Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:06, 30 October 2012

No confidence

We elect our Arbitration Committee to be the backstop for decisions that the Community has been unable to take. We do not elect our Arbitration Committee to search around for problems and then try to enforce solutions on them - they are not the wiki police force. A problem was brought here which was arguably of ArbCom's making: a poorly crafted sanction that was causing more problems in itself. It was not a request for ArbCom to deal with a different problem that the community cannot handle. Nevertheless ArbCom has now taken a lazy route out by attempting to pass a quick resolution which does not address the problem they were asked to examine. The community, I submit, is not asking ArbCom dealing with some different problem, because they would rather have Malleus as he is than not at all.

As a result of this poor decision-making, I have to reluctantly conclude:

I have no confidence in the current Arbitration Committee

I invite those who share my view, and those who hold the opposite view to make that known below. --RexxS (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who share this view

1. Shocking out of process actions - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Striking: some of the committee members have shown themselves to be honourable subsequent to my original !vote here. I'll confine myself to the Jclemens section below. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Complaining here doesn't work, you have to do something that will actually lead to change. That's why this year the ArbCom Reform Party will stand in the ArbCom elections. A group of editors running on the basis of the same platform, asking that voters vote for all of them. They will be able to replace a big fraction of the ArbCom all at once and implement reforms that would otherwise be impossible. All editors are invited to join this party! Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm going to have to support this as it relates to the collective group; with the caveat that the individuals are defined by their own individual postings rather than the group consensus. NYB, Risker, and Elen have all made some insightful observations. And while it may not be unprecedented, the fact that Sir Fozzie has also attempted to seek alternate means of resolutions and is willing to rethink the situation does give me a bit of encouragement. Elen makes an astute observation that in this specific case the storm is often born of a response to perceived slights. (usually justifiable) Perhaps the thing that rattles the chains of some editors is that when Malleus is disrespected, he jumps right from a point by point escalation to the end-game solution of calling "dick" or "ass/arse". (or in the cruder vernacular: dishonest twat). Sadly, it's seldom that administrators call out those who enjoy poking with sharp sticks because the violations are often technical rather than bright-line. I once mentioned to an arb (privately) that I was concerned when a motion was put forward without a request. (it revolved around a Delta/Betacommand issue that was ongoing at AN and AN/I). I understand the desire of the committee to maintain a certain decorum within the project, but I do tend to agree with RexxS that at times they tend to overstep. In this case a clarification was requested, and it somehow quickly twisted into this "ban Malleus" situation. I think it's quite easy to justify the "witch-hunt" claims in this case. Indeed it would be much less drama if the language was tempered, but often it is the drama and straightforward speech that finds a better resolution, way forward, and improvement in the end. The saying "You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs" comes to mind here - and if that is often Malleus' intent, then I do understand that mindset. Sorry for the excessive wording. — ChedZILLA 17:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
4. It was an unnecessary and shoddy decision which they were not asked to take, but decided to take by themselves. They disregarded a clear consensus from the community that this was not the way to go. As a result Misplaced Pages has lost its best copy editor and the trust of content builders has been further eroded. Some individual arbitrators behaved well throughout the process, but I have no confidence in them as a committee. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
5. This was a disgraceful example of ArbCom taking on an active policing role and usurping the power of the community. I have great respect for a small number of the current ArbCom members, but en masse I now have no confidence in them - there are too many who are out of touch with the common Wikipedian, and who have allowed power to corrupt. I have made further relevant comments here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Having read comments in the Oppose section below, I just want to reiterate that I believe there are some members of ArbCom who are amongst the most competent, fair, and honourable Wikipedians we have, and they will have my full support at the next election. I won't name individuals here, but in my view the current problem extends beyond Jclemens, and at the moment I believe there are enough unsuitable ArbCom members to render the current committee dysfunctional -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Disgraceful; I have no confidence in this body, have not had for some time, and this latest debacle pushes me over the edge into not wishing to contribute any more. Arbcom should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. --John (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
7. As a whole, no, as I said in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Observation_by_Black_Kite. This clearly does not apply to the whole ArbCom as individuals, and some are doing a fine job. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Yeah....this was my point above. There are issues and it is time to deal with them. Arbcom is one of the biggest problems this encyclopedia faces. It needs HUGE reform. Not to say they are horrible....just not doing what is needed and in someways....just a brick wall.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
9. ArbCom has clearly demonstrated they are far out of touch from the rest of the community, living in their ivory tower and ruling from on-high. It's time to disband ArbCom and return rule to the community. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - the Arbitration Committee has in the last period handled cases in ways that has gathered significant opposition (e.g. the Clarification Request regarding the Civility Case that resulted in this convidence vote), handled cases (or came close to handling cases) which they could very well have left to the community, ignored established procedures, etc. etc. Below list which should give a taste of such:
    1. Ignoring procedure: The case request against EncycloPetey was requested after only 2 AN/I threads, without further community attempts to resolve the issue (no RFC/U, no Dispute Resolution, nor Mediation; see also header of this page), yet the case was accepted by an absolute majority of 8 arbitrators (AGK, JClemens, Casliber, Risker, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Philknight, Courcelles), and resolved by Motion to desysop (; also vide infra); Similarly, a case request on Psychotherapies (state before final decline) was not accepted, mainly because the community put effort in resolving the case, showing that the community was not exhausted in their dispute resolution. Yet, 7 arbitrators (Kirill, Casliber, Hersfold, NewYorkBrad, Courcelles, JClemens, Risker) at some point considered to accept the case while community effort was, obviously, not exhausted. Some of the arbitrators do indicate in their decline or in their accept remarks that they consider that the community may be able to resolve the case.
    2. Lack of decorum / lack of respect: At the time of the response by EncycloPetey in a case request against him (revid, vide supra), the case was already accepted by 4 Arbitrators (JClemens, Casliber, Risker and Elen of the Roads; 4 hours since initiation). The members of the committee, after accepting to handle the case with an absolute majority of 8 accept votes decides to solve the situation by motion. That motion is already in the !voting process to desysop EncycloPetey (3 votes in favour of desysopping, AGK, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight) while they failed to notify the editor that that procedure has started (,). That early accepting is common, arbitrators can be found on many case requests to accept the case request before all parties have responded (accept by Kirill, 6 hours; revid of statement of last commenting party in case accepted by Kirill and Courcelles, 5 hours (note that Casliber initially also accepted the case, but withdrew his vote waiting for a statement). These accept votes are regularly within 24 hours of the opening of the request. This can lead, unintentionally, to situations which show an utter lack of respect, if not grossly insulting, for editors: this accept by SirFozzie, 1:50 minutes into the case - it turned out that the party that did not comment had a death in the family. And there is in all these examples absolutely no need to react that fast.
    3. Ignoring other solutions: With the Motion on Malleus Fatuorum 7 Arbitrators (SirFozzie, HersFold, SilkTork, AGK, PhilKnight, JClemens, David Fuchs) choose to support a ban on Malleus Fatuorum. While that ban has that majority of votes (13 active arbitrators), one Arbitrator posts an alternative Motion (revid) upon which 2 Arbitrators change their mind.

    The above mentioned are examples, and the below mentioned remark from JClemens is just one other example. It is a matter of going through cases, and looking at how they evolve, forgetting who is at which side of the situation to be resolved but considering plain procedure, application of policy and guideline, decorum, discrepancies around the cases, the nature and choice of solutions, etc.

    Many of the remedies that are put into place by the Arbitration Committee follow more the principle of 'pulling out one single straw from a blazing oil fire', then to actually address the core of the problem. This is not a matter of 'the Arbitration Committee solved it, didn't they? So, it is fine', some issues re-occur just because the Arbitration Committee did not solve the root of problem (or make sure that the community solves the root of the problem), they just remove a bit of fuel.

    The Arbitration Committee, in its current form, with its current procedures and policy, and with its current way of handling community problems is doing more damage than what they are supposed to prevent. The last full case by ArbCom was closed over three months ago, and the only request that was not declined was the above mentioned case regarding EncycloPetey. On the other hand, the community seems to do very well in solving the problems themselves (e.g. using community imposed restrictions and community imposed bans). Remove this dysfunctional body from the sequence of Dispute Resolution, and the community will come with a solution. --Dirk Beetstra 08:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

11. Totally. A gross violation of their "election manifesto" (so to speak), an abuse of a position of power, trust, influence and authority which they were given by the electorate. Vile stuff. Dictatorship, here we come ... I can see nothing that would really stop a process of the whole lot standing down, and a re-election. That way, the community could re-elect those with some honour and integrity, and not re-elect those we no longer have faith in. Pesky (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

    Just for clarification: the reason I have "no confidence" in ArbCom as a whole doesn't in any way diminish my respect for those of them who are capable of showing honesty, integrity, and an ability to look at the question which was actually asked as opposed to leaping onto a witch-hunt bandwagon. For those Arbs (and we can see who they are), I would have no hesitation in re-electing them. It's when ArbCom can be infiltrated by enough of the other sort, the power-grabbing, axe-wielding, incompetent, vindictive morons who apparently lack the ability to understand and respond to the question which was actually asked, to affect their decisions ... that's when I lose faith in it. When the incompetent can outvote the intelligent, we have a problem. Pesky (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

12. This ArbCom seems to have been a victim of groupthink and group polarization, and has consequently made collective decisions far below the quality of the decisions made by its distinguished members (excluding AGK, JClemens, and Hersfold). A basic problem has been its repeated insistence on trying to solve problems that reflect basic disagreement in the community; consequently, too many of its decisions have lacked policy warrant. It would have been better for individual members to suggest peace-making compromises, such as the good-sense solutions offered by Mogism and ErrantX, which treat all parties with respect.

    Another problem, also rooted in cognitive degeneration in group decisions, is the decision's scapegoating of Malleus, in cases that are presented to the community as having a wide scope, as having to do with Civility as a policy, and in which the community (naively) presented evidence on a range of problems with civility. This suggests dishonesty or stupidity.

    The committee has not even mentioned editors with a long, documented history of distortion, disregard for the truth, and failure to correct their misstatements: Demiurge1000, Matthew Townshend, and MONGO. MONGO's lack of self control in recent times has made others judge him as a liar, where Demiurge1000 and Matthew Townshend's dishonesty is more insidious.

    A problem with administrator Hersfold is his failure to recuse himself based on his familiar association with administrator Alexandria, who launched the first "civility enforcement" decision. He did not even note his past familiarities. In contrast, NewYorkBrad, Elen of the Roads, CasLiber alerted the community of past associations that may suggest difficulty in nonpartiality and disinterest.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who hold an opposing view

1. They do a reasonable job for a bunch of humans. They're sometimes wrong. Meh. I'll be changing my vote wrt some members based on their performance. But, on the whole, I'm very grateful they're there, and appreciate their dedication. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Excitable. Charges of taking "a lazy route" from within a blanket call? Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
3. No. Individual arbitrators or individual decisions made by the Committee may be incorrect, but the Committee has been delegated the power to act by the community (explicitly or implied through participation). As the Committee has not acted outside its jurisdiction in the use of the delegated power or attempted to subvert the democratic process for the selection of their replacements, I cannot support this straw poll. MBisanz 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Lets be blunt here. This entire thread is just thinly veiled whining because Malleus' incredibly poor attitude has finally caught up to him. There are things that need changing (and no, an arbCom hijack party won't improve things - not surprised to see Iblis rushing to spam it), and a couple arbs I think need to leave, but I can't support this specific argument simply because I do not find the premise of the complaint to be honestly presented. Resolute 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
5. No. I think Jclemens' remarks were well out of line, and it concerns me that he doesn't exactly see that. But wrt the rest of the committee, still no. --Rschen7754 18:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
6. My confidence has significantly waned over the past year, but it would be hyperbole to say I had none. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
7. I see no evidence of a significant issue, beyond different viewpoints about a specific case. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
8. I happen to be in shock over the egregiously bad decision to propose a site ban in response to a request for a reconsideration of an extremely limited ban, in light of some observed unintended consequences, but I'm not going to let that one incident color my view that the committee largely does a decent job handing very difficult situations. (Technically, I don't hold the opposite view, whatever that might be, but I do not support a vote of no-confidence, so this is the right place for me.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Some arbitrators, yes. The committee? No. They (as a whole) have performed well over the last term, and a single incident in my mind does not cast a shadow over them as a collective group.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Unless you have a better idea about how to bring long-term disputes to an ultimate conclusion, then no. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
11. This case has been a mess, but I still have confidence in the body as a whole. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
12. No. No, I can't endorse this. As embarrassing as it is to place a comment in the same section as User:Resolute's, I think RexxS conclusion (from the very good points he makes) is overkill. And, as others have asked, what would we get instead, that we could place more confidence in? Year by year, it gets harder to get sufficient numbers of qualified users to run for Arbcom. I'd be surprised if the upcoming election gives us much chance to vote for a better committee than the current one. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

    Love ya too, Bish. . Resolute 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

13. I have no confidence in an arbitrator. I think the committee as a whole isn't doing a bad job, and some individual members are doing a damn good job. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
14. While I don't always agree in entirety with Arbcom decisions, I see no major problem or any pattern to cause concern. In the particular case triggering this, I think Malleus got what was long overdue. There is no place in Misplaced Pages for such persistent, blatant, unrepentant abuse and baiting of other editors. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
15. "Malleus fatuorum" means "hammer of the fatuous". He behaved as if he believed it to be real rather than ironic (note: I have nothing personally against malleus, as far as I can recall, though no doubt someone can find some argument somewhere, and I did not follow or comment on the case as far as I recall). ArbCom did the needful, according to its views. Some people don't like it, please register coplaints via our customer service website www.boohoohoo.com. You can vote in different arbs next time round, perfect ones if you can find them (note: may require crystal ball). Guy (Help!) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

    A more idiomatic, and more demonstrative of relevant intent, translation of that username is "Foolhammer". —chaos5023 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

16. Almost every arbitrator has said something, sometime that I've strongly disagreed with, or which I thought was plain stupid. And on a scant few occasions, I thought that the majority of the committee had gone nuts. The time to change them is called election. And there is one scheduled to happen pretty soon. Honestly, my experience is that if I set too high a standard for Arbs I vote for, there's nobody for whom I can vote. This no confidence motion is a waste of time. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Is arbcom perfect? Of course not. They do a nearly impossible job and do it to the best of their ability. Not every decision is spot on, but there are some good cases and there have been great arbs, just like there have been bad ones. The alternative is to have everything done by the community. That possibility scares me big time, even if it is farfetched. Wizardman 02:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Whether he ever intended it or not, Malleus is not just another user. He is the poster child for the issue of what, if anything, to do about users who are excellent contributors of content and terrible at social interaction. It's no wonder ArbCom doesn't know what to do about him as nobody else does either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
19. I think Jclemens made a disastrously bad comment, and in fact I support the idea of reforming Misplaced Pages's governance structure. But a no confidence !vote in the heat of the moment is not the way to do it. Arbcom do a hard job, and although I regularly disagree with them as individuals and a collective, they are a product of our system and heaping the blame on them is not acceptable. --Errant 09:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
20. It genuinely pains me to be in this section, as I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment behind this motion. If this motion is successful, however, it would leave us in a constitutional crisis, which is not a healthy position for the project. The election is only a few weeks away, and I urge those who want to see reforms to express their opinions during the election process or stand themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
21. There are some fine arbs and some lousy arbs. Shouldn't throw out the baby(ies) with the bathwater. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Per three previous commentators, with especial emphasis on, I think Jclemens made a disastrously bad comment....There are some fine arbs and some lousy arbs. Shouldn't throw out the baby(ies) with the bathwater....If this motion is successful, however, it would leave us in a constitutional crisis, which is not a healthy position for the project...The election is only a few weeks away. St John Chrysostom _τω 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose as an uncalled for response to an overblown situation. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Unless an arbitrator has commited a severe breach of integrity (such as being a sockpuppet, or using his or her position to gain an advantage in content disputes), or is otherwise disrupting the functioning of the committee, the arbitrator should be permitted to serve to the end of the election period which we are now nearing the end of. Removing arbitrators through regular elections is far less controversial, and generates less ill-will, than trying to impeach them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
25. This is stupid. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
26. How can we expect to function as a community if we are constantly throwing stones at our leaders? AutomaticStrikeout 17:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
27. Another attack on our maligned brothers and sisters in Arbcom! I have seen good arbcom members, and I have seen bad ones. I do feel though that, for the most part, the bad ones don't last more than a term or so... or find themselves out the back door due to other reasons. I feel that they were tremendously off target in the issue that brought this about, but that doesn't mean I feel that they aren't doing their jobs. Trusilver 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
28. ArbCom aren't perfect, but we're better off with them than without them. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Commenting

1. If they are got rid of, who will replace them? And will they be any better? Peridon (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Numbers – Black Kite pointed out that in the last 12 months the six Arbs voting to ban Malleus made a collective 983 edits to article space. During the same period Malleus made 9,291 edits. That says nothing about quality. Difficult to quantify, but it would be highly conservative to say that quality-wise at least 10 banning-Arb edits would be needed to equal one Malleus edit. In short, one Malleus is worth more to Misplaced Pages than over 100 banning-Arb groups, or over 600 individual banning-Arbs. How does it come about that this little group of banning-Arbs, of minuscule real value when it comes to building content, can wreak such havoc across the editing community? --Epipelagic (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   I completely agree. I propose we scrap Arbcom and elect Malleus the "High Chancellor". He'll be directly under Jimbo in Misplaced Pages hierarchy. In fact, Jimbo only made 131 article space edits in that period. Clearly, Malleus is more responsible for Misplaced Pages's success than Jimbo. Jimbo can be second to Malleus. Glad we're clear on this.--v/r - TP 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Yep, sarcasm is always a winning strategy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   This has nothing to do with Jimbo. And Jimbo is not so silly that he would run around banning our top editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Jimbo has several controversial bans. Besides, top editor isn't in dispute. Value to the project is. I'm in full agreement that Malleus has done great work. He's actually way more important around here than I certainly am (not being sarcastic this time, Boing!). Let's, for the sake of argument, just put aside for a minute the question of whether he is a net positive or not. Let's look at the effect he has had on splitting the community. Is that beneficial to the project? I'm not even saying it's his fault, I'm only asking if the split of the community that centers on him is helpful. Can you answer that?--v/r - TP 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Of course I don't think splits are beneficial, but, since we are human beings they seem inevitable. Banning Malleas will create the worst of all splits. I can't assess how people are split around Malleus accurately, because I haven't seen anything quantifying it. The current arbitration deliberations contain comments from dozens of editors, and if you read them you will see that very few want Malleus banned. The arbitration committee has gone off on a tangent, and is doing that on their own initiative. I was merely pointing out above that the arbitrators implicated in the banning are ones with little experience in adding content to Misplaced Pages. In my view, that is not a group that should be making a decision like this. A larger number of Malleus detractors have turned up in this thread. We hear detractors assert that editors leave because of Malleus, but is that just something that Malleus detractors make up? I have seen many counter examples. Malleus can be unhelpful the way he uses certain words when provoked. But to respond by banning him is, to my mind, more unhelpful. Misplaced Pages should have some tolerance for the quirks of long term editors who have made major contributions, and find creative and skillful ways to work with the diversity. Ban Malleus and other major contributors will leave as well (as is already happening). --Epipelagic (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   So why then is the issue centered on him? I'm willing to accept "Because others poke to bear" at some point, but that point is going to be long after Malleus' supporters show evidence of attempts by Malleus to address the concerns of the community. So why does it center on Malleus? Are his supports willing to accept that he is central? Do they have realistic proposals to address the issue? I'm always impressed when someone is willing to give ground for the sake of honesty so I'm biting my tongue here on what I really want to say about Malleus because I see an opportunity here for some real discussion between us rather than the simple "I'm rights" without any substance above.--v/r - TP 17:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   The issue is not just a Malleus issue, it is a core issue to do with the human condition itself. It is an issue that Misplaced Pages will never "resolve", but hopefully one that can be accommodated in a rational and functional way. This issue currently revolves around Malleus because it needs to revolve around something on Misplaced Pages, and Malleus is currently that something. But it is a universal issue: How do we handle the feeling that we have been insulted by what other people say or how they say it? It is not going to be resolved by rule makers who want to bolt everything down inside a civility guideline. I strongly recommend that anyone who is serious about accommodating the Malleus issue views this video. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Great link. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   And this is why discussion on this subject is impossible. It's a basic inability of Wikipedians to judge their friends. "It's not Malleus, it's WP:CIVIL." Malleus has been the center of the attention, and he has asked for it, since I got here. A real discussion of this issue is impossible when reality is so blatantly ignored. How can you discuss with folks like that?--v/r - TP 03:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   TParis, you were silent on the malicious distortions, character assassination (e.g. smearing Lihaas), and insouciance of Demiurge1000 at my RfC/U. Perhaps you also have difficulty of judging your friends from IRC? (e.g. #wikipedia-en.20111130.txt). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   Except I'd never even heard of Demiurge1000 before your RFC. WormTT I knew fairly well and had a good impression of so if you want to make a counter argument, I'd suggest focusing on him. Demiurge1000 have spoken briefly on IRC since that RFC but none of that is reflected in the chat log your link and I'm not sure what it's purpose is. In fact, I don't say a single word in that entire chat log. I would say that you and I are much more friends than Demiurge1000 and I ever have been. And I can quote a recent example where I stood up for someone I was in a dispute with and disagree with politically. I'm not even asking that anyone acknowledge that Malleus has done anything wrong, my question was if the issue is centered on him. That question couldn't be answered without a diversion. So how can discussion proceed? I was specifically not trying to use combative techniques because I was trying to be collegial. Epipelagic gave me the impression above that he was willing to discuss without dodging. Let's not make a mistake though, Malleus and I have never truly run into each other. I doubt he'd recognize me by name. Our only interaction was a brief spade during Courcelles recall and I am pretty sure Malleus had other stresses that were affecting him at the time. I've got no hand in the bucket, I've got friends on both sides. What frustrates and disappoints me is not that we're discussing this issue, what frustrates me is how quickly the lines get drawn and folks stick to them.--v/r - TP 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   You sound more like yourself today, TParis. I have complained about WTT's signing Demiurge1000's misrepresentations sufficiently, and I wish WTT well. If willing, WTT might be a good ArbCom member. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   Heh, well that's why I was on a break. I havent been myself lately. I have been stressing over college. CPU pipelining and cache addressing make me what to shoot myself (kidding).--v/r - TP 13:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I don't understand what you are getting at. Why is discussion "impossible", what reality is "blatantly ignored", and who are the "folks like that". Am I one of them? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   Enforcing what some perceive as "incivility" impinges upon free expression and limits our freedom. This has nothing to do with Malleus. If people were able to control their reactions, we wouldn't be having this discussion. One can quite conceivably turn this around on the accusers whose response to Malleus has been to cry and whimper like children instead of to act like adults and shrug it off. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

   Shame all the effort made to defend Malleus on the basis of his edit count wasn't spent teaching him to behave in a mature and adult fashion instead. We're likely losing an editor. A decent one, but not one critical to the success of this project (none of us are). Personally, I think his enablers should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they have acted correctly whenever Malleus' behaviour has become an issue. Resolute 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   That's pretty much exactly it. Expertly worded. Silverseren 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Much the same as we have with each successive Giano shitstorm, in fact. Some people seem almost top write good content solely in order to get away with behaving like adolescents everywhere else. Note, I did say seem. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   The fluency in colored metaphors, Giano shitstorm's, "the Malleus issue", and the undoubted others, is a sad detractor. AGF is extremely strained to imagine their inclusion is other than calculated! The only thing missing is a "fuck off" or two from Malleus; and it does suck when he resists entering the fray; lying in wait; seeing no profit! Gentle colleagues above, please correct your prose to reflect the manner of civil discourse you are promoting as collegial. Malleus, thank you for not appending your indignation with unambiguous candor. It is more befitting that we can highlight the editing utopia we can expect when our colleagues are left, who are so hoping to see MF gone. Exactly how far removed is debasing hypocrisy from a vulgarism? What right does one have to retaliate the former with insulting forms of the latter? And the vulgarities are irrefutably clear violations; while this snide, and baiting is always courteously veiled. Shame on Malleus for not being courteous enough to play by the rules and place the thin veil. Maybe the civility problems are bigger than a "Malleus thing" and maybe some of the things MF says ought also be, ought? 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative/additional conclusion from the civility enforcement case: I have no confidence in arbitrator User:Jclemens.

Disclosure: Jclemens' conduct during this case is the point at issue, and I'm assuming that people who watch this page are aware of it; but I should disclose that I have raised similar questions about his suitability before. It seems to me that he's poorly grounded in his arbitrator role. (I know it's a difficult role, that he's a fine user in several other ways, etc.; it's not a condemnation of a whole person to suggest they're not suited for arbitrating disputes. Many of us aren't, such as me, for example.) During his previous term, I lodged some protests against his demeanour in the abortion case, specifically his statements about Orangemarlin, a seriously ill contributor who is no longer editing. I and others challenged JC over the same and related issues when he ran for re-election in 2011. Rather than comment on his style of argument at these links, I invite you to look for yourself. Please comment below, and by all means feel free to support or oppose either or both of RexxS' and my declarations, in any combination; I don't see that either of them preempts the other. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

Those who share this view

1. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. pablo 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Clearly. I'm not keen on the committee as a whole now, and I think they're currently making a really rubbish decision, but I'm not quite to the point of endorsing the above motion. This one I wholeheartedly agree with. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Given Jclemens' behavior during the Orangemarlin situation, coupled with his behavior here in the Malleus issue - I must concur with Bishonen on this. What strikes me most is that while Jclemens claims to cherish the pillars of our community - he fails to see that his behavior violates those very pillars he prattles on about. The fact that a person can claim their own civility, while berating another editor is one of the most dishonest, deceitful, and hypocritical types of behavior I've seen here. The inability to see things from a global perspective, to understand that civility is subjective, and the failure to comprehend and appreciate the devotion and intent of others reeks of ABF to the highest extreme. Sadly the community has no recourse or ability to rectify such a distasteful situation. — ChedZILLA 02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't expect anything out of this. Obviously, the committee itself doesn't see anything wrong in hypocrisy, at best, one of them provided a gentle slap on the wrist, that two others agreed with. —SpacemanSpiff 04:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Sadly, I have to agree with Bishonen, for the reasons stated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
6. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator.--John (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
7. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
8. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. For the reasons outlined by Bishonen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Clemens is history anyway, only days left as an Arbiter, and no chance of any further authority on this project, imo he has clearly lost the support of the community. User:Hersfold,. User:AGK don't have my support either - User:Penwhale seems wrongly positioned as a clerk also. Youreallycan 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
10. I've thought about this for the last 24 hours, and I regretfully wind up here. The comment by itself would not have been enough to do it for me, had he apologized and it been a momentary lapse. But even a day later, he persists in what he said, and has only partially redacted his attack. He does not seem to understand the problems with what he said, or why there is an uproar, even though many arbitrators have quickly distanced themselves from his comments. Sure, it may have been a flaw in wording, but when he fails to recognize it or make satisfactory clarifications, that concerns me. What was the kicker for me was that he intends to run again in December. This seems to indicate to me that he thinks that he has a chance at being reelected at this point, which reflects how out of touch with the community he is. After this incident, there's significant concern the community will not be able to trust his judgment, cutting into his effectiveness as an arbitrator. --Rschen7754 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
11. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. The "polite" yet shockingly incivil comments have led me unfortunately to follow the views of Bishonen on this matter. I have had friendly interactions with JClemens in the past, and he has been very helpful, which is why I have not commented (I believe, anywhere) until now, but I feel compelled to make this decision.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Severe problems with judgment and sense of proportion. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
13. I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator for the reasons outlined by Bishonen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
14. I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator for the reasons outlined above as well this statement which he has just posted on this page. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment - Epipelagic, you may want to double check here, that comment is by User:Jtrainor. --Dirk Beetstra 05:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

15. Given the proximity of elections, this may be moot. However, having passively observed the tempest regarding MF, I don't think that Jclemens has a remotely realistic perspective on the events (I see a similar pattern in the older examples provided as well). As such, I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator. Should this fall through due to the upcoming elections, I'd think it prudent that he should not stand for re-election. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
16. No confidence. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
17. No confidence. Jclemens is probably one of the worst arbitrators in wikipedia history.--В и к и T 17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
18. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. It took me a while to decide that this is what I wanted to do, but I am willing to face the political repercussions that come with this, if there are any, because I believe that ArbCom is in danger of losing legitimacy as a body so long as JClemes is associated with it, and in the long run, that's not a good thing for Misplaced Pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
19. I initially opposed JClemens, based on his initial support of publishing correspondence from a vulnerable user (before he came to his senses) and the numerous negative comments from other guide writers, but decided to give him another chance last election. I regret that JClemens's continued failure to acknowledge the consequences of his behavior---the consequences to productive editors, to the Misplaced Pages community, and to ArbCom as an institution deserving the good works of our most respected editors---has necessitated him to resign from ArbCom (and to serve Misplaced Pages elsewhere, as he has done before, with distinction). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
20. High time this was made clear. Pesky (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
21. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator, and I think he should be desysopped. Comments like that ar not merely superficial insults, as jibes like "spotty teenager" or even "dishonest twat" are; they are dehumanizing and in the nature of shunning, as editors have pointed out at JClemens' talk page. To undermine a volunteer's contribution like that is hateful, and it's like stealing their salary. --Stfg (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
22. No confidence, based on the statement currently at issue and also his interactions with other users more generally (which I've been watching for some time - although I'm sure he acts in good faith, is doing the best he can, etc, which is not the issue here). Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Much as I'm loathe to take time out of the mainspace for politics, Jclemens has shown that he is grossly unsuited to the position he holds. His excessive zeal in swinging the banhammer with little regard for whom it might hit or what the victim may contribute to Misplaced Pages is a danger to the project, as is his insertion of acrimony and personal grudges into arbitration proceedings. It is in nobody's best interests for him to remain an arbitrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
24. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator or administrator, and have not had any such confidence in a long time. He has a shocking lack of judgment and a temperament unsuited to the posts he holds. He goes out of his way to insult, belittle and ridicule editors with whom he disagrees both in edits and edit summaries, and is incapable of civil discussion with those whose views he opposes. His conduct on the COI RFC, as just one example, evinced a concerted effort not merely to present a point of view, which is perfectly appropriate, but to actively block and preclude the community from reaching a consensus of any kind, conduct that is clearly inappropriate. He is erratic, immature and foolish in his roles as administrator and arbitrator. This vote of no confidence is long overdue. Fladrif (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
25. I do not have confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator or admin, and I have held this view for quite some time. I could pick any number of reasons for this. He has a long habit of making hostile and prejudicial comments to parties before Arbcom - at one point he besmirched the child raising skills of a petitioner's parents. He demands civility from others, but in a recent content dispute he openly questioned his opponent's mental health. He tried to force a Citizens United-type decision on the community during the conflict of interest RFC. He framed the transcendental meditation 2 decision in terms of religious persecution, a caricature that even the TM cheerleading squad rejected. The matter at hand appears to be quite similar to Orangemarlin's indef block- when the rest of the committee hesitated to swing the banhammer, JClemens stepped in to make inflammatory comments in an apparent attempt to bait a volatile editor into providing blockable statements. I call on arbcom to expel JClemens, using their ability to remove an arbitrator by a two-thirds vote. Otherwise they are complicit in a long-term pattern of bullying and misconduct by one of their own. Skinwalker (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
26. The list of problematic behaviour seems to be growing daily and now goes way beyond the initial concerns. I note a further example that had occurred even in the midst of this furore. (The edits in that diff were largely then redacted by Nikkimaria - see here). - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
27. I tried to stay out of these, since as a former arb, I know how tough the daily grind can be, and there are going to be mistakes. I've never been a fan of Jclemens as an arb, but have nonetheless found him passable, at least compared to how they were in 2008. After the diff Sitush posted above, I've lost any remaining respect for him. The fact that he wants to run again tells me he doesn't get it. Is he the worst arb we've had since the 2008 exodus? Yes, and I hate to be someone who jumps on since I tend to agree with him on many of his calls. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing though, but about how one handles himself. Clearly, if he actually knew what was best for Misplaced Pages, he would resign without needing to be expelled or not re-elected. I have no confidence in Jclemens, period. Wizardman 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
28. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is where my comments fall. The "Not a Wikipedian" comment troubles me - the only way that someone ceases to be a member of the Misplaced Pages community (that I've noted anywhere) is if they're site banned. Misstepping from time to time is fine, we are all human, but members of the Arbitration Committee should take care in their interactions with the community, and think about the impact of what they say or do before they act. He didn't think things through in this situation, which alone is fine, as we all makle mistakes, but he has failed to acknowledge this as a mistake or err in judgment, even when pulled up on it by fellow members of the Committee, and by the community. Admitting one's mistakes is a minimum standard that I expect from everyone. As a result of his actions, combined with lack of apology, I unfortunately have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator. Steven Zhang 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
29. I have no confidence in Jclemens as an Arbitrator, or in any othe positionof responsibility,and have not had since this exceedingly strange comment. Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
    
30. I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. the wub "?!" 12:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
31. OhanaUnited 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who hold the opposite view

1. I have disagreed with JClemens, but I see no value in exaggerating our differences to a tenuous end. JClemens and Malleus Fatuorum have one thing in common; neither is a net negative, and any campaign to assess either in such a light is equally as wrong as it would be for the other. IMO 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   You're very welcome to voice your opinion, but you might read my post a little more attentively before you take issue with it on the ground that Jclemens isn't a "net negative". I said specifically that JC was a problem as an arb and not otherwise as a user. I was far from assessing him in the light of a net negative. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

   I did read your post and I agree that your regards were clear. Mine were considerably less clear and I apologize to the extent they appear directed against you. I do not wish to direct anything against anyone except perhaps the love of God. I've stricken the part of my post that confused the ground of my stand. I'll simply stand this ground finding it comfortable. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

2. I fail to see the issue. And from which you linked to, I see nothing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Elections of ArbCom members exists for a reason. If you don't like them, stop voting for them and they won't be on the Committee. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't agree with everything Jclemens has ever said, but that's neither here nor there. That's the reason we have multiple arbitrators - they reflect a breadth of opinions that at various times, we may agree or disagree with. All of us can decide to vote for him or not vote for him again pretty soon. Beyond that, I don't see anything in his *conduct* that would be so egregious as to warrant an explicit expression of no confidence. I would have phrased his recent comment rather differently, but the idea that someone who routinely ignores one of our five pillars cannot continue to be a normal member of the community is not outlandish (I have no opinion on whether or not that is the case in the current situation). Martinp (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
5. I have confidence that JClemens was duly elected to ArbCom following community procedures. I have confidence that he acts in good faith and puts time and energy into reviewing cases. I concur that he has repeatedly taken a reasonable concept and expressed it in strikingly poor, tone-deaf phrasing. When I have personally achieved perfection I shall strike these comments and condemn him for his human imperfections, but in the meantime I'm grateful for his efforts. I have not only confidence but absolutely certainly that this past couple weeks has seen entirely too many lynch mobs on Misplaced Pages and it would be best if the content creators went back to creating content and the gnomes went back to their little gnomish tasks. Nobody Ent 01:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Enough "shooting of piano players" - and I am aghast that some members of ArbCom seem to be willing to play along with this strange and useless "no confidence" stew. Their words are corrosive to any future for the committee as being collaborative instead of being intrinsically "partisan." They well ought to back each other as being reasonable folks, and not let this silly exercise continue - the issues are real, and have absolutely nothing to do with "confidence" in anyone, but with genuine and sincere discussion of whether the "Five Pillars" are actually of any value at this point. Collect (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
7. JClemens recused from the current case request I initiated, so I think it's ok for me to comment here. I think he could have phrased his comment in the Malleus finding better, but otherwise I think he is doing a competent job as an arbitrator. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
8. While I think we can all agree that the wording could have indeed been better. Or more clear, at least, the meaning behind Jclemen's statement is something I entirely agree with. If you aren't going to follow the rules of Misplaced Pages (especially the five pillars), then you can't consider yourself a member of the Wikipedian community. Silverseren 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
9. If anything about this situation bothers me, it isn't the comments he made, rather the number of people willing to blindly jump on the "ScrewJClemens" bandwagon. This is beyond a tempest in a teacup. We have so many swooning about the alleged insult of telling someone that they aren't a wikipedian, we forget that this all stemmed from a response to an editor that doesn't even attempt to be civil. If this reaction is what makes one a Wikipedian....... Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
10. I see three possible things which people might object to in JClemens' behavior. First, that he holds to the principle that no editor's contributions are so valuable that incorrigibly bad behavior on their part cannot cause them to be banned, second, the means by which he expressed that principle, and third, the manner in which he applied that principle by voting to ban Malleus. I fully support him on the principle and neither agree nor disagree with him on its application in this particular case for reasons which I will get to in a moment. As to the means by which he expressed it, I find JClemens' statements in this edit very enlightening as to his actual position and understand the references in that, and in the edits which go before and after it, to mean that by "thought experiment" he means that the whole "not a Wikipedian" thing to be a metaphor for an editor who has attitudes or habits which are so inappropriate and incorrigible as to make his continued presence far more of a liability than a benefit to the encyclopedia and that such an editor has by his or her incorrigibility symbolically put himself or herself outside the accepted bounds of Misplaced Pages society and, thus again symbolically has caused himself or herself to no longer be a member of that society. While I'm convinced that he did not mean his comments to be read literally, I'm not at all certain whether what he did say was the result of careless wording, an arrogant or tunnel-visioned failure to appreciate that others might not perceive that what he was saying was a metaphor, or a knowing intent to slam or shock. Whatever the motive, the language was in my opinion intemperate and objectionable for that reason, but that is all that it was. He deserved to be admonished for it (and I consider what has happened since to be more than enough of an admonishment) and it certainly is something which can be taken into consideration in his reelection bid, but I do not consider it to be enough to support a "no confidence" resolution against a sitting member. Coming back to the application of the principle, the reason we have an arbitration committee is to make those kinds of evaluations and decisions. Unless we choose to do away with it and start making those decisions as a community, we need to cut those who serve on the committee a ton of slack. Their individual actions can and should, of course, be properly considered in deciding whether or not to keep or reform the committee, but they should not come under this kind of scrutiny as individuals or as administrators for their votes. The degree of Malleus' faults was a matter upon which reasonable people could disagree (and did, with the ban vote being 6-5); that's enough to immunize JClemens from any criticism for that vote, in my opinion, whether I myself would have voted in the same way or not had I been in his shoes. In sum, he deserved (and has received) a wrist-slap for the way he expressed his "thought experiment" but deserved no criticism for his vote or his principle. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Supplement: I had not read through the comments on JClemens' user talk page and in this edit pointed out above by Sitush before posting as I did above. Having now done so I'm now even more convinced that my analysis is correct, that JC meant this to be a metaphor intended to stimulate discussion, did not mean it to be a personal attack against Malleus (i.e. as a claim that Malleus never contributed anything worthwhile to WP), and when he finally realized that it might be read that way he redacted and modified it to avoid that implication. While an apology in addition to that would have been a nice additional touch, I believe that the insult was clearly unintended and the admission that he didn't mean it that way and the subsequent redaction and modification were all that were needed to cure that mistake. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
11. I wasn't going to vote in the ArbCom elections, but I may now do so to vote for JC, and against the "Party". I don't think JC has expressed himself well, but (this is about MF) MF has done more damage to Misplaced Pages by harassing new editors who could have been productive (in fact, they were productive, but MF found some (objectively questionable) rule violation and slammed them) than good by his mainspace edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
12. I do not consider that Jclemens's thoughtcrime in this matter rises to the prosecutable level. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
13. I have total confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator. AutomaticStrikeout 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
14. I think Jclemens could have been kinder, and I suggested an adaptation/modification which he then partly used and thanked me. I think I am correct if Jclemens doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth, that the gist of his comment is that the 5 pillars are of paramount importance and thaty when someone repeatedly, consciously and deliberately has decided that any one of the 5 pillars doesn't apply to them, then they are no longer part of the community. All society has set rules and boundaries that while often tested and adapated to a degree, are in essence core principles that bind the society together. Allowing one person to set their own standards but asking others to still abide by the old standards simply brings collapse to that society.--MONGO 04:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (moved from comments below MONGO 18:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
15. Clemen's wording was poor, but the thrust of what he was saying (Civility is part of the intrinsic deal of Misplaced Pages) is a perfectly reasonable position. It seems a litle hypocritical for folk to be searing with rage at his words, while being so tolerant of far more ungracious and routine incivility elsewhere. I'm left thinking this is a bit of a deliberate (?) diversion. Either one is against incivility and rough talk, or one thinks people should be thick skinned. You really can't have it both ways.--Scott Mac 18:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
16. While Jclemens statement could have been more tactful, I have to agree with the gist of the sentiment: Civility is important to the project, and we disregard it at our own peril. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
17. We need more arbitrators like Jclemens. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

I really have to think about this one. I think Jclemens' comments were unacceptable. However, I'm not sure they rise to the level of asking him to resign. And I don't see myself as the type of person who goes around asking for people's heads on a platter; the only other Arb I've asked for the resignation of was FT2 (and he resigned under the pressure of a lot of others). --Rschen7754 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving to support. --Rschen7754 19:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

1. While I believe Jclemen's view have gone far far beyond those of the community, even in light of my own outlier views of Arbitration should be handled (that is, a presumption in favor of harsher and broader sanctions as compared to narrow or tailor actions, that those sanctioned should be required to admit fault and apologize prior to sanctions, that those being sanctioned do not have a right to due process, etc.), I would prefer to see this sort of complaint handled at RFC (I say this knowing there are at least two people who would certify, so I don't think there are any procedural hurdles) to permit more finely calibrated opinions to be formulated and also to permit the greater of entry of evidence to support various positions. MBisanz 19:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think that procedurally, that may be a good way of moving forward; seriously, one could put the diff, link to Jclemens' talk page and the arb page, and that would be the entirety of the filing but... I'm concerned about Jclemens being forced to resign solely because of the RFC being filed, due to the mob (in other words, I don't want to see the RFC hijacked or out of control). --Rschen7754 21:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an election coming up

Without commenting pro or con on this thread (for multiple obvious reasons), I'll simply remind everyone that we have an arbitrator election process starting in less than a month. A majority of the current arbitrators (8 out of 15) will either be submitting themselves to the community for an evaluation of their service, or leaving the Committee at the end of the year, or in some cases maybe both. The election provides a good opportunity for editors to express their "confidence" or lack of confidence not just in the Committee as a whole but in its individual members, to an extent that doesn't really happen with any other group of editors. I'm sure that many of those reading here will take that opportunity.

Just as important: over the next few weeks, please consider what types of editors, and what specific editors, you believe might make good arbitrators, and consider asking them to run. Some of our best arbitrators over the past few years have come from the ranks of the Committee's critics. I hope that some of this year's critics will run for election and, if elected, add their own voices within the Committee, just as I hope to see some candidacies from editors who think our work has been generally sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why have this election? Why should the community open itself to getting burned again. The current arbitration committee has done massive and probably permanent damage to Misplaced Pages. Why should we reelect it? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All perfectly true, but this contained a personal attack, which has since been only partially retracted. Are committee members to be excused from adhering to WP:NPA by virtue of the fact that they can be denied reelection? Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this seems rather like the "Super Mario Problem" that was discussed in the TimidGuy RFAr, in which some arbs were concerned there was a tendency for a misbehaving admin to get no worse than a desysopping. Given the refusal to do anything at all about Jclemens's constant misbehaviour, it seems Arbs are "Invincible Mario", unable to be sanctioned with any number of hits until their Starman runs out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no personal attack there. You don't like what he says, but it doesn't make it a personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There could be plenty of debate over whether Jclemens's one remark constitutes a personal attack. However, the pitchfork-waving mob doesn't seem to care that MF has been getting away with personal attacks for forever and his posse will support him regardless of what he does. AutomaticStrikeout 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pitchfork-waving mob", "peanut gallery" (that was MONGO). Oh well, this pitchfork-waving mobster does care about that, and I'm irritated that my and other people's censure of one is being painted as support for the other. Besides, the just concluded event was a request for clarification of procedure, not a new civility case, wasn't it? And now that we have the new disposition about that, isn't it maybe time to move on? --Stfg (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's time to move on, why are people still going after Jclemens? AutomaticStrikeout 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you consider it a personal attack (personally, I would say that lumping a hugely succesful content editor in with vandals is one), it certainly displays an attitude towards that editor which means that Jclemens should recuse from this case. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The example of vandals etc are people who continuously and consistently ignore other pillars. From what I can see, Jclemens point is that editors, such as vandals and those who abuse copyright, who consistently and flagrantly disregard pillars, are shown the door. A consistent disregard for the fourth pillar is not treated differently (or should not be at least). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the violation of 5P being a special case is a fictional construct. We have huge amounts of people editing here who violate NPOV in the majority of their edits (indeed, we have editors for whom that is their whole raison d'etre). We have people editing here (including some well-known editors) who have massive amounts of copyright violations to their name. We have people editing here who routinely violate our non-free policies. Very rarely are they banned, and usually only when their entire contributions are a negative. Using 5P to justify a ban in this case won't fly. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The existence of SPA POV pushers and other editors who shouldn't be here isn't really an argument to not take action. POV pushers are blocked when they consistently POV push against consensus, just look at WP:ARE. When the issues are raised, the SPA POV pushers get blocked or topic banned (which is a de facto block in many cases). Alternatively, if the editors work to address concerns then the issues go away. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we all know that POV pushers are rarely banned. Meanwhile, the fact that certain editors seem to want to impose their own civility morals on people whilst many others don't see a huge problem is evidence that the civility pillar is useless as it stands, because it depends on people's own opinions of what civility actually is. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) You're right, IRWolfie, that I don't like what he says, but that's not what makes it a personal attack. The problem part is the blanket statement that MF is "not . . . a member of the community", which relegates a valued longtime editor to the status of non-entity, non-Wikipedian, Other. That strikes me as just about the worst thing one can say about a fellow editor around here. It's far, far worse than namecalling or telling people to go fuck themselves or lots of other petty insults that routinely result in warnings, blocks, and ANI complaints. It is invective. The likening of MF to a vandal/POV-pusher/self-promoter/copyright violator is unfortunate, since it conveniently ignores the most critical of distinctions—that MF is helping build an encyclopedia, while those others are hindering that—but I don't see that part as a personal attack, only a compounding of the attack that preceded it. We can legitimately differ on all of the above, of course, personal attacks being somewhat subjective. Still, I'd say that Jclemens's remarks were unnecessarily provocative and hurtful and of a type that any editor could rightly be called out for. That an Arbcom election is imminent is really quite beside the point, and that was my point: deeply suboptimal behavior shouldn't depend on the happenstance of an election to be addressed. Rivertorch (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NYB: "You will be assimilated." :) :) Obviously some are more revolutionary than that. Down with elections; long live >>placeholder for something someone will come up with shortly<<. Should we say "consensus"? that's so wiki-like. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for uhh, hrm, what? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Piano Player

I recall the famed sign "Please Don't Shoot the Piano Player - He's Doing the Best He Can".

This whole page is full of "piano-player attempted assassinations" <g>.

The folks at ArbCom are doing the best they can, and this idea of telling them we have "no confidence" in them is a pretty silly way of trying to make sure that we get people there who represent all the elements of Misplaced Pages. Do we really want folks there who will always support "good guys" and always oppose "bad guys" as any group sees them? Do we really want folks who will always be in accord on the issues any specific group favours?

The whole bit about Jclemens using a term, and explaining his use of the term, is purely sideshow here. And the use of "I don't like the guy" comments does not help ArbCom in the short run nor in the long run. What it is, is simple politicking at this point, not substantive discussion.

What should be discussed are the inherent issues facing ArbCom - including, indeed, how strongly the pillars are viewed and whether they have become obsolete "feel-good" scripture for an evolving project. Whether BLP has been over or under ephasized as strong policy. Whether NPOV is attainable during sprited debates about people or groups - including religious, economic, national and social groups, among others. Whether "civility" is like pornography something which "I know when I see it" or whether it is intrinsically impossible to define precisely except by the court's vague "community standards." Whether copyright is an out-dated concept (alsong with intellectual property rights in general) or whether Misplaced Pages must follow the laws as best it can, whether editors like them or not.

Plenty of "real issues" and I, as a lone voice it seems, feel that dealing with issues is better than this piano-player shooting exercise. Collect (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All fair points, but atm, the piano players are under fire, and so such discussion(s) are unlikely in the current environment, as you note. - jc37 17:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Other lonely people who agree:

1. I think I agree with everything in this statement to an extreme level. MBisanz 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Duh, duh-duh, duh-duh. Manning (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Call me "Eleanor Rigby". 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Another example of The Twelfth of Never... - jc37 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Arbcom is a group. It isn't a single person....but I have seen more than enough from individuals associated with this group to feel they (as a group) are the problem and not the solution. Things need serious change and it needs to start here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Things are going to change. We have an election soon. Problem solved? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to my valued colleague, the problem with civility enforcement is that it's only practical to get at superficial and obvious incivility such as swear words. But there are others who get their digs in while remaining superficially civil. Now, I know that a constructive editor such as yourself would never think of doing something like that.<g> Still, let's do keep this little point in mind going forward, shall we? Cheers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Yes. If one does not like the 'system' than propose changes to the process, but when the Arbs are making decsions, it just too late, and too useless to argue vociferously "I would have decided that differently." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A challenging proposal

Announcement:

I have an idea that I believe could significantly improve our editing environment and practically repair the civility conundrum. I'm often over-optimistic, characteristically verbose, and too oft, obtuse. A necessary element of the proposal will require a form of amnesty if adopted; for everyone, across the board, who has ever been accused of incivility, and not currently blocked.

It may take two days for me to develop this suggestion, which is two days I'm not eager to waste. So if enough people are completely against any notion of amnesty, and comment against the premise, you may be saving me time, and yourself for not having to read or consider the prose I won't be laboring to produce.

There is an additional element that I consider prerequisite, and that involves whether or not Malleus Fatuorum is agreeable, and supportive of the endeavor's viability and worthiness. If I can't gain his support, then it obviously isn't viable. Here again, if it's best to shut this down before the tl;dr, I am agreeable to that as an end; perhaps preferring it.

Otherwise, I will be developing the proposal, hopefully with MF's help; to present it for ratification. I will also assume an absence of advance opposition is indicative of a willingness to consider such a proposal. So this is a heads up chance to dissuade me early, if your gut feels that this is a non-starter. Thanks in advance for considering this announcement. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who prefer a quick-fail in advance:

Proposal:

On hold.

Those who support the proposal:

Those who oppose the proposal:

Comments:

• Obviously, I don't know the nature of your proposal, which may matter, but I have reservations. On the one hand, I'd love to see something like a complete reset, which sounds like your amnesty idea. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well it works in practice. I'll try an example, without specific dif, to explain the general problem. I've seen MF make a post directed at another editor, which indicates a lack of respect for the other editor, and contains wording we might agree would get some editors blocked, or at least a strong warning, followed by a block if repeated. The problem is, MF didn't make that comment out of the blue. The target has a long history with MF, and MF may have legitimate reasons for the lack of respect. Furthermore, prior polite responses did not have the desired effect, so MF believes that strong language is warranted. Some might argue he would be better off running to an admin to take care of it. However, in a recent post by MF (which I cannot seem to locate), he made it clear that it is not his style to run to others to fight his battles, he feels perfectly capable of fighting them himself. My fear is that neither MF nor those who are put off by him will be able to wipe the slate clean, and pretend there's no history. Then someone will make what looks like a benign request, and MF will respond "Sod off, you useless idiot" and some in the community will get the vapors and want strong action, even though it was bear baiting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• "characteristically verbose, and too oft, obtuse" pretty much covers my comments. My76strat, please make an effort to speak plain English. It's almost impossible to tell what you're actually asking. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what the proposal will be, but I fear that even if amnesty was agreed on, it couldn't be enforced. Administrators can and will use previous instances, no matter what is determined. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Thank you for appending your regards. I agree with your preliminary concerns and would have hoped to alleviate them in furthering this proposal. My original intent was to collapse this section because it failed at the requisite end. Seeing your comment gives pause to that intent, favoring a courteous reply. Without regard to how great a factor MF is in perpetuating the problem, I am convinced he is devoid aspirations to improve it. I've considerably more contempt for the latter. I've spent the reserves of my energy seeking compromise and am closing in on the simplistic merits of telling another to "buzz-off". 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• 76strat has been curiously coy about revealing what exactly his proposal is, so let me tell you. It was to set up an Ale House, analagous to the Tea House, in which you could be as explicit and as brutal in your language as you liked when arguing with those you are in dispute with. He may care to go into further details or he may not, but this was my reply to his email:

I'm sorry to say that I don't think your idea has a snowball's chance in Hell of being approved, for one very simple reason, which is that anything said in your Ale House would still be used in evidence against whoever had said it regardless of the venue. Added to which, there's a permanent and public record of everything everyone has ever posted on Misplaced Pages, so it's just not possible to have a place for letting off a bit of steam before returning to "real" Misplaced Pages life. In the real world there's nobody recording everything you say while relaxing "off duty" in the pub with a few mates, and lying in wait to use it against you at some time in the future.

• To use that as an example of how I am "devoid of aspiration to improve it " I find simply astonishing. And then to compound the crime by adding that I have therefore merited his contempt is gobsmacking. Why is it that so many of those who crow so loudly about civility are in reality the most uncivil of all? Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Oh wow! 76Strat makes a well-meaning but naive proposal, you explain (quite correctly) why it is unworkable in a perfectly civil manner, and you get *that* response! That's quite breathtaking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  That kind of thing is an almost daily occurrence here, but nobody seems to have the will to tackle the real incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did not receive that response from you. If I had I certainly would not have characterized things as I did. Nor would I have posted this query to your talk page. So instead, I'll thank you for vesting your time to comment here. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  You most certainly did, on 23 October, as it's sitting in my sent mail folder right now and hasn't been bounced. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Even if you didn't actually receive it (emails can get lost without any sign of bounce, or they can get unexpectedly caught in spam filters, etc), it was still pretty nasty to respond with a public expression of contempt just because you thought he hadn't replied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Malleus, I am not lying to you that I haven't seen your reply. Somehow I missed it. Otherwise I would have considered it a thoughtful reply, thanked you in kind, and iterated different remarks than appended above. It would be nice if you could believe that but perhaps it's asking too much. Be well esteemed colleague, and prosper. In furtherance to Boing! said Zebedee, I agree that my comment was a nasty response. And that I am driven by the same emotions that drive many to say regrettable things in the absence of adequate forethought. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Shall I tell you what I think? You were jumping on tonight's latest anti-Malleus bandwagon, and you thought you saw an opportunity to stick your knife in by telling a porky pie. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator

Arising from the current request for clarification of the Civility Enforcement case, there are two declarations of lack of confidence on its talkpage: one declaration of lack of confidence in arbcom and one of lack of confidence in one individual arbitrator. The debate on the case page has been very heated and engaged many people, and there consequently seems to be a good deal of interest in weighing in on these declarations, to support them or to protest against them. But for people who don't actively follow the case, it all takes place on a pretty obscure talkpage, so I thought I'd post links in this forum. The arbcom and its members are, after all, subjects of wider general interest than any single case amounts to, however high-profile. I apologise for not turning the two talkpage declarations formally into proper RFC's and posting them in the "Centralized discussion" box above, but I couldn't face it. There are a lot of formalities and preliminaries involved in, especially, a user RFC, which is of course what the individual-arb declaration would amount to. (In reality, though not formally, there have actually been plenty of relevant preliminaries.) Bishonen | talk 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

The lack of confidence in Arbcom discussion pretty much boils down to the defenders of the user in question attacking Arbcom in order to both redirect the discussion and to move focus away from the policy violations of the user in question. This happens every time Arbcom ends up blocking someone and it's nothing new. And it also doesn't mean much of anything.

As for the lack of confidence in an Arbcom member, that boils down to a badly worded statement in the Clarification case that has since been blown out of proportion (again mainly by the defenders of the user who is being discussed in the clarification case). It just serves as another source of distraction. Silverseren 23:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a user requested a simple clarification at Arbcom, then an Arb springs a motion to ban without even having a case, even though the reporting party wasn't actually complaining about him. And the other Arb with confidence issues has failed to strike his "opinion", so obviously it was badly worded, just poor judgement and an honest reflection of his perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

They "sprung a motion" because they considered the reasons for the clarification request were because the user in question was just finding ways to further violate both policy and the restrictions already previously in place. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

While I completely agree that it was badly worded, I have also already stated that it is a completely valid opinion as well. Silverseren 00:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Our own policies at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF clearly state that all editors are part of the community, even if they are indef blocked, up to an until they are banned. Malleus isn't even blocked, no less banned. Declaring he has never been a part of the community isn't an opinion, it is either unnecessary hyperbole or a genuine misunderstand of the policies at Misplaced Pages. Even people that do not care for Malleus agree Jclemens actions are below the threshold for acceptable rhetoric. Floq threw a block template for WP:NPA on Jcemens talk page because of the statement, as a warning of sorts. Regardless of how you feel about Malleus, Jclemens should strike that comment and apologize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Jclemens was commenting on the block/banned thing, but on the mindset. If one is purposefully setting out to not follow the pillars, then one is clearly not trying to act as a member of the community. I mean, he specifically said that if one is disregarding one of the pillars, then that person isn't acting as a Wikipedian. I completely agree with that mindset. Silverseren 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be disregarding the fifth pillar yourself. Does that mean you are not a Wikipedian? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you mean that I am disregarding that the other pillars can be disregarded per Ignore All Rules, I am not. However, I do not believe that the fifth pillar can ever be used to disregard the fourth pillar. There is no reason to not follow the fourth pillar at all times. Silverseren 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis's 00:12 comment.

(Though I think I disagree with Floq's block - it was a block, not just a template - nothing was being prevented there.)

Also, though we should never mandate an apology from anyone, I think it would not be a bad idea in this case. - jc37 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Mandated apologies are almost never a good idea, and I see no reason this qualifies as an exception. One rare instance where it might be warranted is if the recipient would find it helpful, and I don't think MF would find it so. A reason to want to mandate it is to send a message, but that message can be delivered more effectively other ways.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry SB, poor phrasing on my part. I meant that the apology wouldn't be a bad idea. We cannot and should not ever mandate an apology from anyone, we can only merely suggest it. Which is what I am doing. My apologies for the confusion. - jc37 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I now see what you were saying, and we are on the same page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens statement came across to me as "You are dead to me and the community", and many others saw it the same way, and Jclemens knows this. He should have struck it and clarified. By leaving it, it has helped fan more drama. Admin are expected to express themselves in ways that don't create more drama, and correct themselves if they slip up. The standard for an Arb is even higher. It happens, we aren't perfect, and I am quick to forgive and forget, but he has stood firm. He could have said "You aren't a good example of a Wikipedian" or "You aren't living up the pillars" or anything else, but I find it hard to believe that this was just a slip, particularly since he refused to strike. It is hard to keep assuming good faith because of that. It was a cheap shot and while I could overlook a mistake that was corrected, leaving it is beneath the dignity of an Arb, and indicates he can not be objective in that case. At the very least, he probably should recuse himself as well. It is fine to have a bias, just be wise enough to admit it and remove yourself from the conflict of interest. The project is supposed to be more important than the self for admin or arbs. And Jc37, I agree we should never mandate an apology, but a man should admit his mistakes without being prodded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Should", or at least "it would be nice".

That said, what may be being missed is that he made the comments concerning a ban. a ban is not a block, as you so clearly explained. And so it could be he was trying to express that, by not following community norms, malleus was voluntarily excising himself from being a positively contributing part of the community. It's not what he said, but it's what I'm interpreting as he meant.

Is he correct? Meh. If malleus willfully doesn't conform to civility norms? What if he does? So far he hss not, and has stated he will not. "preventative not punitive" springs immediately to mind. But that suggests blocking not banning. I strongly supported NYB's attempts to try to reopen discussion. And I think MF has been given LOTS of chances. But I think it was a mistake to go for a ban. Perhaps (I'm merely guessing) they thought it was appropriate because recently another prolific contributing Wikipedian was banned for nor following community norms? (I opposed that.) Blocking is the preventative action. Banning says that the person has exhausted the community's patience. Does anyone think that that's the case here yet? - jc37 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens had a Mitt Romney "binders of women" moment, for sure. But his basic argument is sound: A Wikipedian supports all five pillars. About half the time and trouble and space wasted at WP would be saved if adherence to all five were simply enforced. Yopienso (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Silverseren 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We, as thinking, feeling, responsible individuals don't need any enforcement of any kind. What we need is a complete and total devolvement of all and any admin powers to every single user in this community who needs them and intends to use them. We need to disband and remove all hierarchy and hierarchical thinking that enables cliques and power structures to enforce their stronger will over the disenfranchised weak, and an acknowledgement that building an encyclopedia is more important than playing admin games. If you are active in a certain area and require the need to protect pages, you should request it. If you have a desire to fight vandalism, you should request the right to block vandals. If you have a need to negotiate disputes and help resolve conflict, you should request a right to protect and block. If you just need to move pages, you should have a delete right. If you wan to work on closing AfD's, then request the right. We don't need sysops; that's an antiquated concept from the 1960s and 1970s mainframe era of computing. And, we don't need an abstracted layer of admins, which is just an ideological overhead one step removed from our task at hand. And finally, we don't need arbcom or any other judicial authority. What we need are editors who want to improve content and have a vision for the future of Misplaced Pages. Everything else is a distraction from the fundamental goals and only serves to divide the community. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you just said, except for the fact that it didn't address really anything this section is about. The issue is the five pillars and upholding them. That has nothing to do with admins. The issue with Malleus specifically involves him and how he contributes to an atmosphere that drives away the content improvers that you're talking about. Silverseren 01:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of whom would you request all the rights you name if there's no authority structure? You are describing anarchy. We're close enough already, what with having major Pillars that support the whole project being flouted. Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The community cannot enforce civility. And we don't need anyone to enforce it. All we need is to talk about it and adhere to the golden rule. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility can most certainly be enforced; I've seen it on other sites. Expecting people to voluntarily adhere to the golden rule is unrealistic, as has been fully demonstrated. Yopienso (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is the 6th busiest website in the world, comparing it to other sites isn't meaningful. And you can't strictly enforce civility, period. You can only demand the most basic standard, ie: no personal attacks. Civility doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you, or to someone else. It is relative, which is why it can't be strictly enforced. I might tell someone to piss off, and to one person, that is a mild comment, to another, that is vicious. There is no single standard. And some really worthwhile people are assholes sometimes, so if you enforce civility strictly, you will lose all your talent because everyone has a bad day every now and then. It is about finding a balance, and using a very loose and lax "line in the sand", and not getting blockhappy when someone crosses it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Context is everything : ) - jc37 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Experience counts, too. A year ago, before I was an admin, I had a much more strict view on "civility blocks" and thought they were just fine, but once you have the tools in hand and you pay attention and see the damage they actually cause, you change your tune. They don't work, they cause more incivility, they cost us editors, and they don't solve the problem. They are easy but they cause too much damage and fix nothing in most circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As one admin once said (what seems a lifetime ago), there is an art to these things. Lots of things are tossed in the mix. One needs to look at the situation. How severe the incivility, is this a pattern of incivility, etc. And length of block can make a difference as well. After all, sometimes merely a warning will do. (And sometimes, ignoring the incivility is even better.) It all depends on the context of the situation. - jc37 01:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And what about all the new editors that are driven away because we allow incivility from editors to pass? It's not just the ones we have, but the ones that we won't get in the future because we're allowing such behavior now. Silverseren 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said, it is a balance. And you can't force your ideas of civility on everyone else. You can only have a lax standard or you create an oppressive environment that no one will want to work in. If the rules changed and I had to block for swear words, for example, I would just leave. That would be silly and oppressive and I would want no part of that. We are adults, for Christ's sake, surely we can handle a little rudeness every now and then. Just like in the real world, people get rude. Seriously, if someone can't cope with virtual heated debates, they probably can't cope with the real world. Personal attacks, gross incivility, fine, but admins aren't high school principals, here to scold the children for being blunt. Editors can't be treated like children. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To me the problem isn't that civility problems shouldn't be addressed, rather that you can't have ArbCom deciding out of the blue to ban someone by holding an ad hoc vote. The ArbCom members aren't supposed to run Misplaced Pages as some internet forum where they are the moderators. This case, the Fae case, and the Cirt case point to this being the case and that is wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Really, either they should have just said no to the clarification request or they should have extended it to RfA in general, which is where they were leaning anyways. Silverseren 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The question here, or rather that was brought to AN first, is what Jclemens out of line? I still say yes, and he should recuse himself as he obviously had too strong an opinion of Malleus to be objective here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And I still don't think what he said about Malleus is non-objective, as he would probably have it apply to other editors as well. Namely anyone that is willingly disregarding the pillars, the fourth especially. What makes it specifically personal to Malleus? Silverseren 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem are the enablers of chronic incivility and other misbehaviour, who will allow virtually any crime of their favorite editors to pass "as long as they produce good content". These people are the real cancer of Misplaced Pages. I've seen it before with Betacommand and others and I'm seeing it again here: "The rules should be different for this guy, because I like him." Who cares if someone is an abrasive jerk that just about everyone who isn't friends with him wants to deal with and has a block log the size of a double decker bus? His contributions mean he should be above the rules, unlike the rest of us peons. That's the line of thinking I see over and over and over again on WP:ANI with chronic offenders. Jtrainor (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

These are very serious charges you are making, Jtrainor. Please be more specific about these people amongst us who allow "crimes" and are the "real cancer of Misplaced Pages". If you are correct, this matter needs urgent attention. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Treating individuals as a group and referring to them as a "cancer" is the epitome of incivility. I must say, I've observed this type of discourse from you in project space for years on end, Jtrainor. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he hits the nail on the head actually....I might have phrased it differently. I think the website has become comfortably numb to this issue and no doubt that there is an awful lot of blame deflection going on about how some people are baited, or harassed or misunderstood. Meh...when I see editors leaving as MatthewTownsend now claims because they can't stomach this abuse, and when I get emails from a dozen editors who don't want to face this guy and his cadre of defenders, then there is something wrong here.--MONGO 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For years now, I've found Jtrainor's comments offensive, demeaning, and uncivil on every level. However, I've ignored him and his comments, for the most part. I suggest you do the same when faced with incivility. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. However, since when does the website allow anyone, no matter what their level of contributions may be, to repeatedly ad nauseum and after repeated blocks and warnings, continue to edit when they call other editors twats, cunts and assholes and tells them to fuck off? Now he is running others off the website...this is an issue. I thought we had policies against that?--MONGO 04:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is temperament. I think we have a lot of introverts who are highly sensitive to personal attacks, real or imagined. And, it's possible that some of the people making these personal attacks are extroverts who aren't as empathetic as the introverts. The solution is for the extroverts to tone it down and get a grip on the golden rule and for the introverts to practice ignoring the insults. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah...the grow thicker skin argument...nevermind that there are policies against calling people hurtful names...it's their fault cause they just can't take it. I'm just musing here Viriditas but I disagree is all. It is always understandable if someone is having a bad day or they lash out now and then, especially in a heated discussion, but to do so in normal conversations for no apparent reason? I've seen it repeatedly.--MONGO 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. Introverts literally have "thinner" skin than extroverts, so telling them to grow a thicker skin isn't helpful.(Cain 2012, pp. 141-142) What I'm saying is that we have to encourage and practice mindfulness and pay attention to our reaction which we are in complete and total control of, which is empowering once you realize it. This is completely different than saying "grow a thicker skin", because they really can't. I'm saying, be aware of the personal attacks, but channel the negative energy into positive contributions. Discuss the problem with the person in a calm manner, and then give it some space. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Seren: I wouldn't say "the fourth especially,", but "also the fourth." That's the one that, in my view, is most often ignored.

@ Dennis Brown: Civility doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you, or to someone else. It is relative, which is why it can't be strictly enforced. Yes, you have a point here, but, broadly speaking, we DO agree! Look how everyone jumped on Jclemens, for example. Also, no one is disputing whether or not MF has been uncivil; some are arguing to make an exception for his incivility. See the difference? We DO agree he's uncivil, and for the life of me I can't understand how he could possibly be so indispensable we have to put up with that. To me, it seems to weaken the whole project: pages and pages and hours and hours are spent dealing with this kind of stuff. We don't need to waste our time doing that.

Now, that does, I admit, leave a huge gray area that isn't so easily dealt with. I, for one, have had to grudgingly accept that adults with expansive vocabularies still resort to profanity. And you are certainly correct that we need to forbear the gray-area stuff. Yopienso (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A thicker skin does not mean editors will not just fuck with each other as much as possible. Misplaced Pages is not an island unto itself. Some of us want a better place to edit...but if forced....many of us know how to be just as big an asshole as others. Think about that. The only thing holding people back are the rules. Without them.....we could all just be screaming at each other like any two bit, political message board. If that is what people want......many of us have the experiance for that. Think about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We can make a Heaven of Hell or a Hell of Heaven. What matters is how we act and treat others. Do we need a rule for that? Is the rule against vandalism really holding you back from vandalizing? Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Do we need a rule for that?" We have a rule for that. We need to follow it, and enforce it. Tom Harrison 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The way you "enforce" good behavior is by encouraging, incentivizing, and motivating it. 76Strat, myself, and many others have all discussed ways to do this, with the community shooting us down every time, telling us it is more important to punish bad behavior than it is to reward good behavior. I think your strategy has been tried for years now, and I think it is safe to say it has failed. It's time to try something new and to stop hitting our heads against the collective wall. We need noticeboards devoted to recognizing good behavior and we need to stop reinforcing negative behavior by devoting 90% of our reporting mechanisms to recording bad behavior. This is why I have proposed eliminating administrators as a class entirely, because that type of bureaucracy functions "best" by preventing solutions and encouraging conflict. When you look at problems in the world, when you really look at them, you begin to notice symbiotic patterns popping up, where those who claim to be attempting to solve them are actually contributing to them. In this case, the community, more specifically the admin class, unintentionally reinforces negative behavior by encouraging negative noticeboard reporting, vandalism fighting, spam hunts, etc. Many of these things can be done by automated processes like bots in coordination with average editors in the trenches, encouraging people to do good works at the lowest strata making the need for administrators unnecessary. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have to have rules to know what courtesy is. It is kind of inbuilt, something to do with basic decency, and we all know what it is at some level without having to consult rule books. But at an emotional level some people need rules, it's just the way they are wired. They get anxious without rules, and fantasize the world will run amuck. Misplaced Pages needs rules for this group. I certainly wouldn't consult the five pillars if I wanted to assess whether an editor was a committed Wikipedian. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The rule against vandalism probably helps hold people back from the justified and/or really funny vandalism.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Yopienso. I've looked through your recent contributions and for the life of me I can't see what it is you do here other than try to stir up trouble. Malleus Fatuorum 05:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Yopienso is a wonderful, sweet grandmother who lives in Alaska. The only kind of trouble she stirs up is when she accidentally burns the toast in the toaster. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When I talk about civility "enforcement", that is different than what Jclemens did. I accept the fact that as an admin, I'm held to a higher standard of civility. than a non-admin. I accepted this with the admin bit. Jclemens is an admin, but the fact that he is an Arbitrator does not exempt him from the same standards of conduct that I am held to. This higher standard of conduct is codified in the policy WP:ADMINS, @WP:NOTPERFECT. You can't compare his behavior (or mine) to the lax level of civility that is actually enforceable. Admin are supposed to lead by example, the exact wording of the policy. This is part of the reason he should recuse himself, along with the fact that he has demonstrated an obvious inability to be objective. To me, this is clear, and it isn't likely that I will be persuaded otherwise, as his words are crystal clear. I don't hate Jclemens or even know him, I just want him to do the right thing. Strike, apologize & recuse. I'm quite firm on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have formally asked Jclemens to recuse himself at the Arb discussion and on his talk page . As I've said there, it isn't personal, but it is my opinion that an Arbitrator and/or an Admin has the responsibility to recuse themselves once it is clear that they have an emotional investment in the outcome of a proceeding, and it is necessary both as a step towards fairness to the individual, and to restore faith to the greater community that involved admin will not take action against fellow editors. While I appreciate that he has finally struck his incivil comment, the obvious lack of objectivity requires he do the right thing, recuse, and move his comments into the Statements by Others section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)