| Revision as of 12:44, 9 October 2012 view sourceTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits ===Comment by The Red Pen Of Doom=== Anyone who saw this Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Final_decision and had any reaction other than "We will be right back at the ArbCom with THIS case" is an idiot or a liar. What do we← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Professionalism and civility == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Alanscottwalker}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Mark Arsten}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Malleus Fatuorum}} | |||
| *{{admin|Bongwarrior}} | |||
| *{{admin|Black Kite}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|A Quest For Knowledge}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jehochman}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jtrainor}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| === Statement by Alanscottwalker === | |||
| ] was closed as:"This discussion has degenerated into vitriol and uselessness; no further admin action is going to be taken. Bring it to Arbcom or step outside and get a breath of fresh air. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup>01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)" And apparently led to this discussion:] and this block/unblock sequence ]. | |||
| Given the charged rhetoric, counter charges, admin action, and generally poor conduct, this all appears to need {further) Arbcom action to "break the back" as stated in the arbitration guide. Like it or not, admin and content creators need to cooperate as do admin and admin, and editor and editor, in a collaborative effort. As currently constituted, this Project need both types of users, and needs both types to respect all other users, in a professional manner. | |||
| :@Elen, and I guess a few others Arbitrators question(s) to me: What I'm expecting to happen is that the Arbitration Committee would arbitrate whether the expected level of conduct has occurred, here, and whether the proper actions have been taken, or whether other or additional actions should be taken. As it deals with a Pillar of the project, that would be in the Arbitrators' bailiwick. And as this system proceeds on the case development method, this seems like a case right within the typical fact pattern, and therefore a case of useful moment for the correct operation of the Pillar. | |||
| :Note: Everyone seems to be in almost total agreement about what the proper conduct is (despite the rather odd and seemingly overwrought hand wringing: 'that we just can't know'). So, that leaves the other issues for you in your deliberative judgement to decide. As for the apparent claim by one or two Arbitrators that the Arbitration Committee just cannot handle the case with wisdom, probity of action, and due diligence -- that appears to be a cop-out, as other Arbitrators have also appeared to note. ] (]) 21:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Silk Tork. Aye. It takes open discussion, and sometimes multiple open discussions, because in the end it is addressed by no action, by one action, or by multiple incremental actions, regardless, it is addressed. Because the Pillar is not going anywhere. So, does the Commitee want a stand-off with sets of the community saying, 'we can't handle it, take it to Arbcom, which we elect to handle these intractable conduct issues,' and the Commitee responding 'we can't even hear the issue?' | |||
| *To others. This claimed connection between incivility and opposition to POV pushing needs further elucidation. Frankly, it makes little sense. The proper conduct is Civil (Pillar) NPOV (Pillar) pushing. Not incivility. So, if there are areas such as COI, SPA and socking that need to be segregated from the strong disagreements over content, which are bound to arise, and which still need to focus on the content not the contributer, than why cannot we segregate those? ] (]) 11:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mark Arsten === | |||
| An e-mail I sent sparked this whole mess. I don't plan to say much more about this than I did at last night: I was wrong to say what I did, I deeply regret doing so, I offer my apologies to Malleus and everyone else involved, and I'll accept whatever sanction the community/Arbcom deems appropriate. As to the other issues involved, I don't feel that the conduct of any of the other listed parties rises to the level where arbitration is appropriate, but I'll defer to the opinions of uninvolved users. ] (]) 14:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *For clarity's sake, here's the chronology as far as I know. | |||
| #. Last Friday night I closed an ANI thread about Malleus' comments at FAC and said ]. Shortly afterwards he started a thread entitled "]" on my talk page to complain about my close. | |||
| # Over the next couple days I asked him to revisit the thread on my page. | |||
| # Tuesday night I sent him the "fuck you" e-mail" "You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit." | |||
| # Wednesday I sent an email to him apologizing and stated that I'd avoid him in the future: "Apologies for my e-mail last night, I wish I hadn't lost my temper. I'll resolve to merely avoid people that irritate me in the future." | |||
| # On Thursday he sent me an e-mail telling me not to lose my temper again and to be more careful about ]s: "I have no idea what you're talking about, but not losing your temper again sounds like a plan. BTW, when you're talking about people it's "who", not "that". And it's pretty good to avoid split infinitives as well." | |||
| # On Saturday night he complained about my conduct on ]. ] (]) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@Elen, I believe the other e-mail he alluded to is the one I sent on Wednesday (point 3). Also, I've never threatened to block him. ] (]) 20:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Scorecard by Nobody Ent === | |||
| * Mark Arsten was called out and has already apologized. {{Done}} | |||
| * MF's reaction was intemperate and he was sanctioned (blocked) for it. {{Done}} | |||
| * Bongwarrier applied a premature and excessive sanction, but was quickly reversed and chastised on their talk page. {{Done}} | |||
| * BK did the right thing, no action or additional comment necessary. | |||
| * Not sure why AQFK or Jehochman are named parties? | |||
| The committee has previously addressed a similar case, concluding: | |||
| {{talkquote|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. (],])|source=]}} | |||
| It's unclear what has changed in the intervening ~year such that taking a case would benefit Misplaced Pages. <small>]</small> 14:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Risker -- Trout serving would be much healthier for Misplaced Pages, ]s and all that. <small>]</small> 23:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Kiefer et. al. It's the ''English'' Misplaced Pages -- I will continue to boldly split infinitives. (I also say ''irregardless'' irregardless of people spouting nonsense about it not being a word.) <small>]</small> 23:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Resolute === | |||
| As much I respect and value Malleus' editing and reviewing abilities, I don't care in the slightest for his lack of civility overall. As such, I found his ANI complaint utterly hypocritical. If Misplaced Pages took civility seriously, he would have been banned long ago. So my answer to his original complaint is simple: if we're going to treat Mark Arsten the same as a "non-admin", namely Malleus himself, then fine. Lets block Mark, have a quick discussion about how much he brings to the project despite this breach of civility, then unblock him one hour and 37 minutes later. Or, lets just trout everyone for making a mountain out of a molehill and get on with editing. ]] 15:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jehochman === | |||
| I didn't comment at the ] thread and strongly oppose ArbCom delving, once again, into the issue of civility on Misplaced Pages. If there is a case, I don't intend to participate, because it risks intensifying long-running disputes. Everybody needs to be encouraged to work toward greater civility, but people need to understand that editors will occasionally become flummoxed, some more than others, and drop an f-bomb here or there. When that happens, given them space, back off, and then point out that the comments are not civil. Sometimes it is useful to offer support to the target of hostile remarks. Rarely it may be necessary to block somebody if the attacks are really over the top and cross the line into racial, religious, sexual or nationalistic harassment. Simply calling somebody a "nitwit" or a "stupid fucker" isn't harassment; it's just coarse. | |||
| :@MONGO. You make a valid point that MF's incivility wasn't dealt with properly. Since he's not under a civility restriction as far as I can tell, just a topic ban from RFA talk pages, ] is not available. We all know that civility blocks are poor practice. (You seem upset. Here, let me block you to help you calm down.) I suppose ArbCom could entertain an amendment to the original case, but there is still no reason to have a new case. The facts are already in evidence. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dennis Brown === | |||
| This doesn't belong here. If anything, this once again demonstrates why civility blocks are almost always a bad idea. Those that screwed up already know it, so preventative action isn't needed. Trouts to everyone, and move along. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 15:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@SirFozzie: While it could be argued that trouts are not effective, we certainly have evidence that blocks can be equally ineffective, hence my prior statement. Heads are going to bump from time to time, and throwing more <s>drama</s> process on top of a minor scuffle only makes the situation worse, not better. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@Risker, with the exception of handing out a few more trouts than you did, I completely agree, particularly with the idea that Arbcom is not the place to '''create''' new policies on civility. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hasteur === | |||
| Once ] we're here to get ArbCom to clarify and lay down some guidelines in terms of civility. That one of the parties to the case is one that was explicitly sanctioned in the previous case tells me that the previous case did '''not''' fix the problem. We have the same civility blocks, wheel warring blocks/unblocks, minimal (under 1 hour) discussions that any administrator can elect to ignore. ArbCom is the only one empowered by Jimmy Wales to take conduct matters into hand and deal with disruptive editors and administrators. Having a civility block be overturned less than 1 hour after minimal discussion only demonstrates that if you contribute some content, you're practically allowed to get away with anything. No editor is worth more than any other. No Administrator is above the rules of wikipedia. ] (]) 16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *RE: Newyorkbrad 23:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC): What do I want out of Arbitration? I want the committee to lay down a dolomite block of civility sanctions that spell out the consequences of serial, unrepentant, and disgusting incivility. I want blocks for civility to actually mean something and not need the "Seven Words" to get someone being incivil to be blocked. For to long because some editors "contribute content" they are given a softer hand when they run clear off the rails with disrespectful and deliberately offensive statements. | |||
| *RE: Casliber 20:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC): So you are not reading the linked admonishments and reccomendations as having been entered on the sanction log and therefore continued disruptive behavior as being reasonably blocked under the "blocking to prevent continued disruption". | |||
| *RE: Risker 23:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC): I would be willing to accept the entirety of your proposal 2 except Malleus has already been before ArbCom before for Incivility less than 8 months ago. I remember the amount of drama that was caused during that spate of incivility (replete with blocks that stick for less than 5 minutes) | |||
| *RE: Committee as a whole: As was evidenced in the closure of the last Civility ArbCom case, there was a commemoration that the community come up with a civility standard. As evidenced by no WP shortcut, the community failed in developing a standard. In my mind the reason why no standard has been developed is because the issue was shirked by the committee and once out of the magnifying glass of the community scrutiny, it got quickly forgotten. I implore the committee to not let this happen again as it would seem to suggest that the location for intractable conduct interactions is unwilling to deal with incivility (which stems from conduct) issues. ] (]) 02:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *RE: Casliber 02:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC): So what you're saying is that only editors who are directly involved in the current dispute are allowed to offer statements? Not willing to accept ] statements? Good to know for later consideration. <small>In no way is this intended to be a threat, simply attempting to clarify what appears to be a peculiar position</small> ] (]) 03:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Looie496 === | |||
| It was wrong of ArbCom to decline the last incivility case, and you ought to find a way to accept this one. This issue has been massively disruptive for a long time, and it is time for ArbCom to make an effort to resolve it. ] (]) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Black Kite === | |||
| I saw a block which was clearly excessive given the mild incivility that it was applied for (and also the situation which it was in the context of), and which the blocking administrator admitted was punitive rather than preventative . After a short discussion I undid it as such. I have not previously taken any administrative action regarding Malleus. Civility blocks need to be applied where they are ''clearly'' preventative of damage to Misplaced Pages or the involvement of other editors. A snarky edit summary in reply to a posting that was clearly designed to be inflammatory does ''not'' come under this heading (see also ]). I completely stand by my actions here and would do exactly the same thing in the same situation. I'll also put ] from the previous AC case out there too - it's relevant. | |||
| And while we're at it, even though this didn't factor in at the time, let's compare the two users. Malleus with his many FAs we all know, whilst JTrainor has 57 mainspace edits in the last ''three years'' and appears to mainly exist to pop up every couple of weeks on drama boards or AC cases and (a) ask for people to be blocked , (b) post completely unhelpful messages , or (c) as in this case, bait other users . Which of the two is Misplaced Pages better off with them editing? | |||
| And furthermore, ] says this - "''In ... cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.''" This was always going to be contentious. ] (]) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Beyond My Ken "''Malleus' proclivity towards outbursts of incivility has been encouraged and enabled by the coterie of admins who will generally unblock him if other editors see fit to block him''". Doesn't the fact that ''eleven different admins'' have unblocked Malleus thirteen times actually suggest that most of the blocks have been bad? I had a look at some of them after the night's events - some are ''ridiculous''. ] (]) 17:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Rschen7754 === | |||
| {{Headdesk}}. | |||
| Malleus shouldn't have made the initial remark that set Mark off. Mark shouldn't have sent that email. Jtrainor shouldn't have made the remark that set Malleus off. Malleus shouldn't have used the incivil edit summary. Bongwarrior was allowed under policy to block Malleus, but that probably was not the best call here, as that made things worse. Black Kite, however, should not have unblocked Malleus after a whopping 16 minutes of discussion. | |||
| So, to quote ], "Look, we could all file complaints against each other and just drown in a sea of paperwork, but you know, we can just move on with our... with our lives." If everyone could just drop it, we don't need a case. If the parties want to pursue this any further, then we may need one. --''']]]''' 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :'''@Hersfold:''' Editors are required to use {{tl|ANI-notice}} when they start an AN(I) against someone. If an administrator doesn't notice that, meaning they didn't look at the user's talk page before blocking, that's an epic fail. So at least in my view, admins can't claim innocence regarding not knowing an ANI is going on. | |||
| :'''@ArbCom:''' No matter what you do, people will be criticizing you. | |||
| :'''@Risker:''' Out of fairness, shouldn't Black Kite be thrown in? | |||
| :The admin actions in this case concern me, per Risker, and per Ks0stm, and I think admonishments are necessary ''at a bare minimum'' . Still on the fence about Risker's proposal #1; that will be a huge loss to the encyclopedia, but will it solve the civility problem once and for all? --''']]]''' 05:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Trusilver === | |||
| Misplaced Pages rests on ] It's a damned good thing that one, two, three and five are strong, because the ] has some structural issues. Everyone is uncivil at one point or another, everyone gets frustrated and makes a personal attack at some point. I've done it, most of the people that are reading this have done it. And anyone who hasn't... then I take my hat off to you, for you have the patience of a saint. The troubling issue isn't minor incivility. It's a handful of editors that have, right or wrong, behaved in a manner that has resulted in thousands of man-hours of masturbatory intellectual hand-wringing over what the word "civil" means. I'm generally opposed to ''most'' Arbcom cases, but I feel this incident clearly shows that ] is either defunct or needs to be more concrete than it currently is. Policy exists for a reason. It's time for civility policy to either be demoted to a guideline, or given teeth. Either way, I see Arbcom as the only venue that has a reasonable chance to solve the problem. Really... this discussion has been going on for years. It's past time to solve it. ] 17:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments by MONGO === | |||
| I agree with Malleus that the rules are applied unevenly and inequitably.--] 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Malleus has had multiple second chances...more than anyone I know on this website. Since he was already admonished in the Civility Enforcement arbcom case, why should he get another pass now? It would be ''uneven and inequitable'' for arbcom to not enforce its own finding of less than a year ago. Bongwarrior did what here...he blocked a repeat offender. Black Kite is a proven ally of Malleus and unblocks...Malleus (as usual) provokes an admin to make one critical error by sending that email...is there any other evidence of misuse of tools and positions by admins here? I don't see any. We deal with those that have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompatible with Misplaced Pages through blocks and bans. Those that have made singular isolated and/or rare and infrequent gaffes and mistakes get admonished. The GA and FA process won't cease with a temporary or even a permanent site ban of Malleus...the disappearance of Lord Elmsworth didn't bring an end to new FA development. I don't care if Malleus is an unpaid volunteer...we all are. If arbcom doesn't take this case we should all get to be just as rude, as crass and as foul mouthed as Malleus and be that way to him anytime and anywhere we wish...and we better not get blocked, banned or have one of his chums show up at our talkpages and elsewhere to threaten and insult us. If were going to allow Malleus to have a free for all, then that should apply to everyone. Make no mistake about it...we are here once again due to Malleus.] 17:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Jehochman....issue is, nothing was learned from the old case. Malleus persists in his behavior which is subsidized by the endorsement of some administrators and others that incorrectly believe that Malleus is a target or is persecuted. I don't know if an amendment to the prior case would be appropriate.] 19:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Arbitrators...discussion about a blanket block and ban regarding most of the named parties seems draconian. Is this being discussed to be deliberately ridiculous or are you serious? While the line in the sand idea may be fine in some situations with ''repeat offenders'', it is definitely overkill when applied to editors who have little or no prior history of issues.] 11:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Arbitrators...the excesses will persist until they are stopped. Nothing beats having an award offered by another getting by Malleus. Furthermore, if these are just schoolkids as Malleus assumes why not encourage them instead of posting such comments. Frankly, if you need diffs they're everywhere...hardly a day passes without .] 20:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Kiefer...subsequent to the unblock of Malleus by Black Kite, he has resumed his behavior as posted immediately above. The block by BongWarrior was within his remit since arbcom has already sanctioned Malleus and they have a finding as well as discussion especially from NewYorkBrad that Malleus needs to be civil...telling "schoolkids" they can't tell their "arse(s) from their elbows" or that they haven't written "spit" is hardly civil...its actually pretty outrageous. Have we all allowed the civility bar to drop so low that nothing less than a death or legal threat can result in an administrator blocking a "vested" contributor? We have plenty of vested contributors that have contributed to FA's that have never been blocked...and others that have but not for some time since they either reformed on their own or finally understood why sanctions had been applied.] 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Kiefer...the school principal goes running to the classroom to break up a fight between the kids...principal asks "who started it"..."He did" says one..."No, he did" says the other...now, which kid has already been warned, reminded, suspended about this fighting. "Heaps of abuse" by kids or "trolls" posing as kids? And these "trolls" have been targeting Malleus have they? Surely.] 13:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I've already typed enough of course, and surely my opinion is of little consequence, but if arbcom doesn't do anything now, we will be back here again before long. Would wish to reiterate that any finding should be based on what the issue is, not on trying to mete out ''punishments'' that are designed to make everyone happy or unhappy....as I see no major malfeasence by the three administrors mentioned here. The issue here seems pretty clear to me and based on past remedies that seem to have gone unnoticed and/or unheeded, all that need be done is to enforce prior verdicts.--] 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Ks0stm === | |||
| I'll just preface this by saying (perhaps with a slightly unwise choice of words given the situation) that I give absolutely zero fucks about this whole situation except for one thing: When an admin makes a controversial block, is it really that hard to wait and get a consensus before unblocking? I don't fault Black Kite, I just think that nine times out of ten it is going to be wise to wait longer than 16 minutes to unblock someone, because 16 minutes is hardly enough time for a discussion to really get going, let alone come to conclusion. I'm not saying that there aren't situations where I would do what Black Kite did, I'm just saying that this is most certainly not one of them given the high level of controversy surrounding the whole concept here. Anyway, ''if'' ArbCom takes this, I urge them 100% to look into the issue of rapid undoing of controversial administrator actions, but I don't think this particular incident rises to the level of needing examined in its own right. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Jclemens: {{Like}} ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 21:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Yomangani === | |||
| If ArbCom does take the case, a lot of time could be saved by just copying the ] to a new name and changing the dates. Admittedly, that approach wouldn't give the opportunity for two months of character assassination and axe grinding under the guise of evidence, so you'd have to weigh up the pros and cons. ]] 18:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by MBisanz === | |||
| Please don't take this case. There are problems to resolve, but this isn't a starting fact-pattern from which Arbcom could ever hope to base a conclusive decision on. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jtrainor === | |||
| This is fairly straightforwards to me. Malleus, an editor with a long history of personal attacks and blocks for same, baited an admin that has no block history whatsoever, and then ran to WP:ANI to make a big scene, as though he were shocked, SHOCKED that anyone might react the way they did to him. Somehow me pointing this out caused people to gasp in outrage. That's the extent of my involvement in this matter. There's nothing here that couldn't be solved by either putting Malleus on civility parole or indeffing him. | |||
| On another note, there's been a long, long trend on Misplaced Pages in recent years of people who contribute a lot being allowed to skirt or ignore WP:CIVIL, while others get hammered down flat. This trend of favoritism needs to stop. | |||
| ] (]) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact that my comment is considered incivil on the same level as Malleus's latest profanity-laced outburst shows just how much of a joke civility enforcement has become around here, and a bad one at that. ] (]) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I further note that I have never before had any sort of sanction related to civility or WP:NPA, while Malleus... well, his record speaks for himself. Risker, you ought to disqualify yourself. ] (]) 20:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating === | |||
| This is fairly straightforward to me. Black Kite improperly took responsibility in an issue that was already correctly administratively resolved. IMO, the other parties can be removed from the case. ] (]) 21:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :In lifting the one-week block, stated, "(clearly provoked and block length out of line with that which would have been expected from any other editor)". I'm not aware that the civility policy makes being provoked a defense. As another editor has noted, the argument that the block length was excessive did not lead to a shortening of the block. | |||
| :In response for an arbitrator request for concrete guidance, I suggest that an effective sanction for the incivility-enabling is a block the length of the block that was lifted. Doing the math comes to about 10064 minutes, which is a symbolic amount of time. As the second mover, this administrator has taken responsibility that Arbcom does not want overridden as per WP:WHEEL. This administrator is now the representative of the enablers of incivility in the community. ] (]) 00:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Speech acts by Kiefer.Wolfowitz === | |||
| # The user, Truesilver, who called Black Kite a "groupie" gives evidence above, without having retracted his insult. Where are the civility zealots? | |||
| # The word '']'' has a meaning, and it is better not to misuse it, particularly at this website, which welcomes edits from ignoramuses who don't even aspire to '']''. | |||
| # Malleus is correct, as acknowledged by Mark, that split infinitives are better avoided, generally, as a courtesy to readers whose first language is a Romance language. | |||
| # These kinds of witch-hunts have given Puritanism a bad name. Let us review the '']'': | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| * '''A144''': The '''] required''' in the ''']''' are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a ]; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocence; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; '''studying''' and practicing of '''whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report'''. | |||
| * '''A145''': The ''']s forbidden''' in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, ]; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; '']'', or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| What more needs to be said? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 22:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@MONGO, | |||
| :Please review the history of . Malleus hardly "shat on" Matthew. Matthew quoted comments out of context, later, as noted by Nikkimaria, and again such misrepresentation violates WP:Civility. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Mongo, | |||
| ::Malleus is nice to schoolkids, as you can tell if you examine his talk page and see the thank you notes from students and teachers. | |||
| ::Schoolkids, or trolls posing as schoolkids, do not get a pass on civility either. In this case, Matthew heaped abuse on FA editors and specifically Malleus, repeatedly, before Malleus wrote the idiomatic expression. Are you claiming that Matthew, at that time, could tell his arse from his elbow? Did you read his stream of abuse? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Mongo, | |||
| :::You and the others are obsessed with Malleus and are not doing anything about incivility and personal attacks against him. One expects any talk page at Misplaced Pages to be like a bar at an OCD convention, but there is no reason to double-book the OCD convention at a hypocrisy convention. None of the obsessives hounding Malleus have even tried to show a bit of principle to try and to stop the worst incivility against Malleus. Sublimate the obsessive impulses in more constructive directions, per my motto.... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 14:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Barts1a === | |||
| Firstly: The main trigger for this case was not Malleus for once (While he did set the ball rolling, this case itself did not come as a direct result of that action). Had AQFK not initiated the cherry-picked thread on Jimbo's talk page none of us would even be here and the issue would have already been forgotten! | |||
| Secondly: I think we all know what is going to happen here: A lot of arguments and infighting just to get to exactly where we were at the end of the last case involving Malleus! ] / ] / ] 22:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Salvio Giuliano === | |||
| I apologise if it appears I'm rambling; these are a bunch of disjointed thoughts I have regarding this issue... <p>In general, blocks are imposed rebus sic stantibus {{emdash}} because they are not meant as punishment {{emdash}}; this means that when a change in the circumstances which originally justified the imposition of a block has occurred, an admin can legitimately lift it. <p>Additionally, admins can (and should) unblock an editor, when it is clear that the block was entirely unreasonable or its imposition violated one of Misplaced Pages’s policies, such as ].From my experience, these are very rare occurrences, however. {{small|And they apply to all admin actions, not just blocks.}} <p>When, on the other hand, an admin has imposed a reasonable block in a case when another sysop, under the circumstances, would not have, the latter should not substitute his discretion to that of his colleague and should seek a consensus before acting, instead. <p>These, however, are merely the best current best practices {{emdash}} or, actually, the way I have always intended them to be {{emdash}}. The only relevant policy, here, is ] and it was not violated. <p> In this case, in my opinion, Bongwarrior’s block was reasonable {{emdash}} which does not mean I would have done the same, but I acknowledge his actions were grounded in policy {{emdash}} and should not have been reversed so quickly by Black Kite. <p>That said, I don’t think anybody should be sanctioned. Mark has already apologised and, since what he did was incredibly out of character, I’d personally think that a ] is more than enough: I’m sure he won’t do anything like this again. Black Kite did not violate any policy when he chose to unblock Malleus, even though I think his actions were unwise. And, to be fair to Malleus, he reacted badly only because he thought his complaint was not being taken seriously and, furthermore, he felt baited. He should not have reacted the way he did, but had he been a different editor, he’d probably only have received a warning. It’s not fair to enforce a policy in such an unequal way. That is why I urge the Committee to reject this case. Nothing constructive can come of this case, in my opinion: it will just drag on for weeks, allowing all participants to throw mud at each other, and will probably only result in a couple of reminders, admonishments and cautions. Since ArbCom cannot make policy, only the community can solve the problem, by discussing the greater issue of how ] and ] should be enforced, because until we have an objective way of dealing with incivility, one that is applied to all regardless of who they are, we risk perpetuating a system of selective enforcement which only targets the same individuals. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Lothar von Richthofen === | |||
| I do not see the need for a case here. This is a pedestrian, uninteresting situation where one party "got the other's goat" with a nasty remark, prompting the now-goatless party to fire off a base insult at the livestock-snatcher. This was then turned into a circus on the noticeboard, and the rest is history. | |||
| Bleeding community time and resources into some comprehensive "civility enforcement" plan is wasteful in the highest degree. Civility crusades ultimately breed the same toxic environment that these sorts of flame-wars do by creating a stifling, kindergarten-style environment where fear of getting whacked for the slightest off-colour remark prevents real discussion from taking place in the same way that flame-wars do. Contrary to Malleus's allegations made in the original thread, I don't see administrators emailing insults to "lesser editors" as being any sort of widespread issue here. Barring strong evidence of such a phenomenon, starting a case here would create much heat and virtually no light for what must be treated as an isolated incident. | |||
| Elen hits the nail on the head with her remark about civil POV pushing. I think that the community needs to drastically reassess its priorities here. In the end, incivility is not a great threat to the project's integrity, and simply resolving and reporting things in a level-headed manner is much more effective than jumping up on a soapbox and hollering about "the system, man". On the other hand, civil POV pushers exploit the civility-hysteria that is becoming ever more prevalent here by cloaking their systemic disruption of ''the actual encyclopaedia'' in a collegial sugarcoat, so that when they are brought into question, suspicion may be easily deferred by squawking "AGF! AGF!"—an acronym eagerly lapped up by those civility-purists. See for example ], who was finally banned this month after his civil POV-pushing metastasised to one too many topic areas, leaving behind a gigantic mess that will take the community a very long time indeed to clean up. | |||
| Is this ''really'' worth having a case about? ~~ ] (]) 23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Fozzie: Any topic-specific case (Climate Change, ARBPIA, etc.) is a very poor precedent to base something as vaguely- and variously-defined and broadly-relevant as "civility" on. With any of those cases, the bounds of acceptable behaviour are more readily identifiable. If an account pops up spouting radical anti-Israel rhetoric and goes revert-happy on a page within the bounds of ARBPIA, these are clearly unacceptable behaviours in such a contentious topic area. In any ideologically-charged situation where there are distinct factions, it is fairly easy to identify and cull out those who feel too strongly about it to contribute productively. Agenda-pushers are low-hanging fruit. But civility? Nope. Not really. Nobody here is advocating for the right to call people an ass-hat with impunity. But one person's natural expression of frustration may be another's grave insult. How are you going to define that? Clearly there are identifiable extremes (e.g. ]), but there is a vast grey area that is almost entirely dependent on personal sensitivity and sensibility. And there isn't a way to fairly divide that area and slap black and white paint on either side of the divide. If editors are afraid to use even a slightly snippy phrasing because they fear sanction, you will have strangled the discussion environment of the project. | |||
| :Moreover, the kind of civility pogroms that you propose tacitly condone civil POV pushers who pose far more of a threat to the integrity of the project. If your main priority is not defending the quality of the encyclopaedia but making sure nobody's feelings get hurt, you have created an environment where it becomes acceptable to push whatever fringe bullhockey you please as long as you do it nicely (AGF! AGF!). You will have destroyed the encyclopaedic worth of the project. | |||
| :Civility may be one of the 5 pillars, but that does not preclude the existence of any design flaws in the architecture of the project. And besides, if you try and enforce a decree using a huge pillar, you're bound to crush many a bystander. ~~ ] (]) 02:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Carrite === | |||
| I won't say this is much ado about nothing, because it has all sorts of juicy Wikidrama plots and subplots. I will say that Arbcom should give this one a miss and not take the case. There has been a lot of shrillness, but things seem to have worked themselves out without the need for a bitter 6 week case with 150,000 words of testimony and opinion. But one more thing — why are the Block Logs of the involved Administrators not visible with a single click the way as are the Block Logs of involved non-Administrators at the top of this page??? A template clearly needs to be fixed, there should not be different treatments given to different categories of involved parties. Thanks, —Tim //// ] (]) 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by 28bytes === | |||
| What if they threw a ''festival dramatique de civilité'' and no one came? Be interesting to try it sometime. ] (]) 23:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Tijfo098 === | |||
| Nod to what Risker proposed: trouts al-round ''or'' nukes al-round. ] (]) 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Nick-D=== | |||
| A couple of things bother me here: | |||
| #Malleus abusing Mark for performing a routine and well justified administrative task and not receiving a lasting sanction for it. Mark is an excellent and highly civil editor and admin in good standing, and in no way deserved to cop that kind of language for simply doing his job. I certainly don't condone the initial email he sent, but I can understand his frustration, and his subsequent conduct in relation to this matter has been exemplary. | |||
| #Black Kite lifting Bongwarrior's block of Malleus after a mere 16 minutes of discussion, with no clear rationale for doing so given. His or her stated rationale posted at ] was "This is clearly a bad (or at least excessive) block. Would any other editor have been blocked for a week for a mildly incivil edit summary after being provoked?" - this is a statement of opinion (I personally think that another editor with Malleus' history of rude comments would be blocked for such a duration), and is contradictory; the block can't be either 'bad' or 'excessive' - a 'bad' block is totally unjustified, while an excessive block is a block which is justified but where the sanction is too severe (and the correct approach to an excessive duration block is to, after discussion, reduce the duration rather than lift the block together). This kind of unclear rationale for rapidly lifting a block which was the subject of discussion on a central noticeboard is pretty poor conduct. | |||
| As I think that it's pretty clear that the admin corps is unable to manage the situation around Malleus' conduct (which isn't helped by the abuse some of his supporters pour on any admin who tries to intervene), the committee should accept this case. This isn't going to go away. ] (]) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Beyond My Ken's suggestion (and their reasoning for this) that if a case is accepted here, it should focus solely on the actions of the involved editors and their histories, and not be another attempt to examine how to handle the rules around civility more generally. The 'civility enforcement' case earlier this year was something of a damp squib as the broad issue of civility isn't something the Committee is well placed to handle (even if it is within its remit) through a case, and the situation concerning Malleus is obviously rather unusual. This should also keep things simple; no-one appears to have disputed the chronology which Mark posted above, the subsequent admin actions are fairly clear-cut, and Malleus' positive and negative contributions were established in the previous case. ] (]) 08:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Short comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights=== | |||
| I don't normally bother to get involved in this, as I'm much more interested in dealing with real AE complaints over content (hey, who can argue that some of the I/P, AA, and ARBMAC articles aren't actually interesting to read?), but in this case I'll link to my comment ] (permalink . Note especially the second sentence of the second paragraph, which expresses the frustrations of an admin who wants the retarded bickering over whether one particular phrase is uncivil to ''just stop''. I have my own view on how to handle that, but I'm not going to bother posting it here because I know people ] on the matter. ] (]) 01:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from My76Strat=== | |||
| I am inclined to ask ArbCom to reject this case. Nevertheless, while it is under consideration, I think ] is directly related and at minimum ], and ] should be added as parties to this case. I will next notify them that I mentioned there names here. Thank you. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u> <small><sup>]</sup> da <sub>]</sub> da</small> (]) 02:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Confirmation that these parties are aware of this comment | |||
| *Avanu | |||
| *Beeblebrox | |||
| * I think the notion that we can't improve our collegial editing environment ranks in the top 3 most narcissistic things I have ever heard. All that is required to get it done is channeled directly to this page, right now. And all we would have to do is use our editing clue, and apply it as if the person we were writing to was a BLP subject and ask ourselves; "would that be allowed in someones bio?" If reasonably not; then BRD should apply. Meaning a good faith revert gets discussed before it goes back. The field levels in favor of producing quality documents. For example, I've asked to reduce his obfuscating text wall, which I think detracts from this discussion. I should not see Avanu's grief, if I shorten it myself summarizing wp:undue. The point is we already know what kind of prose is acceptable, let's quit pretending that we don't. And if we could edit these talk pages, the way we edit articles, we would end up with a much better product, and all the regulatory means are practically in place. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u> <small><sup>]</sup> da <sub>]</sub> da</small> (]) 04:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Heim=== | |||
| The notion that ArbCom can really solve the problem of civility is just not grounded in reality. Sanctions can be handed out in this case, yes, and if we '''really must''' (though I would far prefer the trout route), take the case for that reason. Setting up procedures to enshrine civility blocks is wrong on so many levels: it amounts to writing policy, which is outside ArbCom remit; it's always going to be subjective (last year I was just taken aback by the people who thought it was wrong to call someone an "arse", but OK to call them "narrow-minded"; to me, the latter is clearly the more rude of the two); and it encourages gaming, just as Elen says (a great way for civil POV pushers to get enemies out of their way). ] ] 03:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Steven Zhang=== | |||
| I would strongly encourage the Arbitration Committee to accept this case for a few reasons, but also with a qualifier. While the Arbitration Committee ] create policy, it's decisions may interpret existing policy and create measures and processes to enforce these policies. It also falls under the scope of the committee as an intractible dispute that the community has been unable to resolve (the dispute being how to handle problems with incivility). The noticeboard method (being ]) has been tried, tested, and binned. Uneven application of policy is the problem here, and I believe only the Arbitration Committee can guide here. I doubt that any decision made would be a popular one, but as members of the committee I doubt any of you sought election to be popular. Please accept this case and assist the community to bring some sanity to this long-standing issue. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 03:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Beyond My Ken=== | |||
| A few observations which the committee may or may not find useful: | |||
| *It seems generally agreed that Malleus is a valuable content creator whose work substantially improves the encyclopedia; | |||
| *It's been my observation, and this also seems to be generally agreed on, that Malleus is quite often uncivil and, in fact, seems to go out of his way to provoke incivility, to which he responds with more incivility; | |||
| *I have in my time suggested that Malleus "shut the fuck up", to which he responded that I should also "STFU"; | |||
| *I don't know how Malleus felt about my remark, but I did not particularly take offense at his response; | |||
| *Because I work in the theatre, which is often a meritocracy in which artistic value is seen as justifying a difficult personality, I have no particular problem with a "double standard" in which valuable contributors are given more behavioral leeway than less productive editors - we are, after all, here to help build an encyclopedia, and Malleus does that, despite his drawbacks; | |||
| *The current contretemps seems like nothing more than a run-of-the-mill Malleus-related incident - the only real question would appear to be why Malleus felt it necessary to open an AN/I after he had already (snidely) accepted an apology; | |||
| *The answer to this question would appear to lie in Malleus' psychology, which is somewhat beyond the scope of the committee; | |||
| *Malleus' proclivity towards outbursts of incivility has been encouraged and enabled by the coterie of admins who will generally unblock him if other editors see fit to block him; | |||
| *This make anything involving Malleus a difficult case; | |||
| *In American law, it is said that "Difficult cases make bad law"; | |||
| *If the committee, or, at least some of its members, is interested in setting standards for general incivlity, I suggest that any case involving Malleus is a bad starting point, because of his rather unique situation as a meritocratic-deserving editor protected by sympathetic admins; | |||
| The bottom line, then, is that taking on a case involving Malleus for the purpose of reviewing incivility policy is not a good idea, given all the peculiar circumstances surrounding him. The committee should accept the case only if it has the intention of dealing '''''specifically''''' with the behavior of the participants. If, instead, the purpose of the committee is to deal in a general way with uncivil behavior, this case is not the best starting point. ] (]) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I see that I left out one important item: I would be in favor of the committee clarifying incvility policy so that there was a clearer standard which editors could aim to adhere to and admins could enforce. I believe the committee has the power to do that, since it would not be making policy, it would simply be interpreting the ur-policy Pillar #4. I simply do not believe that a case involving Malleus (or the several other "untouchable" editors) is a good starting point. That's as much an issue of '''''practicality''''' as anything else. ] (]) 07:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Short comment from The ed17 === | |||
| Blocking everyone would be completely punitive and useless. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 07:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Short comment from the frequently uncivil AndyTheGrump === | |||
| What has this to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? Not a lot from what I can tell. We don't have to like each other to contribute. We don't even have to pretend to like each other - it is arguably pointless to do this anyway, since we know it may be a pretence. '''Unless being rude to each other affects article content, it doesn't affect Misplaced Pages.''' On this basis, can I suggest that those who care about what our readers read go and write something for them, and those who don't, find some other platform for their obsessions. ] (]) 08:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Short comment from IRWolfie- === | |||
| Incivility drives away other editors. It doesn't directly affect wikipedia articles, but it does do so indirectly. Malleus Fatuorum's block log makes for interesting reading, he is frequently blocked, but then another admin always seems to go and unblock him almost immediately. Why would he need to be civil when he's got such good friends? I think looking at this issue further is warranted, if Arbitration doesn't look at the issues the drama will continue with the next incident. ] (]) 09:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Short comment from completely uninvolved Kerfuffler === | |||
| I concur with IRWolfie-. I have no previous interaction with Malleus that I can recall, but looking at his edit history and block log, it's patently clear that the fourth pillar is not being maintained in his case, and the community has been ineffective at fixing that. —{{SubSup|] |]|]}} 10:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Drmies: That argument fails for one clear reason: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Nobody has any reason to believe Mark will commit further such actions, while they have every reason to believe Malleus will. Ergo, by policy, a block against Mark would be completely inappropriate. —{{SubSup|] |]|]}} 05:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Worm That Turned=== | |||
| There's little I can say here, because I quite simply do not have time to look into the facts of the case. As such, I'm in no position to judge who said what to who and why. However, regarding the general case, I don’t see how Arbcom can do anything. Civility is a social construct, one which evolves within a group of peers and most certainly cannot be defined by a committee in one small corner of the internet. If you cannot define civility, any judgement is subjective and so any enforcement is not even-handed. Since even-handedness is valued so highly on Misplaced Pages, the only way to be even handed is to be draconian with sanctions, such as those Risker suggested. Who knows, it might work. The culture needs changing, and a culture shock might be the way to do it. Is it the right thing to do? No. The right thing to do is to change the culture of Misplaced Pages so it's naturally more civil. To do that, we first need to clearly define a civility policy, making it overly strict if necessary. Can we do that? Well, that’s what Arbcom asked of us 8 months ago… and I don’t see one yet. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Tarc=== | |||
| I believe that it is time for us to affirm the de facto reality in this project; civility enforcement is a failed ideal. It is only enforced against those who are unable to play the Misplaced Pages rules to their advantage, the new and/or the anonymous IP user, or those who simply don't have enough friends. | |||
| You cannot police the manners and etiquette of millions of anonymous users. ] (]) 12:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Fozzie, show me a time in human history where draconian measures have actually worked in the long run. The euphoria you'd feel in the beginning as you righteously smite the n'er do wells into dust will soon fade as the reality sets in; this is all you will now ever do. Recall that the community just mothballed ]; it just doesn't work. ] (]) 21:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Reply by Dr. Blofeld=== | |||
| '''@AndyTheGrump''' Agree completely. Focus on content not people folks!!♦ ] 13:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===statement from Beeblebrox=== | |||
| Since ArbCom cannot make policy there is not much it can do about the broader issues at play here. The incident that sparked all this hysteria is pretty much done and over, so I don't see any point in accepting this case and think the idea of an epic round of trout slaps is a sufficient response that gives this incident the level of consideration it deserves. ] (]) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| For the record I have just opened ]. I have little hope that it will resolve these issues but since it is the community, not arbcom, who is charged with establishing standards and policies it is our only way forward as far as I can see. ] (]) 04:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Bullet points from Bbb23=== | |||
| *I was not involved in the ] thread. | |||
| *ArbCom should not take this case per, in order of appearance, Nobody Ent, Dennis Brown, Rschen, MBisanz, Lothar, 28bytes (he didn't say it but I liked his comment), and Beeblebrox. Also, "bad facts make bad law" (dovetails with MBisanz's brief comment). | |||
| *Mark should be rewarded for his lucid summary of the events. He should also be rewarded for apologizing. Finally, he should be rewarded for making grammatical "errors", which permitted Malleus to point them out and probably appeased/pleased Malleus more than the apology. More seriously, he shouldn't be sanctioned for a lapse of judgment when there's absolutely no preexisting pattern of problematic behavior. | |||
| *Except for the long-term Malleus issues and the interminable discussions about civility, ''this'' "case" is over and should be declined.--] (]) 00:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from tangentially involved Alexandria=== | |||
| {{facepalm}} This again? <font face="comic sans ms">] <small>]</small></font> 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from uninvolved Ebe123 === | |||
| I think the case could be resolved by motion. Civility is an important policy on Misplaced Pages, and there should be more action to keep peace on-wiki. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Cla68 === | |||
| Just a comment on civility in general...the civility policy could and should be better and more evenly enforced. One reason it isn't is because there just aren't currently enough active administrators to deal with that and everything else that requires admin attention. What percentage of complaints currently brought to ANI get effectively addressed? 50%? 35%? So, even if ArbCom was to take this case and mandate that WP's admin corps tighten up on the civility enforcement, it would still be unevenly enforced. Therefore, this is a symptom of a deeper problem, which is not enough active administrators. Deal with the deeper, causitive problem first. ] (]) 04:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Drmies. Whenever admins do react to a civility situation, it seems like they are reinventing the wheel each time, because there aren't enough organizational inertia and custom to guide them. More active admins = more reactions to more situations over time, creating norms and customs, both in editor behavior and admin behavior, which makes future actions more routine and consistent. Furthermore, there are plenty of other instances of incivility that haven't been addressed. ] (]) 06:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Drmies=== | |||
| Totally involved, no doubt, in some ways, according to some people. I don't think the problem is not enough admins--it's rather a couple of too-active admins. The Malleus block was unwarranted, and that no one saw fit to block Mark Arsten on sight is telling. I wouldn't have blocked Mark, but I wouldn't have blocked Malleus either. Mark doesn't seem to have a pattern of flying off the handle, and he handled the fall-out well; still, it was a ridiculous outburst, and he doesn't need me to tell him that. At any rate, that no block on Mark was considered seriously only reinforces Malleus's widely-known and publicized impression that we admins (the generalization is accepted for rhetorical purposes) take care of our own in ways we don't take care of others. The perception there is an MF fanclub or a posse, of which I am probably a member, is easily explained by supposing its opposite, that there is a club of h8rs, and there are diffs to support that theory as well, real juicy ones. But that's just trying to fight fire with fire, or putting it out with gasoline--unhelpful.<p>I don't like civility blocks in the first place unless in extreme circumstances, and "arsehole" isn't extreme; I'm sitting on one and will call him out for it if needs be--an admin emailing an insult is much more serious. In many cases, a civility policy (ours or any other) is simply unenforcable and often no action is taken, and that's not the worst that could happen. I wish we (our elite corps of highly responsible admins, held to higher standards, supposably) were even more selective in our application of the current policy. In other words, ArbCom probably has better things to do than take this up. ] (]) 05:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@pablo, I agree with you on the grammatical issue, and I say that not to merely show my impeccable neutrality. ] (]) 14:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Kerfluffler: "Nobody has any reason to believe Mark will commit further such actions, while they have every reason to believe Malleus will." That's putting the cart before the horse and it shows that you come to this with your mind made up. One wonders who "nobody" is and who "they" are. ] (]) 17:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Veterinary diagnosis from pablo === | |||
| I don't think this horse will be resurrected by further smiting. And there's nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. ] 08:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Littleolive oil=== | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not punitive. Misplaced Pages must be in the business of retaining editors and rehabilitating them if they make mistakes. If an admin with a good record makes a stupid mistake and humbly and sincerely apologizes, the community's job in this instance is done. Seems to me, we apply sanctions when editors are in danger of damaging or need a break from the project, when they refuse to fall into step with community standards after a mistake clearly indicating they may do the same again. Much of what I read here has to do with a punishment modality. Although we have to discriminate between the seriousness of the mistake and the damage it caused, more importantly what we have to see is how a good editor deals with a mistake and whether he or she can be absorbed back into the community in a productive way. If an editor cross's some line and treats another ediotr with disrespect either knowlingly or not, that he can apologize and recognize the mistake, creates a learning situation and environment. | |||
| If you deal with the mistakes made by a young human being with out any regard for how they have behaved in the past, a clue for how they will behave in the future, you will only end up with resentment. If that young person apologizes, and recognizes the mistake you have a better human being on your hands, more mature and better able in the future to handle whatever triggered the mistake in the first place. The same works for adults. | |||
| Civility is abstract, amorphous and how defined often based on cultural and social norms. What underlies it is respect and possibly kindness. What our civility policy lacks is an emphasis on wording which underlines that unless there is respect for other human beings there is no collaboration and no true community. Maybe until that time admins need more clearly defined guides for how to deal with an obvious lack of respect in one editor for another. At the same time delineating the mistake and how the editor responds to the mistake are critical elements in determining what best serves a community. Idealistic probably, and now, once again, climbing down off soapbox. | |||
| PS I am relatively tired of the phrase Arbitartion must have teeth, more aggressive language for what arbitration really needs and seems to me works hard to implement and that is discrimination. Calling for teeth is a bit like calling for the witch to be drowned, maybe we can say arbitration needs to have a cat's claws; they can drawn or withdrawn when then occasion calls for them. (] (]) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| ===Comment by Sandstein=== | |||
| I'm happily uninvolved in all that has been going on, but I have a request. Could the ArbCom please start handing out lengthy bans to the habitually incivil users mentioned in this and similar cases? The community on its own is patently unable to ensure a civil and professional working environment, thanks largely to the second-mover unblock advantage that allows the enablement of persistently disruptive conduct by popular individuals by irresponsible administrators. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by MLauba=== | |||
| If some of the committee's members are serious about enforcing civility more strictly, perhaps the first place to start would be to draw the line on respecting ] and ] in arbitration requests such as the present one. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 07:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MastCell === | |||
| We don't know the best way to promote civility, but we know what ''doesn't'' work. Blocks don't make people more civil. ArbCom cases don't resolve civility problems (instead, they typically compound them by transforming potentially minor dust-ups into massive long-term grievances). We're using the wrong tools here. Trying to improve civility using blocks and ArbCom sanctions is like trying to put in a screw with a sledgehammer because we can't be bothered to look for a screwdriver. | |||
| Insofar as there's a "right" way to improve civility, it probably involves some combination of ignoring people (or otherwise indicating social disapproval) when they act like jerks, and ''modeling civil behavior ourselves''. The latter is key, but it's also a lot harder than making sanctimonious pronouncements about civility or pressing the block button. | |||
| You don't need to look further than this request to see our typical hypocritical approach to civility on display. For example, you have an Arbitrator who moralizes that civility needs to be treated as importantly as BLP and copyright issues (). But when that Arbitrator personally encounters a challenging editorial interaction, he condescendingly suggests that the other editor must be mentally ill (, ). ''That's'' the problem - people are too ready to moralize when they're sitting in judgement of others, and too unwilling to actually live up to the standards they espouse and model civil behavior in their own interactions. | |||
| Perhaps it's not fair to single out that particular Arbitrator (although I sort of think it is, given the high profile of the position and the need to set a good example). But that sort of hypocrisy about civility is pandemic here, and it's why my immediate reaction is an eye-roll when Wikipedians talk about civility. People either need to hold themselves to the standards they demand of others, or make the same allowances for others that they make for themselves. Failing that, all the ArbCom cases in the world aren't going to advance the cause of civility. If the goal is to foster a more civil environment, then don't take this case. Instead, do your part in the community to model civility (or ''keep'' doing your part, as a lot of Committee members are excellent role models of civility). It will be a better use of time and effort. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by The Devil's Advocate=== | |||
| So, looks to me like basically things played out like this: | |||
| *Malleus made a reasonable oppose vote on promoting an article to FA status, an article that really did need more work before it should be considered an FA. | |||
| *The editor nominating the article complains about Malleus at ANI over the discussion there, though there is no obvious incivility. | |||
| *Mark closes the ANI case with a comment about the oppose vote that apparently confuses Malleus as to the statement's intent/meaning. | |||
| *Malleus notes this using vulgar wording. | |||
| *Mark explains what he meant and apologizes. | |||
| *Mark leaves a talkback message. | |||
| *Malleus removes it because he doesn't like talkback messages. | |||
| *Mark leaves a regular comment asking Malleus to respond on Mark's page. | |||
| *Malleus says he sees no need to respond. | |||
| *Mark sends an angry e-mail, apparently frustrated with Malleus not responding to the comment on Mark's page. | |||
| *Mark sends another e-mail apologizing for the first e-mail and then says he will "stay away" from Malleus. | |||
| *Malleus complains about the first e-mail. | |||
| *Jtrainor tells Malleus to "grow a thicker skin" and accuses Malleus of deliberately provoking Mark in order to make a scene. | |||
| *Malleus calls that editor an arsehole and gets blocked for a week, but is quickly unblocked by Black Kite. | |||
| Not really seeing the need for another ArbCom case on Malleus. Maybe Mark wanted Malleus to acknowledge his apology and reciprocate in some fashion, but lashed out when Malleus did not. I think the situation is quite ridiculous and silly. Anyone trying to turn this into some massive controversy should be slapped with a wet fish.--] (]) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by ThatPeskyCommoner=== | |||
| Fer Heavens' sakes, chaps and chapesses! Really, how pathetic is all this? Storm in a teacup doesn't even come close. Yay! Let's nuke London {{endash}} it'll solve the litter problem! ] (]) 17:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)<p>Adding: if anyone thinks it would be fair, even-handed or correct to ban ''Malleus'' for using swearwords (fuck, cunt, or arse) then '''absolutely everyone''', first offence or not, should be treated '''exactly the same''' for using the exact same words. Personally, I think we could perhaps become a little less over-reactive to four-letter words. There are more important things in life to get our collective knickers in a twist over.] (]) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by BorisG=== | |||
| I would like to comment on just one aspect of this saga. Many editors and at least one Arb have commented that it would be fruitless to accept the case because the question is one of policy, and ArbCom does not make policy. This position is misguided. This is not a question of policy, but a question of enforcement of an existing plicy. Not just policy, but one of the pillars. It is entirely within the ArbCom mandate to enforce it. The problem is that the community and ArbCom are split on whether this policy should exist (some say it failed, and others say it is ok but not enforceable). I am not sure we need this saga, and whether this case, if accepted, will prgress the issue of enforcement, but it is entirely within the Arbcom mandate to enforce it. - ] (]) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Coren=== | |||
| Can the Committee ''please'' take that blasted case and ''finally'' try to set down some ruling on whether the fourth pillar is should at last be taken out back and put out of its misery or if we're finally going to start to do something except gesture vaguely in its direction ''when it's convenient'' and wring our hands impotently the rest of the time? | |||
| Historically, the Committee (as a group) has done nothing but pay hollow lip service to civility – no doubt following the lead(!) of the community in so doing. Either we have a fourth pillar, or we do not. We need to stop pretending one way or the other eventually. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by The Red Pen Of Doom=== | |||
| Anyone who saw this ] and had any reaction other than "We will be right back at the ArbCom with THIS case" is an idiot or a liar. | |||
| What do we expect from the ArbCom? Get a fucking backbone and "impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" -- ] 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *All editors are reminded to edit only in their own sections --] | ] 20:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/0/5) === | |||
| <small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *Awaiting statements, which ideally should address whether a useful outcome could result if a case is accepted, and if so, what it might be. ] (]) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **''Frustrated aside.'' If, as is said, events occur first time as history and the second time as farce, what do we call the seventh time? The only novel issue here is whether we should place one or more of the parties on split infinitive parole. | |||
| **More seriously, I am still waiting for concrete guidance from anyone on what they would actually like for the Committee to ''do'' if we accept this case. I don't think we would sanction Mark Arsten for what appears so far to be a one-time lapse from standards for which he apologized, and I don't envision a consensus to ban Malleus for this particular episode (although he should have known perfectly well that he was creating the very type of distraction from content creation that he claims to despise), so what ''would'' we do? I'm open to voting to accept if someone suggests a reasonable answer, but not otherwise. ] (]) 23:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline'''. This situation has blown over and I don't think it would be useful to rehash it for another month via a full case, and I can't possibly support the modest proposals that have been suggested for motions. I am of course frustrated by the fact that these situations keep arising (when I first saw this thread on AN, my reaction was that it must be a slow night on the noticeboards so they are putting on a re-run), and everyone concerned has really go to do better. See also my comments on the Civility RfC that Beeblebrox has opened. ] (]) 14:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Not even sure where to start with this. I have a few questions - principally what Alanscotwalker (or indeed anyone) is expecting to happen here. Why Malleus waited so long to start the AN is a more specific one. He's alluded to Mark Arsten sending another email, which one would presume was also offensive in some way to Malleus. Do we know what that one said? What else had Malleus said by email? Is there any evidence of Mark threatening to block Malleus, not just tell him to eff off and die or whatever? Does anyone think it a good idea to block Mark Arsten? Why did Bongwarrior think it a good idea to block Malleus, and why did Black Kite think it a good idea to unblock? My usual position is that when editors who interact regularly go off at the deep end with each other, trouts all round is all that is needed. I honestly think it's much less damaging to the project than say civil pov pushing (which so easily turns into civil button pushing - oh look, just got another editor out of my way). --] (]) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just to be clear (since Malleus has questioned it elsewhere) I was trying to work out why, having apparently accepted Mark's apology on Thursday, Malleus then reported him to AN on Sunday, and I wondered if there had been other emails in the intervening period, with no intended implication as to their content. ] (]) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline ''' Elvis has clearly left the building, and this isn't the case to start a civility pogrom over. If there is any chance that the community could manage a structured RfC without killing each other, Courcelles idea may have some legs.--] (]) 12:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * While I generally agree with Elen that trouts all around would be generally applied in situations like this, after a while we have to realize that trouts just won't work. So, we're here.. and now we have to decide whether this is trout worthy, and whether a trout will solve the issues we're facing. ] (]) 17:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **@Tarc: No, I'm not prepared to throw one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages out the window. In fact, thinking about this over the last few hours.. I'm led to think the opposite. Perhaps its time that we came down on incivility really hard. We've tried every thing short of harsh measures.. perhaps it's time to be more then a little bit draconian. ] (]) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***Tarc: Climate Change, for one. Also the Troubles (not saying I personally agree with every action taken in either of those areas, but harsh actions taken in those areas have lessened the drama). ANother example I can think of where dramatic, draconic action was taken where it seemed to work out pretty well is Scientology. It's not like it's unusual in history.. (how about ]'s famous line, famously requoted by RFK. "and where they make a desert, they call it peace." So, we apparently have two less then ideal extreme choices. One is to "make a desert and call it peace" in an area, and ban several useful people to the encyclopedia, in the name of improving the environment to BUILD the encyclopedia, and the other extreme is to throw out one of the five pillars Misplaced Pages is supposed to be built on, and that is civility. I find the first slightly less unpalatable then the second. I'm just looking for something short of it to solve the issues, and drawing a blank so far. ] (]) 04:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''decline''' - the situation had settled down (in a fashion), with the two original antagonists moving on, when it was revived again on Jimbo's talk page. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting statements, but I intend to vote for accepting this request. In ''Civility enforcement'', we released an extensive collation of advice about fair criticism, involved and uninvolved administrators, and civility; we also made a general reminder to administrators (about precisely this sort of project-space drama) and admonished Malleus about his conduct. Evidently it was inadequate to give a narrative, advisory decision, and the community may require more effective action—frankly, for too long has this type of thing has been stealing our editors' time. However, I withhold my vote (for now) because I don't imagine rushed action will serve a modicum of good, and because I would like to hear thoughts from more of the community about the usefulness of arbitration to the present dispute. ] ]] 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Decline''' at this time. However, I think we would have to take into account, in any subsequent request for arbitration about the disputants in the current matter, the unprofessional stirring up of unhelpful drama by certain disputants that we have observed here this week. I am certain that some of the disputants are directly contributing to the negative, uncollegial atmosphere that plagues Misplaced Pages today, and in my mind site-banning is the only remedy that could realistically neutralise the problem posed by the presence of these editors on the English Misplaced Pages. Also, as was suggested above, it may well be a good idea to open a general reflection on civility might be a good idea: I do not believe this committee ever intended to lead that reflection through an arbitration case. ] ]] 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Accept''' This is not about Malleus or Mark or any one particular admin or editor, it's about the ] and the abject and long-standing failure of the community to uphold it. It's really time to implement civility remedies with the same relative level of importance and expectation of adherence as our BLP and copyright policies, as uncomfortable as that may be. I'd even be willing to stipulate, prior to opening, that no individual sanctions will be forthcoming, if that's what it takes to help the community establish a clear set of expectations for all that can be applied going forward. And yes, I know the committee has failed to do so multiple times in the past; maybe now is the right time. ] (]) 20:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I see two options here, neither of which are an Arbcom case. Since the entire episode is encapsulated in a single ] thread, there is no evidence to collect and no workshopping to do. Instead, we can go with a single, all–encompassing motion as follows: | |||
| **Malleus Fatuorum and Jtrainor are blocked for six months for incivility. Mark Arsten is blocked for six months for incivility. . Mark Arsten is desysopped for conduct unbecoming an administrator. Bongwarrior is desysopped for making an egregiously bad block of one party in an uncivil exchange while failing to give even a warning to the second party, when the matter was already under discussion at an administrator's noticeboard and and Bongwarrior himself acknowledged that the block was controversial. | |||
| :Or we could do trouts all around, as follows: | |||
| **Malleus Fatuorum is trouted for crying into his beer about a non–public insult for which he had already received an apology. | |||
| **Mark Arsten is trouted for using Wikimedia email to insult a user. | |||
| **Jtrainor is trouted for incivility and deliberately provocative behaviour. He should consider himself very lucky not to have been blocked. | |||
| **Bongwarrior is trouted for making an egregiously bad block of one party in an uncivil exchange while failing to give even a warning to the second party, when the matter was already under discussion at an administrator's noticeboard and Bongwarrior himself acknowledged that the block was controversial. | |||
| :So folks....which way should it be? Should we shoot EVERYONE, or just say that the matter is resolved with trouts all around? ] (]) 23:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The simplicity of either option has its appeal, Risker, but I think we're called upon to solve the things that the community has tried and failed to solve itself. Sanctioning the users involved here per your initial proposal would be just... but would it actually accomplish anything for the wider community as a whole? No, rather than blocks or trouts, what I think we need to do is hammer out (in public, with community input) and issue some principles, expectations, and expected consequences for the ''next'' time something like this crops up. ] (]) 23:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jclemens, the community ''has'' resolved this. The ] thread is closed. If you want to build a civility policy to your liking, Arbcom cases are not the place to do it. Every one of those I've named above has crossed an existing civility or admin action line. We either sanction them or we don't. If we sanction them, then we already know that shorter civility blocks are completely ineffective and normally result in the blocked editor becoming ''more'' uncivil, so giving a short block is almost guaranteed to result in greater disruption in the future. And the only way to stop cowboy adminship (or behaviour unbecoming an admin) is to remove those tools. So, if you want to make it a lesson, go for the motion: I'm pretty sure it will have a greater effect than a two-month-long case that resolves nothing will have. ] (]) 23:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I was going to go for a single motion to improve civility on the project, it would be something along the lines of "Civility blocks placed by any administrator may only be overturned by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Administrators believed to be abusing civility blocks shall be referred to the committee for review." You're looking at a specific case; I'm looking for a structural reform. How can we best change the environment to stop this from happening every month or two? It's not just about Malleus, but about the culture that tolerates incivility and excuses it--or worse, applies it inconsistently and haphazardly. ] (]) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And in what way would six-month civility blocks on all three uncivil users not give exactly the same message? That would, indeed, set the standard for civility blocks. (And again, everyone knows that short civility blocks do not have a positive effect and almost always lead to greater incivility down the road.) Frankly, Bongwarrior's block was the worst part of this entire episode, not so much because he blocked Malleus, but that he blatantly ignored the incivility of Jtrainor in order to block Malleus ''over a matter that was already being discussed on the Admin noticeboard''. Note the italics: he was superimposing his personal opinion over that of the community already discussing the situation, most of whom were admins — and he knew it was controversial. There was absolutely no reason for him to make that block without consultation in advance; a better solution would have been to remove Jtrainor's and Malleus' comments and warn them both. Frankly, if we were to pick out one thing amongst all of these events that should result in a sanction, this would be the one. And for the record, in my mind, the number two would be using the Wikimedia email function to verbally abuse another editor; we usually block with email access disabled for that. ] (]) 01:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't disagree with your assessment of the specifics of the case; like I said, I would support your first suggestion. I would rather that the outcome give a bit more guidance than that--While the intended outcome would be clear to you and me, it's been brought to my attention (e.g., post Timid Guy case) that editors who are not intimately involved in the arbitration process may not know what to make of our penalizing specific folks, hence my desire for explicit guidance, vs. inferred guidance from penalties issued. ] (]) 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So we need to go through two months of a steady stream of incivility (which pretty much characterizes most of our case pages) when the evidence is already immediately available and there is nothing new to add, to say "don't be uncivil"? That's already what the civility policy says. Six month blocks all around for incivility will make the point, without all the vacillation that happens when we get to the proposed decision long after everyone's forgotten what really happened. ] (]) 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Fundamentally, hearing unpleasant cases is what all of us signed up to do: even in the throes of election season, even with some inactive teammates. You think this can be handled without one; I think a case is the best way forward, and we'll see how the rest of the committee stands on it. Having said that, I don't agree that the historical unpleasantness is necessary; the fact that we as a body have tolerated it is itself a problem that I would not like to see repeated. ] (]) 02:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, Jclemens, hearing unpleasant cases is not what we signed up to do: we signed up to be the people who stop the dispute in its tracks. When we don't need cases to do that, we should not do that. As to the historical unpleasantness, it is essentially impossible to have a case about incivility without discussing and providing tons of examples of incivility. Of course, we could just take my suggestion of blocking for six months everyone who is uncivil, but then that would negate the point of having a case. ] (]) 02:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''. The incident starts . And that was allowed to pass without sanction because we didn't do enough ] to ensure that Malleus curbed his incivility. I feel partly responsible because I could see that the solutions in that case were not tackling the issues, and I didn't put forward a suitable remedy. We cannot let this incident pass because we cocked up last time and we're a bit embarrassed about it. That many of us like Malleus and appreciate what he can do should not hinder us from taking this case and hammering out a solution to prevent this sort of thing from happening in future. If someone has been admonished for uncivil conduct, and then repeats that behaviour such that we have a disruptive mess, we have to deal with it and do more than offer to wave wet fish about. And we also shouldn't dismiss out of hand the blocking and the unblocking. There is a mess here that should not be swept under the carpet. ''']''' ''']''' 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi SilkTork, in what way does my proposal not address your concerns? If incivility is a problem, it's a problem with Malleus' chronicity, Jtrainor's baiting, and Mark Arsten's abusing Wikimedia email. (I don't buy the "first offense" stuff, if people want a line in the sand then the same sanctions should apply regardless. That way we significantly discourage first offenses.) I'm not sweeping anything under the carpet; in fact, I'm putting it out there in the sunshine, along with the expectations for administrators. Why do we need to spend two months discussing this? ] (]) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adding here, short of either an indefinite or a time-limited ban for Malleus (both of which you opposed), I'm not sure what other sanctions you would have suggested in the prior case. We topic-banned him from the area where he was behaving most egregiously and we admonished him generally for his incivility. (]) So what other proposed sanctions do you have in mind? ] (]) 02:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Personally I'm not currently leaning toward accepting, but for the record, it is at least ''theoretically'' possible that we could (1) take the case, and (2) decide it in ''less than'' two months. :) Granted that's not how it usually goes with this sort of case, but we could try if we wanted, and I for one would certainly want. ] (]) 01:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand your desire, Newyorkbrad; however, the level of inactivity in several of our members, the distaste almost everyone on the committee has for even so much as reading the internecine warfare on workshop pages, and the fact that half the committee is about to be distracted by the community's discussion of the next Arbcom elections, leads me to believe that two months may be a conservative estimate. ] (]) 01:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The first of your proposals would be a huge net negative. This is an encyclopedia not a social club. We live in the real world and folks have dust ups and then get on with things. This is what was happening here. Other folks who re unhappy with civility enforcement in '''either direction''' will complain '''loudly'''. Much like notability, there is a tidal mark which works alot of the time. Any further attempt to fine-tune it will be fruitless and use up waht limited time we could be working on other issues. Note alot the discussion was done by people who had '''no role in the original dispute'''. ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *There is a long thread on the ArbCom email forum about this incident - a number of Committee members are strongly discussing the matter, and there is a fair amount of disagreement. The very fact that there is this protracted discussion and clear disagreement between Committee members indicates to me that we need a case to openly discuss the situation. I don't think we can reach an appropriate solution on the hoof, and time is needed. If we don't do it now we'll have to do it at some point. There are several issues here: | |||
| :1) Malleus | |||
| :2) Civility | |||
| :3) Blocking and unblocking | |||
| :These three things will crop up again - individually and together. | |||
| :If we look at these issues and try again to find a solution and fail, so be it. We can try again later. But if we don't even try to sort out this problem then we are sending a message to the community: | |||
| :1) We can't handle the situation | |||
| :2) We don't think the issue is important enough | |||
| :3) We don't want to do it (too much effort or time or because elections are coming up) | |||
| :4) We actually feel it's OK for valued contributors to behave badly | |||
| :5) Pull yourselves together - aren't you strong enough to handle a bit of incivility? | |||
| :At the heart of this is a user who has been sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility. He has been uncivil again, and as a result we have this situation. If we ignore that, then ArbCom has no teeth, and we might as well pack it in. | |||
| :As well as looking at Malleus we also need to closely examine and come to some consensus as to the conduct of the other parties. It is possible that after several months discussion that the end result will be Risker's sanctions all round - so be it; however, I would rather we reached that point after considered discussion than now in the heat of the matter, when the Committee are still divided and unsure, and before we have looked at the possibility of other solutions. I don't like the idea of preventing one of our most valued contributors from building the encyclopedia, but nor do I like the idea of simply shrugging it off when he causes this much waste of time and energy. Let's consider solutions: topic ban Malleus from everywhere except mainspace, his own talkpage, and FAC; ban Malleus from using swear words - fuck, cunt, arse, etc. Put civility blocks under AE, and ensure they can only be imposed by consensus, and only removed by consensus. There should never be a need to impose or remove a civility block so urgently that it cannot wait for a discussion. If a user is running amok on Misplaced Pages calling everyone a cunt, then that is disruption. Block them. But an insult in an edit summary can wait for a discussion. We need to reach agreement on an admin using Misplaced Pages email to insult someone. As Risker has pointed out on the ArbCom email forum, we tend to indef and remove talkpage and email facility from users who do that. However we need to take into account mitigation. This stuff takes time and evidence. We need a case. ''']''' ''']''' 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline, considering summary "block everyone" motion''' - This should have been dealt with in ''Civility enforcement''. Since it wasn't, and lo and behold we're here again, I find myself rather agreeing with Risker here, or rather her first option - banhammers all around, because people don't listen. If draconian measures are necessary to ensure that people on this project can speak to one another with even the slightest bit of respect, then so be it. Unfortunately, I do not see what can be gained from a full case here. We tried that with ''Civility enforcement'' and clearly it failed. The main problem is that we have no way to enforce novel, effective solutions to the Civility Problem, largely because we have no way of drawing a firm line in the sand to say when a particular comment is and is not civil. The context of a situation can easily move that line to be closer or further away from blatant incivility, and yet it seems there are some users who are skilled in being able to spot the line so they know how far they can go without crossing it - or at least crossing it far enough that there isn't someone who would unblock them. A few (bad) ideas spring to mind, but all are unequally unworkable: | |||
| **Requiring all administrators to refrain from blocking any user who is the subject of a noticeboard discussion without first obtaining consensus for the block - Will only serve to cause more drama, and creates problems when an admin sees what they think is a blockable edit on some unrelated page, only to find out later it was being discussed on ANI. | |||
| **Limiting participating in discussions of incidents at ANI or AN to administrators and those editors directly involved in the dispute - This would NEVER fly in the first place, and even if it did would only move discussion elsewhere, disenfranchise community members, prevent collaboration, and further distance us from the concept that adminship is "no big deal". | |||
| **Set up an edit filter to flag edits that contain potentially uncomplimentary words or phrases - First, this treats our own editors like vandals, and secondly, the English language is nothing if not remarkably inventive in the means with which it allows one person to insult another. | |||
| **Go all Big Brother/Civility Dictator on everyone and have administrators block any editor that makes a comment that could be construed in any way and to any degree as insulting, degrading, offensive, and/or sarcastic - ...and find that there's nobody left to edit the project or even issue those blocks. | |||
| :If anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears. Until then, play nice, for fuck's sake avoid drama, and go back to editing. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - I agree with Casliber that the situation had calmed down, and I think it could again. I'm intrigued by Hersfold's suggestion of blocking everyone, but similar to one of the options outlined by Risker, I'd prefer just to ] everyone instead. ] (]) 12:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I think you're being somewhat humorous, but just to clarify - I mean Risker's first option of "block these users for six months for incivility, desysop those admins for these reasons" plan. Although literally blocking everyone would be astonishingly effective at solving civility problems. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Really... what do y'all ''want'' us to do? Civility is an issue the community is split on, and ArbCom isn't here to settle great questions of policy. Say we take the case, and hand out a few sanctions of some form (to whom and how severe hardly matters for this argument), the underlying issue is one that, at absolute best, we would be able to launch an RFC on to settle in the vein or Ireland, Abortion, etc. At the end of the day, the "civility question" won't be answered until the community answers it -- short of the downright radical idea above of making all civility blocks AE blocks (and I suspect that would stop the reversals mostly, but more largely move the drama from ANI to AE) there's not likely to be answers coming out of any case, and without an underlying solution, this whole kit and caboodle is on repeat with different players. ]. Sorry for the "no actual vote" ramble.. I'll read everyone's comments again tomorrow, but another three month mess where after everything is said we vote on sanctioning everyone involved is beyond worthless. ] 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **To perhaps put that another way, I think Beeblebrox is on the right track, and that this thunderstorm in a teacup is hardly worth dragging out until December. Of Risker's two "solutions", one shoots everyone and serves no one (as I think she well intended), and the other is far more proportionate to this dust-up, but leaves the broader issue unresolved. I wonder if a simple motion asking for a broad examination of civility in a structured RFC might be far more useful than a case. ] 05:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Psychotherapies == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| * {{userlinks|Tijfo098}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| * {{userlinks|CartoonDiablo}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Widescreen}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Snowded}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Czarkoff}}, ''DRN volunteer'' | |||
| * {{userlinks|StillStanding-247}} | |||
| {{incomplete list}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * ANI reports: | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ANEW reports: | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * DRN discussions: | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * Article talk page discussions: | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] and ] | |||
| === Statement by Tijfo098 === | |||
| I'm asking ArbCom to help with the behavioral elements of a protracted dispute centered on three articles: ], ], and ]. Content-wise, the main element of this dispute is the insertion in all three articles of a table made by CartoonDiablo. The dispute has been raging since June 2012 at least. | |||
| By all appearances, CartoonDiablo has edited tendentiously in this dispute reinserting the table multiple times in the various articles despite objections by others. More recently he has turned | |||
| ] into ] (of the table) in order to circumvent the prior consensus achieved at DRN, as noted here by a volunteer . CartoonDiablo also wikilawyered over the policy/guideline distinction and has been ]ing, every time looking for a new venue after his arguments were found unconvincing by previously uninvolved editors and dispute resolution volunteers. He has also disputed the closure of the DRN discussion(s), exasperating some volunteers. See the DRN talk page discussion . | |||
| It appears that by his dogged persistence, CartoonDiablo managed to drive off most other editors who had objected. Or at least they gave up arguing with him. Widescreen however has edit warred over the insertion of a POV tag over the table. (see ANI and ANEW reports) Widescreen's communication style has not helped his case at all; this was pointed out to him in the last ANI discussion. After that, CartoonDiablo editwarred with Snowded over the same stuff . | |||
| I have not taken part in the content discussion itself and I haven't formed an opinion on who is right about the content, but I have commented on the behavioral aspects in other fora, like ANI. Unfortunately, the nature of ANI discussions, filled with digressions aplenty, made it impossible for admins to act on anything besides the edit warring. ] is not how content dispute resolution should work, I hope. I think ArbCom can easily stem the silliness with one or two topic bans. Given the ] nature of the behavioral aspects of the dispute, I don't think RfC/U(s) would make any progress in solving any of this dispute, but would just prolong it. ] (]) 10:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Minor update: Now that SGCM mentioned there were three DRNs, I managed to find the missing (middle) one and added it to the list of attempts to solve the dispute. ] (]) 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I've added ] as a party because in my opinion his participation in this matter has been mostly unhelpful, taking part in edit warring , and contributing mostly procedural quibbles on the ], e.g. | |||
| . I would not have added him otherwise, but one of the blocks of WSC was basically due to edit warring with CatoonDiablo + StillStanding-247. So StillStanding-247's involvement will have to be discussed in the case anyway. I also recently noticed that other editors have raised concerns about StillStanding-247's editing in other areas: . ] (]) 14:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| It looks like the problem with StillStanding-247 was resolved ]. ] (]) 12:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by czarkoff === | |||
| I'm not sure whether I am indeed a party to this dispute, as my participation is mostly limited to ] cases (with the only exception of {{diff2|514231844|this edit}} IIRC). Regarding the case: though I regard ]'s behaviour as ] and ], I don't think that the violations are severe enough for any administrative actions. In my opinion, the whole thing should be hammered in content dispute resolution. — ] (]•]) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Snowded === | |||
| <strike>I'm not sure its an Arbcom case.</strike> What we have here is one editor who is on a mission to promote CBT over other approaches. In pursuit of this they have created a table and inserted in many articles. Any independent editor who looked at in on the DR case said it was OR/Synth and inappropriate but that was not accepted by CartoonDiablo who simply either edit warred, then argued s/he had used an image not a table, and is now arguing s/he has created a better image. What was needed was for the admins who looked at the edit waring to check some of the history. Reverting an editor can be edit waring, but when that editor has been through DR and has been rejected its simply enforcing a community decision. Whatever it's evident that CartoonDiablo will not give up his/her solitary mission but I would have thought there is more than enough discussion on this for an admin to simply review and advise him/her of what synthesis/OR is about and the need to get consensus before inserting controversial material ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @SilkTorq We have had three DRs on this issue which involved extensive discussion of the content issues around the table/image. All editors concluded the table/image should be replaced with text. We have an editor here who will use every channel to pursue a solitary goal in the hope that other editors simply give up. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Widescreen === | |||
| I'm from german Misplaced Pages. Thats why my english is not the best. Initially I have to say, that I haven't any experience with the ARBcom. I know the german ]. I was never involved in such a proceed, but I know some jugedment of them. To cut the matter short: | |||
| I'm against any contentual judgement of such a instance. It's improbable that any member of the arbcom has enogh knowledge about psychotherapy research to decide the verdict. If I can, I would refuse a jugdement by the arbcom. | |||
| So far. The conflict starded with the adding of a table, wich was selfmade by user CartoonDiablo. He added it in two articles. 1 ], 2 ]. I reverted these alterations because it was clear to me, that the table represents the results of one study respectively govermental survey. That was not ballanced, because in psychotherapy research exists a lot of studies like this. Most of them with other results. It's one specification of this studie it trys to make a overview by select special findings in psychotherapy research. The study exclude other results who have a high relevance if you want to assess a psychothearpeutic treatment. The study itself is o.k. It's a reliable source. But if you mention only one study, the ballance is destroyed. It's not neccessary to cite these special survey because it recieves minor attantion by scientiffic circles. There are much better overwievs than this superficial one. | |||
| I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo but he doesn't understand that point and some edtiwars beginns. It was pure luck some other users gain attention on the conflict and also declared the problem to CartoonDiablo. | |||
| Than a unprecedented POV-Fight by CartoonDiablo beginns. 1. He circumvented the DRN-result what sayes the table should turn into prose by change the table into a . 2. Than he puts the picture back in the article. And wirtes some prose, which was 3. Than another editwar beginns. And CartoonDiablo puts the picture and the wrong prose in another articl, ]. 4. Now other users generously try to reverted the prose and the table out of articles. I was blocked once for a week. 5. Than in the next DRN CartoonDiablo trys to change the picture by add other results of other studies. Whereas the initally table was selfmade, you can't find this table in the survey. It is WP:OR. Now he trys to include more studies in his table to rescue it. | |||
| All in all CartoonDiablo trys to overstate the survey. Thats POV as POV can. The argumentation of CartoonDiablo is awful. He asserted wrong things everybody with a minor knowledge of psychotheray research knows. The last POV-act was to add the picture of the table and the wrong prose in an article about psychotherapy research . | |||
| As far as I am concerned, CartoonDiabolo should be blocked. He doesn't understand the main principes of wikipedia. But the main reason is, his behavior after he was confronted with his lack of knowledge of the issue by other users. That wasn't serious. And got only one aim: enforce his own POV. | |||
| --]<sup>]</sup> 12:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| One thing about the blame, my communication wasn't helpfull. I claim I know a lot about psychotherapy reserch. I'm not an real expert like a psychotherapy researcher, but I know enough to estimate such edits. I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo, but he won't accept the basic things I explain here above. There were no chance to have a target-aimed conversation. CartoonDiabolo always asserted things which were partially bloodcurdling nonsense. I'm also an experienced wikipedian. And I had such kinds of discussion already previously in this field in de:wp. There's no chance to have a real exchange with those kind of users. I had to repeat my arguments now 1. talk psychoanalysis, 2. talk CBT, 3. 1st DRN, 4. 2nd DRN 5. 3rd DRN, 6. 1st. noticeboard/incidents 7. 2nd noticeboard/incidents and now on an arbcom-case. I feel like a record. This all just because this user have an minor understandig of this research area and try to push this lousy study in different articles. A lot of other authors are also involved. Of course everyone has the right to be listend. Especially when it's about a putative POV-case. But I think everybody have to ask themself also if he really got the knowledge to dispute such thinks. | |||
| --]<sup>]</sup> 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by So God created Manchester === | |||
| Like Czarkoff, I'm an uninvolved editor that volunteers on DRN, and was involved in the second and third DRN requests as a third party editor. There have been concerns that CartoonDiablo has been tendentiously editing the ], ], and ] articles to promote cognitive behaviour therapy and criticise the competing approaches, psychoanalysis and family therapy. Although the survey he cites is considered reliable, he highlights the results of the study in a way that is neither ] or ], by using a table and image that gives the survey ] to promote a point view. The consensus was that the information should only be conveyed as prose, a consensus that, at least among the third party editors, was established in the second DRN case and further reinforced in the third. The source can be mentioned, but it must be done in a way that adheres to Misplaced Pages's core principle of ]. | |||
| I've further summarised the . I don't think ArbCom is necessary at this point, but the editor should be encouraged to ]. Although consensus can change over time, ] can reach the point where it is no longer constructive. --''']''' ] 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I concur with Nobody Ent and Beestra that bringing the dispute to RfC or MedCom first is a better option. There have been some conduct issues, but it's still primarily a content dispute.--''']''' ] 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @CartoonDiablo. The concerns raised in the DRN cases have been about neutrality, not the formatting or content of the image or table. <br> | |||
| @Hersfold. The information could be included as prose. The source is reliable. The major complaint in the DRN cases, as I recall, was the undue representation of the claims of the source, which favours cognitive behaviour therapy, by highlighting it with a large image or table. Articles should describe different points of view, but they should be fairly represented and given due weight.--''']''' ] 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Nobody Ent === | |||
| Content dispute, should be RFC'd before being brought to ArbCom. <small>]</small> 22:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Kirill, it is ''not'' the mandate of administrators to solve content disputes -- it's the mandate of the community. Failure to take action at ANI only means no admin action was appropriate, not that the community exhausted all means of dispute resolution (as explained far more eloquently by Beestra). <small>]</small> 12:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold Why should the community open an RFC -- they're kind of a hassle and take forever to resolve -- if they (or a subset of) can count on ArbCom to bail them out? ''If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now.'' is really poor reasoning. Given the the community has not been able to deal with ''two hundred and fifty thousand'' <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> tags, are ya'll get to get on that, too? Taking a premature case is going to encourage more such cases -- rejecting it will send a message to work harder until ''all'' other avenues have been exhausted. Don't be a ]. <small>]</small> 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Beetstra === | |||
| First, thank you AGK, SilkTork, Hersfold, NewYorkBrad and Elen of the Roads to avoid to repeat the recent case of railroading an editor by being overly greedy in accepting the case without waiting for statements. Unfortunately, we are only one accept vote short of accepting the case anyway, again without giving a decent time to all parties, and especially accused parties, to respond to the case (as I expected in a comment after the resolution of a previous case, 24 hours may be too short, editors may be away for a weekend, but that clearly does not matter in a case which is so pressing that a resolution is needed soon - it was mentioned there that that was a once off ...). Maybe the clue is in Hersfold's remark (though I am sure there are other things arbitrators can do than just fiddle their thumbs). | |||
| Regarding the need for a resolution, I do not see any attempt for an RfC to get outside input, I do not see any attempt to get mediation. The accused editor does not have any community sanctions regarding events that lead to this case, neither adminstrative sanctions were applied to the editor (e.g. the block log regarding events relating to this case). The community is far from exhausted in their methods to resolve the issue. The arbitration committee is not for the resolution of all disputes, it is there as a final step in the whole dispute resolution process, where all other steps have failed. Here, the last step until now is ], and as stated there "What this noticeboard is: It is an '''early step''' to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled...." (my emphasis). Get sufficient input in an RfC and resolve the issue in that way. If that doesn't work then independent editors can discuss whether community sanctions will resolve the issue. | |||
| As suggested by all but the filing party (and maybe except Widescreen): there seems hardly need for a case. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Expanded. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, Casliber. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Elen: thank you, but you don't have to inform me of that. I guess you know which part of the community should be addressed. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold: Since you <s>are</s> already <s>sure</s>think that CartoonDiablo is guilty, and since you think that it is unnecessary that the community resolves this, why not propose to settle this by motion, block and ban CartoonDiablo, so your collegues and you can go back to fiddling with your thumbs again? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold: You singled out CartoonDiablo there, you say that ''they'' is the one that is having ] and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues' - that is, you are predetermined at looking for fault with CartoonDiablo. You should not be looking for fault with CartoonDiablo, you should keep an open mind with respect to all parties as being possible editors with whom the fault could be (and even consider fault with the community). So yes, you obviously already think that CartoonDiablo is guilty. And you are right, that is already a long established procedure by ArbCom (seen that again 3 Arbitrators accept the case before all parties can comment - someone is complaining so there must be reason to start a case, we obviously do not need to examine whether there really is need for a case). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold: We are here to establish whether a case is necessary. We have procedures for that. ArbCom is the ''last'' step in the dispute resolution where all other steps have failed (with maybe the exception of gross admin misconduct). That is procedure. Again, Arbitration is not dispute resolution, Arbitration is the ''last'' step in dispute resolution. In this case, there has been no mediation, there has been no RfC, the accused parties have not been sanctioned by the community, not even blocked for 'bad' behaviour, and you are telling us about following procedure. I am trying here to say, and I said that in my initial statement, that this is again a case that is not ready for Arbitration, but where certain members (and not only you, Hersfold, there were three accept votes before all involved parties could comment) of the Arbitration committee are ignoring procedure. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC) adapted. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @JClemens: "This case, if opened, should serve as an appropriate venue to channel the community's expectations into actionable principles which would make future such disputes resolvable at a much lower level." - ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution, not an intermediate one, or an even lower level. What is next, you go look around, see an admin who is doing something that is maybe questionable, and without any form of community input, you start a case on them? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @NewYorkBrad: Thank you for that analysis. I do agree with you, but there is a problem here. I will however explain what I mean. Compare: | |||
| <blockquote>While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution.</blockquote> | |||
| from Kirill with | |||
| <blockquote>Accept to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. ... As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like ] and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block.</blockquote> | |||
| from Hersfold. Kirill also accepts the case (so I think it is a fair comparison, I disagree with both accepts equally), but does that in neutral wording to say where they are going to look at. No personalisation. However, Hersfold pinpoints it, twice, on CartoonDiablo. It is probably not Hersfolds intention, but that gives the ''appearance'' to find fault with CartoonDiablo. That gives conformational bias, and if there is a case in favour of CartoonDiablo's side, all the evidence of the accusing parties needs to show is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues. Moreover, there is a likelyhood that anything that looks like IDIDNTHEARTHAT or refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues '']'' get ] weight. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <small>If this was a real-life jury in court where ''one'' member would express predetermination to find fault with one of the parties, the whole of the jury would be dismissed and a new jury elected</small>. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Elen: that is a perfect example of a complete misinterpretation of my comment. And yes, you have a right to take a case, but a commitment to the community to observe procedure in that, and to do that in a fair way. Get used to it. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by CartoonDiablo === | |||
| The main issue is over an ] (previously a chart admittedly with errors) that talks about the effectiveness of three psychotherapies. Based on the studies mentioned prior in dispute resolution, this image represents (or intends to represent) the scientific consensus for the effectiveness of the three methods. | |||
| There are two objections over this, one over the content of the image (the science or consensus of it) and one over the format. To address the latter, the format seems clear and unproblematic, it has been used for ] about the same topic (and even ). This leaves the problem of scientific consensus; based on the studies, the science displayed in the image is backed up by the US and French governments and is, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific consensus surrounding the topic of the image. | |||
| I agree the dispute over it has been long and drawn out but I think the image is important for representing the science of the topic and should stay since no text can summarize the consensus in whole. If it's erroneous and not the consensus, then I am willing to start over and get it pre-approved via consensus before putting it into an article. | |||
| The other suggestion I have is if it's difficult to culminate all the research for all three psychotheries, to have it split into three different images, one for each psychotherapy. As an image(s), each can be updated if the consensus around them changes. ] (]) 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold Yeah I'd say the assessment is accurate and unfortunately it looks like it'll be unresolved unless a ruling can be given one way or another. I can see reasons for changing the image but the reasons to exclude it don't work especially with the examples I've given. The only real way for me to be convinced to remove the image is a ruling here or on third opinion/RFC. ] (]) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mirokado === | |||
| Looking at CartoonDiablo's links discussing format, there is an example of an image of a graph, clearly nothing to do with the format of a table, and a link to an article containing two wiki tables and no images. I see no justification whatsoever for an image of a textual table, this must be replaced by a wikitable for accessibility reasons if the presentation of this data as a table has consensus (no comment about that). I don't see the origin of the "little or no effect" entries in the original table linked in the media file: the wiki table would also provide a better opportunity to clarify the sources of the information. --] (]) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft === | |||
| I find it highly objectionable that a sitting arbitrator for a case would make a pre-judgment as to the guilt of a party before the case has seen an evidence phase. This case is not even open yet, but Hersfold seems quite certain that CartoonDiablo is guilty and wants to accept the case so as to get a formal remedy in place to address this guilt. This decidedly sets the table against CartoonDiablo. Any pretense of fairness is gone. | |||
| While I cite Hersfold's edit in this case, it is far from isolated. I do not fault Hersfold nor do I mean to bring special attention to Hersfold. Rather, I fault we the community that allow ArbCom to act in this way. --] (]) 17:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@Hersfold: Take it from CD's perspective. Put yourself in his shoes. It is not necessary for you to vote to accept a case and call out CD's behavior in particular in doing so. You ask me to assume good faith. you can do the same with CD, in that there very well could be a reasonable explanation for his behavior. The case should be approached neutrally. Your acceptance statement does not do so. Thank you, --] (]) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@Hersfold followup: I will not remove them as they are directly pertinent to this case. To have a statement directly against CD in your acceptance statement is wrong. I will remove my comments here when you refactor your acceptance statement to provide a level and fair table for CD to participate. Fair enough? --] (]) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by EdJohnston === | |||
| *Elen's suggestion of a content-based RfC is reasonable. The concern that the community will not be able to deal with this is premature. | |||
| *Newyorkbrad mentioned ], a case from March 2011. He may be thinking that there are some cases focused on just a single editor that still deserve Arbcom attention. I submit that the Coanda case was way more scary than this one. The committee only took three days to agree to open a case, and they did so on an 11-0 vote. | |||
| *Jclemens has suggested that the committee might use this case to channel the community's thinking about civil POV pushing. This seems a trifle ambitious. ] (]) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Thargor Orlando === | |||
| I am uninvolved in this specific conflict, but have had plenty of interaction with CartoonDiablo in other areas, most recently at ] and in various health care reform articles (], ], etc). The behavior shown by CD at this article is shown by CD throughout his editing at Misplaced Pages to the point of exhaustion, with other dispute resolution alternatives being useless to contain him, along with significant evidence that CD misunderstands the purpose of dispute resolution options (for example, the thread here: ]. I hope the ArbCom takes this on in order to solve this problem. ] (]) 02:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved RexxS === | |||
| I believe the community is capable of dealing with most, or perhaps all, of the issues here. To move the process along, I've nominated the image in question for deletion at ] as it is completely inappropriate for accessibility reasons to render anything more than a few words of prose as an image in articles. Assuming that the community will deal with that aspect, the rest should be simpler to reach a conclusion on. I remain hopeful. --] (]) 23:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Update: Rendering a section of prose or a table as an image causes significant problems of accessibility and poses difficulties in updating the information, which go against two of our most fundamental principles ("every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" and "anyone can edit"). These were the arguments made and not contested in the FfD. As a result, the image in question has been deleted. The community's position on rendering a table as an image should now be clear to the participants in this Case Request, and if I were an administrator, I would have little doubt about the measures necessary to solve the problems. At this point a ''full'' ArbCom case should only be the first choice of those who like their walnuts finely powdered. --] (]) 12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by DRN volunteer Ebe123 === | |||
| I think a ArbCom case should not be accepted in general about this, but I agree to this case to stem out any unresolvable dispute, then referring to lower venues. I think it's sad that this dispute has gone up to this point. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 01:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/7/0/2) === | |||
| <small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| * '''Accept'''. While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution. ] <sup>]]</sup> 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Accept'''. Kirill sums it up well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)</s> ok '''hold''' for the time being as it looks like discussion is ongoing. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>Awaiting statements by the other disputants, as well as any observations and comments by uninvolved editors. ] ]] 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :* '''Decline'''. Arbitration is for disputes which the community is unlikely, as best we can tell, to resolve (at all, or without excessive time and effort). The community could resolve this dispute with little drama, and I believe it could do so with a relatively small investment of time. ] ]] 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * While we won't get involved in the appropriateness of the table in question, we can look into the behaviour of those in dispute over its inclusion. However, if the parties, CartoonDiablo in particular, agree to accept to convert the information into prose, then the matter will be resolved, and I don't think there would be a need to open an ArbCom case. Awaiting statements. ''']''' ''']''' 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **There appears to be a consensus of views that what is required here is a RfC on the table data rather than an ArbCom case. And, as Elen indicates, if anyone does not follow the consensus of that RfC and/or edit wars at any point then any uninvolved admin could use their judgement to fully protect the affected articles and/or block those editors causing disruption. I think it might be as well to keep this request open, perhaps in a collapsed box, until an RfC is satisfactorily concluded, just in case things don't work out. ''']''' ''']''' 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***If there is a reluctance or an inability by the community to deal with this issue then it would fall on the Committee to look into it; but I'm not seeing yet that this issue has been fully addressed by the community. I'd like to make it clear to CartoonDiablo that we would not be making any recommendation regarding the table - so that matter would remain unresolved at the end of this case. We would be looking purely at the conduct of people, and, if necessary, giving sanctions to those whose behaviour has been a cause for concern. It's worth picking up on what Hersfold has said below, that based on a quick examination of the events so far, CartoonDiablo's conduct appears to be a cause for concern, and at this stage a topic-ban would be a consideration. If CartoonDiablo is not satisfied with the discussions that so far have taken place on the table and would like that matter to be examined thoroughly, then I strongly recommended he opens a RfC with a commitment that he will follow the outcome. While people have been saying that there have been several DRN cases opened, I note that only one of those went to a satisfactory conclusion, so holding a RfC (rather than going straight to ArbCom) seems appropriate. ''']''' ''']''' 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****Like Newyorkbrad, I'd be interested to hear if this matter is being dealt with anywhere. If there is no evidence after 48 hours that this matter is being dealt with by anyone else then I would vote to accept the case. ''']''' ''']''' 22:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*Will hold off a little longer to see if ] will resolve matters. If the decision is to delete it, that should be the end of the matter. ''']''' ''']''' 22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The file has been deleted. We could wait for CartoonDiablo's response, but I don't think that would be necessary as if CartoonDiablo's response is inappropriate he could be dealt with by the community through normal channels; and I think, anyway, that he will accept that he had misjudged this situation and move on. This is now a '''decline'''. ''']''' ''']''' 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting statements, particularly from CartoonDiablo. My initial thoughts are that if CD doesn't agree to the recommendation SilkTork refers to, a case may be in order per Kirill; if he does, then hopefully the issue will be moot and the Committee can go back to twiddling our thumbs again. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ** Noting that the discussion at DRN appears to have been closed, with CartoonDiablo apparently intent on taking the discussion to another forum. I'm leaning further towards accepting now as a result, however will still withhold an actual vote until we hear from CD <s>(or it becomes clear he intends not to make a statement)</s>. I've left him another reminder indicating that several of us are waiting to hear from him. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ** ...And it looks like he will be making one, so we'll see what he has to say. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** '''@CartoonDiablo''': The Arbitration Committee will not rule on whether or not the table/image/content should be present in the article. What we're interested in is whether this is an unresolvable dispute due to the conduct of involved editors, or if there is a reasonable chance this could be resolved at a lower level of dispute resolution. Could your provide your views on that front? Additionally, you state that you're willing to start over on the table/image/whatever, but you do not seem to be willing to step down from the issue, despite a number of your colleages appearing to believe that the inclusion of this information in any form is inappropriate. Is this an accurate assessment? ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **** <s>'''Accept''' to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. While I can understand why Elen and Phil are pushing for something else, it seems clear that this ''has'' been discussed several times, and yet nothing's been done. If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now. As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like ] and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ***** Hammersoft, my statements are not a pre-judgment of CartoonDiablo or any other user. I said I was "seeing what looked like" problematic behavior that supported the allegations made by the filing editor; in order to determine if a case is necessary, arbitrators must investigate claims to see if they have any merit in the first place. That is all I have done. Should the case be opened, obviously all parties would have an opportunity to present evidence regarding their own actions and each other's, and (per very long-standing procedure) any determinations made in the case would be based on that evidence. Please ], and keep statements here strictly relevant to the dispute in question. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***** @Dirk: So am I being just by waiting to hear from everyone or prejudicial by accepting the case once I have? Make up your mind, and don't misquote me. Again, as I told Hammersoft, this page and this section in particular are for discussing matters relevant to this dispute, not for getting on your respective soapboxes against this Committee. This is the last I will engage with either of you on this page, and I would ask that you remove your off-topic statements or move them to a more appropriate page. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **** @ SGCM: Thanks for the clarification, it was a bit tricky to tell at times. Regardless, I think the above still applies. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *(Screw indentation) '''Decline''' now, in light of the fact that the image in question has been resolved, and any remaining issues should be clear enough that they can be resolved by the community at large. Hooray for low-drama endings. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Also awaiting statements, especially from CartoonDiablo. My preliminary view is that I am hoping that this dispute can be resolved short of arbitration in the near future, but otherwise it appears there may be grounds for a case. Probably the most relevant principles involved can be found in last year's ''Henri Coanda'' decision ] and ]. ] (]) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **''General comment'' (particularly to Hammersoft and to some extent Beetstra): I appreciate your concern that we not prejudge cases. If an arbitration case is opened, all parties and interested other editors have a full opportunity to present evidence and be heard. At the same time, because it is our decision in the first place whether or not to accept a case, it is inevitable that arbitrators are going to express their preliminary views as of the time they vote on accepting the case, in the course of doing so. By definition, we don't accept a case unless we believe there is some sort of significant issue that warrants one. I think most of the community would prefer for arbitrators to explain what we think the nature of that problem might be, as opposed to just casting naked votes of "Accept" or "Reject." If nothing else, such comments allow the participants to know how they might best focus their evidence presentations, or what they might do while the case is still on this page that might head off the need for a case (as I still would like to see happen here). It's also worth bearing in mind that in most Misplaced Pages arbitrations (excluding only those involving disputed allegations of socking, off-wiki harassment or COI, etc.), the evidence to be evaluated is all contained on-wiki, so there is generally a reasonable basis for preliminary, non-binding, non-final views to be expressed at this stage. The views expressed at this stage ''are'' tentative and I can think of several cases in which the evidence and full consideration has changed my initial reaction to the statements. <small>(As a sidenote, for those who like to compare ArbCom to real-world courts, although such an analogy should not be overused or oversimplified: in real US courts, a judge's preliminary views on the merits of a case, expressed in court while adjudicating an early stage of the case, ''do not'' generally disqualify the judge from the main stage of the case.)</small> ] (]) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **The parties (and anyone else interested) should ''briefly'' update their statements to address whether progress is being made elsewhere toward resolving this dispute. Thank you. ] (]) 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **<s>'''Accept'''</s> since there is no evidence any progress is being made. We should be able to consider and decide this case on a reasonable schedule; it shouldn't take months. ] (]) 02:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Okay, '''decline''' per SilkTork since this looks like it's been addressed to some extent without us. However, if problems continue that can't be resolved by ordinary administrator action, another request may be filed, and there will be no need in that request to repeat everything that's been written here. ] (]) 14:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting a statement from CartoonDiablo. ] (]) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Beetsra - so far the only evidence that has been presented is that the problem is one editor edit warring. If that is the case, it surely doesn't need an Arbitration request at this stage. ] (]) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per Hersfold - CartoonDiablo, are you prepared to participate in a community process (DRN, RfC, Mediation.....) and accept the outcome whatever it is. Same question applies to the other parties, although several have already indicated a willingness to accept the outcome of a dispute resolution process. I'm still not particularly seeing anything that warrants an arbitration case at the moment - if it gets to a situation where one editor persists in edit warring against consensus, the remedy is routine admin action. ] (]) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***@Beetstra, since he obviously hasn't got it yet. That persistent, circular logic view that Arbcom can't take a case without calling for evidence because that requires prejudgement, but can't call for evidence because that requires prejudgement, is just so much nonsense. If two members of the community present a case that the third is editing disruptively, Arbcom '''reserves the right to take the case''' in order to determine whether these accusations are correct. Get used to it. --] (]) 19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Lets have a content RfC so the community can make a consensus on this content. If anyone makes an edit war while that's going on, the usual administrator remedies are available. ] (]) 12:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' pretty much per Kirill. ] 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' - I'd prefer that a content based Request for Content is attempted, and then if the dispute still isn't resolved, we could accept the case. However, to reiterate Hersfold's comment, the Arbitration Committee isn't going to make a decision on whether the table should be included or not, as content decisions are outside our remit. ] (]) 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' While ''this'' particular problem may be resolved by the attendant discussions, ArbCom has not recently considered the limits of Civil POV pushing. This case, if opened, should serve as an appropriate venue to channel the community's expectations into actionable principles which would make future such disputes resolvable at a much lower level. ] (]) 05:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' as it looks like we may not be necessary, as long as other forms of DR may settle this. ] (]) 04:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' - I've been watching for any further efforts of the community to resolve this, and none seem to be forthcoming, although there has been a MEDRS review on the talk page of the relevant article. The ] article remains fully protected. The fact that this debate has been going on for months, through various dispute resolution attempts. It is time to take this one on. ] (]) 06:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.