Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

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

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

Case Opened on 08:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Case Amended on 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Alexandria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thumperward (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Alexandria

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

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

Add on by Alexandria Per Wikipedia:RFAR/G#Exceptions, I urge arbcom to take this case as part of the 2nd bullet point, or "Unusually divisive disputes among administrators". Malleus is the major concern here as the other admins would not be wheel warring over his behavior if it wasn't so divisive among them. A RFC/U would accomplish very little as they are non-binding. Malleus has been told many times to tone it down, only to be met with more hostility. I don't see what a RFC/U would accomplish other than a light tap on the wrists and someone going "tone it down buddy".

Statement from John

I'll try to keep this short. I've been aware of Malleus for a couple of years now. At first I had the view of him that (seemingly) User:Thumperward, User:Hawkeye7 and some others have. You can see that from my comments here, in October 2010. On reflection and on a closer examination of Malleus's contributions, something I strongly encourage his detractors carefully to do, I afterwards modified my stance that civility could be easily summed up with a list of "words to avoid". I tried here in January 2011 to throw down an olive branch to this editor, and later that month I worked closely with Malleus to raise the article on Margaret Thatcher to GA status. As a result of that experience I have since tried to coach him occasionally in his interactions with others and with the community norms we have. Here is the most recent example, from earlier this month.

I regard Malleus as one of the most positive contributors overall to our project of writing an encyclopaedia, and also one of the most misunderstood. In some ways he reminds me of the tragic genius Lenny Bruce, an American comedian who was hounded to his death by the civility police of his day, in a case which afterwards caused a collective re-examination of contemporary obscenity laws. I unblocked Malleus in full knowledge that our background of occasionally working together might cause me to be considered as involved; I did so however mindful of the provision in policy that "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." I regarded Thumperward's unilateral indefinite block of a long-term contributor as being as egregious (if well-meaning) an error as deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo, and as being equally straightforward to undo. We do not indef-block established editors without warning or central discussion. My reading of the discussion at AN/I seemed to support this; at the time I made the unblock there was zero support for an indef, no rationale had been posted for the block, and several other admins were talking about imminently undoing the block. Since the action several respected admins and at least one current Arbcom member have spoken in support of what I did.

I nevertheless regret any contribution I have made to the unfortunate drama and would welcome any clarification that may come about regarding this sort of block and who may unblock on what occasions. I particularly regret any offence I caused to Thumperward who is, as far as I know, a good admin and was undoubtedly acting with good intentions even if the community feels he got it wildly wrong on this occasion. I am also confident that my action did not contravene WP:WHEEL, contrary to Thumperward's assertion in the immediate aftermath of the events. I would welcome any further clarification the committee may be able to make regarding the nature of civility; my own view is and has long been that blocking for breaches of civility is as productive as fighting for peace or fucking for virginity. The best way to enforce civility is to model it in one's own interactions. Blocks should be reserved for egregious and unwarranted personal attacks. It would be interesting and useful to see further clarification of the general principles involved. As regards this particular user, I think Bishonen has put it very well, that the steps in WP:DR have not been exhausted and that this would typically require a RFCU before Arbcom sanctions were warranted against an individual user. --John (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

The facts of this case has been stated by others. I appreciate the understanding that all the admins involved acted in good faith and did what they believed to be correct and proper.

I did not impose a block as a form of punishment or "cooling off". The consensus was that a block should be imposed, but that an indefinite block was too severe. A week was chosen as a period sufficient for the purpose of preventing further disruption to the RfA process.

There was no wheel warring. Malleus was blocked solely for actions after being unblocked.

I do not accept that Malleus is my "superior", nor that his work is worth more than mine.

I do accept that the use of hateful and misogynist language is acceptable where Malleus comes from (but do not really believe it). He did not seem playful and misunderstanding, but angry and aggressive.

I do not understand why an RfC is not in order. I thought that ArbCom preferred conciliation to arbitration. I do not see how ANI amounts to such efforts.

I cam in as an uninvolved editor. I have no history with this person.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/4/3)

• Recused. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accept. This is a long running dispute, highly divisive even amongs administrators, and thus it behooves us to accept this case. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Just so it's clear, I'm planning on looking at the whole package, (MF-Civility, the second mover/third mover wheel war issue, all nine yards. This is not going to be a quick, easy case (as evidenced by the sheer amount of people commenting). SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Accept Per SirFozzie, I'm less inclined to look closely at Malleus' own behavior (unless someone provides credible evidence that it's recently changed for the worse), but rather how admins are dealing with each other over a matter of good-faith disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The outpouring of opinion here is quite large. I'd caution folks to avoid investing large amounts of time arguing over whether a case should be opened or not, and instead save some of that energy to compile and present evidence appropriately if and when a case is opened. That, more than many electrons expended here, will help us come to the best conclusions. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • While what Hawkeye7 did has every appearance of a wheel war, Malleus has repeatedly been helped by the second-mover advantage, which has historically given him a free ride as long as someone, anyone, is willing to unblock him. If we sanction Hawkeye by motion, and leave the second-mover advantage issue untouched, we will have done nothing to address the community's concerns. Anyone can block Malleus, but no one can make it stick, because of the second-mover advantage. Perhaps it's time to admit that "wheel war", like "edit war" is not limited to a specific bright-line, but can take place in an initial reversal of an admin action? For these reasons, I do not believe this morass can be untangled by simply pounding down the most convenient nail, Risker. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Definitely recused. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse; even were it not uncomfortably close to the end of my term, I intend to submit comments. — Coren ^(talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Point of order: it was suggested that the incoming arbitrators comment on matters that could be on our agenda after our terms begin, although until 1 January we do not accept or reject requests. With respect to the request as framed, I see three issues: first, Malleus' incivility; second, dealing with problematic "vested contributors" (which is not to say I characterise Malleus as such); and third, the ostensible wheel war.

  On issue one, I do not see how the issue is ripe for arbitration: other than disparate discussions, no prior dispute-resolution was sought for Malleus' conduct. (However, I could be convinced at a later date that we must arbitrate the issue, if these steps are sought in future but do not succeed.) On issue two, I do not think we can be of assistance: the committee has already issued guidance on vested contributors, and policy is clear that the merits of one's contributions does not mitigate unprofessional conduct. On issue three, I think we must open a case to consider whether Hawkeye7 was correct to reverse John's unblock. If a wheel-war did take place and there was no consensus to re-block, then there has been administrative misconduct - of which we should and always have taken a dim view. AGK [•] 02:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Scott MacDonald, I reject the idea of opening a case to talk about vested contributors because the resulting decision would be waffle. We would just re-state what everybody knows: that experience does not mitigate unprofessionalism. We could offset the apparent gulf in policy with practice by sanctioning Malleus, but my additional worry is that the community hasn't really tackled the issue except with pitchforks-and-torches threads here and there: where's the community-wide RFC? Arbitration would be messy and the issue should go to the whole community first (which has not happened yet). Regarding Hawkeye7, you misunderstand me: I'm not saying he did wheel-war, and I wouldn't judge that in a preliminary thread like this. However, if he did reverse the unblock without waiting for a consensus, then that's wrong: we don't allow wheel-warring because it's a slippery slope, not just because "policy says so". AGK [•] 03:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accept Comment - given queries about other people and whether they can be considered "involved", I've interacted fairly regularly with Malleus. Am happy to recuse if folks think I I should do so. considered input from others, ok let's sort this out. The scope is (1) planning a way forward on the civility dilemma as put forward by the two main sides, and (2) review admin actions of those involved. I was criticised for trying to deal with a predecessor to this case by motion, and think therefore this needs a case.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, I did think long and hard (and oscillated), but I've been observing the evolution of a fair few of these civility dustups recently including antecedents, and I don't think my relationship is hugely familiar with Malleus to preclude me trying to work a solution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Decline as a case. With respect to Malleus Fatuorum, there is no valid reason to skip the RfC phase. With respect to the so-called wheel war, there were intervening edits by Malleus which an administrator may have considered sanctionable (indeed, I do wonder about the speed of the unblock to some extent, it could easily have waited longer while further consensus was developed and the blocking admin's indepth rationale was posted). I am also concerned that any administrator would make a comment like this about someone he has just blocked; it did more to inflame the situation than to calm it. I would consider some motions in respect of this request: 1) Banning Malleus from WT:RFA until the completion of a community RfC and 2) a suitable sanction on Hawkeye7. Risker (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Accept - That the community, many members of whom have commented here after (literally) years of complaining about Malleus, cannot be bothered to even try to do an RfC in this area is a poor reason for accepting a case; however, at the end of the day, this is simply too divisive to continue as is. Risker (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I have strong feelings of deja vu about this request; didn't we just have pretty much this exact same case request a month or two ago? Only the names of the blocking and unblocking admins seem to have changed between last time and this time. When I voted to decline the previous case, I expressed the forlorn hope that that particular block/unblock cycle might be the last such incident and that Malleus Fatuorum might moderate his tone of expression to prevent further bickering. Needless to say, that hasn't happened, and since I don't see the issues here being addressed by any means short of arbitration, I am leaning toward accepting the case. Caveat 1: This case shouldn't drag on for weeks as often happens; that will just poison the atmosphere on-wiki for everyone. We would need to pick strong hands-on drafters committed to keeping things moving. Caveat 2: Over the past couple of years I've had my share of disagreements with Malleus, most recently on my talkpage when he reacted there to my comments on the prior request. I am considering whether recusal is warranted; my current inclination is that it is not, but if anyone has a view on this, please feel free to share it with me in the next 72 hours. Caveat 3: I will continue to have minimal time on-wiki until after New Years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. After looking at Malleus' block record - [1], this case appears to fit Unusually divisive disputes among administrators. I'd be interested to explore the reasons for such a long history of wheel warring. The usual reasons given for blocking Malleus are Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. The reasons given for unblocking are varied and sometimes not clear. There are interesting aspects to this case - why do contributors who are a significant asset to the project, and clearly want to improve it, sometimes engage in uncivil behaviour that leads to blocks? Are they being poked unreasonably into responding testily? If so, can we protect them? Are they by nature crusty people? If so, how far do we tolerate such behaviour from valued contributors? Are they emboldened by their position as a valued contributor to feel they can "get away" with being uncivil? If so, what should we do? If we take the case it would be hoping too much to get a clear answer to these questions, but the investigation would be worthwhile. Hawkeye7's unblock was a clear case of WP:WHEEL which ArbCom are expected to look into. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Begrudging Accept; this falls under the realm of divisive disputes and plenty of prior words have been spilt without any meaningful result. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Accept: per Cas basically.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. –xeno^talk 14:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair criticism

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Baiting

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility blocks

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Internationalism

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Offensive commentary

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Malleus Fatuorum

1) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has a demonstrated history of making valuable editorial contributions to the project, bringing over 30 articles to featured article status, and participating in hundreds of featured article and good article reviews, where his communication has generally been constructive and civil. (Partial list of GA reviews) On many occasions, he has also personalized disputes to the point of making personal attacks,[2],[3],[4] and has made provocative and/or uncivil comments. [5],[6] (Samples only, numerous other examples available on the evidence page.)

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum's block log

2) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption (including one occasion where he was blocked, unblocked, and reblocked by another administrator) (Chart of all blocks). A number of these blocks were placed by involved administrators, applied in a manner that was below the standard expected of administrators, or for conduct that did not rise to the general expectations for a disruption block.([7],[8],[9])

Passed 9 to 0, with 1 abstentions 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum and discussions related to adminship

3) Malleus Fatuorum is the most prolific participant at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ([10]), having edited the page more than 1500 times, with over 500 more edits than the next most prolific contributor. On some occasions, his commentary has fallen within the scope of fair comment and has even been insightful ([11],[12],[13],[14]). More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling ([15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21]). The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

Passed 9 to 1, with 1 abstentions 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward's block

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

Passed 8 to 2, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward's participation in discussing his actions

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

Passed 6 to 4, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John's unblock

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 wheel warred

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

Passed 7 to 3, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7's personal attack

8) After blocking Malleus Fatuorum, Hawkeye7 posted a personal attack directed towards Malleus on another editor's talk page. [25]

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 previously admonished

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in civility enforcement

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Difficulties in defining civility

11) The civility policy has been the subject of ongoing debate since its creation in 2004, with over 1700 edits to the policy and more than 3400 edits to its talk page. This ongoing debate highlights continuing disagreement on what constitutes incivility, and particularly sanctionable incivility, and makes it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy.

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Remedies

Hawkeye7 desysopped

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

Passed 8 to 1, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward admonished

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

Passed 7 to 3, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John admonished

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

Passed 9 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum topic banned

4) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA.

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

Passed 9 to 1, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Amended 9 to 1, 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum admonished

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

Passed 7 to 2, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators reminded

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

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors reminded

7.1) All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.

Passed 9 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Community and administrator imposed restrictions

8) The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

Passed 9 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

Passed 9 to 1, 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) MBisanz (talk · contribs) desysopped Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) per the case decision.
• 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) banned Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Malleus Fatuorum topic banned.