RFC on whether the term "fuck off" is sanctionable or not

[Kumioko]

This RFC is bordering on ridiculous but because it's a slow news cycle so to speak on Wikipedia I am going to post this little nugget I just noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... le_or_not!
Now I call this ridiculous not because the RFC doesn't have merit because in my opinion telling someone to "Fuck off" is the perfect example of incivility.

What I find ridiculous is that so many people, many of which are admins, are saying that it's not. Whhhhaaat?

This is a perfect example of why the atmosphere on Wikipedia has become so toxic, why editors aren't joining and why people don't stay. People do not like being told to "Fuck off", yet this term is frequently used on Wikipedia by admins like Floquenbeam (T-C-L) and others. Telling someone to F off is 100% uncivil in pretty much any circumstance and as long as this sort of conduct is allowed to go on in the community and especially by the admins, then the toxic atmosphere will continue to degrade.

[LargelyRecyclable]

*cough*

*cough*

[peterpedale]

This is a perfect example of why the atmosphere on Wikipedia has become so toxic, why editors aren't joining and why people don't stay.

In my opinion, and from my experience as well, the civil people just being an ass without being overtly uncivil are a way bigger problem. And of course an issue way harder to deal with as well. Softlavender in that discussion i have personal experience with. They are not really overtly uncivil to anyone from what i could see, not that i really checked though, but their sanctimonious attitude, shared by many other people, is a way bigger issue in regards to people staying away or being turned off entirely after one or two edits.

I, for example, removed something completely unsourced in a random article(may have found it through random article or contribs of someone i looked at, can't quite recall) and then they lied about policy, accused me of being an SPA, went crying to an admin to have me blocked and so on. It was only a single edit as well, which got reverted by them and then the discussion moved to the article talk. So no edit warring, all by the book and how they tell you you are supposed to do it. All because i did not just simply bow down to their infinite wisdom and accepted the shit they were trying to peddle and that i dared to ask them to explain what the issue was. Oh, and the first thing that happened after i removed the content, before Softlavender was an ass, was someone else thanking me for a constructive and good edit. You could not make that shit up. Long story short, i did not get blocked, Softlavender took off for a week after and i got support in what i did by some content people(one reason i personally can live with some overt incivility if they are otherwise honest and straightforward). REALLY put me off despite no incivility whatsoever. That was a couple of years ago anyway. Sorry for not linking to it but as i don't use an account, i dont want to advertise my IP here.

[Dysklyver]

Oh wow a page where the word Fuck (T-H-L) has been used 96 times and counting...

[Pudeo]

Lourdes is pretty brave. Her close was reverted by Bishonen: "no, you can't disagree with the ruling admin clique" but she made a whole RfC.

I wish some tech news media picked this up. The world's #4 most visited website debating whether it's sanctionable to repeatedly tell people to "fuck off" in a hostile manner. So much for efforts for building a welcoming and diverse community. That's a scandal.

[Kumioko]

Lourdes is pretty brave. Her close was reverted by Bishonen: "no, you can't disagree with the ruling admin clique" but she made a whole RfC.

I wish some tech news media picked this up. The world's #4 most visited website debating whether it's sanctionable to repeatedly tell people to "fuck off" in a hostile manner. So much for efforts for building a welcoming and diverse community. That's a scandal.

You're absolutely right and as we can see by the indef block of Taylan UB by Gorilla Warfare in another thread, the feelings on merely referring to someone as the wrong gender is grounds for an indef. So clearly here you have a community culture of hypocrisy when it comes to picking what is a sanctionable term or not.

It seems in Wikipedia all you need is to be an admin, or have an admin on your side that shares your personal beliefs and you get to pick what is sanctionable or not that helps decide your POV.

[Eric Corbett]

It seems in Wikipedia all you need is to be an admin, or have an admin on your side that shares your personal beliefs and you get to pick what is sanctionable or not that helps decide your POV.

Hasn't that always been the way?

[Kumioko]

True!

[Dysklyver]

I wish some tech news media picked this up. The world's #4 most visited website debating whether it's sanctionable to repeatedly tell people to "fuck off" in a hostile manner. So much for efforts for building a welcoming and diverse community. That's a scandal.

Completely agree.

[TNT]

The RfC sums up Wikipedia in a fucking nutshell..

Have y'all seen how long that thread is, and how dramatic its all getting? As I mentioned there, if you're having to find the "line" where one side you get a block, and the other you just about get away with it, perhaps you're not fully understanding how to be civil?

Just don't tell people to fuck off?

FUCK.

[Kumioko]

The RfC sums up Wikipedia in a fucking nutshell..

Have y'all seen how long that thread is, and how dramatic its all getting? As I mentioned there, if you're having to find the "line" where one side you get a block, and the other you just about get away with it, perhaps you're not fully understanding how to be civil?

Just don't tell people to fuck off?

FUCK.

I absolutely agree with you but the problem is you have a large number of admins like Floquenbeam and even Bishonen who regularly tell people to F off with no repercussions. Regular and especially vulnerable new editors see that and see that as ok so they do it, then they get blocked or scolded for doing the exact same thing.

If Wikipedia wants to have a less toxic editing environment then they need to set an example that this isn't acceptable. Otherwise, you end up with the current toxic environment being further degraded by bullies and pottymouhts because others in the community do nothing other than tell them to "just get along".

[Mason]

As some of the commenters there said, context matters.

If you like the person being told to "fuck off" more than the person doing the telling - or if you have a grudge against the person doing the telling, or they're a political opponent, then it's a serious breach of civility, and you should start a noticeboard thread to get them sanctioned for their abusive language and uncollegial editing. That sort of language drives people off the site, you see.

If you like the person doing the telling more than the person being told, or the person being told is a sock or a Nazi or someone you'd otherwise enjoy seeing receive a verbal slap or two, then it's not a big deal and it's completely understandable that in this stressful editing environment people might occasionally lose their cool and say a rude word, and we shouldn't get so hung up on "rude words" anyway, and besides, it's practically a compliment in England, something you might say to your mum, or someone else's. Everyone should stop wasting time causing drama and just go edit an article.

I should add a flowchart to User:Beeblebrox/fuck off (T-H-L).

[Kumioko]

I see your point but I would point out that not everyone reading the site is going to be an editor, nor are they going to be aware of or take the time to learn, the context of someone being told to F off. All they see is that some admin or editor told someone to F off and it has the direct effect of being off putting to anyone reading it. I vividly remember Floquenbeam telling Tiptoey to F off on his talk page for asking about my ban and a very short time later, Tiptoey left and hasn't been back. I personally think that Tiptoey was probably already considering leaving and that was the nudge the needed, but I do think that if that hadn't happened, they might still be editing.

Of course that is just one example that relates directly to me, but it literally happens all the time and the only time anything is done about it is when it suits someones agenda.

[Beeblebrox]

As some of the commenters there said, context matters.

I should add a flowchart to User:Beeblebrox/fuck off (T-H-L).

I’m down with that idea. As the essay details, the very few times I have told someone on WP to fuck off,they really, really earned it.. But doing so each time changed the focus to “an admin said a bad word, the horror!” so I no longer reccomend doing so even when it is richly deserved.

[Kumioko]

As some of the commenters there said, context matters.

I should add a flowchart to User:Beeblebrox/fuck off (T-H-L).

I’m down with that idea. As the essay details, the very few times I have told someone on WP to fuck off,they really, really earned it.. But doing so each time changed the focus to “an admin said a bad word, the horror!” so I no longer reccomend doing so even when it is richly deserved.

I think I might have been one of those "rare occassions".

Having said that, although we have had our difference you aren't the worst offender. If I had to make a guess I would say that honor probably either goes to Floquenbeam or Bishonen, both of which I have seen say it multiple times.

[Ming]

"Context" just means that you give yourself permission because, really, the rules don't apply in your case.

[Midsize Jake]

I may be way off base here, but doesn't the fact that this proposal has come up in the first place essentially force them to add some sort of rule? If they do nothing, it's the same as saying "this is okay," and they can't really say "this is okay" without the potential for PR consequences. (I know some of them don't care about PR consequences...) Then again, there's an election coming up in the USA and there have been a few hate-crimes just in the past few days, so there's a lot going on in the news - if there was ever a time for them to decide to not do something like this, this would probably be it.

Also, what would they call the new rule/policy? They can't call it "WP:Vulgar Personal Invective" or "WP:Vulgar Personal Insults" because that would shorten to WP:VPI, which is already being used by "Village Pump (idea lab)." Maybe they could just call it the "WP:Fuck Off Rule," which shortens to WP:FOR, but that's in use by "WikiProject International relations."

I guess they could go with "WP:No Fuck Offs Rule," or WP:NFOR - that isn't already taken. Maaaan, this is really complicated.

[Randy from Boise]

As some of the commenters there said, context matters.

I should add a flowchart to User:Beeblebrox/fuck off (T-H-L).

I’m down with that idea. As the essay details, the very few times I have told someone on WP to fuck off,they really, really earned it.. But doing so each time changed the focus to “an admin said a bad word, the horror!” so I no longer reccomend doing so even when it is richly deserved.

I think I might have been one of those "rare occassions".

Having said that, although we have had our difference you aren't the worst offender. If I had to make a guess I would say that honor probably either goes to Floquenbeam or Bishonen, both of which I have seen say it multiple times.

Bishonen is a genuine prick. It they are actually a female, I will award some charity five dollars.

RfB

[Jim]

I may be way off base here, but doesn't the fact that this proposal has come up in the first place essentially force them to add some sort of rule?

Not really, I don't think - they can just 'conclude' that there is no consensus for a "hard and fast" rule, or that consensus is that each case needs to be judged "on its merits" (basically whether the fuckoff-er is liked/agreed with and/or the fuckoff-ee is disliked/disagreed with) - the status-quo, in other words.

[Mason]

they can just 'conclude' that there is no consensus for a "hard and fast" rule, or that consensus is that each case needs to be judged "on its merits" (basically whether the fuckoff-er is liked/agreed with and/or the fuckoff-ee is disliked/disagreed with) - the status-quo, in other words.

Quite. I'll be very surprised if it's not closed like that.

Policy is supposed to follow practice, and the practice is: whether you can get away with saying it is a largely a function of how popular or perceived as valuable you are at that moment. But the policy can't be written that way, of course, thus the "context is important" formulation.

[LargelyRecyclable]

"Context" just means that you give yourself permission because, really, the rules don't apply in your case.

Clarity.

[LargelyRecyclable]

If you are a fully functioning adult you should be able to restrain yourself, for the most part, from telling people to "fuck off" in situations where that is inappropriate. If you're not a fully functioning adult then you shouldn't be writing the President of the United States' most accessible biography on the internet.

This is childish nonsense, and anyone who would even begin to make the argument that telling anyone, anywhere, to "fuck off" is appropriate or excusable behavior, is wrong. Telling someone to "fuck off" is what happens 20 seconds before I get into a bar fight, not 20 seconds before some gets sent to AN/I. I see a legion of burned out veterans and insiders lining up to insist that, on occasion, they are entitled to tell people, right or wrong, to "fuck off". This isn't a commentary on the appropriateness of such behavior, because fully functioning adults have no questions about such appropriateness. Instead, this is about the insistence of the haggard gang of hangers on that the system gives them a pass for being shitty once and awhile. That's wrong, and it only reinforces the already critical problem of the Wikipedia Aristocracy taking liberties which are totally counterproductive.

[Randy from Boise]

If you are a fully functioning adult you should be able to restrain yourself, for the most part, from telling people to "fuck off" in situations where that is inappropriate. If you're not a fully functioning adult then you shouldn't be writing the President of the United States' most accessible biography on the internet.

........or you shouldn't be the President of the United States!

This is childish nonsense, and anyone who would even begin to make the argument that telling anyone, anywhere, to "fuck off" is appropriate or excusable behavior, is wrong. Telling someone to "fuck off" is what happens 20 seconds before I get into a bar fight, not 20 seconds before some gets sent to AN/I. I see a legion of burned out veterans and insiders lining up to insist that, on occasion, they are entitled to tell people, right or wrong, to "fuck off".

You obviously have never had dealings with PurpleBackPack...

Fact is, there are elbows thrown in the Wikipedia editing environment and once in a while things get heated. Context should be the central factor; people can be abusive without resorting to over-the-top language like "fuck off" and people can be well within the rational spectrum in resorting to such language when buttons are skillfully pushed by others. There are some people who should simply fuck off.

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

I just feel like throwing this in. I've seen repeated claims on Wikipedia about swearing being a sign of a restricted vocabulary, but such research as has been done on the matter - as opposed to the received wisdom of the crowd - suggests that the exact opposite is true, i.e. it's people who don't swear who have the restricted vocabulary. So Wikipedia arguably needs more of these so-called "potty mouths".

And the arguments about inappropriate language in the workplace must come from people who've never had a proper job.

[No Ledge]

Lourdes is pretty brave.

Indeed. Seems a common tactic used when an editor is called out for their behavior is to respond by accusing the caller of making a "borderline personal attack".

[Kumioko]

I just feel like throwing this in. I've seen repeated claims on Wikipedia about swearing being a sign of a restricted vocabulary, but such research as has been done on the matter - as opposed to the received wisdom of the crowd - suggests that the exact opposite is true, i.e. it's people who don't swear who have the restricted vocabulary. So Wikipedia arguably needs more of these so-called "potty mouths".

And the arguments about inappropriate language in the workplace must come from people who've never had a proper job.

Well I think it depends on the job. Even here in the US verbiage used varies greatly from state to state. Dropping the F bomb is common in some areas, especially the big cities while in more rural areas the sue of the term is strongly discouraged.

In my own experience working for the US military, when out in the field doing infantry type stuff, the F word is used as a noun, verb, adjective and is frequently inserted to mean a variety of things while at HQ it's rare to see it used. So although I agree context matters, at the same time, I do not think that it helps Wikipedia look less toxic or less of a hostile workplace when you have admins frequently saying it semi willy nilly.

[Poetlister]

I guess they could go with "WP:No Fuck Offs Rule," or WP:NFOR - that isn't already taken. Maaaan, this is really complicated.

A lot of these abbreviations really need to be there both with and without the N for no or not. Thus WP:POV/WP:NPOV for example.

[Dysklyver]

If you are a fully functioning adult you should be able to restrain yourself, for the most part, from telling people to "fuck off" in situations where that is inappropriate. If you're not a fully functioning adult then you shouldn't be writing the President of the United States' most accessible biography on the internet.

Heck, I edited that page (or it's talk page) once and was immediately piled on by lots of people who thought I was a sock of some guy they had just topic banned.... Well they were partly right.

It's stupidly biased of course, they literally have entire articles like "Racial views of Donald Trump" and "Verecity of Donald Trump" just because they can't fit all the BLP violations in one article!

Now of course I don't think Trump is great, however this is a whole level of political warmongering that I don't subscribe to.

Just saying

[Beeblebrox]

Noting that whether or not this discussion is important enough to be advertised site-wide has led to edit warring at CENT.

Every discussion about civility inevitably leads to uncivil behavior.

You’re basically fucked.

[Kumioko]

Noting that whether or not this discussion is important enough to be advertised site-wide has led to edit warring at CENT.

Every discussion about civility inevitably leads to uncivil behavior.

You’re basically fucked.

Let me see if I can better articulate why I believe incivility is bad for Wikipedia.
The lack of civility in Wikipedia, or, more accurately, the lack of regard for one another in the community, is costly to the project, to the community and to the WMF. This is sometimes obviously true when one member tells another to F off and sometimes it's in subtle and pervasive ways. Although uncivil behaviors occur commonly in life, many people fail to recognize it, few understand their harmful effects, and most people, including admins and WMF employees, are ill-equipped or lack the desire, to deal with them.

Incivility causes its stakeholders including its victims and witnesses, to act in ways that erode Wikipedia's values and deplete organizational resources. Because of their experiences of workplace incivility, editors and readers decrease work effort; they spend less time editing when they do login; they have reduced productivity and performance and, just as importantly, it deters readers from becoming editors.

When Wikipedia does not deal with instances of uncivil conduct, it contributes to the perception that Wikipedia and the other WMF projects contain a toxic editing atmosphere and that they are a hostile work environment. We have all seen that editor satisfaction and organizational loyalty have diminished among the community over the years and many editors and admins have left completely. It's true that sometimes this happens for reasons we cannot control such as death, but not telling someone to F off is something that can be controlled if we choose to do so.

The WMF projects after all are a volunteer organization and we are not bound to any normal work hours; we do not have any one particular task we are required to do; we are usually not paid and we can do as little or as much as we want. So not having some standards of saying it is not ok to tell others to F off, even if they annoy you, will continue to erode the atmosphere on the Wikipedia and it will help to Hasten The Day!

[Black Kite]

These people should try living in areas of the UK where "fuck off, you daft cunt" is actually a term of endearment. They'd probably self-combust.

More seriously, though, I've told a few people to fuck off on Wikipedia before, but in practically every case they were abusive trolls. I once told an ex-arbiter to fuck off as well, but I apologised for that.

I've left a few edit summaries like that as well, but in those cases they were an expression of incredulity at whatever stupid thing the previous editor had done, rather than abuse.

That's the thing with "fuck off", it's pretty versatile.

[Kumioko]

These people should try living in areas of the UK where "fuck off, you daft cunt" is actually a term of endearment. They'd probably self-combust.

More seriously, though, I've told a few people to fuck off on Wikipedia before, but in practically every case they were abusive trolls. I once told an ex-arbiter to fuck off as well, but I apologised for that.

I've left a few edit summaries like that as well, but in those cases they were an expression of incredulity at whatever stupid thing the previous editor had done, rather than abuse.

That's the thing with "fuck off", it's pretty versatile.

As with you I'm not offended by it and have frequently used it but at the same time I also see the value in limiting when it's done on a project like Wikipedia where we are trying to be a resource that people want to use and contribute too.

[LargelyRecyclable]

Fact is, there are elbows thrown in the Wikipedia editing environment and once in a while things get heated. Context should be the central factor; people can be abusive without resorting to over-the-top language like "fuck off" and people can be well within the rational spectrum in resorting to such language when buttons are skillfully pushed by others. There are some people who should simply fuck off.

Oh, without a doubt. I can't recall a specific time I've ever aimed profanity at someone else on Wikipedia, but I have zero doubt that it happened more than once over the past decade or so. If you're the sort of person who uses profanity in life you'd have to have an iron disposition to never do it on Wikipedia. The point is that it shouldn't be sanctioned as "okay" to do. It doesn't mean that the guilty party needs to be blocked or brought before AN/I ever time to face some sort of admonishment. Like you said, context matters. But making it clear that sort of behavior is outside the bounds of civility and falls short of the way editors should interact with each other is important. Whether or not someone "deserves" it isn't the point; the point is that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by engaging in that sort of behavior other than a mild catharsis in the moment.

[Eric Corbett]

Fact is, there are elbows thrown in the Wikipedia editing environment and once in a while things get heated. Context should be the central factor; people can be abusive without resorting to over-the-top language like "fuck off" and people can be well within the rational spectrum in resorting to such language when buttons are skillfully pushed by others. There are some people who should simply fuck off.

Oh, without a doubt. I can't recall a specific time I've ever aimed profanity at someone else on Wikipedia, but I have zero doubt that it happened more than once over the past decade or so. If you're the sort of person who uses profanity in life you'd have to have an iron disposition to never do it on Wikipedia. The point is that it shouldn't be sanctioned as "okay" to do. It doesn't mean that the guilty party needs to be blocked or brought before AN/I ever time to face some sort of admonishment. Like you said, context matters. But making it clear that sort of behavior is outside the bounds of civility and falls short of the way editors should interact with each other is important. Whether or not someone "deserves" it isn't the point; the point is that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by engaging in that sort of behavior other than a mild catharsis in the moment.

Opinions are not facts.

[Poetlister]

Opinions are not facts.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

[No Ledge]

Opinions are not facts.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

It is a fact that Eric said "Opinions are not facts."

Since elbows cannot literally be thrown online, it is an opinion that "metaphorical elbows have been thrown".

[Bezdomni]

Since elbows cannot literally be thrown online, it is an opinion that "metaphorical elbows have been thrown".

No sir, I think that's a fact. Just look at the poor sashirolls getting their elbows gnawed off over there in the transparent letterbox.

[Mason]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

[Kumioko]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

I think it's a combination of funny and hypocritical that the Community/GorillaWarfare just indeffed an editor over calling a dude a dude instead of trans in the name of inclusiveness but the community won't decide on whether telling someone to fuck off is uncivil. Folks, we just can't make this stuff up!

[Eric Corbett]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

I think it's a combination of funny and hypocritical that the Community/GorillaWarfare just indeffed an editor over calling a dude a dude instead of trans in the name of inclusiveness but the community won't decide on whether telling someone to fuck off is uncivil. Folks, we just can't make this stuff up!

With GorillaWarfare around you don't need to, she's full of it.

[Kumioko]

She's not the only one.

[Poetlister]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

A sitewide notice shouldn't be censored, because WP:NOTCENSORED.

[Kumioko]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

A sitewide notice shouldn't be censored, because WP:NOTCENSORED.

If they feel like they have to censor it to post it globally, then they are admitting by default that they consider the term problematic. That my friends validates the RFC.

[Dysklyver]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

A sitewide notice shouldn't be censored, because WP:NOTCENSORED.

If they feel like they have to censor it to post it globally, then they are admitting by default that they consider the term problematic. That my friends validates the RFC.

They may as well put it on a sitenotice banner is 48px bold font, that way it might get on the news as;

Abril, Tonto. "Wikipedia tells readers to "f*** off" in protest over negative institutional culture" - YGP News, 2 November 2018.

[Kumioko]

And the sitewide notice for the RfC had been bouncing back and forth between "f**k off" and "fuck off" because of course it has.

A sitewide notice shouldn't be censored, because WP:NOTCENSORED.

If they feel like they have to censor it to post it globally, then they are admitting by default that they consider the term problematic. That my friends validates the RFC.

They may as well put it on a sitenotice banner is 48px bold font, that way it might get on the news as;

Abril, Tonto. "Wikipedia tells readers to "f*** off" in protest over negative institutional culture" - YGP News, 2 November 2018.

Lol

[No Ledge]

This RfC has been CLOSED, after being allowed to run for just short of twelve days.

Q. Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?***
*** "Sanctionable" refers to the broad universe of escalating warnings, which may lead to blocks, bans, restrictions etcetera if the editor ignores these warnings.

A. This discussion has been open for long enough that there is a coherent outcome. Namely, most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Mitigating factors could include extreme provocation and whether the phrase was used as part of non-serious banter, but it's ultimately a case-by-case determination. If you were expecting a hard-and-fast rule to come out of this discussion, I'm afraid I don't see that here. If you think that this discussion has done nothing to change the status quo... well, you might be right.
Civility enforcement is probably the most difficult administrative task that the community has to deal with, and I'm not sure there's one clear, unambiguous answer to most questions in this area. I think the best we have at the moment is a set of advice. Keep in mind that many of us have different extents to which we tolerate profanity as part of civil discussion; there was some discussion here about cultural differences between different English-speaking countries. Keep in mind that even if the person you are talking to understands that you are bantering, outside observers might not necessarily realize this. I tried to cover some broad strokes in this summary, but many editors have offered more specific advice that you may wish to read over more closely if you are interested. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

[Poetlister]

That is a masterpiece of waffle with no substantive content. What guidance does it give to admins?

[Dysklyver]

That is a masterpiece of waffle with no substantive content. What guidance does it give to admins?

None whatsoever. It is basically a nothing pretending to be something.

[Kumioko]

That is a masterpiece of waffle with no substantive content. What guidance does it give to admins?

None whatsoever. It is basically a nothing pretending to be something.

Which is pretty much what we have all come to expect from an arb these days.

[Eric Corbett]

That is a masterpiece of waffle with no substantive content. What guidance does it give to admins?

None whatsoever. It is basically a nothing pretending to be something.

Which is pretty much what we have all come to expect from an arb these days.

I don't object to arbitrators doing nothing. At least that way they're not doing any harm.