Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:54, 8 November 2011

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Rich Farmbrough		8 November 2011	{{{votes}}}
Unblocks and enabling	Motions	26 October 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[2], User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines and many other comments at his talk page
The subsections of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough; covering January 2009 – September 2010, October 2010 and January 2011
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#SmackBot and Rich Farmbrough (February 2011)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive674#Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again) (February 2011)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction (September 2011)

Statement by Fram

User:Rich Farmbrough is an admin and bot operator. He currently has two editing restrictions. Since September 2010, he has been blocked 5 times (by three different admins). His bot User:SmackBot was blocked 5 times between December 2010 and February 2011 (one of them because of a misunderstanding); after the rename to User:Helpful Pixie Bot, it was blocked four times since September, and is currently blocked.

When confronted with remarks about errors or problems, Rich Farmbrough often reacts very negatively, attacking the messenger instead of replying to the message. Note e.g. this exchange, where Rich Farmbrough's reply to concerns I raised is "I hope other Admins will, as usual, ignore this regular harassment by Fram. I am not the only editor on Wikipedia who's life is made tedious by his doubtless well meant, but pettifogging and ill informed attempts to be the Policeman of Wikipedia. <sigh>" This stretches back quite far, e.g. in December 2010, "Fram has nothing better to do than stalk my edits. Or rather imagines it is so. There is real work to do here, instead of pissing around trying to prove something irrelevant." (after his bot was blocked): and here, "Fram please stop being a troll.". More recently, from September 2011; "The AN thread was the disruption, this is the classic Fram attack, that he has been perpetrating for a year now." and here: "I know you just love to see stuff other people create being deleted, I just don't know why."

Similarly, in our most recent interaction, his first reply includes "Fourthly why are you still stalking my edits? I have repeatedly asked you not to interact with me, the least you could do is restrict your interactions to things that actually concern you rather than following me around in the same persecutory manner you used to drive other editors form the project." When I asked for evidence of this, he WP:REDACTs his statement, while repeating the claim in the edit summary.

Some of the problems are caused by Rich Farmbrough being an admin, which gives him the tools to edit fully protected templates. On 14 October 2011, he edited the Template:InterWiki to include some other templates. This change wasn't discussed at the talk page (or anywhere else apparently), and broke the template on a number of pages. This problem was noted by another user on 4 November, and prompted Rich Farmbrough to create 43 additional templates in quick succession (a violation of his restriction on mass creations). There is no evidence that the template, before Rich Farmbrough edited it, was actually broken and needed a fix. This isn't the first time Rich Farmbrough created problems by editing fully protected templates without prior discussion and without adequate testing (see e.g. his editing of Template:Notability which caused one of the February 2011 ANI discussions). Fram (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sir Fozzie. One thing which I think is needed by now, and which an RfC can't achieve, is that Rich Farmbrough be desysopped for repeatedly using his admin rights to edit fully protected templates without discussion or adequate testing. Fram (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg; the templates are the most recent ones (as of now) in this link, is this sufficient? Recounting, it appears that only 42 were made, not 43, but that doesn't really change anything... Everything created between Template:ISO 639 name stq and Template:ISO 639 name mus Fram (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Coren: there is the editing through protection (which appears to be a very common occurrence, but luckily most of the time doesn't cause any problems, even when it doesn't solve anything either, like here. There is the recurring incivility and personal attacks when he is notified of problems and errors. There is the ever-recurring problematic editing itself, which is slowed down but not stopped by the restrictions and blocks. Take e.g. his creation of articles based on the DNB, and compare the article as created by Rich farmbrough [3] with the article after someone actually checked it[4]. Then compare this (and note that there are quite a number of problems with his DNB creations) with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rich Farmbrough (mass article creation). I don't believe that an editor which so many blocks, with two editing restrictions, with so many problems in his editing, and with the misuse of admin rights, is fit to remain an admin any longer. Fram (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ

The only significant involvement I've had with this particular issue is as a result of this edit, in which Rich placed {{uncategorised}} on the Main Page. He reverted himself, but then went on to suggest that we create a category solely for the Main Page... to prevent him doing what he shouldn't have done if he was paying attention anyway. Sadly (because Rich is an editor I respect greatly, and with whom I've worked well on articles like Fort Hood shooting when that was breaking news), this is fairly typical of Rich's attitude when questioned about his actions, as Fram points out—he tends to see it as somebody else's problem, and is oblivious to the fact that his edits (which I have no doubt are made in the utmost good faith) sometimes cause more problems than they solve.

I'm not sure what an arbitration case can achieve on top of the existing community restrictions on Rich's editing, so I can't decide if the case should be accepted or not, but I wanted to share my view on what the problem is before the arbs decide whether they think they can resolve it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

The problems with R.F.'s editing mostly involve running unapproved bot jobs, either on his main account or on the account of one of his bots; running approved but buggy bot jobs on his main account when the bot account is blocked because of those same bugs; and making dubious or flawed edits to fully-protected templates. There have been numerous attempts by different people to counsel R.F. to avoid these things, but they have not been effective.

Here are two diffs of notes I have left for him in the last few months about errors in his AWB editing June 2011, September 2011.

The results of community dispute resolution are:

The main bot User:SmackBot, now renamed User:Helpful Pixie Bot, is indefinitely blocked.
R.F. is under two community-imposed edit restrictions:
1. Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval).[er-comm 1]
2. Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation.

My main concern about an arbitration case is that I am not sure what a desired outcome would be. The main issue with his editing which arbcom is uniquely suited to address is the misuse of admin tools. The real problem there is with editing fully protected pages, as other statements indicate. R.F. has also unblocked his own bots, looking at the block logs [5] [6], but the unblocks seems to be in good faith, so I think the unblocks are only a procedural violation.

A simple motion to prohibit R.F. from editing fully protected pages (in any namespace), and encouraging him to adopt more community-minded editing patterns, might be as useful as a long arbitration case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Coren. I do think arbcom could address the editing through protection. The examples provided in the statements include breaking edits to the main page (!), Template:Interwiki, and Template:Notability. There are also recent edits such as [7] [8] in which R.F. violates his edit restriction and does it on fully-protected templates. We would generally not accept an {{editrequested}} to make such invisible changes to highly-used templates, because it unnecessarily stretches the job queue, but R.F. as an admin has the technical ability to make the changes regardless of best practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/3)

Filing statement as given does not lead me towards accepting case. Next step should be an RfC I believe. Waiting for more statements to determine if this is one of those exceptions where a skip in the DR chain should be reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also leaning reject for similar reasons as SirFozzie. Fram, could you provide a link to, or list of, the "43 additional templates" created by Rich. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the statements HJ and CBM. It sounds like part of the problem is running bots unattended, unspecified and unapproved, especially when run on a sysop account and making edits only a sysop can make. The "unattended, unspecific and unapproved" part could be rolled into the Betacommand case..? If Rich is editing protected pages with a bot and making mistakes because the edits are not inspected by human eyes, that is .. umm .. wow?! very 2007. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I'd consider taking this as a case, I'd need a better idea of why the current restrictions imposed by the community do not suffice. Or is the editing through full protection the only issue? — Coren ^(talk) 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. –xeno^talk 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks and enabling

Initiated by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) at 08:04, 2 November 2011‎

Involved parties

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[9] Mkativerata
[10] Kaldari
Georgewilliamherbert filing party
Notification to Malleus per his informal request to be notified [11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Discussion with Mkativerata on his talk page: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is an unfortunate situation and one I would much rather not be filing. It involves longstanding editors and administrators who are generally productively active in some of the most problematic areas on Wikipedia today. However, it's only the most recent in a very long history of similar block/unblock cycles, which have been periodic and persistent enough to earn a specific nickname - "enabling unblocks". At some point this requires a systematic response rather than ongoing disruption.

In short summary, this incident proceeded in the following sequence (ANI archive thread [17]:

1. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) got into a name calling dispute on Talk:Manchester United F.C. arguing over singular vs plural grammar.

2. Tbhotch reported the incident to ANI

3. Mkativerata responded first, arguing that neither party was in the right and that administrators should not intervene

4. Further comments from Guerillero, Tbhoch, John, Wikidemon, and Quinn follow.

5. Kaldari responds with: "I warned Malleus about making personal attacks last month. Clearly he hasn't taken it to heart. Blocking for 24 hours. Kaldari (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)" [18]

6. SandyGeorgia commented that the block was asymmetrical despite roughly equal misbehavior, with a brief exchange with Tbhoch.

7. Kaldari answered: "I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)" [19]

8. Bushranger edit conflicted with Kaldari, roughly supporting his position / noting long history w/Malleus.

9. Volunteer Marek objected to the block. Discussion with all of the above except Mkativerata, eventually adding Dayewalker, followed.

10. Kaldari left a warning for Tbhotch at 03:12. [20]

11. Tarc called for unblock in a new subsection at 03:23. Bushranger opposed, further discussion followed with several additional users. Rough even split on the block.

12. Mkativerata unblocked without participation in the ANI discussion and without an effort to contact Kaldari, at 0345. Unblock message was: "(ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served.)"

Per policy: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

A number of similar issues have been addressed by Arbcom relating to Arbitration Enforcement blocks, and a somewhat stricter guideline was laid down as a result of those cases. This case requests review for similar persistent non-AE problem related blocks.

The issues with this unblock include:

Failure to establish unambiguous error. There was considerable noticeboard discussion, including a number of admins who believed the block to be flawed or in error. However, there was a significant body of discussion there prior to the unblock, which was approximately 50:50. ~~The assertion in the unblock message "ANI is clear" was a mistake, false, or intentionally misleading.~~
Assertion of an oft-repeated but never policy-recognized first mover advantage for noticeboard respondents. If the first administrator who responds to a noticeboard request declines to do something, that has not in any meaningful sense prohibited others from acting after seeing the discussion. Indeed, it cannot; it would punish administrators who were in the process of responding elsewhere, or were unaware of the filing of a noticeboard report. It establishes an unreasonable first mover advantage in administrator disputes, which Arbcom has repeatedly stressed it does not want to see happen on the project, with considerable community support.
Failure to make a good faith effort to contact or notify the blocking administrator. As the ANI thread demonstrates, Kaldari was online and responsive during the time period.
Failure to make a good faith effort to participate in the noticeboard thread. The thread was active and available; Mkativerata made one and only one edit in the thread, at the beginning. He made no effort to engage in the discussion there.

A number of valid questions were posed regarding the block - SandyGeorgia and others on the lack of symmetry, several on whether it rose to requiring administrator intervention. Mkativerata raised 3 in the discussion that followed on his talk page:

"(1) Why did Kaldari block an editor in a dispute when an uninvolved administrator had already decided not to block either editor in the dispute? (2) Why did Kaldari do so without consulting that admin or getting consensus for the block? (3) Was Kaldari involved, having been very recently been in direct conflict with the editor he blocked over an article matter?" [21] -Mkativerata

I do not know if or assert those those concerns are all necessarily factually true or correct, but they were raised and discussed.

Arbcom may wish to consider the wisdom of the block. Kaldari is a named party.

My primary focus here, however, is the unblock. In my opinion, this was the latest example of enabling unblocks, done in a disorderly manner and without respect for or consideration for the blocking administrator. It is entirely possible that the block was not in keeping with best practices, unfair and asymmetrical, downright mistaken, or any of the other objections prove sufficient to overturn.

Such unblocks are disrupting the ability of Wikipedia to handle disputes. They are disrespectful and abusive to other administrators, policy, and the community as a whole. The policy was written to allow admins to do the right thing, but strongly encourage them to do it civilly and constructively and collaboratively. That has manifestly failed here as it has repeatedly in the past.

This is an ongoing, oft repeated pattern. We need to establish that this is not OK behavior by administrators.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Mkativerata's first reply, I refer to this discussion on my talk page regarding the discussion and proto-filing [22]. I repeat my words from there:

It's a disputed and controversial block, not a bad block. There is a difference. I believe the difference is subtle but pertains to when the "except in cases of clear error" in the block policy kicks in, and that particular point has been much ignored and abused. That's the point of all this. With a disputed consensus on ANI, with due notification and discussion, an uninvolved administrator can without controversy or without abusing the policy unblock someone. But - I argue, and I believe importantly - should not simply pull the trigger. Several strong opinions that its bad do not a consensus make when there are countervailing opinions that it was good. Unambiguous bad blocks without support clearly meet "clear error". This incident was exactly and precisely on the line of the problem, and is in fact a perfect test case.

This only "enshrines" an advantage to the first blocker to the degree that absent unambiguous consensus, admins should make a good faith effort to either discuss at the noticeboard and obtain consensus, or discuss with the blocking administrator, prior to unilaterally acting. The community has invested significant faith in the good judgement of admins in giving them the mop; other admins should respect that and not overturn one another without regard or consideration. This is not "don't overturn them". The investment of 15 minutes of discussion prior to the unblock would have eliminated the basis for this complaint. If one is not willing to invest just that much time in community discussion and consensus-building, and at least an effort to notify the blocking admin, should one be wielding the mop? I am not proposing that one must *get* consensus or blocking admin's agreement - just make at least a good faith effort to discuss and get input anytime it's not legitimately "clear error". IDONTLIKEIT is not "clear error", and admins mistaking the two are the crux of the matter. We trust each other to overturn each others' actions when warranted - but not that much. Either put the effort in, or put up the mop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Re striking - with respect, no. If I believed ANI had been clear and supporting the unblock (at the time of the unblock, or any time since) we would not be here; that would meet the "clear error" criterion already established. It was not, and your insistence that it was despite my multiple requests on your talk page is why we are here. Controversial - and 50/50 is controversial - is not "clear error". Controversial is grounds for unblock, but not for unblock without good faith efforts. So here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again with respect - this is the first time in several days of talk page discussions you've stated that interpretation or intention to your block message. If that's what you intended, no, it's not at all clear in context, nor was it the impression I (and several others) got from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having reviewed and reflected, I now AGF that Mkativerata's "ANI is clear" was intended to convey something other than how I (and a number of others) read it initially, and not an intentional misrepresentation of the disputed consensus situation on ANI, rather a restatement of his own position there. I hope that he will take some responsibility for the phrasing having confused and greatly concerned a number of admins and editors, but I am reasonably convinced it was not malign, and have struck that section. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Arbs' "This is not worth demopping / settle by restatement motion / minor compared to other admin problems this week" comments (rolling several up into one response) -

I don't (and didn't) think it's necessarily anything like a demop, though my faith in Mkativerata's judgement as a result of the incident and subsequent discussion is reduced. However,
- Admins are practically impossible to sanction in any way short of Arbcom (not totally, but in any feasible sense)
- This is an ongoing, oft-repeated (if not everyday) problem. It's persistent. If a motion doesn't have teeth here, it will come back. Several others have commented on this aspect of it below.
I am happy with a motion that will be sufficient to settle it, if you can craft one.
- I don't think simply restating existing policy and reminding people will have enough teeth.
Re minor compared to other admin problems - True, but the long-term pattern here has to be considered. By itself this incident would be worthy only of letting settle into the dustbin of ANI history. As an ongoing pattern, it becomes something which calls out for review and response.

This is a good test case for the problem for a number of reasons. One, the admin who unblocked is not generally otherwise engaged in borderline behavior that I know of. Two, It was a rough 50:50 breakdown of opinion on ANI after the block and before the unblock. This puts it clear of both "clear error" where a rapid unblock is already permitted, and "community consensus support" where an unblock would be at least controversial and likely improper.

The reasons that seem to be being taken as justification to decline are also reasons to accept, IMHO.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkativerata

I am accused of failing to comply with a policy. What does that policy say? "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." I didn't do the should bit. Normally I would, but I chose not to here. The policy leaves it open to me to make that decision: it says should, not must, and properly so.

The reasons I unblocked Malleus Fatuorum without discussion are:

I had decided the matter already. An editor (Tbhotch) requested administrator intervention at ANI in respect of a dispute between him and another editor, Malleus Fatuorum. I was the first uninvolved admin on the scene. After reviewing the circumstances I made the "call", a decision, not to block either party: [23]. I felt well placed to make that call: perhaps unusally for an active admin, I am neither a friend nor a foe of either editor involved in the dispute. I believe I have never edited either of their user talk pages. As the matter had been dealt with by an uninvolved admin (me), a block should not have been unilaterally imposed by Kaldari. I assumed he either deliberately overrode my decision or (carelessly) didn't see it. So I fixed it. As it was a short block, I fixed it quickly. Then came the only thing I regret about my actions: an overly firm message in Malleus' block log. The "First come, first served" reference in the log is a reference to the quite sensible principle that a decision on a matter reported to a noticeboard may be made by the first uninvolved admin to do so. "ANI is clear" meant (contrary to Georgewilliamherbert's assertion) that it was clear from ANI that I had made a decision on the request for intervention.
There was clearly no consensus in support of the block, as is clear from the state of ANI at the time. As there was no consensus for the block, I felt it well within my rights to unblock Malleus, reflecting my original decision. For a 24 hour block, an editor shouldn't have to wait longer than 47 minutes to be unblocked when consensus doesn't support the block.
It was a short block. Discussing the matter further would have only prolonged two things: first, the ugly ANI thread; secondly, the situation of Malleus Fatuorum not being able to edit because he had been wrongly blocked out of process. The correctness of my judgement is confirmed by the fact that shortly after my unblock, the ANI thread was closed and the heat disappeared (that is, until Georgewilliamherbert showed up).

There are times when acting boldly and quickly and ignoring a policy -- which in this case isn't even mandatory -- is proper. This was such a case.

Georgewilliamherbert criticises the first mover rule. But he essentially proposes a first blocker rule. That any admin can block an editor no matter how many admins have decided not to; and that the block will stand until the blocking admin is convinced to rescind it. That ain't right.

If Arbcom is being asked to change policy in this case, it shouldn't. The policy that I'm accused of violating says "should" not "must" for good reason. In general, such wording is the essence of IAR; in the specific, such wording in this policy reflects the principle of "anyone can edit", by not subjecting editors to unilateral blocks that cannot be quickly reversed when demonstrated to be wrong or out of process.

If Arbcom accepts this case, it should of course also examine the conduct of Kaldari. Kaldari blocked an editor over the head of another admin. He also did so having only recently (in October) been in a direct dispute with the editor he blocked: see, among other things, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination). I wasn't aware of the involvement at the time of the unblock but it provides after-the-fact justification for my action, not that any is needed. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: please strike: "The assertion in the unblock message "ANI is clear" was a mistake, false, or intentionally misleading." As my statement says, you have the wrong end of the stick on that. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George, read carefully please. "ANI is clear" meant (and it is quite clear from the context): "it is clear from ANI that I had already decided not to block". The statement is not an assertion of consensus. I want you to strike the words because you are ascribing to my words a meaning that I clearly did not intend. I will happily have you question my judgement, but not my honesty. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George, you never asked what my block message meant. You're now casting aspersions that I'm making up this interpretation after the fact. Read the whole of the block message. It's tolerably clear what I meant: ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served. The sentences run together. It's plain English. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Arbcom (apart from Risker) have any clue what it thinks will be done with this case? Your own policy says that your functions are:

To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;[1]
To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

1, 2, 4 and 5 clearly don't apply. So unless anyone is actually requesting that Kaldari or I are to be desysopped (and I haven't seen any suggestions to that effect): what on earth are you doing, and on what basis do you suggest that you have jurisdiction? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

Georgewilliamherbert's version of the truth is very far from the truth, particularly as it ignores User:Kaldari's involvement. I may add to this statement later. Malleus Fatuorum 09:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why it is that editors like MONGO and others are being allowed to use this request as yet another stick to beat me with; I didn't unblock myself, obviously. Is this just to turn into some kind of kangaroo court, or is there going to be some order imposed here? Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond generally to the point made by a couple of editors, even though it ought to have no prima facie bearing here, which is that User:Georgewilliamherbert has in some sense "got it in for me", and that was his primary motivation in initiating this case. Certainly George and I don't agree about what I consider to be his very prissy interpretation of civility, and he doesn't agree with my rather more robust interpretation, but then I live in England, not California, so there's an inevitable cultural divide. But what's equally true, I think, is that George would not have initiated this case had it not involved me, and therefore he is being somewhat disingenuous. I don't accuse him of deliberate misrepresentation of his motives, but of, perhaps unconsciously, reacting to an opportunity to unleash the dogs of war, as we've seen with statements such as the one from User:MONGO. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Balloonman: it should be "arse", not "ass", at least here in good ol' blighty. To call someone an "ass" is to call them stupid, whereas to call them an arse is a comment on their behaviour, not on them. We clearly have a language problem here on Wikipedia, in that words carry different meanings in different parts of the English-speaking world. And by what contorted logic is it acceptable to call someone a dick but not an arse? The only difference I see is that one has an essay whereas the other doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: as this case is supposedly not about me, is there any reason why I should be subjected to yet more of your long-standing abuse? And just for the sake of clarity I don't ignore policy, I simply interpret it differently from you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Kaldari and I (and others as well) have been arguing for months now over two articles – wife selling and wife selling (English custom), and were recently on different sides of an AfD debate here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@John Vandenberg: "... I think ArbCom needs to start accepting civility cases in order to explore this territory properly".[24] And thus the dishonesty here has now been revealed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tangentally involved Black Kite

As I noted at the time, Mkativerata beat me to the unblock button by a matter of seconds. I would have unblocked for these reasons;

The incivility was very minor ("arse" in the UK is a far more minor epithet than the US equivalent "asshole") and led me to believe that Malleus was being blocked because of who he was, rather than what he'd done (some of the later statements on ANI back up that belief)
The block was premature - Kaldari should have waited for consensus to emerge at ANI, especially as at least one admin had already refused to block; any block can always be re-instated if there is such consensus for it
The block was unbalanced - Tbhotch was equally incivil and yet was not even warned until Kaldari was called on it by other editors
Malleus' frustration was understandable - an experienced copyeditor being called on a matter of grammar by someone who admits to having a shaky grasp of English
Blocks are preventative, not punitive - what was this block preventing, given that the very minor spat had ended around a hour before the block?
As Mkativerata says above, regarding contacting the blocking admin, blocking policy says "should", not "must". I did not see the point of wasting time and expanding drama by jumping through this hoop, especially as Kaldari had already clearly made up their mind on the issue. The encyclopedia was clearly better served by Malleus being able to edit.

I also note that - although I didn't know this at the time - Kaldari was clearly at least semi-involved, having been in a disagreement with Malleus only the day before. By all means we can have a discussion about WP:WHEEL and the second mover advantage - there have been spectacularly bad unblocks performed in the past - but this is a particularly bad poster child to use for that particular discussion. I strongly suggest rejecting this case. Black Kite (t) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: "Adminstrators should only unblock if there is a clear majority supporting it." You fail your entire argument with that sentence, because there was no majority to block in the first place; indeed, at the time Kaldari did, nearly every argument was against it. You appear to be saying that the first admin to act is always right, which is clearly ludicrous; a situation which is confirmed when you then go on to mention "clique supports of Malleus". Black Kite (t) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fetchcomms: "Why people are still spending their time bickering over this petty block is perplexing.". Well, there's only one person you need to thank for that. Perhaps George would like to explain why he brought a matter that was done and settled to this venue? Black Kite (t) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pedro: Completely agree, and clearly my comment above was too subtle; the fact the GWH has an enduring dislike of Malleus is well-known; I thought that was so obvious that everyone could see it, but clearly that doesn't appear to be the case. I too hope that the Arbs grow a spine here, but I'm not too hopeful. That doesn't detract from the fact that a sensible discussion on first/second movement in admin actions would be useful, but being a cynic I suspect that this will, as per usual, descend into something worthless. Black Kite (t) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment by Collect

I fear the issue is not formed symettrically -- the rules about "wheel war" are pretty well settled -- but that supposes that there is a difference between a "positive action" (i.e. a block) and a "negative action" (i.e. a specific decision not to block)

The clear logical position is that both, when posted as a "decision" ought to be treated as equals. Clearly a "discussion" is not the same as a "decision" but where the post states it as a "decision" the two possibilities ought to be deemed equal, and reversal of a "decision" is "wheel war."

Proposed motion:

Any decision by any administrator, posted as such, whether to block or 'not' to block, to undertake a specific action or 'not' to undertake a specific action, shall not be reversed by any other administrator without full discussion, and subject to clear consensus.

The Wikipedia procedure where there is a disagreement is not to reverse a decision, but to review the decision, with the premise that a consensus is needed to reverse a decision made in good faith. I suggest the committee adopt this position in order to prevent further argumentation and that this is doable by simple motion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

This sort of frivolous blocking has long been a scourge against editor morale. This case would do far better focusing on adding true accountability to admins who cause trouble cluelessly using the block button instead of trying to make an example of the admins who are forced to clean up their messes.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floquenbeam

What Black Kite said.
The only thing worse than a second mover advantage would be a first mover advantage. Just as, in editing, BRD can be annoying, but BDR would be far worse. WHEEL is written the way it is for a reason.
Mkativerata clearly did not break policy here. If you want to change policy, or have a discussion about what WHEEL should say, have an RFC on the policy talk page or VPP or something. ArbCom doesn't change policy.
Kaldari's level of "involvement" is a little troubling, especially since they do not seem to recognize it, but I don't anticipate it resulting in any sanction from ArbCom; I suppose some clarification of "involved" might be useful.
With all due respect to the Arbs, it seems unlikely that a good solution to the underlying issue of how to handle eggshells armed with hammers on the internet is going to come out of this case.

I'd suggest declining this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by not-terribly-involved SarekOfVulcan

While I think that Mkativerata was correct to unblock in this case, as he had already made the uninvolved-admin call on AN/I and the unblock message is clear (given the explanation above, though I initially read it as GWH did), I would urge Arbcom to discuss this in more detail, as I've had blocks overturned in the middle of AN/I discussion that was tending towards, or strongly, supporting the block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Alexandria - I unblocked Malleus early not because I thought I was mistaken, but because I was sure someone would overturn it because it was Malleus, and I didn't feel like dealing with the associated drama.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Trusilver - invoking Godwin's Law on purpose doesn't work. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci - I'm not sure how you get "just venting" from You simply display your ignorance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Balloonman - precisely. It's the larger problem I'd like to see addressed, rather than this block/unblock in particular. Hatting above comments as irrelevant to this goal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved 28bytes

Administrators must be free to undo administrative actions that clearly go against consensus. Kaldari's block was indisputably such an action. Georgewilliamherbert states above in his timeline that "further comments from Guerillero, Tbhoch, John, Wikidemon, and Quinn follow" immediately prior to Kaldari's block. Well, let's look at what those further comments are:

Mkativerata: "Are you asking for administrator intervention? If so, my call is not to do anything. If you'd been called an ignorant arse without any provocation, maybe, but this thread is a classic escalation of insults from both sides (eg 'Knowledge god' a sarcastic insult you've left out from your summary above) that should go completely unsanctioned, if anything just for the sake of bringing an end to it."
Guerillero (replying to Tbhotch): "you brought it on yourself"
Tbhotch: "In Spanish we have a proverb 'eye for an eye and everyone will end up blind'. In this way have I start to attack him as well. If the answer is yes please let me troll the page of the user who has called me Mexican fajita and faggot for two years."
John: "Toys back in pram please gentlemen. I am still at somewhat of a loss to see why my question about singular or plural on a Featured Article seems to have precipitated such passion, and feel faintly bad about it. But I think talk page discussion will be more productive than a drama contest at this board in terms of resolution."
Wikidemon: "Is 'arse' in British English truly as bad as 'asshole' in American English? It sounds a lot more civil(ized), particularly imagining the accent."
Quinn: "Calling someone an 'ass' or and 'arse' is not productive. At least with 'ignorant' or 'a know it all' you can at least justify the meaning (well intentioned or not), but probably nothing to be done on either side except to say 'cool it.'"

What I see here is that, aside from Tbhotch, no one is calling for a block, and in fact three editors (including two admins) are specifically recommending no action be taken.

Now, it could be that this early consensus to drop the matter is mistaken and that a consensus would later emerge that supported a block. But to see that discussion as it stood then, with Mkativerata's definitive rejection of a block, and no other editors aside from the complainant suggesting administrative action be taken, and simply ignore that consensus and unilaterally block anyway... well, it's not something a responsible admin should do.

If Kaldari had been the first to respond to Tbhotch's complaint, investigated and decided a block was warranted, then a unilateral unblock would have been inappropriate. But that's not what happened here. What happened here is that Mkativerata was the first to respond to Tbhotch's complaint, decided a block was not warranted, then Kaldari unilaterally overrode his judgment with no consultation whatsoever.

If it's inappropriate to override a fellow admin's judgment by issuing a unilateral unblock, it's far more inappropriate to override a fellow admin's judgment by issuing a unilateral block.

The suggestion that we owe deference to a blocking admin, but none whatsoever to an uninvolved admin who takes the time to investigate a complaint and decides not to block, is something ArbCom should soundly reject. Consultation can't be a one-way street. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Balloonman: "...when two admins differ on the status of a block, then the person should remain unblocked until/unless consensus can be determined..." is the most sensible approach to this I've seen. Adopting this approach would make for much more consistency and much less needless drama. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ludwigs2

Having been on the receiving end of this very problem (as evidenced by a previous ArbCom case), I suggest that this is a something that needs to be resolved, but needs to be resolved in the opposite direction from what GWH suggests. GWH wants to strengthen the already too prevalent 'Tombstone' atmosphere on contentious pages, in which minor civility issues are left to fester until some admin gets annoyed and shoots down one side with prejudice. Note the problems that come from this:

It imposes biases on articles: Almost invariably, the first admin to 'get annoyed' is going to be one who has strong opinions on the matter and has been watching the page. s/he may be 'technically' uninvolved, yet still carry distinct attitude about the conflict that privileges one side. This is why we invariably see such conflicts resolved by sanctioning one side of the dispute and not the other.
It makes wp:ANI and other administrative pages hostile and inaccessible: Personally, I will no longer bring any behavioral problem to ANI, because experience has shown me that it will only lead to me getting blocked and the issue being dismissed. It does not matter how over-the-top the problem I'm facing is or how reasonable my own behavior - some admin with a chip on his shoulder is going to block me before there's any time to discuss the nature of the problem, and I will simply get screwed. ANI has become - essentially - one giant, useless booby-trap.
It encourages system gaming: Every contentious page I work on has a number of editors who break wp:CIV and wp:NPA on virtually every post, and then (literally) tell me that if I don't like it I should take it to ANI, counting - obviously - on springing that booby-trap to work in their favor. If you only knew how many times I've heard people try to invoke wp:Boomerang as an active principle...

I think the ideal behind these kinds of sanctions in fine - it works well in principle, where we can trust admins to be fair-minded, unbiased, thoughtful, and not to operate on gut-level reactions. I suggest that may even be true of the large majority of admins. Unfortunately, long experience shows that there are always a few admins who are not fair-minded or unbiased, and who react emotionally rather than act with consideration, and the system that we currently have gives them all the advantages. The principle simple does not apply. Admins who show favoritism or make poor decisions - if they make those decisions early enough - can count on the fact that more fair-minded admins will be unable to overturn them, and such 'bad egg' admins do not face any appreciable sanctions for their acts, no matter how egregious such may be. It creates a system of summary justice which contradicts the core principles of collaboration and neutrality that the project is built on. It needs to be dismantled and a new, fair system built from scratch. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

Should the arbs decide to accept this case (which I don't think is a particularly good one for deciding the "second mover" issue), I hope they will additionally consider admin Eagle247's December 6 block of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. That provides an example of how precipitous admin actions can negatively affect the Project when other admins are afraid to unblock after a bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: the pending case might proceed more, ummm, "civilly" if we didn't see frequent misstatements along the lines of:

I dislike the growing movement among established editors to brush off WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as though it doesn't apply to them. Trusilver 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(objecting to asymmetrical blocks and noting the unequal application of policy is not the same as brushing off pillars) or casting of aspersions with statements like:

Clique supporters of Malleus such as SandyGeorgia and John are unable to render an impartial assessment regarding Malleus and provide little more than biased opinions. MONGO 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope the clerks will be enforcing some decorum here, since these memes and casting of aspersions don't advance understanding of what happens in these cases to anyone pointing out that blocks are frequently applied unequally, and don't bode well for an orderly proceeding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker's query about Kaldari's involvement: I don't know where the diffs may be, don't know about the involvement issue, but I gleaned from other conversations elsewhere that the discord between Malleus and Kaldari stemmed from Kaldari's involvement at Wife selling and Wife selling (English custom), having something to do with the alleged "gender gap" issue put forward by the Foundation, Kaldari's history of editing strongly on gender topics, and concerns expressed (frequently by another now-indeffed editor who plagued Malleus) that the Wife selling article was sexist. Perhaps someone else knows where to find diffs-- I only got wind that there were problems between them in that realm, but have not seen diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from a post to my talk, part of it seems to be reflected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination), where Kaldari refers to the "obstinacy",[25] presumably of Malleus et al, after the fallout from Wife selling being on the mainpage on April 1. It seems that the frequent pestering that Malleus got over that article from a now-indeffed user, combined with the alleged "gender gap" push from the Foundation, may have contributed to some acrimony there, but I still don't know where to find diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

This is painful to watch, but even more painful to read: in the interest of the rest of us who are trying to digest this writing, would some copyediting of the motions be possible, or has that not been done because the arbs apparently are at odds over whether any of the wording will stick? These motions are simply awful to read and hard to understand:

A) Civility is one of the Five Pillars that Wikipedia is built on.

On which Wikipedia is built?

B) Users who are grossly or chronically uncivil can face sanctions, up to and including a block of indefinite length for repeated violations.

How is this different from "users who are uncivil can face sanctions, up to ... "? The worst uncivil behavior I've seen was towards me, from an admin who was desysopped, but it wasn't "gross or chronic". I don't see what this motion adds that is not already known or how it is different from just saying "users who are uncivil can be sanctioned indefinitely", which we already know. There's nothing here.

A) Administrators are appointed based on the community's trust in their good judgement. Administrators should respect the judgements of other administrators and should not lightly take controversial actions (Including the reversal of other administrators' actions).

"In their good judgment" is redundant. "including" should not be upper case. What is this trying to say that WP:WHEEL doesn't already say? It's not saying it. Ditto for the rest, except that "likely controversial" is being introduced without being defined-- what is clearly controversial to one is certainly not to another or we wouldn't be here-- one admin thought it just fine to RevDel an edit of mine against policy, label my edit as vandalism, and didn't think such action was the slightest bit controversial, even after eight other admins set him straight.

B) It is always best to discuss and get a clear consensus before undertaking administrative actions that are likely controversial.

What is this adding that we don't already know or isn't already written many places? With the exception of BRD on editing, it's always best to gain consensus for anything. Admins seem to be exempt-- how is this being addressed by adding a vague, unclear term "controversial".

C) Undoing another administrator's actions or decisions (whether that to be to place a sanction or to defer from placing sanctions) is inherently controversial, and should not be done without discussion or attempts to contact the previous administrator (except in cases of CLEAR and unambiguous error)

Ah ha, finally a definition of "controversial"? So, if that's all it means, then how is this different from WHEEL? If you want to add something to the "sum of all human knowledge" about how Wikipedia works, this isn't doing it; it's not at all clear what this is adding, how it will stop improper blocks, or how it will stop improper unblocks. Admins place controversial blocks all the time-- how will this vague wording stop it from happening?

A) The Arbitration Committee urges that the community of editors and administrators work on coming up with methods to deal with recognizing and dealing with grossly or habitually uncivil users.

Please copyedit-- I hope I don't have to explain why. By the way, we already have several methods: 1) admins (who are known to abuse the tools), and 2) Arb Com, for when admins abuse the tools and community trust. ArbCom owns that one-- throwing it back to the community because you encountered a non-case makes little sense.

... lately, and more and more, we ignore low level ongoing cases of incivility from users who have a large level of support.

We ignore incivility from users who have no support too-- what is this adding to anything?

This is what some editors has referred to this as the "vested contributors" problem, which I think is generally a canard.

Copyedit needed.

Folks, get organized before you post rants ... decorum seems to have left the premises. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Karanacs

I have several issues with Kaldari's block:

blocker advantage - so all one has to do is search for a single admin willing to block and even if several others have declined to take action the block stands?
one-sided. Malleus was blocked for civility issues. Tbhotch wasn't even warned for this, and his behavior was just as bad.
Civility is being held as a higher standard than actually creating an encyclopedia. Tbhotch admits in his signature that he does not have a great command of English. He then got into a disagreement over English grammar. In Malleus's shoes, I would have been highly upset too. To me, tbhotch's editing was blatantly tenditious, even if made in good faith. We expect editors to be competent in the areas in which they choose to edit, and if they choose to argue about grammar they should not be telling the WP world they don't have a strong grasp of the topic. Kaldari did not appear to even look at this issue - he saw Malleus use a word he didn't like and blocked immediately.

I cannot comment on whether Kaldari was involved because I didn't follow that dispute.

I have frequently collaborated with Malleus, and I did comment on the ANI, so I'm not completely uninvolved.

Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Adminstrators should only unblock if there is a clear majority supporting it. Malleus is incapable of working collaboratively with those he may disagree with. Clique supporters of Malleus such as SandyGeorgia and John are unable to render an impartial assessment regarding Malleus and provide little more than biased opinions. Malleus has a long history of egregious incivility across a wide spectrum of articles and namespaces....including extensive hostility to admin Arthur Rubin a month ago. A 24 block is no big deal...Malleus is still under risk of a topic ban for his "contributions" at 9/11 articles. At some point a cost benefit analysis in dealing with characters like Malleus should be considered.MONGO 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia...standing by my comment...it doesn't do Malleus, the blocking admin or the system any benefit if you support anyone that has repeatedly demonstrated egregious incivility...just because this incivility isn't directed at you doesn't mean numerous other editors are suffering from some sort of mass delusion. The supposed ability to copyedit, promote Good Articles and contribute to Featured Articles doesn't exempt anyone from following policies...and no one is above the policies here no matter what their supposed contributions are.MONGO 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite...yes, clique is correct. Whenever Malleus is mentioned at AN/I or some other noticeboard, his FA and GA buddies show up to defend him...they say things like: well, gee, golly..."Arse" isn't such a bad thing to call someone...and I've heard things like he's not as bad as he used to be...on and on. Sadly, its oftentimes other admins that have yet to be on the receiving in of the wrath of Malleus that find it expedient to ignore his ongoing incivility issues and thus do act as enablers for the then inevitable unblock. Furthermore, the blocking admin in this case didn't need a majority opinion to penalize an editor who has a long track record of incivility. That this would be missed by you, an admin, is disheartening.MONGO 03:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus...you don't appear to be a named party in this case. However, this case exists due to a block that was placed against you by an admin that is probably able to surmise from your interactions that you problematic. In my opinion, the issue that has arisen from this episode isn't some revelation that you have managed to irritate/attack/threaten/be incivil with those you disagree with as even your supporters acknowledge this (and sadly some seem to think its funny)....the issue is how to correct the ongoing manner in which we keep one admin from quickly reverting another admin's block when the initial block surely had merit. My personal experiences in dealing with you are some of the most unpleasant and acrimonious ones I have had on this website, and your taunts and threats to this blocking admin here and to another admin a month ago (Arthur Rubin here and here) are indicative of someone who has some interpersonal issues but has managed to escape the ban hammer only because your content contributions are supposedly far superior to others. Therein lies the problem...an inevitable one I might add since you seem to pick fights as often as you please and will continue to do so so long as you have a clique of editors who will be ready to back you up, perform an unblock and otherwise wikilawyer about why you should be permitted to ignore policy.--MONGO 03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators....your MOTIONS section is spot on....under the section highlighted "Administrative Actions are not to be taken lightly, or reversed lightly", that is exactly right. Why do so many administrators NOT get this? I didn't check the diffs, but whoever wrote that section...thank you.--MONGO 02:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colonel Warden

On the matter of usage, arse in British English means much the same as asshole in American English. For example, the OED has "A stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person" and "someone or something foolish or contemptible" respectively. See also: The No Asshole Rule. Warden (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Alexandria

It's becoming increasingly harder and harder to block for civility because as soon as someone gets blocked for it, especially users who have been established among the community, there's a mass rush to defend them. For example, Malleus has a very long block log, however of those only four of those blocks have stuck, one was 10 seconds, one was one hour, one was 24 hours for a pretty blatant offense, and the other was three days, which was undone then reapplied and allowed to expire. Of the many unblocks, two of them were lifted by the blocking admin (Sarek and GwenGale). This mass rush to defend accused incivility to me is the root problem of all this and why the dispute (from what I can see) got escalated from ANI to here. I also believe Malleus should also be a party to this case as it was the block on him that cause this RFAR to surface. Alexandria (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Trusilver

Should we look at all the people that have made some kind of mistake in this situation? Malleus was wrong to get involved in childish personal attacks. Tbhotch was wrong to get involved in childish personal attacks. Kaldari was wrong to block without clear consensus. Mkativerata was wrong to unblock without discussion. I dislike the growing movement among established editors to brush off WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as though it doesn't apply to them. Civility is the fourth pillar. It is not optional. But at the same time, these are rules that need to be evenly applied. Someone who is making a block based on an ANI witch-burning should have comprehensive knowledge of the entire dispute before clicking the ol' block button. Are there "fan clubs" that spring up around individual editors? Absolutely, but I feel these are symptomatic of a larger problem rather than a problem unto themselves. As Black Kite noted above; Malleus is an excellent copyeditor who was being harassed about grammar by someone who, by their own admission, is not. Obviously errors were made on every side of the dispute, but nothing that requires an Arbcom case turning into The Night of Long Knives to everyone involved. Trusilver 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. Elaborating in response to the comments of the last day. My own personal feelings about civility aside, I think that making this about civility would be a horrible idea. Civility means different things to different people and requires a subtle hand, rather than a sledgehammer. With the utmost respect intended, I don't think too many people would disagree that Arbcom decisions generally have the subtlety of a brick through your dining room window at dinnertime. I hope that if this is accepted, it will focus on the concept of second mover advantage. Also keeping in mind that both admins were not engaging in pointy behavior, neither of them were operating outside the boundaries of their status as admins, and both of them were doing what they saw as the right thing. There have been much more controversial blocks than the one Kaldari made, and more more controversial unblocks than Mkativerata's. Trusilver 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

It appears that this case will probably be accepted. I do not see any parallels with the previous case involving Ludwigs2, Sandstein and Dreadstar. Manchester United FC is not a controversial article, despite recent events in the real world that have presumably "gutted" various football personalities/fans and made them "face their demons". Malleus is a prolific and skilled content editor, from the Manchester region (or so I understand). When irritated he can be uncivil. In this case no arbitration enforcement was involved, nor was there overt wheel-warring. As a fellow Brit, I find Malleus' language is possibly near to the limit (grating?), but as always he seems just to be venting rather than trying to belittle other editors. In this case, I do not believe any editors or administrators should be sanctioned or probably even warned, but some clarification of blocking/unblocking policy would be helpful to avoid future misunderstandings. Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: "venting" applies here because it involved a non-English speaker, whose written English is not perfect, pronouncing on the use of English. I can see how that could be irritating. Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ

Firstly, I couldn't agree more with with Floq and Black Kite. Secondly, blocking somebody after another admin has declined to do so is at least as discourteous as unblocking without talking to the blocking admin. Thirdly, blocking somebody for the use of the word "arse" strikes me as extremely petty (that's not to say we should encourage editors to speak to each other in such a way, but I doubt anyone other than Malleus would have been blocked for using that word). Fourthly and finally, I hope this case is declined, because the committee is effectively being asked to make policy and, contrary to what they seem to believe, that is outside their jurisdiction. Accepting this case will only serve to prolong the drama, which has already got out of hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Hear, hear! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eraserhead1

I think Collect's motion sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some words from ErrantX, giggling frantically

This is amusing, and pretty much par for the course after that disaster. If Arbcom take this case I think they need to look carefully at the decision to block - which was incredibly stupid, out of process, and in no way constructive to the project (i.e. look at this disaster).

Malleus can be a dick. He can be grumpy and rude to people he perceives as fools or acting foolishly. Welcome to the real world - we all act like dicks now and again (and no matter how often Malleus has come into the firing line he doesn't like a dick much more than the rest of us..).

In that context, and given the current views at AN/I at the time, the block feels *highly* suspicious.

Kaldari made a somewhat against the grain decision to block over a civility issue. Lets consider that. Civility blocks are controversial and generally not well supported (rightly, in our current policies). The civility issue in question was not entirely one sided. AN/I comments seemed to tend towards not blocking. We don't do punitive blocks. The block Kaldari made was a punitive civility block against the vague consensus at AN/I.

If Malleus has a civility attitude that we judge on-balance a net negative to the project, fine, get the community consensus and do the blocks. But at this stage blocking after a civility incident is simply not supported in policy.

Out of process blocks can be overturned, especially with a dose of IAR, especially if it is a second move.

Unblocking was the only sensible thing anyone (Malleus included) did in relation to that incident.

After all that, I suggest this case not be taken. Perhaps the issue does need resolving but a) this can be resolved by the community via normal processes and b) it will just turn into another Malleus-gate, an entirely useless endeavour... --Errant ^(chat!) 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Tryptofish

I'm taking special note of Risker's point B. I think a big part of this issue is Kaldari's position that Malleus was susceptible to a block in a way that Tbhotch was not. Is that a valid position to have taken, or not? Where does the English Wikipedia currently stand on the question of what are sometimes called "vested contributors"? Does someone who is a superb content editor (as Malleus is) get a pass for low-level incivility that would likely be faulted in a new editor? Does someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over and makes it very clear that they will keep doing it (as Malleus does) have to be sanctioned over such an insignificant comment as the "arse" one that occurred here, while Tbhotch gets a pass? Any time the community tries to answer those questions, the usual suspects show up to give an inconclusive outcome. (I suspect I could set my watch by the monthly ANI threads.) Maybe this is something where the Committee can draw a line. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Resolute

Somewhat along the same lines as Tryptofish's comment, I am often amused at how the same people keep returning to ANI for low-level incivility issues, sometimes resulting in blocks, usually resulting in overturns when said contributors' friends show up. While this specific example might not be great, GWH's argument about "enabling unblocks" being a concern is valid. That said, I am not sure that it is anything arbcom can remediate. If anything, the issue of enabling unblocks and the second mover advantage is something that should go to RfC with an aim towards changing or clarifying the blocking and wheel warring policies. Reso lute 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from uninvolved, but was fully reading the whole damn fall out whilst it happened Pedro

Strongly urge ARBCOM to reject this (although you will accept it of course). It's well known that GeorgeWilliamHerbert (GWH) is gunning for MF - if you really want diffs fine but I think we all know it's true and it hardly needs citation (the sky is blue). For GWH to state "Such unblocks are ... abusive to other administrators"' defies any form of reason, and the ludicrous hyperbole of such a statement simply calls into question the validity of any other comments GWH makes. Other than that I would agree with Floquenbeam / Black Kite. Pedro : Chat 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know if "Teh Arbcom" (sic) are agreeing to this request so readily because of the editor who set it in motion, rather than the substance of the request itself which seems to me confused and overly focused on a single issue (despite the assurance that it is not). An editor, I'd remind you, whose ~~casual lies~~ dubious motives ("This is an unfortunate situation and one I would much rather not be filing") (underline mine, and yeah...right....) are so obvious that it questions the intelligence of those who belive him. Perhaps we might see someone from the commitee who has some spine, and actually recognises this for what it is - an underhand method for GWH to drive Malleus off. Probably not though. Pedro : Chat 22:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Balloonman

First, it's a fact that MF gets away with more than most. He does have a clique that comes to his defense every time he offends somebody. Second, it's a fact that MF gets the brunt of more criticism than he deserves. He has a clique that is ready to jump on every slight as quickly as they can.

In many ways both sides are right. MF DOES have a priviledged position here on WP where he crosses the line and people will defend him because generally the individual scenarios are blown out of proportion. I say this as a person who likes MF and has come to his defense... but he can be a real ass (or should that be arse?) I say that knowing that he can handle it. ;-)

But what really bothers me is the argument being put forth by MKat centered around that of the first mover.

This raises serious concerns about behavior at ANI. If we accept the first mover motion, then some may be inclined to move in and make a half assed/half informed action to claim primacy. "I acted first thus I get primacy over the issue!" I think that will create problems down the road and be ill conducive to the process. It would then become a comedy of errors of people rushing to defend their friends and block their enemies... often without researching the particulars of a case (because if you research the particulars of a complaint you might lose the prime mover position.) Personally, I think we should have some guidlines such as:

Unless the action is detrimental to the project, when two admins differ on the status of a block, then the person should remain unblocked until/unless conensus can be determined at ANI. Detrimental would be currently engaged in edit warring/vandalism/etc that is not being abated by other actions."

I feel that way because by blocking a person you silence their ability to contribute to ANI. I also feel this way because unless the current actions are actively harmful to wikipedia, then waiting an hour or two is generally not going to harm the project. Civility blocks can be too subjective to default any other way.

If ArbCOM accepts this case, I think they should do so with the clear distinction that they are NOT looking at MF's behavior nor are they looking at the specific circumstances/rightness wrongness of the MF block, but rather around the notion of WHEEL/first mover.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikidemon---If you have a thick skin about this, he's actually quite funny. Agreed. But his sense of humor gets him into trouble and I still don't think this specific case warrants ArbCOM although the meta issue may be one worth addressing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans---Agreed. Over eager blockers create big block logs that becomes "proof" of problematic behavior, even when the block is unwarranted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@起... no it is not uncommon for people to simply accept a case. Generally when rejecting they will provide reasons, but there is no obligation to give one. Some people may accept a case and not say anything else to see what happens.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@起---actually, no. A judges duty is to weigh the evidence fairly and impartially. They should not become part of the process. If the ARBS say too much, then they become part of the discussion not the judges. They should ask questions to clarify statements and to seek more info, but they should first and foremost take an observers role and let people lay the evidence out.

As for your edits... I find it interesting that with less than 15 edits and no edits since April, that you've found this page. I can't help but wonder who you really are.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MF... Point taken, but in American English, you can be ass without actually being an ass... it can be both reflective of the person OR the behavior.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen, I don't mind a template, but my fear is that if we establish a precedent wherein the first to respond gets priority (or the first to offer a counter positiong gets priority) then we are setting up a system which will readily lead to abuse. MF gets taken to ANI once or twice a month. If I want to get him blocked, if we set up a process where prime mover gets priority, then it would behove me to complain about him as often as possible with the hopes that an admin that doesn't like him is the first/second to act. It also sets up a system where people might start to act more on the opening statement before investigating the case. People should look into the case before responding. Again, if it is a civility block that is in question, and more than one admin disagree on the course of action, then preference should be given to unblocking the offending party.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epbr123

I agree with Collect's proposed change of wording to the blocking policy, but this is a decision we should try make at RfC first. I don't think sanctions are needed for either of the admins involved here, as both believed they were acting within policy, and a clarification of the policy will hopefully prevent this situation in future. I agree with others above that an Arbcom decision on civility blocks is long overdue, but it would be better if that decision was made in its own separate case. Epbr123 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm not involved in or familiar with this specific incident, but I urge the Committee to accept a case to address the problem of an unblocker's "second mover advantage" that results from the wheelwarring prohibition, and the problem of unblocks without even prior attempts at discussion. In my experience, these systemic problems make attempts to prevent repeated disruption, especially by established editors, unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming. The community and the Committee have so far not been able to agree on a clear, predictable, discussion- and consensus-based process for unblocking. Consequently, any block (including, in practice, AE blocks) may at any time be undone for no reason or in bad faith, and there is no practical way to reinstate it or to hold the unblocker to account for the problems that result from shortsighted unblocks. This creates a serious disincentive for administrators to get at all involved in the time-consuming, stressful and antagonizing work of protecting the project from uncooperative participants; and it has weighed heavily in my decision to withdraw from dispute resolution activity altogether. Sandstein 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fetchcomms

Wikipedia's a website. Why people are still spending their time bickering over this petty block is perplexing. Malleus gets blocked a lot. His feelings haven't been hurt (at least not badly). Georgewilliamherbert jumps into AN/I drama a lot. Perhaps someone wants to ban him from that, but it's irrelevant. Mkativerata tries to be reasonable sometimes, and IAR says that's fine. Kaldari works for the WMF so it's not like taking action against him would be very productive or anything.

Look, I know there are all these "issues" to discuss in an case like this one, but seriously, don't y'all have better things to do in your spare time? People get blocked and unblocked all the time.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Nathan

Been awhile since I commented in an RfAr. The second-mover advantage, enabling unblocks and the sense that "the good of the encyclopedia" privileges certain editors over others are all linked to a long series of discussions in many fora over the long-term decline in editing activity and the gender gap among active editors.

A simple, true statement: While editors who are routinely rude may create valuable content, they unquestionably contribute to a generally hostile atmosphere - which has the effect of driving away many other editors, who would unquestionably contribute far more valuable content. This case and point in time are ripe for finally addressing this problem in some meaningful way, and with an outcome less clumsy than a "WikiLove" extension. Of course, if an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is sanctioned for demanding a little civility from an editor who has been blocked many times for thatreason, this may prompt more meaningful action from above. Win/win, maybe? Nathan^T 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from uninvolved Beyond My Ken

If, as seems likely, this case is accepted, I would urge the Committee to deal with the underlying cause that Risker mentions: our civility policies and specifically, and more importantly, the disinclination of some admins to enforce them, and indeed to actively work against them by not taking other admins' civility blocks seriously. These actions by part of our admin corps are undermining what is supposed to be one of the project's Five Pillars, a trend which I believe is harmful to the community and to the building of an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the willingness of some admins to rather automatically undo the civility blocks of certain high-profile editors creates a de facto class of "untouchable" editors who cannot be reigned in when necessary, an untenable situation for a self-policing community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

If we really must address the so-called "second mover's advantage", I hope we'll all keep in mind that first mover's advantage is just bad and probably a good deal worse. With second mover's advantage, you end up at worst exactly where you started; with first mover's advantage, incredibly stupid blocks (of which I continue to see an alarming number) are difficult to overturn. So any solution to the second mover's advantage must avoid just shunting the advantage over to the other person. As for the underlying civility issue, I continue to assert that we would deal with incivility a lot better by ignoring it much of the time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought more about this, I'm really questioning why this is being accepted. What is ArbCom going to do here? The gist I get seems to be that it's dealing with the problem of blocks/unblocks and possibly civility in general, but what exactly can the committee do without writing policy, something outside the committee's remit? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we're going to have motions that just restate existing policy. OK, that's within the committee's remit, sure, but certainly its time could be better spent on other things, such as dealing with the Abortion case that's been open for nigh on three months now. And urging the community to figure out what to do is a meaningless request when the community contains fundamental differences in how to deal with it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Polequant

If, as seems likely, this is accepted, can there be some clarification of scope. Is it purely going to examine admin actions, or dive off into civility and so-called enabling? Polequant (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Told you so" from Hans Adler

Quoting myself from almost 3 years ago [26] (ignore the stuff about Arbcom, which is the one item in my earlier list that appears to have been fixed since), some important contributing factors:

Misleading "personnel records":
- Every single unblock, whether for adjustment of a block or because the block was controversial, makes a user's block log longer and increases the chance of further inconsiderate blocks.
- Positive information is routinely ignored. An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community (especially if they also spend a few more hours every week voicing popular opinions in project talk space).
- The notoriety of an editor is measured by the amount of drama, not by the effects of their behaviour. Therefore behaviour about which the community is divided is more likely to be held against an editor than behaviour that is clearly beyond the pale. Moreover, inappropriate behaviour can be wiped out by apologies and clear signals that the editor understood that they were wrong. The negative impression from something that was considered OK by more than half of the community cannot be discarded in this way.
Every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user. This works well with the vast majority of users, since normally only a small number of admins look at a case. It does not scale well to prolific editors who get themselves into trouble occasionally.

The last point, which you are calling the "second mover advantage", although IMO that's an inappropriate euphemism and should really be called "veto right against keeping unblocked", is the most immediately important here, but the problem of misleading personnel records also applies. The unfortunate result is that some of our most valuable editors become almost perfect mobbing targets due to relatively harmless behaviour.

As an exceptionally clean case, this is your chance to fix the problem. But I guess most of you know that already. Hans Adler 08:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

(who always seems to end up here)

My direct involvement is that I made some intentionally lighthearted comments at AN/I to try to diffuse tension, then some scolding that turned into friendly riposte on MF's talk page. If you have a thick skin about this, he's actually quite funny.

Anyway, there are a bunch of issues here, and I urge Arbcom to be clear which ones it will consider so this doesn't become an aimless free-for-all. I hope we keep eyes on this one incident and not use it as a springboard for broader pronouncements about wikidrama. Hard cases make bad law, so they say. Easy ones do too. Assuming for the sake of argument that Arbcom feels that this block was totally unwarranted, disrespected other admins who had already ruled against a block, and should have been overturned on sight. That does not mean that civility blocks are wrong, that a first admin's failure to see the problem requiring a block should preclude action by other more careful administrators, or that administrators ought to regularly overrule each other. Rather, it means that's what happened in this specific case. In many other cases the first admins on the scene at AN/I report are skeptical and unhelpful, and unblocks tend to vindicate and embolden problem editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved 99of9

First/second mover advantage I suggest a principle something like "don't act until others have had a chance to weigh in". That way, if an admin agrees with the existing commenters, they will be acting on consensus, and if they disagree, they should simply comment themselves to help establish consensus. Sure, this might slow some cases down slightly, but if it's obviously urgent, people will weigh in quickly. This restores the priority of discussion over pressing buttons.

Decision not to block To me, it is not clear that [27] was a decision. The words "my call is X" are sometimes used simply to express an opinion rather than a decision. Perhaps use of a clear template such as {{not done}} would make it clearer when a decision is made not to block. I can't speak for how Kaldari interpreted it, but to me it is not clear that the case was closed.

Civility is really important. Grumpiness is not an excuse. I believe that incivility and aggressiveness are clear repellents to including new editors. I'm sure you like me have seen numerous examples of this. We need to improve, and if short blocks after warnings are what it takes to get through to experienced editors, then maybe that's where we need to go. After all, perhaps 24 hours of sleep is a cure for some forms of grumpiness.

Symmetry is wonderful, indeed I love it so much that I study it professionally. However it is not always possible to impose symmetry. If one editor has already been warned, and the other hasn't, the symmetry is already broken. Obviously the warning to tbhotch was important (and perhaps slow), but an un-warned contributor doesn't necessarily deserve the same sanction as a warned one.

--99of9 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

On the "first mover" issue, the first admin to comment on a thread may not have all of the information. Also, there is a history of cliques and feuds on Wikipedia, and however the "first/second mover" issue is resolved, it should take that unfortunate fact into account.

On the issue of blocks for personal attacks and incivility, there is a long history of problems with enforcement. Some of it is due to differing standards or interpretations, and some of it concerns external factors like the perceived value of the editors to the project. Will Beback talk 01:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 一起

I'd like to know why some arbs are not explaining their favour of accepting this case. Is it because the argument for accepting the case is so weak that they abort any attempt to elucidate it? 一起 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Balloonman—If arbs "accept a case and not say anything else to see what happens", I find that very irresponsible and not reflective of what I want to see in arbs. An Arbitration case is a big deal; they shouldn't be nonchalantly accepting it without careful consideration just to see what happens. 一起 (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by observer PaoloNapolitano

The big difference between the two users is that one had been issued a progressive warning and the other not. Then it is NOT an asymmetrical block. If BOTH users were under a progressive warning it would be a different story.. Paolo Napolitano 15:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

While there could conceivably be background to this that would change things, this is a straightforward case on the face of it. A block was undone without clear consensus to unblock, without participating in discussion, and without contacting the blocking admin. I see no problem with the original block which followed repeated abusive behaviour in the face of warnings. I see no problem with Kaldari's post-block actions, which were responsive. --TS 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Deryck

This is a simple case of the bold-revert-discuss cycle, but applied to blocks. The dispute itself is pretty settled, and the long discussions here are only about the implications of it. I don't see any necessity for ArbCom to do anything here, because as David Fuchs said below, ArbCom intervention in this will simply result in a lot of fuss.

I'd also comment that throughout this dispute, many have been overly harsh on their criticism on Kaldari's decision to block. WP:NPA is a grossly under-enforced policy on Wikipedia, and tighter enforcement than what we've been doing in the past few years is needed to promote healthy community growth. Having previously issued a warning to Malleus, Kaldari's block upon seeing the AN/I thread was entirely appropriate with respect to policy. Kaldari participated in the subsequent discussion after his block raised some controversy, and acted (as far as I read) appropriately to the standard of an administrator.

In short, I think both Kaldari and Mkativerata acted appropriately in a BRD cycle involving administrator powers, and created some fuss which is now settled. There is no need for an ArbCom case for this incident, and no point for an ArbCom case to decide on general principles about "enabling unblocks". Der yck C. 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PBS

SandyGeorgia you wrote:

Nah, "arse" is such a cute little word, not at all ugly like "ass"-- now, if you call someone "narrow-minded", you're attacking their character, and that's not cute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In the part of England where I have spent the most time as an adult, if you were to call a stranger (of the same sex) with whom you were having a verbal disagreement "an arse" in a pub you would get a glass in the face end of discussion. And SandyGeorgia calling most of the clientèle narrow minded would most likely be taken as a complement.

It is not that they do not use four letter words, most of them could not string a sentence together without swearing, but they would not tolerate such an insult from someone they were having a disagreement with. I would have thought that the level of civility we should expect here ought set at a higher level that that which would trigger a bar room brawl in parts of England.

Now occasionally some people in hot blood write things that afterwards they regret and if on consideration they show remorse (as lucky no one actually gets physically battered over a Wikiepdia disagreement) then obviously that needs to be taken into consideration.

However some people use incivility as a tool to intimidate those they disagree with. In recent months I have had to tolerate such behaviour from some editors and although it does not affect me, because I see it for what it is, it can be very intimating for many people. Recently Charles Matthews also made this point on my talk to a third party:

The "gender gap" is something widely discussed: here's a quote from Sue Gardner's blog, "“I think [the gender gap] has to do with many Wikipedia editors being bullies." It is perfectly easy to be an expert these days on "women on Wikipedia": this point is widely discussed all over the media. I was dealing with this point (with a different verbal bully in mind) five years ago, because it is actually common sense (is there anyone who really doesn't understand women's aversion to your type of hostile interaction?)

The next point is that blocks are not something that have to be given out to both parties to a dispute.

Kaldari wrote:

I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one question was asked about the block and it was answered:

Could you please explain why you blocked one party in an escalating dispute where the other party acknowledges that he was uncivil? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have cut out several other comments around that time and there was a lot of bluster but no review of the reason Kaldari made the block.)

As no further questions were asked, presumably everyone was satisfied with that answer. If they were then why was the block lifted? If not then why weren't further questions asked of Kaldari, like asking for diffs of that conversation to see what sort of warning had been given and then discussions about the content of that warning (was it appropriate etc) and if current alleged breach of WP:CIVIL warranted Kaldari block?

Without such a discussion I do not see how an uninvolved administrator could unblock and could do so without explaining in detail their analysis in the appropriate section on the ANI and hopefully gaining the agreement of Kaldari to self revert if the reasons were strong enough.

I think that this is a classic case of systemic failure of the ANI process. For many high profile editors it is a lottery of how may of their friends and enemies happen to be online at the time and happen to be watching the ANI or are informed of it thought the bush telegraph. Add that some people are taking part in ANIs expressing opinions that are clearly not based on polices and guidelines and contributing nothing but clutter, making it harder to see what the real arguments are, and what the informed consensus is.

There are a number of other Wikipedia processes that deal with editorial behaviour (such as RFCs) that I think also lack natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner.

I have little faith in the ANI process because I no longer think it fit for purpose for anything but to carry out requests for the most simple tasks. I think it is time the whole process to be replaced.

Having said that, as that would be a very big step, in the short term I support Georgewilliamherbert's request. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scott MacDonald

I've no knowledge of this case, and haven't read the details. However, the motion is il-advised.

"whether that to be to place a sanction or to defer from placing sanctions". I get the desire to equate a decision to block with a decision not to, but this is unworkable in fact. A decision to block is 1) recorded in a central log 2) to can be presumed to be done thoughtfully (granted a rebuttable presumption). A decision not to block is not recorded in any central place - it may be indicated on ANI, or on a talk page or elsewhere. It is easy enough for an admin to stumble on an offence, but not see the discussion (or to deny seeing it). Do we give an advantage to the blocking admin who doesn't participate in the ANI thead, because he can deny being aware of any decisions there?

Further what does a "defering from placing sanction" actually mean? If I write on ANI "I'd not block him for that" - am I "logging" that I have considered and declined the block request, or merely that I personally seldom block - so I'm passing on this one? Blocking (or unblocking) someone is serious, and the ownus is on the blocker/unblocker to give careful consideration. Declining to block someone is not so serious, and the person declinig may or may not have given it serious consideraion. Someone may be desysopped for a very bad block (or unblock) they are not going to be sanctioned for declining to block, even if the user has just put porn on 10 featured articles. In short, wihout a whole new level of process and red-tape, one can't equate comments in a discussion with loggable admin actions - even if at times the comments will have been as much a decision by an admin. This simply won't work if codified.--Scott Mac 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Note to clerks: The Committee knows this request has been at net four long enough to be opened, but several arbs are traveling right now (at least one of whom has advised of an intention to opine), and we are also giving consideration to whether or not this can be addressed in a manner short of a case. Please hold on opening this one for 48 hours or until otherwise advised. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/5/0/1)

Waiting for more comments, but this is a problem I've been warning folks about for a while. The second mover advantage.. Perhaps its time we took a second look at it, and decide if there's a way to ameliorate it without undue bureaucracy. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough people have opined that I feel ok about voting to accept now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~accept~~ decline - WRT our role to review admin conduct, which this sits very squarely within the realms of. ~~Unless we want to deal with this by motions, but that might be tricky.~~ A cursory look tells me no mops need be lost here, and I'll post a motion shortly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata - we are one of the only venues for review of admin tool use, which is the reason I accepted. I've had a look and think a general motion is sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MF: what dishonesty? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand a bit, I do not think the issues here are either so straightforward they can be handled by motion (contra Cas), nor so hopeless that a case can't guide future expectations (contra David). I think that any time a dispute has multiple administrators on each side, committee involvement should help center the dispute and prevent future escalations. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; There are actually several interlinked issues at play here. (a) The so-called "second mover" advantage, which in practice only applies asymmetrically (as pointed out above, interestingly, a decision to not block isn't seen as a putative "first move" a block would "undo"); (b) what critera are used before undoing another administrative act (i.e. "bad decision" is too often equated with "decision I disagree with"); and (c) whether specific admin misbehaviour occurred in this incident which pretty much demands examining (a) and (b) to settle. The focus is the specific incident, but it's necessary to reevaluate the entire context if we want to make sense. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning toward acceptance~~, but awaiting further comments. While I think this event may be the jumping-off point, it strikes me that the focus should be on (a) the asymmetry in the perceived "second mover" advantage that devalues decisions that do not directly involve admin tools, and the related "undoing" of such actions and (b) effectiveness in managing interpersonal communication issues (yes, I mean "civility" and personal attacks), particularly concerns about asymmetry in dealing with multiple parties. Risker (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not fully persuaded that there is a genuine case here. I will, however, actively discourage editors from pointing fingers at each other; there are some comments on this page that border on personal attack. I'll also point out that every single person who has posted on this page is a vested contributor; without vested contributors (i.e., people who have invested their work in this project), there would be no Wikipedia. Just because some guy on MeatballWiki used the term pejoratively years ago doesn't mean that we should remove a valuable term from the English language. In every other sphere, vested contributors are considered amongst the most critical and necessary factors in the success of an enterprise. Risker (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not supporting acceptance yet; there may be other lesser actions that can be taken if needed. More importantly, would someone please provide some evidence or links to show why they think Kaldari was an "involved" administrator? Risker (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - Concur with Elen of the Roads. Compared to other administrator behaviour that has occurred in the past week, this isn't even in the same ballpark. There was a limited degree of incivility involved in this event. It strikes me that many of the complaints related to the incivility of some experienced editors is because the perceived incivility was directed to other experienced editors; what I am seeing here is no worse than what I see on a regular basis directed to new or inexperienced editors without an eyebrow being raised. Risker (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. After re-reading everything here, I'm not sure what ArbCom can really do. I'm feeling shades of "Manipulations of BLPs" here; we had a good idea but no practical way to implement it or encourage evidence, and it was a lot of fuss for the end result. This would prove to be even worse. I think most people can agree the issues of civility, esp. whether it's given a pass as secondary to article work, is a festering sore that needs to be dealt with, but I'm not sure that it's in our remit—aside from acting as a US Supreme Court interpreting the "true meaning" of WP:WHEEL, I'm at a loss as to the goals of acceptance. I'd be happy to let another arb sway me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Based on the discussion here and on the mailing list, I'm unconvinced a full case is necessary. A motion to remind admins that in situations such as this it's preferable to wait until there's a consensus before making a block or unblock is probably all that is required. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Interim note - I've been travelling. I'm reviewing this now and will comment later today.) Most of what I was planning to say when I had more time, has since been said (more briefly than I would have) by others. Will finish reviewing and vote this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The game is not worth the candle (as the saying goes). This isn't the case to attempt a restatement of civility, and there's no offence here worthy of a demopping - especially considering some of the other stuff that's gone on this past week, that didn't make it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add - 99of9 has a good idea here though. Things often just drift off the noticeboards because no admin is inclined to take any action so the request gets no response. To have some kind of template that could be used by an admin that they had assessed the situation and formally concluded it did not warrant admin action might be helpful all round. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The Committee would like to reinforce these statements, in lieu of issuing of opening a full case.

Civility

A) Civility is one of the Five Pillars that Wikipedia is built on.

B) Users who are grossly or chronically uncivil can face sanctions, up to and including a block of indefinite length for repeated violations.

Administrative Actions are not to be taken lightly, or reversed lightly

A) Administrators are appointed based on the community's trust in their good judgement. Administrators should respect the judgements of other administrators and should not lightly take controversial actions (Including the reversal of other administrators' actions).

B) It is always best to discuss and get a clear consensus before undertaking administrative actions that are likely controversial.

C) Undoing another administrator's actions or decisions (whether that to be to place a sanction or to defer from placing sanctions) is inherently controversial, and should not be done without discussion or attempts to contact the previous administrator (except in cases of CLEAR and unambiguous error)

Community Urged

A) The Arbitration Committee urges that the community of editors and administrators work on coming up with methods to deal with recognizing and dealing with grossly or habitually uncivil users.

Arbitrator Votes

For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Support

See my comment below, rather then cluttering up the support field with a multiple paragraph statement. Feel free to suggest copy edits, my fellow arbs SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this, but the wording needs tightening. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I echo Coren's disappointment that it does not appear a case will be opened, I also have to empathize with Sir Fozzie's effort to salvage something out of this candidate case here, and passing a motion is a less bad outcome than simply letting the matter die. Make no mistake, I'd rather have the case... but this is better than nothing. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while my comments below still hold, the segments themselves are salient enough to reiterate (for all parties). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm not one to shy away from restating the fundamentals when it is applicable (that's what we use the principles section of decisions for, after all), but this motion is not the right way to go about it now. None of what is stated in here is objectionable, but this motion sends entirely the wrong message. The incident precipitating this request is, in my opinion, symptomatic of a much deeper problem that needs an examination in detail – not restating the obvious while ducking out the side door. — Coren ^(talk) 01:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I'd prefer to have a case about this situation and make a decision based on the evidence presented. The result may not be any different from this motion, but I think ArbCom needs to start accepting civility cases in order to explore this territory properly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has the wrong emphasis - this to me was only very marginally incivil (in an exchange which then got silly), there are many more clearcut examples of difficult editing which should surely reach us before this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator Comments

Please forgive my excessive verbiage. I am sorely disappointed that fellow members of the Committee are declining to hear this as a case, or indeed as a motion (until I posted this on my own initiative.). I wanted to make several things clear with this statement. Civility is one of the five poles that Wikipedia is built on, but lately, and more and more, we ignore low level ongoing cases of incivility from users who have a large level of support. This is what some editors has referred to this as the "vested contributors" problem, which I think is generally a canard.

Instead, I think we need the Community of editors and administrators to define what it is to be uncivil, and indeed how to act against it, because we are dealing with so many different opinions of what the policy means that any attempt we could make to define it at our level would quickly be turned around with "ArbCom is trying to make policy".

To that, I have to say: "No, we're not trying to make policy. The policy is right there in black and white. It's up to the community of editors and administrators to decide what it means, how we deal with it, and where we are going forward."

I sense no appetite amongst my fellow Arbitrators to get involved in this fight, but it has become clear to me that in a lot of cases, actions that everyone KNOWS will be controversial are done willy-nilly. That includes administrative actions taken, and later other administrators undoing those actions. If you'll forgive a tortured set of references, the era of Wild West administrative actions needs to stop. Blocking or unblocking a user should not turn into the Gunfight at the OK Corral. It is my personal opinion that a lot of actions taken in this case fell afoul of this mentality. There was ongoing discussion, but no consensus to do an action, or indeed later to undo the action. No action can seem to stick, because anyone who does place a unilateral controversial sanction soon faces a large amount of people springing to their colleague's aid, and battle lines are quickly drawn. The issue that precipitated this case is such an issue.

When I ran for re-election to the Committee at the end of 2010, I stated my personal preference that I wanted more admins to act like Harry Stone, and less admins acting like Dirty Harry. I stand behind that even more now when I review this case. To use one more platitude (if I have not already used up my quota for this month), as Benjamin Franklin once said, "An ounce of Prevention, is worth A pound of cure". SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that this should apply to ongoing issues, there are exceptions (one suggested to me was someone unblocking a series of IP addresses after it's clear that the vandal has moved on.. this is not controversial and does not apply to the statement above, but if we started listing exceptions to this rule, think of how many more bits of monitors we'd kill for not much result. Won't someone think of the poor monitors?) SirFozzie (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that these two disparate proposals be separate motions. Can we please split these up before anyone else votes? Risker (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to split these. Both issues are encapsulated in this one case. Best to kill two birds with one stone. SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but we often will have multiple motions, particularly when the different motions cover diverse topics. I'm not big on this whole bird-stone thing, when we've got no shortage of stones. As it is, I could probably support the first section as is, but the second section requires considerable wordsmithing and I am not able to support it as it stands. That means, basically, that I have to oppose the whole shooting match. Please split them. Risker (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still oppose splitting the motions, but if the rest of the Committee wants it, go ahead. But I think it's better off this way. SirFozzie (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :Reply to John Vandenberg; the templates are the most recent ones (as of now) in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=10&tagfilter=&year=2011&month=11 this link], is this sufficient? Recounting, it appears that only 42 were made, not 43, but that doesn't really change anything... Everything created between [[Template:ISO 639 name stq]] and [[Template:ISO 639 name mus]] [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
+:Reply to Coren: there is the editing through protection (which appears to be a very common occurrence, but luckily most of the time doesn't cause any problems, even when it doesn't solve anything either, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAbout&action=historysubmit&diff=457066264&oldid=416103980 here]. There is the recurring incivility and personal attacks when he is notified of problems and errors. There is the ever-recurring problematic editing itself, which is slowed down but not stopped by the restrictions and blocks. Take e.g. his creation of articles based on the [[Dictionary of national Biography|DNB]], and compare the article as created by Rich farmbrough [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkman_Finlay_%28philhellene%29&oldid=430127414] with the article after someone actually checked it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkman_Finlay_%28philhellene%29&oldid=459435091]. Then compare this (and note that there are quite a number of problems with his DNB creations) with [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rich Farmbrough (mass article creation)]]. I don't believe that an editor which so many blocks, with two editing restrictions, with so many problems in his editing, and with the misuse of admin rights, is fit to remain an admin any longer. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 === Statement by HJ ===
@@ Line 58: / Line 60: @@
 A simple motion to prohibit R.F. from editing fully protected pages (in any namespace), and encouraging him to adopt more community-minded editing patterns, might be as useful as a long arbitration case. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 12:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
+:Reply to Coren. I do think arbcom could address the editing through protection. The examples provided in the statements include breaking edits to the main page (!), [[Template:Interwiki]], and [[Template:Notability]]. There are also recent edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Box-header&diff=prev&oldid=457523639] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:For&diff=prev&oldid=457069097] in which R.F. violates his edit restriction ''and'' does it on fully-protected templates. We would generally not accept an {{tl|editrequested}} to make such invisible changes to highly-used templates, because it unnecessarily stretches the job queue, but R.F. as an admin has the technical ability to make the changes regardless of best practice. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 13:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 === Statement by {Party 3} ===
@@ Line 69: / Line 73: @@
 *:Thanks for the statements HJ and CBM. It sounds like part of the problem is running bots unattended, unspecified and unapproved, especially when run on a sysop account and making edits only a sysop can make. The "unattended, unspecific and unapproved" part could be rolled into the Betacommand case..? If Rich is editing protected pages with a bot and making mistakes because the edits are not inspected by human eyes, that is .. umm .. wow?! very 2007. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 *Before I'd consider taking this as a case, I'd need a better idea of why the current restrictions imposed by the community do not suffice.  Or is the editing through full protection the only issue?  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Recuse'''. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 == Unblocks and enabling ==
@@ Line 479: / Line 484: @@
 In short, I think both Kaldari and Mkativerata acted appropriately in a BRD cycle involving administrator powers, and created some fuss which is now settled. There is no need for an ArbCom case for this incident, and no point for an ArbCom case to decide on general principles about "enabling unblocks". [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
+=== Statement by [[user:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ===
+SandyGeorgia you wrote:
+{{quotation|
+Nah, "arse" is such a cute little word, not at all ugly like "ass"-- now, if you call someone "narrow-minded", you're attacking their character, and that's not cute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
+}}
+In the part of England where I have spent the most time as an adult, if you were to call a stranger (of the same sex) with whom you were having a verbal disagreement "an arse" in a pub you would get a glass in the face end of discussion. And SandyGeorgia calling most of the clientèle narrow minded would most likely be taken as a complement.
+It is not that they do not use four letter words, most of them could not string a sentence together without swearing, but they would not tolerate such an insult from someone they were having a disagreement with. I would have thought that the level of civility we should expect here ought set at a higher level that that which would trigger a bar room brawl in parts of England.
+Now occasionally some people in hot blood write things that afterwards they regret and if on consideration they show remorse (as lucky no one actually gets physically battered over a Wikiepdia disagreement) then obviously that needs to be taken into consideration.
+However some people use incivility as a tool to intimidate those they disagree with. In recent months I have had to tolerate such behaviour from some editors and although it does not affect me, because I see it for what it is, it can be very intimating for many people. Recently [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] also made this point on my talk to a third party:
+{{quotation|The "gender gap" is something widely discussed: here's a quote from [http://suegardner.org/ Sue Gardner's blog], "“I think [the gender gap] has to do with many Wikipedia editors being bullies." It is perfectly easy to be an expert these days on "women on Wikipedia": this point is widely discussed all over the media. I was dealing with this point (with a different verbal bully in mind) five years ago, because it is actually common sense (is there anyone who really doesn't understand women's aversion to your type of hostile interaction?)
+}}
+The next point is that blocks are not something that have to be given out to both parties to a dispute.
+Kaldari wrote:
+{{quotation|I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)}}
+Just one question was asked about the block and it was answered:
+{{quotation|
+::Could you please explain why you blocked one party in an escalating dispute where the other party acknowledges that he was uncivil? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
+:::I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
+}}
+(I have cut out several other comments around that time and there was a lot of bluster but no review of the reason Kaldari made the block.)
+As no further questions were asked, presumably everyone was satisfied with that answer. If they were then why was the block lifted? If not then why weren't further questions asked of Kaldari, like asking for diffs of that conversation to see what sort of warning had been given and then discussions about the content of that warning (was it appropriate etc) and if current alleged breach of [[WP:CIVIL]] warranted Kaldari block?
+Without such a discussion I do not see how an uninvolved administrator could unblock and could do so without explaining in detail their analysis in the appropriate section on the ANI and hopefully gaining the agreement of Kaldari to self revert if the reasons were strong enough.
+I think that this is a classic case of systemic failure of the ANI process. For many high profile editors it is a lottery of how may of their friends and enemies happen to be online at the time and happen to be watching the ANI or are informed of it thought the bush telegraph. Add that some people are taking part in ANIs expressing opinions that are clearly not based on polices and guidelines and contributing nothing but clutter, making it harder to see what the real arguments are, and what the informed consensus is.
+There are a number of other Wikipedia processes that deal with editorial behaviour (such as RFCs) that I think also lack natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner.
+I have little faith in the ANI process because I no longer think it fit for purpose for anything but to carry out requests for the most simple tasks. I think it is time the whole process to be replaced.
+Having said that, as that would be a very big step, in the short term I support Georgewilliamherbert's request. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 ===Comment by Scott MacDonald===