fools"? Even "Hammer of Evildoers" would be better than "Hammer of Fools". Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ItsZippy

I really hope that ArbCom choose to take this case to resolve a long running dispute. I've not really come into contact with Malleus before, but my observations of his behaviour, both at the RfA talk page [10] [11] and then the ANI thread [12] [13], would indicate that he has strayed beyond mere incivility. His content contributions should be inconsequential - the dispute is not about content, but how Malleus conducts himself. The ensuing wheel war also needs investigation, with numerous admins claiming different consensus, allegations of involvement and the like. A nasty mess, really. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

Arbcom must take the case; it is fully covered by their remit. The discussion about the admin’s involvement in the associated ANI report is a sideshow here. Without the trigger of gross & persistent abusive behaviour no admin. need have become involved – which is where we should aim to be. What is required is a clear way forward on the situation regarding a high quality content contributor and the coterie of supporting Admins. and editors who obstruct what would otherwise be a straightforward breach of WP:Civility. Do not be distracted by the specific derogatory phrase used and the argument that it is more acceptable in the UK. It is an offence under the Public Order Act to use words intended to cause alarm, harassment or distress. IT might be fine among a group of mates down the pub, for example describing a friend as “a daft xxxx” or “where is the miserable xxxx?”. Using it here is not the same as jawing down the pub with your mates. In any event, it was preceded by “dishonest” which is an aggravating accusation against admins in general. Also remember for that every block of this particular contributor there are many more instances which have not come to that ultimate conclusion, due to the group of supporters who protect content creators, or particular editors with a large personal following. Finally, if there are any Arbcom members who’s own interpretation of the civility policy is, by recent example lacking in temperance, they should recuse themselves. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kaldari

I also believe this is an important issue for the ArbCom to address. The tendency of some admins to act as enablers for abusive editors has become a serious problem which undermines both the health of our community and the ability of other admins to do their job. Malleus's block history is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Malleus, though often productive in content work, is caustic and abusive towards other editors. His incivility is so well known, it has become a running joke on AN/I.[14] He has been blocked 14 times for personal attacks or incivility, and in 9 of those cases he was subsequently unblocked by a different administrator, typically in less than an hour.[15] Malleus personally attacks other editors on a regular basis, and is typically incivil to most editors he disagrees with. He has not only expressed an unwillingness to change his behavior, but also contempt for those who think that civility is important.[16][17][18][19]

The fact that we have many admins willing to excuse this sort of blatantly abusive behavior is disturbing. What's even more disturbing is that many of them feel entitled to override those who don't excuse it. The free pass that is given to Malleus is an unacceptable double standard that has eroded the good will of editors and admins alike. It should not be allowed to continue. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Binksternet

We should not have such thin skins that crude words needle us into admin action. Give Malleus some slack. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mark Arsten

I think that Arbcom should accept this case. In my view, what needs to be dealt with here is admin conduct more than Malleus' incivility. The issue with Malleus that bothers people (incivility, in the views of many) is not particularly hard to solve, and I do not think it requires arbitration. There have been incivility issues on this site for some time, and they are either tolerated or dealt with by coming to a consensus on ANI or RFCU. I think that concerns about Malleus' conduct this week should have been handled on ANI, and if Malleus returns to editing and makes similar comments, an RFCU or discussion of some sort of topic ban could probably solve the issue. (Though likely not to everyone's satisfaction). The problem to me seems to be that some admins rejected the idea of having a discussion and gaining consensus about how to deal with him. I do think that it is sometimes necessary for admins to block or unblock contributors without discussion or against numerical consensus, but most of the time it is a bad idea. This is the type of behavior that I think Arbcom should examine and deal with. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Would a clerk please unblock Malleus promptly for the limited purpose of responding to this request. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/1)

Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. This is a long running dispute, highly divisive even amongs administrators, and thus it behooves us to accept this case. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Per SirFozzie, I'm less inclined to look closely at Malleus' own behavior (unless someone provides credible evidence that it's recently changed for the worse), but rather how admins are dealing with each other over a matter of good-faith disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 289: / Line 289: @@
 :{{Done}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/1) ===
+=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/1) ===
 * Recused. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * '''Accept'''. This is a long running dispute, highly divisive even amongs administrators, and thus it behooves us to accept this case. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Accept''' Per SirFozzie, I'm less inclined to look closely at Malleus' own behavior (unless someone provides credible evidence that it's recently changed for the worse), but rather how admins are dealing with each other over a matter of good-faith disagreement. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)