Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) →"you're full of shit": simplify syntax, and correct grammar |
Balloonman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 477: | Line 477: | ||
Banning MF from RFA talk will be perceived as some, rightly or wrongly, as inhibiting contrary opinions. Was any consideration given or should consideration be given, to a throttle measure, rather than an all or nothing measure? (E.g n posts per day or per week). If the view is that voices critical of the process are acceptable, but can be problematic if overdone, the appropriate remedy is some reasonable limitation, rather than outright prohibition. Crafting such a measure is not trivial, but there's no point in trying if such a measure wouldn't be contemplated.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Banning MF from RFA talk will be perceived as some, rightly or wrongly, as inhibiting contrary opinions. Was any consideration given or should consideration be given, to a throttle measure, rather than an all or nothing measure? (E.g n posts per day or per week). If the view is that voices critical of the process are acceptable, but can be problematic if overdone, the appropriate remedy is some reasonable limitation, rather than outright prohibition. Crafting such a measure is not trivial, but there's no point in trying if such a measure wouldn't be contemplated.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:While I defend Malleus in most cases, I think his ban here is reasonable. Malleus isn't merely a contrarian opinion at WT:RFA, he cane be a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out. I do think it might be appropriate to add a note that at some certain time in the future Malleus can petition ArbCOM to revisit this parameter.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>Poppa Balloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== "Thumperward (talk · contribs) has not participated in this case to defend his actions" == |
== "Thumperward (talk · contribs) has not participated in this case to defend his actions" == |
Revision as of 20:38, 14 February 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
Archive. Please do not edit
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extending the date for evidenceI put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
An observation per IARYes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 30 Jantick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom incivilityIt does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil.
To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Its just a proposed decision...the final decision will take another month.MONGO 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) From the department of offering an opinion unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts... (in that I have no knowledge of what the Committee is discussing): I can certainly understand that parties in the case would wish that this was over already, but I have a feeling that what may be the most difficult part of the case may be how to deal with aspects of administrator activities, such as the second mover issue, rather than with civility or those editors accused of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
What about party C? Or am I in a party of just one? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Any idea if we can start seeing what way the committee is going to take with this? Perhaps the committee doesn't have enough evidence or proposals to formulate the decision from. If only there were a place where members of the community could provide focused evidence and proposals to get this jalopy out of neutral and moving forward. *cough* Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no fire, so take your time Arbcom. Better to have it right, then have it fast. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be apparent that a editor with my username is eponymously patient; it should also be eponymously apparent that it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. What is important is that if ArbCom routinely fails to update the targets they provide the community, then they are routinely rude. The first rule of leadership is example. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Motion to dismiss
Rant-o-maticI can only hope the readers of this
I'm enjoying reading all the pro & con Arbcom posts by editors here. They won't change Arbcom's ruling, but they're entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, how about it guys? Accurate? ;) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
PumpkinSky's personal attack at KW's RfC/U
Update on progress for proposed decisionThank you all for giving us some breathing space to try to get through all of the evidence and the mass of workshop proposals. Courcelles, Hersfold and I have been working hard on a proposed decision that addresses both the specific and broad-based issues, and we plan to have this posted within the week. Please continue to bear with the Committee on this; we will be closing one currently open case over this weekend, are doing our best to sort out some remedies on another, and are workshopping a third (very complex) case, which is likely to have its proposed decision posted next week as well. Rather than posting two decisions at once, and overloading the remainder of the Committee with two complex cases for voting, we are likely to stagger the two proposed decisions a few days apart. That doesn't mean one is more important than the other; whichever one is ready for voting first will be posted first. Risker (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've got a Blue Peter badge, please may I have a Wikipedia hoodie? (Dark green, ideally ;P) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A new update requestedI want it to be right, not rushed, so take whatever time is needed, but it wouldn't take but two minutes, if that, to post a revised estimate of when this decision is expected.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The proposed decision will be posted before I retire for the evening; unfortunately, it turns out that our developer/operations colleagues have been upgrading software on the server that handles the arbitration wiki, so there have been some technical difficulties as we pull the last bits together. Risker (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a queue formingOf similar cases. I hope a decision gets posted soon. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Stake holders neededWikipedia's civility policy needs more stake holders. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Meta-musingI've just had a bit of experience on meta-wiki. It seems that over there, they are much quicker to block for incivility, personal attacks or "intimidating behavior" at least when it's not coming from their admins. Still, even for minor transgressions, over there blocks seem to stick at least for a day or so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of this seems off-topic here (but I could have missed something); though since it is here: Does meta have any sort of AN or ANI reporting area to discuss bad blocks? — Ched : ? 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Comments on proposed decision
Thank you for starting the Proposed Decision process. After reading through the page, I recommend two more FoFs (Findings of Fact):
- There needs to be some finding covering the background of the incident, either as a new finding, or an expansion of the existing Thumperward FoF. Right now the current findings pretty much require pre-existing knowledge, but would be difficult to understand for someone reviewing the case in the future. Recommended wording:
- On December 21, 2011, Malleus Fatuorum engaged in uncivil behavior,[4][5] prompting numerous complaints and an eventual redaction of his comment.[6] Three hours later, administrator Thumperward blocked Malleus Fatuorum indefinitely, initially with a minimal block rationale,[7] and then a more extensive one at ANI two hours later.[8] One hour after Thumperward blocked, John unblocked, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin, even though the blocking admin had said at ANI that he was writing up a rationale.[9] Several hours later, Hawkeye7 re-blocked, claiming a consensus at ANI,[10] when there was clearly no such consensus.[11]
- There should be a proposed remedy for John to be de-sysopped. He clearly and deliberately overturned a block without any community consensus, and without any attempt at contacting the blocking admin until after he had overturned the block.[12] Further, he claimed a "strong consensus" at ANI, when there had only been 20 minutes of discussion, and it was clear that Thumperward was actively working on responding to queries about the block.[13] And on top of all that, John was self-admittedly involved where Malleus was concerned,[14] which was yet another reason that he should not have used admin tools. It's true that John did offer a general after-the-fact apology, but in my opinion his behavior was so clearly out of line that a de-sysopping should still be on the table. At a very minimum, his behavior should be clearly documented as inappropriate. Otherwise it looks like any admin could engage in pretty much any outrageous behavior they wanted, and as long as they offer an "Oops, I was wrong," apology after the fact, they can avoid any repercussions.
- I for one think ArbCom should be applauded for proposing a reasonable – rather than needlessly punitive – approach to John's actions. I have a fair number of objections to some of the other proposed remedies, but John not being sanctioned certainly isn't one of them. 28bytes (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I support the background suggestion by Elonka. While I think I had followed all of the background, this decision will be reviewed in the future. While the entire chain of events can be teased out by a complete review of the Evidence page, a summary would be helpful for future readers of this case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Corrections
Diff #6 in the "Malleus Fatuorum's block log" should be double-checked, as it doesn't appear to refer to an actual block. --Elonka 07:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Hawkeye de-sysop remedy includes language about regaining tools through RfA. Similar language is not included in the other proposed de-sysop remedies. Is there some reason for this difference? Is it just a drafting oversight? Please explain. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hawkeye's apology
Hawkeye has apologized for his mistake to Malleus, on SandyGeorgia's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wheel-warring
I suggest that saying " administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute" . There are many other circumstances that where reversal without discussion is appropriate, some specifically provided for in the rules, for example, unblocking under the usual block review procedures, the undeletion of an expired prod, the admin having left WP, the admin being unresponsive, the admin specifically stating--as some of us including myself do--that any of my deletions may be undeleted, the undeletion of a speedy in case it's clear the criteria for speedy have not been met, the revert of a clearly inappropriate close, the reversal of any clear error. Obviously anything like to be really disputable must be dealt with carefully, but in many situations consent can be presumed. The provision, as stated, drastically changes the meaning of wheel-war to 0RR, and destroys the needed flexibility. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but having seen other arbitration cases revolving around admin actions, I have a horrible feeling that that's exactly what's intended. Certainly it would make day-to-day admin work much more difficult if a silly principle like that passed, but it's been so long since most arbs were actually involved in day-to-day admin work that they probably don't realise or don't care. Hopefully some of those with the benefit of recent admin experience will opine in defence of common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't speak for ArbCom or the Admin Corps, but I think this is more in the "Be sure the admin whose action you're reversing isn't going to complain about the reversal" vein. When a admin grants blind-approval for another admin to reverse them (for whatever criteria) then it's putting trust that the other admin will have done the due diligence before executing the reversal. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- My initial view of the proposed principle is that it constitutes a substantial moving of the bar. More so than I think is warranted. I applaud the cleverness; the analogy to 3RR is apt, but we may have to put more teeth into the wording to make sure it is apt—in the same way that a revert short of 3R can be, but it not necessarily edit warring, the undoing of another admins action can be, but very often isn't problematic. DGG identified a long list of cases where it isn't problematic, so we have to take care to ensure that ArbCom hasn't redefined wheel-warring to 0RR. It is my view that we do not have to hash it out here, the talk page of WHEEL, possibly resulting in wording tweaks of the policy, is the right venue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't speak for ArbCom or the Admin Corps, but I think this is more in the "Be sure the admin whose action you're reversing isn't going to complain about the reversal" vein. When a admin grants blind-approval for another admin to reverse them (for whatever criteria) then it's putting trust that the other admin will have done the due diligence before executing the reversal. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
So, are you folks formally redefining wheel-warring from being the second revert to being the first one? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblockable koala
"Hawkeye7's personal attack" was substantially saying that someone is unblockable. Is that kind of statement now considered a personal attack? Or is there some aggravating factor in the comparison with a koala? (I fail to grok the southern hemisphere cultural allusion myself, if any exists.) I'm asking because I've seen similar statements about the unblockability of other editors on a number of occasions. If ArbCom doesn't clarify their intent here, I'm going to file an official request for clarification after the case is closed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist (which is probably why he chose my talk page for that unfortunate comment, but I wasn't around), where we're both project coordinators, and there's a lot of that sort of Aussie colloquial banter among the MilHist coordiantors. I'm certain the comment was meant to be humorous, and that Hawkeye didn't mean any offence by it. That's not to say that it was well-judged, and it's probably a given that any admin whose actions are in ArbCom's crosshairs twice in such quick succession is going to lose his bit, but I think it would be a mistake to label it a "personal attack". In fact, the majority of diffs in this proposed decision are very mild to say that sanctions are being proposed on the basis of them (and I might post a more detailed comment to that effect later). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposed decision could benefit from some rationale
At first glance the proposed remedies are confusing as far as guidance going forward. On the one hand a pathologically uncivil but otherwise upstanding editor is to get the boot by collective action a month after his last offense (unless you count the de rigueur venting in connection with this case). On the other hand two administrators are proposed for deactivation for hasty actions made hours after the fact or without full explanation. If untimely, thinly explained remedies are grounds for loss of rights, perhaps we should desysop all of arbcom?
The Committee issues a strong, well reasoned exposition of the range of bad behavior considered a detriment to the project, but then cautions administrators that stopping editors from that behavior is a grave last resort. Hawkeye is to be canned for a goofy indecorous comment that pales by comparison to insults hurled after the fact by a few administrators and more so by other parties on these pages. His main infraction is to undo a prior administrative decision, something he vehemently denies. If he is sincere in claiming he did not wheel war, then why is he being punished for that? Shouldn't there be an explicit finding that he is lying or his claims are implausible?
There is no mention at all of the sexist and abusive nature of the original comments. Whether or not Malleus intended anything sinister (and there has been no strong evidence that he did), any other serious web service would allow its functionaries to issue a summary time out for calling people cunts, no questions asked, no hand wringing, and no attempt to kill the messengers. Why is Wikipedia, a website far more civil, serious, and prominent than most, charting its own course where gross incivility can be enforced only by volunteers willing to take the dagger themselves?
Arbcom is strongly warning the community not to bait, harass, provoke, belittle, etc., yet pointing a stun gun at administrators who have tried to enforce the same. What is supposed to happen next, inevitable, time that one of the regulars around here behaves like Malleus did? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- RFC/U. Nobody Ent 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The Committee tells us not to bait, and for the most part does not tell us what baiting is. I see in future "baiting" being slanged around a lot, and especially applied to anyone who objects to being on the receiving end of an uncivil comment, along with the traditional "disruption" axe and the shiny new "failing to work towards consensus", which seems ready made to be slanged around. The Committee waxes eloquent on the beauty of the regional variations of the English language—with absolutely no evidence that misunderstandings of English played any part here. Is it applied to Malleus? I'm having a hard time believing that is appropriate, as Malleus has routinely edited articles in regional variations. Is it directed to Hawkeye? What are admins to do in future?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- RFC who? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- one of the regulars around here who behaves like Malleus did. Nobody Ent 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- RFC who? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate to make innuendos like that. Please say plainly who is causing problems and give evidence in the appropriate forum; otherwise, keep quiet. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Careful, please?
The comment "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" probably needs to be tweaked around a bit. Please look at this thread on Jimbo's talk page. It seems highly likely that Wikipedia has way more than the population-normal percentage of people with (for example) high-functioning autism. (I'm one of these myself, and I know for absolute certain-sure that there are other Wikipedians who come into this or similar categories, including quite a high proportion of my own WikiAcquaintances.)
People with high-functioning autism-spectrum differences can be quite incredibly "genius", and can also be seriously misunderstood as being grumpy, misanthropic, hard to get along with, stupid, argumentative, and a number of other such labels. They / we can't help having differently-wired brains. That's important. I'm not saying that Malleus is one such (not naming any names here), but it is very, very important that we don't even appear to be making any statements which would automatically discriminate against a particular group of people on the grounds of what could broadly be considered (compared to neurotypicals) as a "disability". We need to ensure that editors are aware that the probability that they're communicating with someone on the autism spectrum is much higher in WikiLand than in Real Life, simply because the project is a honey-trap for people who would rather stay in and edit than go out and party, and to make allowances for the possibility that conflict has arisen from nothing more serious than a fundamental misunderstanding. See, for example, my interaction with Wikidemon during the course of this case. It could so easily have spiralled out of control, simply because we had crossed wires, through the fault of neither of us. This happens.
This is also a very important thing to bear in mind when writing policy pages; they have to be absolutely unambiguous, and absolutely equally applied. No exceptions. Autism-spectrum people are highly sensitive to injustice, particularly injustice arising from misunderstanding or mis-reading.
The phrase "We don't need misanthropic geniuses" is all-too-close to saying "we don't want anybody on the autism spectrum, thank you very much." Can't have that, sorry! Pesky (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Implying a connection where there isn't one. genius ≠ autism. Nobody Ent 09:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Meh, don't take it personally, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I've recently encountered the famous sonnet writer on meta-wiki, who is indef blocked here, apparently after writing sonnets in an ArbCom case request. What ArbCom is saying here is nowhere near as discriminatory as Jimbo's recent statement that a FA writer with similar stats to Malleus (30 or so articles) is "not the kind [of editor] we want" because she wrote a TFA article on "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe". 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Achhh, sorry, I wasn't clear enough (again!) What I meant was that a number of people in this grey, nebulous area do have talents at genius level, and an enormous amount to contribute. Simply because in HFAs and others, parts of the brain are overwired, giving massive abilities in that area, while the social interaction ares are conversely underwired, giving difficulties in that area. I'm not saying autism=genius. Pesky (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Returning to Pesky's original point, I suggest JClemens's substituting "We don't need misanthropic behavior", so dropping off-topic "geniuses" etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The comment is fine. You are making a mountain out of something smaller than a molehill. People need to be allowed to speak their minds without being nitpicked to death through the application of extreme political correctness. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an important proposed "finding of fact", because it is the basis for the proposed topic ban(s):
3) Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([15]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor. On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful ([16],[17],[18],[19]). More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26]). The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.
Comments: This needs revision.
- "Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([27]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, over 500 times more often than the next most prolific contributor."
- Malleus is one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia. In the last year, he has likely done more editing than all of ArbCom combined. Similarly, he has edited more articles than the other regulars at the talk page RfA. His ratio of edits at talk:RfA versus article edits does not stand out as much as Kudpung's, for example.
- "On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful."
- The talk page at RfA is more inane than Jimbo Wales's talk page. You could faintly praise or, better, forthrightly condemn most of it, but what would it serve? Why single out Malleus? Why ignore Kudpung?
- "More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34])."
- Your assertion "more frequently" should be labeled "according to our unwarranted speculation based on an unrepresentative convenience sample". You have not made a census or a random sample of Malleus's comments on Talk:RfA.
- Your statement fails to deal with the RfA-related incivility directed at Malleus, which suggests that the title "Civility enforcement" was dishonest and the committee's failure to delimit the scope of the case incompetent or dishonest.
- It would be fair to write that "Too often, comments at RfA and RfA-related discussions have been derisive and belittling" but then you should include Kudpung's baiting of Malleus, his imputation of psychological problems to BadgerDrink, Demiurge1000's baiting, etc.
- "The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page."
- Abysmal writing, in style and vacuity.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- These are excellent and insightful comments from KW (expected, really!) I think, too, that it's vitally important to assess people's contributions in any given area, or their "bad contributions", or whatever, as a percentage of their overall contributions. We shouldn't expect high-contribution-bytes editors to be any "more perfect", percentage-wise, than any other contributor. This is important. We need to ensure that we're always comparing like with like. I had similar things with my npp stuff; I made more mistakes (straight numbers) than several other new page patrollers, but in terms of the sheer numbers of pages I was patrolling, the percentage of mistakes was no worse (and very probably much better). We need, again, to be careful here. Someone with 100,000+ contributions is likely to have ten times more "iffy" ones than someone with 10,000 contributions; that's just the law of wossnames coming into action. Pesky (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The community will probably soon have RfCs on proposed changes to RfAs and ANI-AN, addressing both incivility and double standards. Improved clarity, consensus, and likely regular enforcement should deal with perceived problems with e.g. Malleus and Kudpung (or KW). A topic-ban singling out Malleus seems imprudent now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, think it would be ... [searches for word] ... jumping the gun? a bit at this stage, where we are apparently in the process of coming up with some better approaches. We have some (ugh!) "meaningful discussion" going on at RfAReform now, and hopefully will have some "meaningful discussion of re-wording" things like the civility policy soon. In the meantime, everyone could be put "on caution" at RfA and RfA talk. including, but not singling out, Malleus, while we work on better solutions. Shame to stop the cart once we've got it moving. Pesky (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The community will probably soon have RfCs on proposed changes to RfAs and ANI-AN, addressing both incivility and double standards. Improved clarity, consensus, and likely regular enforcement should deal with perceived problems with e.g. Malleus and Kudpung (or KW). A topic-ban singling out Malleus seems imprudent now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- These are excellent and insightful comments from KW (expected, really!) I think, too, that it's vitally important to assess people's contributions in any given area, or their "bad contributions", or whatever, as a percentage of their overall contributions. We shouldn't expect high-contribution-bytes editors to be any "more perfect", percentage-wise, than any other contributor. This is important. We need to ensure that we're always comparing like with like. I had similar things with my npp stuff; I made more mistakes (straight numbers) than several other new page patrollers, but in terms of the sheer numbers of pages I was patrolling, the percentage of mistakes was no worse (and very probably much better). We need, again, to be careful here. Someone with 100,000+ contributions is likely to have ten times more "iffy" ones than someone with 10,000 contributions; that's just the law of wossnames coming into action. Pesky (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus has 1500 comments at WT:RFA. That's 50% more than the next highest contributor. It is not unreasonable to ask him to stop commenting there since his commentary has tended to overwhelm and at times disrupt the venue. If the topic ban later on proves unnecessary, it can be removed by a motion. I think Malleus should accept this decision and move along. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your paraphrasing the current proposal may help persons with ADD, but your personal authority helps nobody. BTW, the decision has not been made. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is very likely that the number of comments by editor is reasonably close to a Pareto distribution. While I'm too lazy to do the actual math at the moment, it is not at all unusual that the largest value would be 50% higher than the next largest, so this observation should not be viewed as a statistical anomaly. While his presence there is obvious, a better metric is what proportion of the total contributions come from MF, and how does this proportion compare to other locations. For example, without running the numbers, I'll bet Ludwigs2 is proportionately a higher contributor to Mohammed image discussions and Moonriddengirl is a higher contributor to copyright discussions. I suspect it would be easy to identify a couple dozen fora where one user is a disproportionately high share of the total discussion. While the comments of MF are often negative, I don't view them as so disruptive that it prevents others from airing their opinions. Even while I disagree with many of his points, I find many thought-provoking, and do not support the muzzling.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Propose alternative to remedy 4 (Malleus banned from WT:RFA)
Instead of (or as well as) singling out Malleus in particular (he's the most prolific, but not necessarily the worst, and certainly not the only one to fail to maintain the desired level of decorum), why not have something like:
4.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or here discretion, ban any editor from further participation in a discussion on a page related to the requests for adminship process if, in the administrator's judgement, the editor has repeatedly or egregiously failed to maintain the appropriate level of decorum. In the event that this is ineffective, the ban may be extended by any uninvolved administrator to cover a page, set of pages, or the entire requests for adminship topic area. Bans placed under this remedy, and blocks placed to enforce them, may be appealed to the Administrators' Noticeboard or Arbitration Enforcement and thereafter to the Arbitration Committee.
—I was on wikibreak when the evidence and workshop phases were going on, but I hope my proposal will be given due consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The remedy suggested above is inconsistent with many of the findings of fact. This case is very much about inconsistency and individual admins making decisions in lieu of gaining community consensus. Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban strikes the appropriate balance -- the community should impose a ban, not an individual admin. Nobody Ent 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Potential problem with finding 4
I have concerns with however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. I fear that this could result in ongoing issues because some admins are going to jump the gun and ban him from any discussion wherein he opposes, even if his oppose is no more curt than some others. I'd rather put this reponsibility on the 'crats. This will ensure that such sanctions are placed only in the more egregious cases where he has crossed the line. Not on opposes that people choose to invoke to get at MF.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- My initial reaction is sympathetic to your point, however, in terms of process, does ArbCom have the remit to direct the 'crats to take action?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- While the 'crats haven't taken too much action in the past, they have on occassion. There is also precident that the 'crats are supposed to govern the RfA area; but this has been pretty low key to non-existent over the past few years.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that there are too many admins who would be sanctioning Malleus for every oppose vote he ever made, and we'd be no better off than when we started (not that a months-long arbitration case ever solved anything). Giving the responsibility to the 'crats would make much more sense—they do indeed govern RfA, in theory if not in practice, and if ArbCom can mandate admins to do it, there's no reason they can't mandate the 'crats to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree 100% that this should be reserved for the crats. Finding of fact #2 basically admits that Malleus is the frequent recipient of poor and hasty blocks; I can't imagine that letting any single admin ban him from an RfA without prior discussion is anything but a recipe for more pointless drama. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that there are too many admins who would be sanctioning Malleus for every oppose vote he ever made, and we'd be no better off than when we started (not that a months-long arbitration case ever solved anything). Giving the responsibility to the 'crats would make much more sense—they do indeed govern RfA, in theory if not in practice, and if ArbCom can mandate admins to do it, there's no reason they can't mandate the 'crats to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- While the 'crats haven't taken too much action in the past, they have on occassion. There is also precident that the 'crats are supposed to govern the RfA area; but this has been pretty low key to non-existent over the past few years.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth noting the wording; from further participation and in that specific RFA. So such a sanction would have a very limited scope. It wouldn't prevent him commenting on any other RFAs. Nor would it have the effect of removing the Oppose on that specific RFA; it would merely prevent additional comments of the puerile and disruptive nature that unfortunately he sometimes indulges in around that topic area. RFAs do not need endlessly repeated commentary from one individual editor, no matter how much more important they might consider their own opinion to be. A !vote in an RFA, ideally, should provide a clear rationale of the reason for it, and after that there is little need for much more than a clarification or justification of that rationale if another editor (including the candidate) should have a query about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But that doesn't address the badgering in general, I'd like to see 'crats step up a little more and put their foot down. While a harsh oppose might be ok, I think they can sometimes cross the line especially in regards to after !vote commentaries.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the points made by Balloonman and HJ Mitchell; there would be a queue round the block just itching to remove me from any RfA I opposed, on the flimsiest of pretexts. This proposed decision would therefore be a de facto ban from the whole of RfA, not just the talk page. While that doesn't especially trouble me, to suppress unwelcome opinions in that way hardly seems like a healthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I said below on this page, that remedy is just a primer for more drama as you correctly observe as well. I would be more straightforward for ArbCom to have the balls and just ban you from RfAs, period. I don't know if the remedy is justifiable or not (because there are too many diffs for me to look at), but at least that would prevent some future dramatic events that are pretty likely as you say. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously proposing a ban from an area without any review of a single diff relevant to the issue? And you admit you don't know whether it is justified? On what basis?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I said below on this page, that remedy is just a primer for more drama as you correctly observe as well. I would be more straightforward for ArbCom to have the balls and just ban you from RfAs, period. I don't know if the remedy is justifiable or not (because there are too many diffs for me to look at), but at least that would prevent some future dramatic events that are pretty likely as you say. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could we perhaps modify the ban to allow him to respond to direct queries. E.g. MF opposes a candidate. He then gets into one of his RfA ruts where he starts badgering the supporters/opposers. Admin A comes along and bans him from the specific RfA. JohnQ or the user then asks him a question. According to the current wording, he couldn't respond to a direct inquiry except for his talk page.
- Part of my concern here is that there is a very insular group of admins at RfA. It would be hard to find active admins there that do not have a history with MF that could objectively be said to be "independent". Similarly, if an admin has !voted on the RfA, does that make them involved? I think if it were 'crats who gave the ban, that it would avoid a lot of potential drama. I do not see them jumping the gun in blocking too swiftly and I suspect that if they were to perform the action, that MF would be more likely to respect them than he might some random admin flexing his/her muscles.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Timescale and "civility"
RE: MF and the block.
Can someone (preferably an arbritrator) please comment on the times from the initial "offensive statement" to the original block, and from the time of the removal of the "offensive statement" to the original block. It seems to me that there are a couple of comments about the initial block's validity in regard to this specific "offensive statement" and general long-term civilty. I would appreciate someone clarifying what those time differences were from the evidence presented.
This has significance as any actions taken after the event and ratified by this procedure have bearing on:
... core policy of non-punitive - "For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—in particular if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved."
RE: Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship
Can someone please clarify how comments such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19] are un-civil? I appreciate that one may be a sort of personal attack of a very weak kind, but the rest, to me at least, are simply comments and fall well within civility levels in a collegiate environment. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"you're full of shit"
Unless, I'm missing something, remedy 4 only addresses Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. So, am I to understand that edits like this one, 'you're full of shit", from just a couple days ago, aren't covered by the PD and will fall outside AE enforcement? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we want AE micro-managing. If that edit is problematic, WP:WQA can deal with it. Frankly, I don't think it is worth the bother. (Had it been directed at a new editor, I'd feel differently).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- How successful has WP:WQA been in dealing with comments of that nature from Malleus in the past? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- @AQFK, this is precisely the problem—people take Malleus's comments out of context, and all of a sudden, we're talking about sanctioning him because he used a naughty word. While I wouldn't have phrased a remark quite like that, I have previously expressed similar sentiments to the editor Malleus was addressing, as that editor has to Malleus and myself. Malleus is no angel, but let's focus on addressing the problems at ahnd instead of manufacturing more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- My reward for not participating in this case...MONGO 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- MONGO, you perhaps can understand that your writing a long note on his talk page about having assembled a long dossier of damning evidence was not especially constructive. Let Kudpung be the keeper of a secret dossier (of names of RfA candidates who have been terrorized from becoming administrators), and you stick to editing articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended to be anything other than a reminder that I could have come here but I didn't...it was just an attempt to try and shake hands...I'm sorry if you don't believe me.MONGO 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- He's not the only one who doesn't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's what is so distressing...I hope if we work on something together in the future we'll get along better.MONGO 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Mongo,
- I've tried to be fair with you in the past, and I have sympathized publicly with your position in scrapes. In turn, I have been grateful that you have rethought a position, or rather carefully expressed a position in a way that became much more appealing to me, in our discussions. I also appreciate your directness and your avoidance of passive-aggressive bullshit.
- Contrary to Malleus's comment, I did not doubt your sincerity and I do not doubt your sincerity. However, I did doubt the prudence of your writing, because the impact of writing depends as much on the recipient's mood as on an imputation of good will to the author. Perceptions matter.
- Perhaps, in retrospect, you can better imagine that had a more effective note might have been, "I shall not participate in the ArbCom Case, because we both have more constructive things to do. Sincerely, MONGO".
- I apologize if I sound condescending (but I am still dealing with a cold and I am tired).
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's what is so distressing...I hope if we work on something together in the future we'll get along better.MONGO 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- He's not the only one who doesn't believe you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended to be anything other than a reminder that I could have come here but I didn't...it was just an attempt to try and shake hands...I'm sorry if you don't believe me.MONGO 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- MONGO, you perhaps can understand that your writing a long note on his talk page about having assembled a long dossier of damning evidence was not especially constructive. Let Kudpung be the keeper of a secret dossier (of names of RfA candidates who have been terrorized from becoming administrators), and you stick to editing articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- My reward for not participating in this case...MONGO 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Consideration of a remedy in between banning and not banning
Banning MF from RFA talk will be perceived as some, rightly or wrongly, as inhibiting contrary opinions. Was any consideration given or should consideration be given, to a throttle measure, rather than an all or nothing measure? (E.g n posts per day or per week). If the view is that voices critical of the process are acceptable, but can be problematic if overdone, the appropriate remedy is some reasonable limitation, rather than outright prohibition. Crafting such a measure is not trivial, but there's no point in trying if such a measure wouldn't be contemplated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- While I defend Malleus in most cases, I think his ban here is reasonable. Malleus isn't merely a contrarian opinion at WT:RFA, he cane be a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out. I do think it might be appropriate to add a note that at some certain time in the future Malleus can petition ArbCOM to revisit this parameter.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"Thumperward (talk · contribs) has not participated in this case to defend his actions"
This FoF seems outright false unless participation in the Workshop [35] [36] is not considered participation in the case. Or maybe glorious repetition is needed for one to be heard through the general level of noise in such cases? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Change wording to something like "has barely participated in this case, and failed to adequately explain his action". The gist of the finding is correct. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- This one puzzled me a bit. Obviously there is an obligation for an admin to explain his actions. Thumperward did that, although ArbCom notes it was two hours after the block. Do you have to engage at every forum that your block goes into, or if you consider your explanation sufficient, may you stand on it? ArbCom seems to be creating a new bit of policy here, that you may not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) First I'd like see an acknowledgement from ArbCom that they've actually read those two diffs before they posted their proposed decision. Otherwise Jehochman's proposed change may look like the Committee is simply saving face in the 25th hour of the day, especially considering how many times this proposed decision got postponed, and arbitrators saying that they were so overworked [37]. E.g. "The committee has considered Thumperward's explanations [diff1] [diff2], but does not consider them adequate because ..." or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. I also don't see why the Internationalism principle is in there, it isn't followed up in the findings of fact. It's sort of ... hanging there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I found this finding puzzling as well. Thumperward posted rapid replies to queries about his block,[38] posted a detailed rationale at ANI[39] (somewhat delayed because he was responding to the other queries),[40] and participated at this case's workshop page.[41][42] It would have been nice if he also offered an initial statement, but I don't see justification for saying that he didn't participate in the case. Unless diffs can be shown that ArbCom asked him specific questions, and he refused to answer? --Elonka 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. I also don't see why the Internationalism principle is in there, it isn't followed up in the findings of fact. It's sort of ... hanging there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- In proposed principle #10, ArbCom is implicitly expanding the definition of "wheel warring" from what's set out in policy. A likely result of that will be that administrators will feel emboldened to make more careless and ill-considered blocks that would be unsupported by the community. I think ArbCom realizes this is a likely result, and is "talking tough" to an administrator who made such an unsupported block in hopes of discouraging administrators who will be granted this new or expanded deference to their blocks. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL. I guess they don't even read this talk page [43]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm kinda curious what the four arbs who voted for this one before someone threw a flag based their votes on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Make bans only sufficient to prevent improper behaviour
In the proposed decision, there is a bit of "baby/bathwater" going on. If the problem is incivility at RfAs, then simply restrict that incivil editor to only giving a !vote, and ban him from making any comments whatsoever otherwise. This would appear, IMO, sufficient to prevent the probelmatic behaviour seen. Collect (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cassandra speaks: I predict the current ArbCom proposal is simply setting up the stage for more drama down the road. Outright banning Malleus from RfAs would be far simpler, but I guess ArbCom cannot collectively make that kind of decision until they are at case number 3 for a contributor (and even then it's a narrowly split vote). Of course, while they are eager to point out when community sanctions failed, I've yet to see a phrasing like "previous ArbCom sanctions failed" coming from them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The community has made it clear that bare Oppose !votes carry less weight than Oppose !votes coupled with a rationale. The proposal to restrict an editor thusly is a partial disfranchisement, and should only be taken with extremely solid evidence. Glancing quickly at the evidence, there aren't many examples of problematic behavior in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship (as distinct from Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship). If I can count correctly, there are only 13 diffs from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, not all of those from MF, and not all of the ones from MF exhibit out of bounds behavior. That sounds like to thin a reed upon which to hang such a remedy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"clear documented standards"
ArbCom trumpets that "The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards." What are these "clear documented standards" that allegedly ArbCom applies in contrast to the community? ¶ I'm guessing the subtextual standard applied in this case (and probably written in the sekrit ArbCom wiki) is: "every contributor is allowed to swear or launch a number of personal attacks per day no greater than the number of FA articles s/he has written added to one third of the number of GAs written, before s/he is blocked for no more than 24hrs" or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Don't the Lecen and Rlevse situations argue against that? Or does FA only confer immunity for potty-mouth?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with the Lecen case. Was Rlevse ever sanctioned for swearing or PAs? I thought the Rlevse issue was all about plagiarism and it didn't involve ArbCom except in the socking coverup debacle. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let it go. It would sidetrack the discussion, and I'm aware of efforts to keep discussion on Arbitration and Admin pages to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see [44]. Add addendum to the rules: "unless directed at the FA[C] director or any of his delegates, in which case the block shall be for one week with no allowances for FA articles written". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let it go. It would sidetrack the discussion, and I'm aware of efforts to keep discussion on Arbitration and Admin pages to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with the Lecen case. Was Rlevse ever sanctioned for swearing or PAs? I thought the Rlevse issue was all about plagiarism and it didn't involve ArbCom except in the socking coverup debacle. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I see ArbCom has already documented their standard, and perhaps it's clear to them. We might as well add it to the WP:BLOCK policy to prevent other clueless admins from committing "suicide by ArbCom" in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)